Is SMOT an example of overunity??

[Newton II]

I found this interesting. If the ball being released is not a magnet, and hopefully the ball exiting is not a magnet, what would keep this from being able to go back and forth, if set up to do so? Other than the magnet getting beat up.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CoHGGZfERE0

http://www.teachersource.com/product/magnetic-accelerator/electricity-magnetism

Mags

Steel ball, when released from height is attracted by the magnet and it hits the magnet with greater force and momentum than under normal gravity.  So the last steel ball on right side  is ejected away from the channel with tremendous speed.

The ejected steel ball if comes back, it cannot hit the magnet with same force becuase this time the magnet is covered by another steel ball on right side which acts as shield and prevents any attractive force on the ball coming towards magnet.  So this arrangement will also make few oscillations and stop as in the case without magnet.

If he uses only one stationary ball with magnet, this ball will be held very tightly with magnet and it will not be ejected out with same force as in the case when two stationary balls are used.

So, in any case this arrangement cannot be made ever colliding perpetual magnetic accelerator!  If it were possible, he would have made it and sold it for 1 billion dollars instead of 29 dollars!!

[conradelektro]

I know whats coming and it is why I have been loathe to openly say it on the forums because the next expectation is for me to prove it.
In good time I will but unlike many here I am not here to give my work away for "the common good"
The next thing I will be accused of being a scam artist and what ever else people think will get me to display it. But in order to be a scam artist you have to be asking people for something. And I am NOT asking anyone for anything.
When I have protected my work I promise you I shall reveal it here first.

@elcar:

It's fine that you want to protect your work. I have no problem with that.

I even understand your motivation to talk about something you are not willing to prove. You want fame and recognition without giving anything. I also have not problem with that, it is human nature.

But I have a problem with your expectations:

Why would any sane person take you seriously without proof? What do you expect? Should people say and think: "Oh, there is a genius who has done the impossible, let's just believe in him, and let`s forget he does not want to prove it."

In short, the only thing a person gets who is making tall claims without proof is ridicule! Or said differently, if you are not willing to provide proof, shut up till you are willing, whatever you say till then is just useless waffle. There is nothing to discuss.

Greetings, Conrad

[TinselKoala]

I've demonstrated that it only requires a few _microJoules_ to be replaced for a steel ball to circle "perpetually" around a simple circular track, and I've shown how tiny roughnesses or other losses can wipe this out and cause the ball to stop.

SO, because of _my work_ we know how to make a SMOT testbed, we know how to measure the actual stored GPE from entry ramp height if one is used, we know how to calculate the KE of the ball on-the-fly, we know how to establish a baseline so that we can tell if any gate or magnet arrangement somewhere on the track or entry ramp replaces any of the microJoules of losses around the track. (Actually it is possible to position magnets so that the drag from the _track_ is reduced, but this is paid for by increased drag from the magnets and also eddy currents in the ball itself.)

No magnet arrangement or gate, arranged near the SNOT's circular ramp, produces _any_  overall decrease in drag or provides _any_ of the microJoules of KE that is needed to sustain SNOT's motion..... only pumping energy into it with its electromagnet does. (The Jalapeños worked pretty well, though      )

I've demonstrated all of this, making precise measurements of ball velocity and kinetic energy, with under 50 dollars worth of parts and supplies. I do not recall _any_ of the many SMOT builders and testers I've seen who have provided actual measurements of KE and losses like I have done. Nor have I seen a configurable test bed that allows the researchers to conduct _true experiments_  with measurements that can reveal whether their modifications and trials have actually made any improvement over a baseline, known non-OU, condition.

I think this is why elecar has vanished. In the first place he did not have what he claimed to have, and in the second place he sees now how precise measurements can and should be made, and in the third place he probably is still wondering why his great idea still doesn't self-loop, even though it only needs a few microJoules of losses replaced in order to do so.

Also he's probably pretty embarrassed about his faked, looped, video, which was so easily caught out.

[Turbo]

Thy should not speak o blind koala.
i can wave free energy devices and overunity demonstrations, multiple times, under thy nose without thy even noticing it! so how can thy mingle in a discussion wether a smot is overunity or not if thy does not have the abillity to recognize it in the first place.

I think the only way for thy to notice it is when it bites you in the sense of an electric shock all other things are just commentary it does not matter how many times it will be shown to you one that is blind can not see or so it seems.

[TinselKoala]

Thy should not speak o blind koala.
i can wave free energy devices and overunity demonstrations, multiple times, under thy nose without thy even noticing it! so how can thy mingle in a discussion wether a smot is overunity or not if thy does not have the abillity to recognize it in the first place.

I think the only way for thy to notice it is when it bites you in the sense of an electric shock all other things are just commentary it does not matter how many times it will be shown to you one that is blind can not see or so it seems.

Contrariwise, Turbot. It is thou who cannot realize that thy construction is in no way unusual or even interesting, much less OU in any way. Go ahead, try me. Wave some overunity demonstrations under my nose and let's see just what I do notice. For one thing... I notice that you are hanging out here, instead of being out becoming filthy rich from your ideas.

I've demonstrated how to test a SMOT gate or ramp of any configuration to see if it produces gains or not. Refute that, if you can. It would be a simple matter for one of your alleged skills to construct a track of your own, based on my design or your own design, so that you could actually compare performance of various SMOT style gates and ramps. I've done so.... and I've shown my work. Where is your demonstration of a SMOT gate that produces a gain in energy? Where are your solid, repeatable instrumental measurements showing OU?  Did I miss it, since I'm so blind to what's under my nose? I don't think so.