Testing a SMOT

[Omnibus]

Yet you still refuse to put a logical argument in the case for smot

That's crap.

[Omnibus]

you claim it is an engineering problem.... but no numbers are put forth for an engineer to work with.

Never mind. You're not qualified to discuss this.

[Omnibus]

omni your full of it....either build it or move on. like so many of us have done...you can look up me on youtube. atleast I build. but you, you just bitch and complain about unproven theories.
Jason

That's crap. Posting on youtube.com doesn't make you qualified to discuss this. Restrain from posting and cluttering the thread with your nonsense.

[ChileanOne]

Hey Omnibus:

Can you perform a full termodinamic review of the SMOT, or at least define a schematic view of how it could be done?

The only way to prove a CoE break is doing so. I know Steorn has done it for their orbo, and that's why they claim the breaking of CoE, because they have looked at all known forms of energy into their system and somehow they seem to be creating energy "ex nihilo". But they convinced themselves before even start thinking on the idea of teling anyone else.

I know, as you might because you were a frequent poster on Steorn forum, that Steorn people laugh about the idea of the SMOT being a proof of Over Unity. That fact itself does not prove that the SMOT is not OU, but I take it as a good indication that a full termodynamical analysis of the SMOT might cast some light on the issue.

[z_p_e]

It makes sense that the ball gains potential energy at C, and kinetic energy back at A, but how is this useful?

If the ball can not on its own make its way back up to B, then there would be no overall gain in energy, unless it was so small that what little is gained, is lost in air resistance and friction with the ramp. Has this been tried by extending the curved ramp back up to B?

Seems easy enough. If it could go back up to B on its own, I am certain that folks like EAVogels (and many others) would have done it and demonstrated it by now.