Chas Campbell free power motor

[RoadRunner]

I'm sorry, but calling this abomination a SMOT is a misnomer and lends credence to the goon who repopularised it, claiming that he invented it.
I propose that it should, henceforth, be known as the SMUT.

The RoadRunner..

[gaby de wilde]

I guess the big question is: where are all the closed loop smot devices? hummm

I think the problem we will run into is that the SMOT robs the ball of more of its gravitational force after the ball drops off the SMOT than the benefit gained from elevating the ball.  This is why there are no closed loop SMOTs yet.

Ah, so you are trying to say an assumption is enough? I don't agree, I think the only valid way of coming to that conclusion is by building every possible configuration. You try base some final conclusion on a hand full of hobby attempts.  I think it's most fraudulent to try to pass of such assumption as a fact.

In the real world it's just a ball, 2 chunks of wood, a rail and 2 magnets. If the researcher cant accomplish to manufacture such huge engineering effort it says a lot about his or her final conclusions about it. Looking at things from the angle of this kind of researcher, building a closed loop smot is just about equally complicated as building a space ship.

Peeps seem to have made it a priority to laugh and point at anyone merely discussing the SMOT.

This you can base good conclusions upon. No one has been able to disprove the smot making free energy. After thousands of "it's probably nothing"'s still not one functional explanation has arrived to my armchair capable of disproving the effect.

We will call it machine A

We place an object on a flat surface.

We slowly move machine A towards the object.

The object is now sucked into machine A and spewed out at it's other end.

Where is the spewing potential coming from?

Did I note that we can do this an infinite number of times?

[shruggedatlas]

In the real world it's just a ball, 2 chunks of wood, a rail and 2 magnets. If the researcher cant accomplish to manufacture such huge engineering effort it says a lot about his or her final conclusions about it. Looking at things from the angle of this kind of researcher, building a closed loop smot is just about equally complicated as building a space ship.

I would submit that it is more complicated than building a space ship.  With a spaceship, the engineer has the luxury of designing a device that violates no known laws of physics.  Not so with a closed loop SMOT.

Did I note that we can do this an infinite number of times?

That's the problem, it can only do it once.  I can say the same thing about a simple ramp.  I slide the ball towards a ramp, it sucks it in and then spits it out at the bottom with additional energy.

[RoadRunner]

I think it's most fraudulent to try to pass of such assumption as a fact.

I think it's fraudulent to refer to this contraption as an 'OVER-unity' toy.

If I built a vehicle and advertised it as a 'water-powered automobile' when in fact, it ran on gasoline... That's fraudulent. If I created a black box and said 'this is an energy-saver', yet it had no possible means of saving anyone any energy... That's fraudulent.
If I said, "This device creates more energy than it requires to make it work" and in fact, it used more than it output... That's fraudulent. Hence I will refuse to use the term SMOT... Because it clearly isn't. It's a SMUT.

Peeps seem to have made it a priority to laugh and point at anyone merely discussing the SMOT.

Not me... Discuss it all you like... Try to find an application for pulling a steel ball up a slope with magnets... Hey... That's not too far from a maglev... I'm not saying that it doesn't have uses or applications... Or even amusement value... But SMOT, it ain't.... and it really narks me when someone else claims that they invented something when they didn't.

I'm going to attach a picture at the end of this post. I remember this picture from when I was young.
I couldn't understand at that age, why it would not work. I had to experiment and play with magnets to understand why the concept would never work... I learned something... 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. If I had... I'd have been most deserving of any ridicule which came my way.

No one has been able to disprove the smot making free energy.

No-one has been able to disprove the existence of the Celestial Teapot or the Flying Spaghetti Monster... No-one's been able to prove that my bike can't fly...
Here's the thing... It is not possible to prove the non-existence of something. It is only possible to prove the existence of something. I can give you lots of evidence to suggest that something does not exist, but I cannot prove it. However, if something DOES exist, then proof is absolute. Evidence of non-existence is only applicable to the results of that investigation... But now we're heading into the realms of philosophy rather than science.

Okay... Mathematically... We know that Chas Campbell has, in all probability, built nothing more than a curiosity which will never yield more out than in. However... Even though we can demonstrate this with models and maths, there is still the possibility that he may come up with the very loophole which will make something about one of his machines work... And that hope keeps him going. He doesn't give up because no-one can prove to him that his machines won't work. Good on him. As I've said before, it's people like that who will find the answers... and if they don't, they learn loads of interesting stuff on the way... But... Once he's PROVEN that his machine (in whatever form) gives more out than in... End of story... It's proven.
Does that make sense ?
"Here's a machine I am working on to make free energy.", will never earn ridicule from me.
"Here's a machine which makes free energy." (when it clearly doesn't)... Well, that's a different story.
People who make that claim fraudulently deserve much worse than ridicule because they sour the milk for everyone else. When someone really does manage to create something remarkable what does Joe Public say "Yeah... Heard it all before !!! Pull the other one, it's got bells on !"

Did I note that we can do this an infinite number of times?

You can do it for as long as you are willing to put in more energy than you get out.
Unless you have a practical demonstration that proves otherwise. So far, no-one has managed to demonstrate over-unity from a steel ball and a magnetic ramp.

I am exceedingly impressed by Finrud's device. It's a masterpiece.
I'm also impressed by the fact that he is careful not to claim 'more out than in'.
I'm impressed by the fact that it runs so well. It's beautifully engineered and it's probably the closest thing I've ever seen to 'perpetual motion' barring the motion of the celestial bodies in our Universe.

When someone can get a steel ball and a magnet ramp to operate for as long as that, then they have a chance at the 'holy grail' of 'perpetual motion' but if Finsrud pushed his steel ball and it went round the track once only, to call it a perpetual motion machine would be ludicrous. 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.

The RoadRunner..

[gaby de wilde]

I'm going to attach a picture at the end of this post. I remember this picture from when I was young.
I couldn't understand at that age, why it would not work.

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.

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.

I learned something...

no, you lost something. Sorry...

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.

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.

No one has been able to disprove the smot making free energy.

It is not possible to prove the non-existence of something.

Look, an object accelerating from zero m/s up to any point above zero m/s has gained kinetic energy. Physics is 100% correct about this. I don't really care about the gravitational potential when it comes to denial of the workings of the smot.

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?

It is only possible to prove the existence of something.

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.

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.

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

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