Building a self looping "SMOT"

[Newton II]

Hi elecar,

You seem to be silent I hope you are still around?  With your silence you only feed negative opinions.

About 10 days ago you mentioned retaking a video and upload it, please continue and show it. Afterall, you wrote in Reply #193: 

I think I got his idea.   The self destructing video which he has posted in Reply #18  itself  is his working device.  Ball is getting jammed at junction.    He needs help from the forum to solve that problem.  He is making others to get involved just to solve his problem telling that he has a working device in which ball runs continuously for three hours without attaining escape velocity.

If somebody in this forum succeds in making self looping SMOT and post the video,   he may make some alterations in his design,  make it to work and claim the invention is his.

INGENIOUS!!!!


PS :  He is also telling that he would post the video of his 'working device'  after striking deal with toy manufacturer.   But once he strikes deal with toy manufacturer,  I don't think he is supposed to leak out the design without their permission.  SO we would never see his 'working device' here.   We may have to buy the toy in market after TM  manufactures it.

[MileHigh]

Newton II:

PS :  He is also telling that he would post the video of his 'working device'  after striking deal with toy manufacturer.   But once he strikes deal with toy manufacturer,  I don't think he is supposed to leak out the design without their permission.  SO we would never see his 'working device' here.   We may have to buy the toy in market after TM  manufactures it.

I can't take comments like that seriously and I don't know how anybody can.  Those comments are just a ridiculous as Wayne of HydroEnergy Revolution stating that he was going to "identify customers" for his alleged free energy machine or the Quentron guy stating about his alleged technology that his first market would be to replace batteries in hearing aids with new Quentron-tech batteries that never have to be replaced.

If the little track ran continuously it would probably be the biggest news story of the entire 21st century, and we are only 13 years into the century.  Can't you see and understand that?  It's completely and utterly ridiculous to suggest that the guy is going to go to a toy manufacturer so that toddlers and very young children can play with a free energy toy.  It's simply insane and ridiculous and it means that you should be highly suspect of the person that stated that.

MileHigh

[TinselKoala]

@TK

If you are correct and the magnetic field makes the ball fall slower, then one can assume that the energy lost in the fall would be exactly the same as the energy gained in raising the ball and this is the point where all SMOT ramps will fail.

I am certainly correct, and the people on this thread who are building SMOT ramps have the means to construct and perform comparison tests to see for themselves. The "magnetic wind tunnel", remember? The Wrights didn't just start putting stuff together and try to fly it... they examined their assumptions by doing background research -- inventing the wind tunnel along the way -- that showed them that a built-up wing _could indeed_ generate enough lift to make further research efforts worthwhile.

So let's see some experimenter set up an experiment to TEST the proposition, if you can't believe it from first principles.  You can even use Galileo's trick of using ramps instead of dropping your balls straight down, to slow the acceleration due to gravity and make the data easier to gather. If -- or rather _when_ you find that what I say is true.... what then? (The experiment has been done before, many times, so I am confident of the outcome, but don't take my word for it, do the experiment yourself.)

Is this the point at which all SMOT ramps fail? Well, if they are built upon the assumption that you stated in the post, then it is certainly _one_ of the failure points. There are others, though. Inevitable losses of momentum due to friction, eddy currents, aerodynamic drag and even the Earth's magnetic field are going to be loss mechanisms that subtract from the kinetic energy of the moving parts. Where is this energy replaced, in any of the SMOT designs we have seen? Do you think that JLN's apparatus would work in a vacuum, frictionless environment?  Well, consider the pendulum. In a vacuum, a pendulum can swing for a _long_ time and it can be very difficult to detect, from one swing to the next, that it is decaying. Some pendulums I have worked with are so sensitive that they effectively couple vibrations from the ambient, into their swing and without active damping would indeed keep swinging forever. But this is because there IS a mechanism to replace the decreasing energy; it's coming in from outside. In one case I can tell you about, the very sensitive Cavendish torsion pendulum was so very sensitive that it actually  responded to a heavy truck that parked, once  every few days, across the street while the driver went into a business. Just occasionally, and the presence and removal of the heavy truck was enough to keep the undamped pendulum swinging. It took nearly two years to track down and confirm this source of artefact in this very sensitive experiment.

By the way, if you think about pendulums enough you will realize that you have a ready-made SMOT ramp analog right there. Just position a magnet somewhere along the steel ball's travel and see if you can make a perpetual swinger. The pendulum does away with all problems associated with ramps: consistency, friction, cost, etc. but is functionally equivalent to a two-ramp system. And you can have that little insight for free.

[TinselKoala]

  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!

Wrong? Yes, the craft gained energy. Did it come from nowhere, as you seem to be assuming? No, it did not. Please read up on gravitational slingshots, if you can take time out from reading up on what the Wright brothers _actually_ did.

Once again, your assumptions are faulty.

[TinselKoala]

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.

When you figure out how to incorporate dark matter, dark energy and black holes into a SMOT, please be sure to let me know.

BTW, while black holes are pretty much accepted these days, the existence of dark matter and dark energy is still very much an open question. The galactic rotation profile data that is the "best" evidence for dark matter is very controversial, counterexamples abound, and recent re-evaluations of things like the Pioneer "anomaly" have called into question the idea of dark energy as well.

2 cents won't buy you much these days. That's one kind of "inflation" that is very real.


Someday, webby, we'd like to hear your complete story of the Wayne Travis affair. One has to wonder, considering your history, why you aren't right there by his side in Oklahoma, helping him to bring his "flat-pack" rotary Zed-Taz free energy overunity buoyancy drive to market. Don't you believe in Travis any more?