'T.O.M.I. Flapper' applied to a S.M.O.T., Self-Runner...

[Omnibus]

@tao

I'm confused by your two presentations.  The first is an animation of a continually-rotating device; the second seems like an entirely different setup with a ramp that pivots, as a see-saw, it appears.  The first unit is symmetrical and the second seems not to be at all.  In the second depiction, you don't show an animated sequence of operation, so I am not able to visualize how it is purported to work at all.

Most confusing is the fact that you seem to refer to both of these as depicting the same approach or concept, suggesting that they show a prior machine by a deceased inventor.  Which lovely model are we talking about replicating?  How does the second system proceed to cycle?  Please explain.  Thank you.

@omnibus 

This is not an invitation for you to attack and begin once again to spew venomous insults.  I am openly admitting that I am confused by the two apparently different presentations and am asking the presenter to explain and clarify.  Thank you for restraining yourself.  I know you vehemently despise me and think me an incompetent idiot whose very existence is a waste and insult.  Your opinion has been duly noted and registered on several prior occasions.  No need to further elaborate.

Aha, the same approach or concept must always be clothed in exactly the same construction and if not it confuses you. To explain to you why diversity in constructing devices based on the same concept is only natural is a waste of time. Instead of cluttering the forum with your confusion you should have done something to become comfortable with such matters bothering you prior to deciding to post in this forum. 

[tao]

@tao

I'm confused by your two presentations.  The first is an animation of a continually-rotating device; the second seems like an entirely different setup with a ramp that pivots, as a see-saw, it appears.  The first unit is symmetrical and the second seems not to be at all.  In the second depiction, you don't show an animated sequence of operation, so I am not able to visualize how it is purported to work at all.

Most confusing is the fact that you seem to refer to both of these as depicting the same approach or concept, suggesting that they show a prior machine by a deceased inventor.  Which lovely model are we talking about replicating?  How does the second system proceed to cycle?  Please explain.  Thank you.

I have shown two different devices. The first animation is showing what a SMOT could look like when the pendulum principles that Harris used are adapted to itself. Many of the people on this forum are MUCH more involved and familiar with the SMOT and not the TOMI principles from Harris, so I was basically letting all those attempting self-running SMOTs to see a workable-mechanism (the pendulum) in relation to their attempts.

The second image/flyaround video is indeed of a different device, this device being the FLAPPER, as Harris called it. It continually rotates also, just like that first animation, but I just didn't make the 3d animation of it rotating. Picture the ramp moving just like the piece rotating in that first animation, that is how it moves, based on a pendulum. It is based on the TOMI principle, a different principle than the SMOT, and has some more favorable characteristics to it, like being able to move the ROLLER at greater than 25% inclines, hell it can lift at 90% inclines as Harris has pointed out, so certainly it is more favorable for the making of a FLAPPER. The reason I showed the second device was to allow people to see what Harris's FLAPPER device looked like, in essence.

I care not which model anyone wishes to replicate, I am merely synthesizing ideas for those who may not have ever heard of the FLAPPER or Harris, etc... I for one, totally believe Harris's claims for his FLAPPER, he had nothing to gain or lose in making them, especially since almost no one even knows of these claims.

[Humbugger]

The second model obviously cannot rotate as drawn (the vertical supports are too short), nor is it symmetrical about the pivot point, top and bottom or end to end (as drawn), so I assumed, given those very strong visual clues, that it rocked like a seesaw.  I guess that's the source of my confusion.  Beautiful rendering but not effective at communicating the mode of operation, in my opinion. 

So, tao says they are two quite different principals but omnibus says they are the same and that I'm a total moron for not seeing through that thin veil of disguise. 

Not gonna comment, no opinion here.  Just trying to understand what is being stated. proposed and claimed all around.  Not trying to start a hissy fit contest.

Humbugger

[Dingus Mungus]

The second model obviously cannot rotate as drawn (the vertical supports are too short), nor is it symmetrical about the pivot point, top and bottom or end to end (as drawn), so I assumed, given those very strong visual clues, that it rocked like a seesaw.  I guess that's the source of my confusion.  Beautiful rendering but not effective at communicating the mode of operation, in my opinion. 

So, tao says they are two quite different principals but omnibus says they are the same and that I'm a total moron for not seeing through that thin veil of disguise. 

Not gonna comment, no opinion here.  Just trying to understand what is being stated. proposed and claimed all around.  Not trying to start a hissy fit contest.

Humbugger

I know how you feel Hum, all the SMOT threads hate my opinions and questions too. Just a tip... When they start pulling out nonsensical equations, its not worth posting the correct equations. (e=GMh is an insult in the SMOT community)



~Dingus Mungus

[Omnibus]

The second model obviously cannot rotate as drawn (the vertical supports are too short), nor is it symmetrical about the pivot point, top and bottom or end to end (as drawn), so I assumed, given those very strong visual clues, that it rocked like a seesaw.  I guess that's the source of my confusion.  Beautiful rendering but not effective at communicating the mode of operation, in my opinion. 

So, tao says they are two quite different principals but omnibus says they are the same and that I'm a total moron for not seeing through that thin veil of disguise. 

Not gonna comment, no opinion here.  Just trying to understand what is being stated. proposed and claimed all around.  Not trying to start a hissy fit contest.

Humbugger

I know how you feel Hum, all the SMOT threads hate my opinions and questions too. Just a tip... When they start pulling out nonsensical equations, its not worth posting the correct equations. (e=GMh is an insult in the SMOT community)



~Dingus Mungus

This is impudent nonsense which you continue to spew shamelessly. This should stop. It has been proven conclusively that SMOT violates CoE.