Working Attraction Magnet Motor on Youtube!?

[shruggedatlas]

Jean Naudin does exactly that. And it's indeed more (traveling faster) in Trial 1 than in Trial 2. Still that experiment (Naudin's experiment) is enough to prove that there is excess energy in SMOT. Conclusive proof, however, as I already said, dealing in one stroke with all the ridiculous little objections to Naudin's experiment is provided when the experiment is carried out along the closed A-B-C-A loop.

I have reviewed the experiment.  It is described here: http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/smotnrgt.htm.

The problem is that he compares a drop from the input side of the SMOT ramp with a drop from the output side.  This is not a valid comparison.  A valid comparsion would have a drop from the height of the input side, but without the magnets present.  Did I read it wrong?

[Omnibus]

Jean Naudin does exactly that. And it's indeed more (traveling faster) in Trial 1 than in Trial 2. Still that experiment (Naudin's experiment) is enough to prove that there is excess energy in SMOT. Conclusive proof, however, as I already said, dealing in one stroke with all the ridiculous little objections to Naudin's experiment is provided when the experiment is carried out along the closed A-B-C-A loop.

I have reviewed the experiment.  It is described here: http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/smotnrgt.htm.

The problem is that he compares a drop from the input side of the SMOT ramp with a drop from the output side.  This is not a valid comparison.  A valid comparsion would have a drop from the height of the input side, but without the magnets present.  Did I read it wrong?

On the contrary, the comparison is valid. Review more carefully what he means by "drop from the input" and "drop from the output". Never mind what he calls these drops (he's named them so only for convenience; see, however, what he really does), this is exactly how the comparison should be made.

[shruggedatlas]

On the contrary, the comparison is valid. Review more carefully what he means by "drop from the input" and "drop from the output". Never mind what he calls these drops (he's named them so only for convenience; see, however, what he really does), this is exactly how the comparison should be made.

I quote him:

"TEST 1 - Drop from the INPUT.  The first measurement has been done with the magnetic ramps widely spaced from the aluminum rail."

I am also attaching a photo which confirms this.

So, the magnetic ramps are present during the drop from the input.  They are widely spaced, but that is the normal configuration of the bottom of any SMOT ramp.  This means that there is still magnetic drag from the magnets.  A proper test would compare a drop from the output versus a drop from the height of the input but without magnets.

I will gladly run such a test, by the way.  I just need confirmation that comparing a drop from the output of a SMOT ramp to a drop from the height of the input of the ramp but without magnets present would be a valid test.  Do you agree with my thinking?

[supersam]

@all

thi whole discution reminds me of the first time i got the idea of overunity.  i was taking a tour of the nuclear pwerhouse that my father was building at the time.  "late 70's." 

i was stricken with the idea that if all we needed to do to make steam was to produce heat, and the nuclear material, "a small amount" was all we needed to have to make haeat, why not just take the nuclear material and make enough heat to make the supehated steam, that makes the turbines turn and instead of making power for the grid, just use that power to generate electricity to heat the boilers, and then just sell the power that was generated off of that and keep the rest to reheat the boilers and keep the whole thing going?  well then i was intrduced to thermodynamics.  that i have never been proven to me to mean datilishit.  even if you add or have heat losses in a system, why would this tact seem to have such a detrimental effect in the overall perfirmance of the system?

oh yea.  now i remember then it would be too efficient.  to what, i asked?  the law of thermodynamics.  B.S.  think just a little outside of the box.  the system i outlined was twice as efficient.  they just didn't want to see it.  maybe ya'll do, who knows.  it has been proven already that there is know way to lift yourself into the sky by mechanical means.  i guess this means vacumn or any other, like jet planes.  so i guess we should give up on rockets too.

lol
sam

[Omnibus]

On the contrary, the comparison is valid. Review more carefully what he means by "drop from the input" and "drop from the output". Never mind what he calls these drops (he's named them so only for convenience; see, however, what he really does), this is exactly how the comparison should be made.

I quote him:

"TEST 1 - Drop from the INPUT.  The first measurement has been done with the magnetic ramps widely spaced from the aluminum rail."

I am also attaching a photo which confirms this.

So, the magnetic ramps are present during the drop from the input.  They are widely spaced, but that is the normal configuration of the bottom of any SMOT ramp.  This means that there is still magnetic drag from the magnets.  A proper test would compare a drop from the output versus a drop from the height of the input but without magnets.

I will gladly run such a test, by the way.  I just need confirmation that comparing a drop from the output of a SMOT ramp to a drop from the height of the input of the ramp but without magnets present would be a valid test.  Do you agree with my thinking?

You haven't understood well the experiment. Give it some more thought.