How this was done in 1821.....

[shruggedatlas]

@steve_whiss,

The ?Faraday? part of the job has already been done as far as overunity goes?production of excess energy and violation of CoE has been proven beyond doubt in SMOT.

That is quite a statement.  Beyond whose doubt?  Definitely yours, but you are one of few true-believers.  All the SMOT shows is that magnets attract ferrous materials.  The added gimmick is an inclined plane, but frankly how is this different that putting a ball an inch under a magnet, letting go, and watching the ball jump up to meet the magnet?  According to you, this would be over unity!  Free energy solved!

The simple question is this, if SMOT is over unity, why hasn't anyone ever closed the loop?  If the ball is leaving with more energy than it began with, surely it has enough energy to make it back to the starting point, or at least to another SMOT alligned next to it, which in turn can return the ball to the original SMOT device?

In truth, despite tremendous effort, no one has ever closed a SMOT loop, and no one ever will.  All it would take is just 101% energy efficiency, and you would be able to close the loop.  Alas, the SMOT is well under 100%.  What force the magnet giveth at start, the magnet taketh away when the ball leaves the SMOT, and when you subtract friction, you end up with less than 100%.

And please, spare us the measurements of energy before and after.  I do not doubt there are some measurements that would seem to support your position, and I have seen these bandied about before.  However, the plain fact remains that a mere 1% over unity would be enough to close the loop, and no one has yet to produce this 1%.

[Omnibus]

That is quite a statement.  Beyond whose doubt?  Definitely yours, but you are one of few true-believers.  All the SMOT shows is that magnets attract ferrous materials.  The added gimmick is an inclined plane, but frankly how is this different that putting a ball an inch under a magnet, letting go, and watching the ball jump up to meet the magnet?  According to you, this would be over unity!  Free energy solved!

Correct, free energy solved. Scientifically. The fact that you don?t understand that and are saying things such as in the above quote doesn?t mean a thing. There? science, reason, scientific method and there are not very few, yourself included, who don?t have a clue and are happily ready to demonstrate it.

The simple question is this, if SMOT is over unity, why hasn't anyone ever closed the loop?

No, this question is irrelevant when discussing the violation of CoE by the SMOT. The above question concerns only the engineering aspect of the SMOT application and has nothing to do with the scientific issue of whether or not the CoE is violated (which, in fact, is). Not one bit.

[shruggedatlas]

No, this question is irrelevant when discussing the violation of CoE by the SMOT. The above question concerns only the engineering aspect of the SMOT application and has nothing to do with the scientific issue of whether or not the CoE is violated (which, in fact, is). Not one bit.

I think this question has everything to do with it.  It would be trivial to set up an electric motor which added 10% energy to the ball, and have that motor continuously toss a ball down a low-friction ramp and have the ball return to the starting point via some kind of small roller-coaster type setup.  Yet your over unity device cannot accomplish this simple task.  You write this off to an "engineering problem."  What's the problem?  No one can engineer SMOTS to be in circle?  No one can engineer a little track to return the ball to its starting position?  Surely this is not the case.  The "engineering problem" smacks of a cop-out.

If the SMOT is over unity, let's see it put that extra energy to use.  Where does the extra energy go, if there is not even enough to return the ball, with assistance from gravity, to its starting location?  The SMOT is a funny machine - it not only adds free energy, but it also takes it away after it is done!

[Omnibus]

I think this question has everything to do with it.  It would be trivial to set up an electric motor which added 10% energy to the ball, and have that motor continuously toss a ball down a low-friction ramp and have the ball return to the starting point via some kind of small roller-coaster type setup.  Yet your over unity device cannot accomplish this simple task.  You write this off to an "engineering problem."  What's the problem?  No one can engineer SMOTS to be in circle?  No one can engineer a little track to return the ball to its starting position?  Surely this is not the case.  The "engineering problem" smacks of a cop-out.

No it doesn?t. The problem is the same as when during the fifties the science of computers was around but they didn?t have laptops on their desks. Trivial as it may sound now. Or during the times of Goddard. Why didn?t Goddard fly to the moon since he was so sure of his inventions. In one word, it?s ridiculous to put forth an engineering application as a requirement for the acceptance of a scientific discovery. It has never been the case and never will. Otherwise, we won?t have Compton effect, Davisson-Germer experiment, Rutherford?s discoveries etc., etc. Where?s their application to enhance the neighborhood?

If the SMOT is over unity, let's see it put that extra energy to use.  Where does the extra energy go, if there is not even enough to return the ball, with assistance from gravity, to its starting location?  The SMOT is a funny machine - it not only adds free energy, but it also takes it away after it is done!

Again, no. Utilitarian tasks are not attributes of Science. Engineering handles utilitarian applications.

And, by the way, that?s not what SMOT does, as you describe it. You?d better learn the theory behind SMOT before uttering such opinions.

[shruggedatlas]

No it doesn?t. The problem is the same as when during the fifties the science of computers was around but they didn?t have laptops on their desks. Trivial as it may sound now. Or during the times of Goddard. Why didn?t Goddard fly to the moon since he was so sure of his inventions.

Your analogy is extremely poor.  Goddard's rockets actually worked in the way he intended.  Sure, they could not take him to the moon, but the rocket did provide propulsion as outlined in his theories.

In this case, I am not asking the SMOT to power a nation, or a city, or a house, or heck, even a single light bulb for any amount of time.  I am simply asking that the SMOT provide a tiny amount of added energy, enough to return its missile to its starting location.  Engineering-wise, I have described the solution.  Either make a chain of SMOTs, or use a single smot with some kind of track to return the ball to the starting location.  The fact that the SMOT cannot do this is evidence that it is simply not imparting any additional energy to the ball.

I will ask you this, if the ball leaves the SMOT with more energy than it started with, why can it not return to its starting location?  An extremely weak electric motor can do this, and we have the "engineering" required to create the ramp or circle of SMOTs I described.  There is nothing left to create, except a device that can actually add energy to a ball, and the SMOT is clearly not it.

I am beginning to suspect that your definition of "over unity" is not the traditional one.  If you think that a magnet simply pulling a ball once creates energy, then you have your own definition that differs from the traditional.  Unfortunately, your definition of "over unity" is present everywhere and is nothing special and does not lead to an energy producing device.  I really think you are just confusing force with energy.