Working Attraction Magnet Motor on Youtube!?

[Omnibus]

Here we go again...omnibus defending SMOT but wont produce ONE running SMOT engine..NOT ONE!!! SHIT...Draw one for me and ILLLLLLLL  build it!!!!!!   .yawn...

The SMOT I'm analyzing works. It does violate CoE and produces excess energy (energy out of nothing) discontinuously.

[Omnibus]

Just a little help. The energy (mgh1 - (Ma - Mb)) which the hand imparts to the ball is less than the energy (mgh1 + Mb) the ball loses upon closing the loop. That is in clear violation of CoE.

This has all been talked about, and that is clearly not so.  You are using a semantic trick to convince yourself and are calculating improperly.  The magnet doesn't care about your calculations, though, and when you can get your hand out of the experiment, you will have a leg to stand on, but not until then.  The overunity you mention (the difference is Ma, which is quite substantial) should clearly be enough to overcome the minor friction involved and return the ball to B.  But it is not - you need your hand to do that.  No amount of theoretical proof or bullshit youtube videos from "expensive" are going to get the ball back to B.  It is flat-out impossible.  You can live a million lifetimes and devote every second to nothing but getting the ball back to B, and you will always end up using your hand in the end.

On the contrary, what I'm saying is clearly so--SMOT does violate CoE. The energy (mgh1 - (Ma - Mb)) which the hand imparts to the ball is less than the energy (mgh1 + Mb) the ball loses upon closing the loop. That is in clear violation of CoE.

Again, restrain from pushing your obvious confusion thus cluttering this important discussion.

[utilitarian]

On the contrary, what I'm saying is clearly so--SMOT does violate CoE.

Again, restrain from pushing your obvious confusion thus cluttering this important discussion.

Nope, the SMOT clearly obeys CoE.  This has been proven beyond all doubt and is also confirmed by real world trials, which you have none of.

Come back when you can get your hand out of the loop.  It is sad, really.  Here you are, working with an OU device, using your hand to help it along.  Oh, the sweet irony.

[Omnibus]

On the contrary, what I'm saying is clearly so--SMOT does violate CoE.

Again, restrain from pushing your obvious confusion thus cluttering this important discussion.

Nope, the SMOT clearly obeys CoE.  This has been proven beyond all doubt and is also confirmed by real world trials, which you have none of.

Come back when you can get your hand out of the loop.  It is sad, really.  Here you are, working with an OU device, using your hand to help it along.  Oh, the sweet irony.

Stop spewing nonsense.

SMOT does violate CoE. The energy (mgh1 - (Ma - Mb)) which the hand imparts to the ball is less than the energy (mgh1 + Mb) the ball loses upon closing the loop. That is in clear violation of CoE.

[Omnibus]

That's the reality with these confused people, behaving like real fanatics You slap them with irrefutable arguments, they still continue to repeat their mantra. Typical for people who think that a lie repeated a hundred times becomes truth. No, it won't become truth that SMOT doesn't violate CoE because the energy (mgh1 - (Ma - Mb)) which the hand imparts to the ball is less than the energy (mgh1 + Mb) the ball loses upon closing the loop. That is in clear violation of CoE.