Chas Campbell free power motor

[shruggedatlas]

You are just to explain where the kinetic energy comes from. It's not rolling down a slope, it has to come from some place. Where does it come from? You tell me? Or do you plan to deny the object moves faster after as before the interaction? Please be honest?

I do not understand why you are stuck on this.  To answer the question, the energy comes from the magnet.  However, every ounce of kinetic energy given to the ball it is also taken away by the magnet upon exiting the ramp, so there is no net gain.  If there was any excess energy at all, we would be able to make a circle of SMOTs.  Alas, such is not the case.

[gaby de wilde]

What do you mean no netgain?

exit speed - zero = netgain

Energy from the magnet? No that cant be it, because it would have to give this energy back to the magnet before exiting.

It wouldn't have enough energy to exit if it was from the magnet.

[RoadRunner]

Like so many other inventors, a child hood dream. The only difference is that you spend years and years trying to kill it. The effort at destroying something is most unworthy in the first place.

That may be the way that you see it. It's not the way I see it. I've spent years 'chasing my dreams'.
Sometimes with success, sometimes without. What's most interesting (and beyond the scope of an internet forum) is how resonance and 'harmony' all fit into the picture.
I do agree that the effort spent in destroying something is unworthy. Destruction is mostly dischordant but sometimes destruction is necessary. We need to break down the mental blocks... As I can see you are attempting to do with me. I'm not going to tell you that it won't work. I appreciate your efforts and if you really find some mental blocks, please feel free to try to tear them down and widen my perspective, I will be all the better for it. I'm thick-skinned. I generally don't offend easily and I don't mind a little rough play as long as it is all in the right spirit.
But... I think you'll find I'm a little like Milkovic's nodding donkeys. You can hold my head down but my tail keeps a waggin' and sometimes when the sparks really fly, you might realise that the 'mental blocks' you thought were there are only an illusion... They're there to make me appear human.
Without them, I scare people so I have to 'wear the suit' and blend in until there's enough steam pressure in the boiler to open that valve and engage 'drive' !

I had to experiment and play with magnets to understand why the concept would never work...

Yes, you will have to play with magnet to understand why the concept works. The only difference here is that you now start your investigation trying to get something done.  Your previous statement means you couldn't do it back then, this goes for you alone. The previous effort was towards disproving the workings without building it.

Errrrr... No.
I had to play with magnets to understand why the device depicted did not work. Back to the old 'thought experiments' again. As a kiddie, in my mind, that should have worked. My book said that it didn't work.
I didn't understand why my book should say that it wouldn't when in my mind, it would.
Only by playing with magnets and ball-bearings and other assorted bits of metal did I start to learn about field-strengths, gravity, potential and kinetic energy, polarities and so on.
I did stupid things like mount battery operated fans onto little carts with sails (like they do in the cartoons) to try to make my 'craft' move. Then when the thing did move, I had to spend time trying to work out why it moved.. Was it because of my fan pushing against the sail ? Was it because of the wind pushing against the sail ? Or was it because my fan was acting as an airscrew ?
I was an experimenter right from when I was young.

I learned something...

no, you lost something. Sorry...

I can see why you might say that and in some ways, I can agree...
I can agree in the context you mean, but I can expand on that and say that I lost some of my ignorance.
I lost some of my reliance on 'what I was told'. I don't simply take something for granted, I try it.
If you told me the sky was blue, I might go and check for myself. Not that I don't trust you, but 'blue' can mean a lot of things. Is it pale blue ? Dark blue ? vivid blue ? pastel ? blue with blue stripes ??

But I never once tried to suggest that it was a perpetual motion machine (I hadn't heard the term 'Over-Unity' at that age) after understanding how it functions in the real world.

You are confusing the real world with the world of physics. That world is not even close to the real thing.

I beg to differ on that one.. That I am confusing the two, that is.
I am under no misconceptions that our Universe and the 'laws of physics' don't always tally.
Ask any scientist and they will likely tell you that cause precedes effect.
I know otherwise through repeated personal experience... That's just one example.
Again... I don't trust what I was taught by my teachers. I know they were only repeating what they were told. Education isn't about becoming smarter, it's about absorbing what you're told and repeating it all in an exam. You can get the answer right in an exam, but if that's not the answer the examiner wants, you'll be marked wrong. I've known for a long time that there is a difference.

If I had... I'd have been most deserving of any ridicule which came my way.

Here I think your childhood frustration has grown up into a which burning ritual.

