Building a self looping "SMOT"

[Michael Q Shaw]

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.

I wasn't saying there was anything unusual or "over-unity about using earth as a gravity slingshot.  I am saying that those are the birds we are looking at.  I was saying that it is an example of work being done by gravity.  I Got ch ya.

[TinselKoala]

I wasn't saying there was anything unusual or "over-unity about using earth as a gravity slingshot.  I am saying that those are the birds we are looking at.  I was saying that it is an example of work being done by gravity.  I Got ch ya.

It is not.

When you hammer in a nail, is the hammer doing work, or not?

You might as well say that the gravitational slingshot is an example of work being done by equations -- that would be more true than what you are claiming.

[Staffman]

I know this wouldn't technically be overunity, but has anyone though of using the curie point as a mechanism to help past the sticking point? Just look up the 'nickel curie point motor' video on youtube. It was just a thought anyways....

[Michael Q Shaw]

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

MileHigh, I realize that the ball ends up at a lower elevation in my video of two linked tracks.  Please just hear me out, I built it like that on purpose.  Please think about everything I am saying here.  On my nine foot track Magnet Ramp 16, 17 and 18, I actually first built it with 4 equal 3/4 inch hills if you will.  Four decline to incline each lifted at an angle equal to a 3/4 inch lift.  It worked every time, even two equal sized hills should get my point across, as this should not be possible with conventional physics.  Then, I built the all aluminum 2 foot tracks, I guess you could call them my second or third generation tracks, they can also achieve a 3/4 inch lift but were not gravity fed, I operated them at a stand still...just from holding the ball in position at the starting position and letting them go...allowing the pull of the magnetic field do all of the "work" -not with an initial rolling start. 

Now, with two 2 foot long tracks, I attempted to connect them, but when they get to close, they have a tendency to slam together because of the strength of attraction of all of the magnets at the intersection, it does not matter what angle you try to connect them linearly, 15, 20, 30, 45 or 90 degree right angle, when they get in close proximity, the driving magnetic field of one ramp interferes with the driving magnetic field of another, using the magnets that I used, they want to slam together when too close together.  Now, you can tell me my assumption is wrong or TinselKoala can say I have a list of all of my "bad assumptions" but as far as I am concerned, this tells me that I need to keep the magnetic ramps separated at the "hand-off" or gravity disconnect, of course they were at least 1 foot away in my nine foot track.  Realizing that the angle determines how hard it is for the magnets to lift up the rolling ball or determines how hard the magnets work, and that a more gradual gradient is best as well as faster, I saw that there needed to be at least a 3/4 inch to 1 inches of separation between both tracks at the hand off using the strength of magnets that I used.  This requires using a longer ramp to achieve this height at a small gradient.

[Michael Q Shaw]

It is not.

When you hammer in a nail, is the hammer doing work, or not?

You might as well say that the gravitational slingshot is an example of work being done by equations -- that would be more true than what you are claiming.

Think about what you just said to me, I have been wrong before, yes I am human, but I feel that it is you that is wrong this time around TinselKoala.  When you hammer in a nail, you are doing the work with the muscles in your arm and using your energy.  In my example, the Juno spacecraft is not connected to any arm or muscles, it is in the vacuum of space...with nothing connected to it at all, so the only correct response is that gravity did the work when it increased its velocity while it sling-shot using earths gravity, not Earth's arm.  Saying otherwise is only lying to ourselves. That is what actually happened, regardless if textbooks (or our equations) agree.