Building a self looping "SMOT"

[Michael Q Shaw]

@ Michael
Great to see you here,and good to see your still working on your device.
You probably already know this,but you will find that many here love sticking to there text book physics,while others actualy experiment and see what is fact. Most people will say-what crap,when i tell them a steel ball can actualy be repelled by a magnetic field-until i show them my video's of it doing just that.
I wonder how many of the naysayers have actualy tried building a SMOT them self?My guess is none,as they have that!!IT CANT BE DONE!! attitude. Thankfully,the wright brothers never had that attitude.

Thank you Tinman, good to be here, cannot believe I took so long to get involved.

[Michael Q Shaw]

Well.
I see that this thread has descended into a list of bad assumptions, poor observations, claims without evidence and even the usual "you didn't try to build it so you can't know" canard. You don't know what I've built or how much I've learned from the FAILED builds of others, now do you.

You are oblivious to scientific analysis and are happily fiddling along making assumptions, poor measurements and insulting your critics. Fine. Here's my prediction: none of you will EVER be able to show a self-looping SMOT! Not even close. Michael especially is making lots of faulty assumptions. If only his assumptions were true, he could easily loop his tracks. But he cannot... he must be really puzzled as to why not. The reason lies in the assumptions, which are actually false.

Learn from the mistakes of others, friends. You are all of you repeating work that has been done over and over and you are adding nothing new... so why do you expect to succeed where people like Howard Johnson couldn't? Never mind, it's a rhetorical question. It amuses and saddens me greatly to see such minds as yours wasting your time on this silly SMOT idea which will never work.


At least re-examine your assumptions. Yes, a ball that is attracted by a magnet above, will fall more slowly until it's out of the magnetic field. The acceleration of the ball is the result of the two forces it experiences, one of them doesn't magically vanish! Of course it's possible to get a ball to rise higher than the release point if it enters a zone of magnetic attraction. This doesn't mean it will _exit_ that zone with enough energy to go around and re-enter it! And uninformed allegations and assumptions about who built what are just silly. Thousands of people, quite literally, have tried every conceivable SMOT ramp arrangement and all have found the same thing: it doesn't work. But many more people, with firm groundings in physics, the mechanics of materials, dynamics, and experimentation have realized it's impossible, and why, and so they don't waste their time or money on it.

Carry on. When someone has something _new_ in the area of SMOTs, please let me know. So far.... this thread is like watching re-runs from the Seventies. Examine your assumptions, people; you are just wrong about many things, there are at least three major errors of fact on this page alone.

And by the way... the Wright brothers were surrounded by working examples of what they were trying to do: Birds. Where are your natural examples of what you are trying to do? Nowhere in the universe. But counterexamples exist all around you. So the popular ploy of mentioning the Wrights, or any other successful development that is founded on science, does not apply here. Where is your "magnetic wind tunnel" where you explore the characteristics and behaviour of magnets, before you try to "fly" them? Nowhere. So quit talking bollocks about the Wright Brothers.

  Didn't the Juno spacecraft just glean energy from the Earth using it as a gravity sling-shot out on it's course to Jupiter?  Couldn't that very well be considered as using gravity to accomplish work and an example of it in our natural world?  After all, the spacecraft did increase it's velocity, and not by burning fossil fuels or more rocket fuel.  Am I wrong again? dang.  Wright Brothers rock!

[Michael Q Shaw]

To point out a few "birds" from my perspective.

We live in a universe that is expanding at an accelerating rate,, interesting

We now have 2 new toys to play with, dark matter and dark energy,, interesting

Then there is the big ugly wart on everyones nose, that thing that resides at the center of our little galaxy, and it seems to NOT be the only one,, yep the Black Hole,, that thing that does not follow the rules as they have been set forth by man.

These are some of the birds that show me that we do not know and or understand all of the workings of the things we play with.

I appreciate the knowledge and skills of the members of this board,, but that does not mean I agree with all that is said in either direction, I make my own decisions and observations.

To start a quest we must start with an assumption,  upon testing for that assumption we need to be able to change it with the information gained.

Some assumptions have not been changed even with the advent of more information that is not in line with those assumptions.  I read a report some time ago about triangulating with some distant known objects to see if the universe is round or not,, and they came beck with exactly 180 degrees,, not round,, that is interesting.