If I advocated burning 'witches'... I'd have to be first in the queue for the pyre !!!
You really do need to get to know me better to understand my perspective on all this.
But I don't hold it against you that you perceive me the way you do. It would probably take many years of brain-frying to get to the point where you're beginning to get a reasonably accurate picture of who I am and why I am.

Look, an object accelerating from zero m/s up to any point above zero m/s has gained kinetic energy.

No argument there.

You are just to explain where the kinetic energy comes from. It's not rolling down a slope, it has to come from some place. Where does it come from? You tell me? Or do you plan to deny the object moves faster after as before the interaction? Please be honest?

I'm not so foolish as to try to deny that the ball isn't moving faster. of course it is.
To you or I (non-magnetic entities), that's an uphill gradient.
To a magnetic entity like a steel ball, that's a downhill gradient and the kinetic energy gained by that ball comes from the potential energy you imparted when you picked it up and held it at the top of that magnetic gradient. When you let it go, that gradient converts the PE to KE.
Again, I think that physics was completely right about this.

is there more or less kinetic energy before or after the interaction? I don't understand what you think to see in the device. Please explain.

Before the interaction and after the interaction, the amount of kinetic energy is the same (when the ball is at rest in it's 'home' position).
Immediately prior to entry into the ramp, being held there by your fingers, the KE = ~0 and the PE >0
At the very end of the ramp, before the ball falls back out, PE is approaching 0 as it's been converted to KE.
So, with the ball held still - High PE, zero KE.
Before the ball comes to rest (part way through the complete cycle, immediately after exiting the ramp), Low PE, high KE.
Correct by your understanding ?

Ball travels tough back box and accelerates. It departs the ramp with speed above zero. There is no way a static object is going to exit the device without gaining kinetic energy.

No argument there.
Put fuel in your tank and your vehicle has high PE but it has no KE until it moves.
Unless it's on a hill or you're pushing it, it ain't gonna move without fuel.
No PE, no KE. Likewise with the ramp. If you don't give it the PE to start with, then you're sure as heck not going to get any KE at all and once the ball has come to rest back at the starting position, ready for you to pick it up and place it in the ramp again - No PE (not strictly true because it could fall off the table and convert PE to KE...)

If a static object doesn't gain kinetic energy it's not going to move at all you see?

No argument from me.
If you don't give it PE to start with, you're not going to get KE from the ramp, are you ?

Not moving is very easy to spot. There is no doubt about this? There cant be?

Bubble... Meet pin.

You don't see trees growing, but we know they do.
It's very easy to spot that a tree doesn't grow... Isn't it ?
I look at that tree... I stare at it for hours and hours and hours... It hasn't grown one inch.
I look at it the next day... I still cannot see it moving... It's very easy to spot that it isn't growing...
Until my friend sets up a time-lapse camera and records the tree for a few weeks or months and shows me just how wrong I am.
Like I said... You can prove the existence of something but you CANNOT prove the non-existence of something.
Observing no movement (or no growth) is an attempt at proving the non-existence of movement and I can be satisfied that the tree isn't growing by measuring and watching.... Until my friend extends my range of available measurement with time-lapse and wowwwwww! How wrong I am. He just proved that the tree IS growing.

This little philosophical puzzle keeps arising time and time again in my life and every time I put it to the test, I try my hardest to find the loop-hole... I've never found one yet.... I cannot prove that there is no loophole.... But the moment you prove to me that there is one... The whole thing collapses.
I cannot prove to you that proving the non-existence of something is not possible because that's proving the non-existence of something and that's impossible..... arrhrhhghghghhghghhghghghghghghh !!!
The 'non-existence' issue arose a number of years ago from a discussion I was having with a friend and I cannot even remember how we arrived at the situation but he tried to prove the non-existence of something and we bashed the idea about for a while until I realised that it just wasn't possible.
I shared my moment of realisation with him and we tried to break the theory between us.
Neither of us could break it. I've since proposed this concept to a number of people... the right sort of thinkers... Hoping that one of them could break the theory... Eventually, they all have to agree that even though they cannot PROVE it, logic dictates that it is not possible to prove the non-existence of something.
Which is actually good news for us all really... Because it means that those barmy physicists can't prove that over-unity doesn't exist.
They can show us that it cannot exist by our current understanding... But the moment someone pops that bubble.... The physicists are going to need to make two visits.... Firstly to the psychiatrists, then to the philosophers.

