Working Attraction Magnet Motor on Youtube!?

[Omnibus]

Could it be that you're wondering why the ball has to go back at A in my experiment? This is done deliberately to have the A-B-C-A loop closed and avoid with one stroke various speculations which would arise is the loop were not closed.

[shruggedatlas]

What's this all about? I don't see your point.

My point is this.  I want to have an experiment that measures how much excess energy a SMOT ramp creates.  You have stated that the reason a SMOT cannot currently be used to harness energy is because, due to engineering reasons, there is no way to make it practically overunity.  It is merely theoretically over unity.

I am willing to accept that contention, but there is no reason why we cannot run a test.  Practical overunity is not required.  The ball does not need to get back to A (I am referring to the A on my drawing).  All that is required is that the SMOT improve on the efficiency of a simple ramp.  As nostradamus suggested, the ramp path can even be exactly the same.  We just run trials with and without the SMOT magnets. 

Would you agree that the SMOT ought to add velocity to the ball under this scenario, and thereby improve the efficiency of the ramp?  If not, why not?  Also, if not, is there another type of experiment where we can see the SMOT improve the efficiency of anything?  Thanks.

[Omnibus]

What's this all about? I don't see your point.

My point is this.  I want to have an experiment that measures how much excess energy a SMOT ramp creates.  You have stated that the reason a SMOT cannot currently be used to harness energy is because, due to engineering reasons, there is no way to make it practically overunity.  It is merely theoretically over unity.

I am willing to accept that contention, but there is no reason why we cannot run a test.  Practical overunity is not required.  The ball does not need to get back to A (I am referring to the A on my drawing).  All that is required is that the SMOT improve on the efficiency of a simple ramp.  As nostradamus suggested, the ramp path can even be exactly the same.  We just run trials with and without the SMOT magnets. 

Would you agree that the SMOT ought to add velocity to the ball under this scenario, and thereby improve the efficiency of the ramp?  If not, why not?  Also, if not, is there another type of experiment where we can see the SMOT improve the efficiency of anything?  Thanks.

Oh, I see. So that's not an analogy of the important part of what SMOT does, that is, the obtainment of energy from nothing, but an analogy of the amount of kinetic and other energies (save the gravitational energy) the ball has at C. Yes, but why should we do that in this discussion? We can answer positively the main question of this discussion--is there excess energy produced in SMOT--without this. Trying to make a self-sustaining device out of it, something which is the stimulus for your latest proposal, is beside the point here. This is part of a separate discussion.

[shruggedatlas]

Oh, I see. So that's not an analogy of the important part of what SMOT does, that is, the obtainment of energy from nothing, but an analogy of the amount of kinetic and other energies (save the gravitational energy) the ball has at C. Yes, but why should we do that in this discussion? We can answer positively the main question of this discussion--is there excess energy produced in SMOT--without this. Trying to make a self-sustaining device out of it, something which is the stimulus for your latest proposal, is beside the point here. This is part of a separate discussion.

It is pertinent because it goes to the heart of whether the SMOT produces any excess energy at all.  I realize you feel this issue is settled, but it is nowhere near settled in anyone else's mind but yours and a handful of others.  Here is an experiment that can demonstrate conclusively that you are correct.  Furthermore, if confirmed, mainstream science would have no choice but to notice.

I am willing to do this experiment when I get some time.  The only thing I need to know is whether I such an experiment can in fact conclusively prove whether the SMOT creates energy.  If it does, then these findings can be used as a basis to spur work on an overunity device that utilizes the SMOT principle.  On the other hand, if the experiment proves that the SMOT adds no energy to the ball, maybe we can put the SMOT discussions to rest, and people can discard that idea and not spend time on it.

You repeatedly claim that the SMOT violates CoE, but admittedly you have no conclusive empirical proof, only theoretical proof.  Would you not care to see actual experimental proof?

[Omnibus]

Oh, I see. So that's not an analogy of the important part of what SMOT does, that is, the obtainment of energy from nothing, but an analogy of the amount of kinetic and other energies (save the gravitational energy) the ball has at C. Yes, but why should we do that in this discussion? We can answer positively the main question of this discussion--is there excess energy produced in SMOT--without this. Trying to make a self-sustaining device out of it, something which is the stimulus for your latest proposal, is beside the point here. This is part of a separate discussion.

It is pertinent because it goes to the heart of whether the SMOT produces any excess energy at all.  I realize you feel this issue is settled, but it is nowhere near settled in anyone else's mind but yours and a handful of others.  Here is an experiment that can demonstrate conclusively that you are correct.  Furthermore, if confirmed, mainstream science would have no choice but to notice.

I am willing to do this experiment when I get some time.  The only thing I need to know is whether I such an experiment can in fact conclusively prove whether the SMOT creates energy.  If it does, then these findings can be used as a basis to spur work on an overunity device that utilizes the SMOT principle.  On the other hand, if the experiment proves that the SMOT adds no energy to the ball, maybe we can put the SMOT discussions to rest, and people can discard that idea and not spend time on it.

You repeatedly claim that the SMOT violates CoE, but admittedly you have no conclusive empirical proof, only theoretical proof.  Would you not care to see actual experimental proof?

Not at all. The last experiment you proposed has nothing to do with the main claim in SMOT, that is, the production of energy from nothing. Will be a waste of time to conduct such experiment if the goal is to prove by it whether or not excess energy is produced. And, yes, there is empirical proof energy from nothing is produced in SMOT--h2 is a real, not fictional, height, Mb is a real magnetic potential energy, not fictional one etc. All this is empirical proof, not illusion or speculation. Also, don't bother about this "it is nowhere near settled in anyone else's mind", that can't serve as a scientific argument.