My 2 cents worth.

Awesome, that my friend is a mouthful of 2 cents.

[LibreEnergia]

  Didn't the Juno spacecraft just glean energy from the Earth using it as a gravity sling-shot out on it's course to Jupiter?  Couldn't that very well be considered as using gravity to accomplish work and an example of it in our natural world?  After all, the spacecraft did increase it's velocity, and not by burning fossil fuels or more rocket fuel.  Am I wrong again? dang.  Wright Brothers rock!

There is nothing unusual or 'over-unity' about using earth as a gravity slingshot.  The speed of the spacecraft increased because the earth was slowed down (although by such a tiny amount that it probably could not be measured). Simple Newtonian mechanics at play here.

[MileHigh]

My two cents.

This thread is a good example of a well established pattern when it comes to how free energy devices get evaluated on threads.  We all know the pattern so I am not going to repeat it.   I am just going to share my feelings and just discuss the Michael Q Shaw video clip, because that's the only thing I was involved in.

There was lots of enthusiasm for the clip.  I looked at it and made some critical (as in the sense of analysis) comments about the clip.  I said that the ball ends up at a lower elevation and you don't even need to complete all four ramps to properly evaluate it.

Then I looked at an individual ramp and explained how it's basically a magnetic energy sinkhole.  The ball might go up in elevation a bit but typically you lose all or most of the kinetic energy in the ball and as a result this this leaves you at the bottom of a magnetic potential energy well.  So you have gone down in energy as compared to where you started.  None of the enthusiasts or believers had anything to say.

Then I looked at what the real device would look like with four ramps.  Based on how a single ramp behaves, it clearly indicates that the setup will not work.

Tinman said that it's all just textbooks.  I didn't open up a single textbook.  I just looked at the setup and did an evaluation of what was going on to the best of my ability.  I did not hear any substantial counterarguments to what I had to say.

Then Trueresearch stated, "Of course, feel free to ignore the negative detractors."  That is the worst of the worst when you see comments like that.  Reading between the lines it says this to me, "Don't try to learn, don't try to think for yourself, don't listen to others that have a differing opinion from you, stay ignorant and comfortably numb and play with your magnets."   On top of that, the characterization of "negative detractor" is a loaded term with negative connotations and it's not even true.  A "detractor" is just a trash talker from the sidelines that has nothing to say of substance.  The ramp was really analyzed in detail, and it's all in the thread for those that want to read it.

This "anti thinking" undercurrent is so strong sometimes that I think people are actually afraid to post and say they understood the analysis and they got it and appreciate it.  Instead, you get posts after the end of the discussion where people only mildly infer that they got the message and understood the analysis.   This is dangerous and it's totally counter-productive and results in the collective intelligence of the group advancing at the pace of a glacier.  How often do you hear the term, "magnetic potential energy" in a thread when people are talking about SMOTs?  Almost never.

This is not about "textbooks vs. alternative thinkers."  Firstly and foremost, it's about simply trying to understand what is going on and to see if it has any merit.  There is no "textbook" explanation of the magnetic ramp, and there is no "alternative" explanation for the magnetic ramp.   There is only the truth.  I stated the truth when I said that when you see the ball roll up the ramp it is actually rolling downhill into a magnetic potential energy well.  This IS true, and anybody building one of these things to experiment would be a fool to ignore these facts.

It's like the people with hope and the believers and the promoters all fall silent when the technical merits or lack of technical merits for a given proposition are discussed.  They have almost no comments whatsoever with respect to the technical discussion.  Then when the discussion is over they come back and say, "that's all just crap from books and "laws" are made to be broken."  That's a total cop out.  Discuss the merits or lack of merits of the proposition instead of just stating the old tired cliches.  And just saying to ignore what you don't like to hear is simply ridiculous.

Anybody that is playing with SMOTs and has followed this thread has read the terms "gravitational potential energy" and "magnetic potential energy" and "well" a lot of times.  If you really want to up your game you should go on Google to flesh out the concepts if you need extra learning material and then start using the terms.

Anyway, the analysis was done.  Your typical magnetic rail that lifts up a metal ball a few centimeters normally represents a huge loss of energy.  That is the reality of this situation and it's not dependent on books, it's not dependent on an "alternative view," it's just the honest to goodness truth and there is only one truth about the metal rail.

MileHigh