How this was done in 1821.....

[shruggedatlas]

Simanek's analysis is incorrect. Analysis of the closed-loop device http://data.image.zabim.com/o-wa51V9glc9.jpg confirms that. Indeed, since the ball doesn?t return along B->A the ball does not lose only the energy portion, imparted to it by the researcher, (+mgh1 ?(Ma ? Mb)) from the energy (+mgh1 +Mb) it has at B, that is, it?s not true that the ball returns at A with the energy

(+mgh1 +Mb) - (+mgh1 ?(Ma ? Mb)) = +Ma (CoE obeyed)

As experiment shows, the ball returns along C->A, therefore, the ball loses in addition to (+mgh1 ?(Ma ? Mb)) also the energy portion (+Mb ? 0) = mgh2 + [kinetic + rotational + energy losses] which the ball had stored at B but was realized at C. Therefore, the ball returns at A with the energy

(+mgh1 +Mb) - (+mgh1 ?(Ma ? Mb) - Mb) = +Ma + Mb = +Ma +mgh2 + [kinetic ...+]

As a result, in SMOT, the initial +Ma is restored and in addition an excess of +mgh2 + [kinetic ...+] is produced.

I will admit I have no idea what the equations mean, but I can tell already that you are mischaracterizing some things.  You mention return along B->A and "returning to A".  The ball did not start at A, so how can it return there?  The ball starts at B.  If it returned to B, that would be something to talk about.  Heck, A could be three feet below the table on the floor, and the ball would hit the ground with quite a whack.  But all it's doing is returning the potential energy it got from you or someone else lifting it up and putting it B.

Harnessing the excess energy produced is an engineering problem beyond the scope of this analysis.

Correction.  Harnessing the excess energy produced is an engineering problem akin to extracting blood from a turnip.

[Omnibus]

You're not getting it and are only wasting bandwidth of the forum by posting on this topic.

[shruggedatlas]

You're not getting it and are only wasting bandwidth of the forum by posting on this topic.

Sorry, but Simanek was right about people like you.  You will cite equations until you turn blue in the face, but you cannot construct a simple, cheap experiment that shows any extra energy being created, simply because all such attempts demolish your theories.  Good luck with your theoretical over unity device - too bad nothing will ever come of it.

[Omnibus]

I can construct and have constructed a device that produces excess energy. That you don't understand what it does is your problem. What will come of it comes after you understand what it's about.

As for Simanek, he should refer what he said to himself. You may cite equations until you turn blue in the face proving definitively excess energy is real but he'll continue to stick to his confusion. Funny thing is that his followers don't even know what they are talking about but quote him as the authority. Blind leading the blind.

[steve_whiss]

... as regards SMOT, I believe this clarifies the situation completely.

There is an excess momentum at least. You get to SEE it.

http://jlnlabs.imars.com/atelab/videos/smotnrg320.avi