SMOT OU?

[Nostradamus2]

SMOT produces excess energy (energy from nothing) without doubt as definitively proven in analyses such as this: http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,2733.30.html#msg40090. What remains now is to succeed in the engineering effort (a really difficult engineering task) to put this violation of CoE to practical use.

With CoE it's clear for me, CoE can be violated. But you know WHY smot give energy gain ? If you know why then you could know how to optimize this gain.

[tagor]

What measurements? What I?m presenting is a conclusive theoretical analysis. Anyone can measure heights h1, h2 and m.

a theoretical analysis is not a proof
but if you do a loop with the SMOT  ...
for a month ... then a year ... and so on ....  (infinite move ? )
so we can read this analysis

[HopeForHumanity]

It is your own point of view that says if it's overunity or not. In a 4 dimensional view, yes, because the ball is traveling with no apparent input of energy, thus the distance it travels being a excess of the created energy. And some don't think of this, time bubbles. If you were to seperate the space time of the operational smot with our space time, there would be a disconnect of you placing the ball on the track. Thus if you were to loop the space time, which is theoreticaly possible, you would create a perpetual motion machine in a differen't "time bubble". IF string theory is right, then you could go to a higher dimension and and create a bridge between the looping space time. Giving you abilities to harvest the excess energy through the bridge. Like I said, this is your point of view, mine requires a high level of abstraction. Some people have a hard time wrapping their brains around my point of view, so they think in a more 3d concrete manner. Are universe is a non-linear place of virtual particles popping in and out of existance.

[Omnibus]

SMOT produces excess energy (energy from nothing) without doubt as definitively proven in analyses such as this: http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,2733.30.html#msg40090. What remains now is to succeed in the engineering effort (a really difficult engineering task) to put this violation of CoE to practical use.

With CoE it's clear for me, CoE can be violated. But you know WHY smot give energy gain ? If you know why then you could know how to optimize this gain.

The excess energy in devices such as SMOT is produced only due to their proper construction. Said excess energy has no source, it is produced out of nothing. What is a proper construction, you would ask. Proper construction converts the excess energy into a form which can be utilized as input energy. Usually, the kind of excess energy produced isn't suitable to be used as input energy (part of it is lost as heat, kinetic energy isn't in a suitable form etc.) Also, optimization of the SMOT, that is, obtaining of a maximum possible amount of excess energy from a given construction isn't the easiest task. One needs a really well constructed and manufactured micromechanical device which would allow minute 3D movements of the magnets and the ramp. I haven't seen so far anything more than home-made devices hastily put together by enthusiasts. Proper scientific experimentation needs much more and those of the readers who have or are working towards their PhD's in some experimental science know what I mean. Amateurishness and enthusiasm work up to a point. Serious advances in science usually happen only through very serious professional approach. Because violation of CoE won't bring you any advance in Academia one can hardly find nowadays anybody professionally working in science to deal with this important problem. Most of it is left in the hands of amateurs enthusiasts and if a professionl would pop up here and there in these discussion is to just spew some incoherent, superficial blabber presenting it as words of skepticism. That's a shame but that the sorry state of affairs when the real innovations are on the horizon. This has always been the case. And when it happens and becomes common knowledge those same naysayers will shamelessly insist that they have always known it's true.

[Omnibus]

What measurements? What I?m presenting is a conclusive theoretical analysis. Anyone can measure heights h1, h2 and m.

a theoretical analysis is not a proof
but if you do a loop with the SMOT  ...
for a month ... then a year ... and so on ....  (infinite move ? )
so we can read this analysis

Not so. This is the understanding of someone whose knowledge of how Science works and what scientific proof is, is at most marginal.