Tri-Force Magnets - Finally shown to be OU?

[Tinker]

@AquariuZ, no webcam or cameraphone?, flatbed scanner? 

Now, flatbed scanner to produce a video is a wee bit stretching it but what do I know ...

Update on the sawtooth or lack of update on the dual array.

IT'S OVER for me based on what is see there is not enough motion created to sustain rotation at least with what I have seen I am not commenting here on the tri-gate.

OMNIBUS you are still a bully but you are a bright bully, you are correct on the SMOT I have known that from the our first conversation.

That said  '' WE MAY'' have found a solution to the '' STICKY POINT'' /'S putsing around here with toys.

How about we re-visit the SMOT V GATE.

We know it works on the horizontal in fact I was truly impressed I have been there and done that.

Since then I have seen folks mount a gob of magnets on a rotor and make it spin with their triger finger magnet and thumb. it worked but no doubt would become very tedious working at a power plant.

PLAN B

To the best of my recoliction the replications of the round v-gate had the magnets mounted on the rotor not the stator.

If we mounted the stator magnets stationary in the arc I described earlier and used rotor magnets on the wheel similar to the rollers on the smot and others. Could the limitations due to angle and gauss  in a stationary array not be negated?

HOW would the rotor magnets/wheel know the difference [question] and or  be able to tell the difference if the  rotor and stator if alineged properly should look like a straight SMOT that we know works.

Anyone please stepinhere.

Well thats where I am headed

Hans be well and its great to see you back.

EVERYONE HAS LIMITATIONS.

Accept reject or ignore.
TINKER















 

 

 

[zerotensor]

Yeah, this Bismuth idea sounds interesting indeed. Need more info, though.

As for the SMOT, the excess energy there is produced in an inconvenient form and making it self-sustaining is quite a challenge. I think it's more worth pursuing something along @xpenzif's work which has to be understood better.

yes but i'd still love to give it a try. if it is truly proven to violate CoE (beyond a doubt)

Me too.  The Naudin setup, which is the only SMOT I have studied, did not convince me.

@Omnibus, could you point to a concise, (yet complete) description of the SMOT design to which you refer?  I want to see provable OU too.  Is it "inconvenient" or is it a phantom?

Mercury has properties similar to bismuth (e.g. high diamagnetism), and the fact that it is a liquid might be exploited in some clever way.  Capillary action, perhaps?  Plus, Hg is a good conductor, so it could theoretically be used to close a switch as it sloshes about.

[Tinker]

Yeah, this Bismuth idea sounds interesting indeed. Need more info, though.

As for the SMOT, the excess energy there is produced in an inconvenient form and making it self-sustaining is quite a challenge. I think it's more worth pursuing something along @xpenzif's work which has to be understood better.

yes but i'd still love to give it a try.



if it is truly proven to violate CoE (beyond a doubt)

Me too.  The Naudin setup, which is the only SMOT I have studied, did not convince me.

@Omnibus, could you point to a concise, (yet complete) description of the SMOT design to which you refer?  I want to see provable OU too.  Is it "inconvenient" or is it a phantom?

Mercury has properties similar to bismuth (e.g. high diamagnetism), and the fact that it is a liquid might be exploited in some clever way.  Capillary action, perhaps?  Plus, Hg is a good conductor, so it could theoretically be used to close a switch as it sloshes about.

Did you study it or do it.

I did it, maybe you should try then you would know.

Reality gives new meaning many things.

Is it "inconvenient" or is it a phantom?

Do your homework, you have the tools or you wouldn't be here.

Omnibus will be back later today he is not from around here.

Be well
TINKER

[Omnibus]

@zerotensor,

Very briefly. At that using a simpler contraption than SMOT. As you can see in this diagram http://omnibus.fortunecity.com/magnetic_propulsor.gif, the energy (mgh1 - (Ma -Mb)) imparted to the ball, where Ma and Mb are the magnetic potential energies at A and B, respectively, m is the mass of the ball and g is the gravitational constant, is less than the energy (mgh1 + Kc + L) where Kc is the kinetic energy at C and L are the losses incurred from B to C, the ball has at C which stands to be inevitably transformed into other energies when the ball inevitably gets back at A. According to CoE at no point can the ball have more energy to be transformed into other energies than the energy imparted to it, which is obviously contrary to what is observed here.

The above is a conclusive rigorous proof for violation of CoE.

Qualitatively violation of CoE can be observed still in Naudin?s experiment. Indeed, despite the fact that less energy is imparted to the ball to lift it at height h compared to the energy imparted in the control experiment to lift it at the same height (where the magnets are pushed away) the distance the ball reaches using SMOT is greater than the distance the ball reaches in the control experiment.

[Rusty_Springs]

Hi All
Heres a drawing of the iron and bismuth setup I would like to test once I get some bismuth.
Take Care All
Graham