Right now, in this world, there are a few people capable of popping that bubble and I am reasonably confident that it will happen within the forseeable future. Probably within my lifetime.

Tail's still a-waggin'.

The RoadRunner..

[ashtweth_nihilisti]

Hi Lawrence Mark and all.

here is the pulse test video, more to come
http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,3260.new.html#new

For Mark, based on The Tests requested by Stefan which i would like to thank for clearing every thing up for every one.

1. Was there any evidence of OU ?

There was till the Watt hour meters showed total power consumed. Strange our Amp meters and the watt meters showed different figures, check out the video only thing i can suggest is to replicate and improve and or request more tests.

2. Did any of the tests (pulse and non pulse) run for any longer for a few seconds? It is important to do so so any energy that might be stored in the fly wheel is not confused as anything else other than stored energy.

Yes it was 4 seconds on cutting a piece of wood, and one second off. The engineer present said okay but the voltage dropped, and so it wouldn't be able to be used, (the 3 amps in and 10 amps out) but we were cutting wood doing real work, but was only a piece of wood so go figure 

3. Was there any evidence that supported Chas's previous claims (statements on TV interview and posts here) re power in power out? If not...why is this not repeatable?

No, as the system we were presented with was a simplified version, Chas described his original dimension and we posted this already, so i cannot speak for the original, whether the originals efficiencies would allow more stored or pulsed or what ever energy due to more flywheels in the equation i do not know. [the political correct answer].

By asking questions like this I am not attacking you or Chas. Its just important that all technology is tested on a level playing field.

Yes its is, and i find your attitude and questioning up to the standard which allows for the best communications.

My opinion on his system, its a great result and learning curve

I feel if we had a research and development center, where the NEC ad inventors could test and perfect their open sourced disclosures (Chas is open sourced) grant backed and endorsed then we can avoid wasting valuable time.
http://www.panacea-bocaf.org/ResearchandDevelopment.htm

Your  Panacea video production of the evaluation on Chas's device will present further findings which  justifies this conclusion.

[gaby de wilde]

Which is actually good news for us all really... Because it means that those barmy physicists can't prove that over-unity doesn't exist.
They can show us that it cannot exist by our current understanding... .

What our understanding? Their own ignorance you mean! I don't like to be auto subscribed to foul 3rd party ignorance! I don't like to be told what my understanding of something is.  So when I try to create a closed loop smot the last thing I'm interested in a discussion about CoE, it's utter nonsense!!  Nonsense preaching!

I had this discussion about 500 times now, and I'm 100% convinced you are not going to say a single thing that is usefull or even interesting in the context of conservation of energy.

it cant work, yes but it cant work, it can never work, it cant work, yes but it cant work, it can never work, yes but it's impossible, it cant work, yes but it cant work, it can never work, yes but it's impossible, it cant work, yes but it cant work, it can never work, yes but it's impossible. The law the law! Don't you know abut the laws of thermodynamics? it cant work, yes but it cant work, it can never work, it cant work, yes but it cant work, it can never work, yes but it's impossible, it cant work, yes but it cant work, it can never work, yes but it's impossible, it cant work, yes but it cant work, it can never work, yes but it's impossible. The law the law! Don't you know abut the laws of thermodynamics? etc etc etc etc

The smot cant work because it doesn't work and it doesn't work because it's a smot and smots don't work.

like chickens? It's 100% bullshit. This defeats the point of having a conversation. Because it cant work and it can never work because it cant work? You understand? You could try explain but I already know it cant work you see?

It's quite a good way to drive a person insane.

For me it works rather well dude!

It can never work because it cant work? it can never work because it cant work? You understand?

As ludicrous as the misnomer 'SMOT'. Greg Watson should be dragged out and liberally beaten with a large wet fish for propagating bad-science and calling his repopularisation of this device a SMOT instead of a SMUT.

Greg said it was a toy, it doesn't do anything useful. So what is your problem? What horrible things has this man done to you?

Could you show me some of this offending material? Show us exactly where he tricked you.  Why else would you go on a frenzy screaming and crying about this man?  He must have done something horrible for you to hate him like that. For now you are the one offending him IMHO. Please correct this error of mine eh?

I'm not going to apologize to anyone for sharing my thoughts about anything. You think you are in a position where you can claim people should shut up when you say they should???

I understand you perfectly well. Personally I'm all done with this treatment.

Beat with a fish? Cant you think of a more elaborate torture method?

I mean you do have to overcome your personal frustrations with it.

You think fish slapping will do the trick?