Building a self looping "SMOT"

[MileHigh]

Tinman:

I am assuming that you are referring to Michael's setup when you talk about the drop and the right angle turn.  I agree that a lot of energy is lost in that process as I have posted before.  I agree that some kind of a v-ramp will not be of any use.

So this is why i chose a tilt ramp.  So now the ramp tilts,which means more work is being done in the system-but where dose the loss come from?

Based on what I saw in your diagram, a tilt ramp only takes energy away from the moving ball and turns it into heat.  The tilting ramp will go through a movement cycle and all of the energy to lift it and turn it will go nowhere, which means that it will turn into heat.

So why would there be a loss if the ramp tilts?

Because it takes work to lift up the center of gravity of the ramp and it takes work to accelerate it to a certain angular veloicity.  None of that work is returned to the system, it becomes heat.

But now as the ball is going down hill(once the ramp tilts)gravity and the magnetic field are working together on the ball,so we get greater speed on a down hill run.This gain is ofcourse the equal and opposite to the lost potential in the lost hight of the ball.

I know you are aware of it but it's worth it to mention it again because your statemet above is not true.  The gain is not equal.  That's because some of the GPE is used to pull the ball out of the MPE well.  The ball will speed up, but less than "expected" because of the MPE well.

So the two gains i was talking about ,was the unballanced ramp is now more work being done in the system,as it rotates in one direction,then back to its starting point,and we have reduced the 90* turn to around 3-4*-depending on ramp angle ofcourse.

Well I disagree with both of your points.  The tilting ramp is just interfering with the moveemnt of the ball and it absorbs energy and turns it into heat.  For "reducing the turn" you have made many statedments like that.  If the ball makes a tun in some sort of well-designed track then there is a negliggible loss in energy.

I imagine a track that the ball follows between the two ramps that is something akin to this kid's toy:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CrCRtPfE240

So the ball exits one ramp and then follows a track that goes downwards and also makes a 90 degree turn.  It's like a mini bobsled run for the ball, what could be simpler?

So the two gains i was talking about

You have an ongoing challenge when it comes to terminology.  We have never been talking about "gains" here.  We are talking about mechanisms to reduce losses.  We know that people discuss energy on the forum where they incorrectly make referecne to "energy gains" when what they really are is "reduction in energy losses."  This is a critical issue were there is no allowance for leeway in the proper way to express what is going on.

The classic example for this problem is Thane Heins, where he has probably read similar comments about his setups hundreds of times and he still intentionally ignores them.  To stay on my soapbox a bit longer you have Daniel Nunez going to the BEM conference and demonstrating the same mistakes in measurement that he also has read hundreds of times from his YouTube channel and on this forum and I am sure other places.  Those two people are arguably free energy zombies repeating the same bad behaviours over and over because they are looking for a payday.  It's simply not right.

A few days ago I posted about a flat square track with machined right angle turns at the four corners to change the direction of the ball with as minimal an energy loss as possioble.  A simple flat track like that is in my mind the way to have the least losses as possible.  The damn thing still won't work and common sense should tell anybody that the thing won't work.

Meanwhile the two people promoting this idea have fallen mute.  I don't know if this thread has anywhere else to go.  Don't anybody for a second believe the first guy's story about it running for three hours but he had to stop it because it was noisy.  In my opinion there are only two explanations fot that, 1) it's a con to try to get money, or 2) there are psychological issues at play.

MileHigh

[tinman]

Tinman:

I am assuming that you are referring to Michael's setup when you talk about the drop and the right angle turn.  I agree that a lot of energy is lost in that process as I have posted before.  I agree that some kind of a v-ramp will not be of any use.

Based on what I saw in your diagram, a tilt ramp only takes energy away from the moving ball and turns it into heat.  The tilting ramp will go through a movement cycle and all of the energy to lift it and turn it will go nowhere, which means that it will turn into heat.

Because it takes work to lift up the center of gravity of the ramp and it takes work to accelerate it to a certain angular veloicity.  None of that work is returned to the system, it becomes heat.

I know you are aware of it but it's worth it to mention it again because your statemet above is not true.  The gain is not equal.  That's because some of the GPE is used to pull the ball out of the MPE well.  The ball will speed up, but less than "expected" because of the MPE well.

Well I disagree with both of your points.  The tilting ramp is just interfering with the moveemnt of the ball and it absorbs energy and turns it into heat.  For "reducing the turn" you have made many statedments like that.  If the ball makes a tun in some sort of well-designed track then there is a negliggible loss in energy.

I imagine a track that the ball follows between the two ramps that is something akin to this kid's toy:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CrCRtPfE240

So the ball exits one ramp and then follows a track that goes downwards and also makes a 90 degree turn.  It's like a mini bobsled run for the ball, what could be simpler?

You have an ongoing challenge when it comes to terminology.  We have never been talking about "gains" here.  We are talking about mechanisms to reduce losses.  We know that people discuss energy on the forum where they incorrectly make referecne to "energy gains" when what they really are is "reduction in energy losses."  This is a critical issue were there is no allowance for leeway in the proper way to express what is going on.

The classic example for this problem is Thane Heins, where he has probably read similar comments about his setups hundreds of times and he still intentionally ignores them.  To stay on my soapbox a bit longer you have Daniel Nunez going to the BEM conference and demonstrating the same mistakes in measurement that he also has read hundreds of times from his YouTube channel and on this forum and I am sure other places.  Those two people are arguably free energy zombies repeating the same bad behaviours over and over because they are looking for a payday.  It's simply not right.

A few days ago I posted about a flat square track with machined right angle turns at the four corners to change the direction of the ball with as minimal an energy loss as possioble.  A simple flat track like that is in my mind the way to have the least losses as possible.  The damn thing still won't work and common sense should tell anybody that the thing won't work.

Meanwhile the two people promoting this idea have fallen mute.  I don't know if this thread has anywhere else to go.  Don't anybody for a second believe the first guy's story about it running for three hours but he had to stop it because it was noisy.  In my opinion there are only two explanations fot that, 1) it's a con to try to get money, or 2) there are psychological issues at play.

MileHigh

Your right,i should say an increase in efficiency-not a gain. Just thinking the wrong way,in that if we reduce the loss,that is a gain for us-but it should be an increase in efficiency insted.

Daniel Nunez-now there we have no disagreement.

I will indeavor to use correct terms in my statements.

[happyfunball]

A V-Gate is no different than placing a magnet within the sphere of attraction to another magnet and releasing it. Same forces, arranged slightly differently.

[minnie]

Hi webby1,
            I guess even if you use ping pong balls it'll still qualify as as SMOT.
One thing I am sure of is that you'll be world famous if you manage to get
a proven working device!
                                  John

[profitis]

so lets examine if a 2nd law violation is possible on paper first before we set up a smot.so lets put a gadolinium ball on the ramp at  its curie point 19celcius and let it fling.friction heating and sudden exiting from the magnetic field at the top of the ramp should cause it  to raise in temperature to slightly above its curie point and let it fling far.very far.definitely further than on entry.a smot using a gadolinium ball on a 19degree celcius summer day looks highly favourable.