Working Attraction Magnet Motor on Youtube!?

[Paul-R]

But who I am I to argue with the first man on earth that has proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is energy from nothing in a SMOT

With every respect to Omnibus, he is not the first man to have done this. It is
as obvious as it is that night follows day. It is the classic proof that, in principle,
free energy is possible. The snag is that nobody can turn the ramp into a circle,
and thereby a useful motor.
Paul.

[Omnibus]

But who I am I to argue with the first man on earth that has proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is energy from nothing in a SMOT

With every respect to Omnibus, he is not the first man to have done this. It is
as obvious as it is that night follows day. It is the classic proof that, in principle,
free energy is possible. The snag is that nobody can turn the ramp into a circle,
and thereby a useful motor.
Paul.

Paul, let me be perfectly clear. No one before me has carried out a scientifically sound, rigorous analysis proving beyond doubt that excess energy (energy out of nothing) can be produced thus violating CoE. The ideas for such devices, especially the device I'm discussing, are around since the 13th century. All that was done before me was to give the likes of Simanek opportunity to spew nonsense on the net because the claims of those proponents have never been scientifically well supported. Proof without rigorous scientific arguments isn't proof at all, let alone classic.

As for the usefulness, as I've said many times before, the excess energy produced in SMOT, although discontinuously, can be utilized for useful practical purposes even as is. Therefore, this device and the analysis of it is not only an advancement in our understanding of Science but, as is always the case with important scientific discoveries, it also has direct practical perspectives. However, it is more convenient to have a device producing excess energy continuously and such device will undoubtedly be constructed (if it hasn't been already). The problem is that professional scientists are snubbing this field and it is left to mostly incompetent but many times greedy people to handle it. Why the professional scientists are snubbing this field is another story, but this hurts the field (and, of course, society as a whole) enormously. Therefore, anything must be done, now that violation of CoE has been proven beyond doubt, to have this recognized by the professional Science and become part of its body of knowledge.

[Paul-R]

Therefore, anything must be done, now that violation of CoE has been proven beyond doubt....

Don't forget that the CoE equation must take into account ALL FORMS OF ENERGY, and this must
include forms not understood, and forms that we do not even know about. (viz Hal Puthoff)

A tricky business, the CoE.

Paul.

[Omnibus]

Therefore, anything must be done, now that violation of CoE has been proven beyond doubt....

Don't forget that the CoE equation must take into account ALL FORMS OF ENERGY, and this must
include forms not understood, and forms that we do not even know about. (viz Hal Puthoff)

A tricky business, the CoE.

Paul.

I don't think so. Hal is my friend (haven't talked to him a long time, though) but with all due respect his ideas have nothing to do with what we're discussing here. In this case, the excess energy produced has no source which is the important thing, not what type of energy that is. Also, Science never considers undiscovered entities as discovered and never takes such entities into account when carrying out energy balances.

I'd mention also that Hal is just about the only professional scientist doing research in this area. Gene Mallove was sort of but he's not with us any more.  Hal expects that these experiments will justify his zero point energy stuff but I'm afraid he's mistaken. Neither Steorn's whose failed demo he visited nor SMOT and its developments such as that of @xpenzif can serve as any proof for zpe whatsoever. I'm afraid that the zero point energy comes about from the problems in Quantum Mechanics and isn't something to be celebrated as a real phenomenon. This is a separate discussion, hope you'll agree.

[shruggedatlas]

What I am amazed by is how lightly Omnibus and supporters take this alleged violation of the laws of thermodynamics.  If the principle of CoE was violated, it would be the greatest breakthrough since . . . well it would be huge, let's leave it at that.  I admit I am not a trained scientist, but from what I remember in college, the basic order for scientific research goes something like this.  You state a hypothesis, and then you run experiments to support it.  When you have enough experimentation, you can conclude there is evidence to support your hypothesis, and then you can proceed to the next steps of drawing up a proper theory, validation by peers, etc.

Now you guys have this hypothesis that the SMOT violates the principle of CoE.  This is no small claim.  CoE has been established and confirmed through rigorous testing by untold thousands (millions?) of scientists over the years.  But that's fine - new things are discovered.  So you have this hypothesis that challenges everything we know, but what do you do?  You do not bother actually running any experiments that demonstrate excess energy being extracted from the closed system. 

At best, you run an experiment where you assist the device by using human energy to lift the ball part of the way.  But this does not demonstrate the overall overunity of the device, because you do not calculate exactly how much work the hand does on the way up.  There is more work than just lifting the ball - the hand also has to resist the magnetic pull from the SMOT ramps, and the pull is strongest from the center (not from point B), so there are questions left unaswered.  If the ball travelled directly on its own from C back to B, there would be no questions at all.

Heck, if you had a mechanical device lift the ball from A to B, we could at least measure the amount of energy this device was consuming.  Then, we could similarly measure how much energy the ball dropping from C creates and compare.  With a human hand, how can you measure?  Why would you use such a silly method as proof of your hypothesis.  It convinces no one except the gullible.

Then I come up with a reasonable question - what happens to the excess energy?  You guys say it is dissipated through heat and leave it at that.  How do you know it is all due to heat?  How hot does the ball really get rolling along a ramp?  Based on your equation, there should be quite a bit of excess energy, more than should be lost through the very minor friction of a smooth steel ball rolling on a ramp.  These things do not give you the slightest pause?  Not even the tiniest doubt?

I am not a scientist, but even I can see that this is not science.  This is conjecture.  To say that the SMOT "has been proven overunity beyond all doubt" borders on fraud.  There is plenty of doubt.  The honest thing to say is that you have a hypothesis that has yet to be proven.  No one would take issue with that.