Poll
Question:
Would you consider a closed loop smot something that could be marketed
Option 1: Yes
votes: 14
Option 2: No
votes: 3
The topic is the question. Please weigh in on this, any comments would be appreciated.
Bill
Definitely. Why then it hasn't been shown yet? Because the excess energy is small and, worse yer, it is produced in a way not conducive to be harnessed to make a self-sustaining device. Under proper conditions, however, not the substandard conditions almost everybody here is working under, with very precise fine-tuning and machining it can be achieved. Notice, even a magnetic propulsor let alone the smot itself needs quite a bit of fine-tuning in order to work. Unless proper conditions are ensured, by convincing Academia of the viability of this (private money can never compete with the infrastructure controlled by Academia) we may try to build a self-sustaining smot for another hundred years and fail.
Aslo, let's not forget -- smot itself and the magnetic propulsor itself are proof that CoE can be violated but by only producing portions of excess energy. Society at large, however, due to the deceitful nature of science nowadays is pushed to believe that violation of CoE can only be demonstrated by continuous production of excess energy and we have to take note of that.
Would a looped SMOT be conclusive proof of overunity energy?
Of overunity magnetic energy; Yes definitely! It's the simplest
kind of pure magnetic motor. If I could build one I *might* decide
I could safely cancel my overunity.com account ie; energy game
over.
It must use neodymium magnets, as other kinds can potentially
discharge and supply energy.
The energy output of a looped smot would be very small and it
might be a Maxwell Demon, something converting environmental
heat energy into magnetic domain field recharge.
You may want the runner also to be a neodymium magnet too
because neo's supposedly inhibit external field penetration from
inside the magnet's boundaries so they won't change gross magnetic
characteristics over time with use, like a steel sphere or something
else might.
I don't consider that Finsrude Machine one BTW. I've read it
stops sometimes.
You got one?
:S:MarkSCoffman
I got one but i'm not sure it's a SMOT :)
So are you saying that a working smot would be a game changer and the possible precursor to a working magnetic motor?
I have a working magnet motor but i do not know if it fit's the category "SMOT" :)
It certainly looks like a SMOT turned into a circle...
Also i do not think it's a game changer cos i asked Stefan about the prize and he said i cannot enter the contest because mine has got no 1Watt Power output :-\ and if i try to load it i'm sure it will stop.
Quote from: XS-NRG on January 30, 2011, 05:36:14 PM
I have a working magnet motor but i do not know if it fit's the category "SMOT" :)
It certainly looks like a SMOT turned into a circle...
Also i do not think it's a game changer cos i asked Stefan about the prize and he said i cannot enter the contest because mine has got no 1Watt Power output :-\ and if i try to load it i'm sure it will stop.
I would suggest you start a new topic regarding your motor. I am sure the group would be interested in your work.
And just why would i want to do that? :-\
I can't go for the money so then i have to just give it away ??? my life work..
I am trying to figure out if it is a self looped SMOT... just like the topic states.
And i responded like you said:
Quote from: billmehess on January 30, 2011, 02:55:12 PM
any comments would be appreciated.
Bill
"I am trying to figure out if it is a self looped SMOT... just like the topic states"
I completely appreciate what you are saying. As for trying to determine if it self loops it must start, run, and then go past its "start" point multiple times. Without revealing what you have does it do this?
If you mean that it is self-running then the answer is yes it does that.
Now i need to find a way to make it put out XS-NRG.
And it is like a SMOT only it's "track" is different.
To XS-NRG
If you live in the US for $100.00 you can secure a Provisional Patent. This gives you patent protection for one full year and allows you to say that your invention is "Patent Pending".
I wish you the best!
Bill
Why do you think i need a patent?
Would you not like to know how it exactly self runs?
I can tell you so you can think about it..
It only self runs because there is no bemf or cemf fighting back to stop it.
This is why it works but it is also a big problem because when i introduce a coil and load it the bemf walks in destroying the party...
This is the exact reason i cannot enter the 1 Watt contest :-\
Also i told you my track was different.
It is different in the way that the magnet gets accellerated by Gravity big time.
This is needed to give it enough kinetic energy to go over it's starting poynt.
:)
Quote from: XS-NRG on January 30, 2011, 07:09:37 PM
Why do you think i need a patent?
Would you not like to know how it exactly self runs?
I can tell you so you can think about it..
:)
Well if i invested my Life in something everyone wants regardless if it wont win the "ou prize" i would be a bit smarter and get that patent because you have made the supposed impossible billion dollar Perpetual motion toy that would sell thru edmund scientific company or many disturbitors and be set for your life and your sons and daughters lives also . One persons trash is anothers treasure so to speak.
Gadget
Then you also need to have the money to prosecute any copycats and there will be many!!
A patent is useless...
Quote from: XS-NRG on January 30, 2011, 11:38:28 PM
Then you also need to have the money to prosecute any copycats and there will be many!!
A patent is useless...
it didnt hurt ronco or dyson or microsoft !only a fool would duplicate and try to sell a patented device .You are correct as many experimenters would try to duplicate a device for their own enjoyment after buying one but this is a measly 10 thousand at the most out of what 30 million prospective buyers .I also have a self levitating perpetual motion toy no batteries. you spin it and its held up with magnets and pivits on a piece of glass in the front(bearingless) . I added magnets to it and around it for years playing until i got it to keep spinning for days rather than an hour . it stops eventually but i think its due to earth rotation and will finally quit but i improved it . anyways just answering your question . take care marco .
Albert
Quote from: billmehess on January 30, 2011, 02:55:12 PM
The topic is the question. Please weigh in on this, any comments would be appreciated.
Bill
A self looping SMOT is proof of OU only if it works as an isolated system. The fact that there is neither external varying fields nor temperature gradient (in space or time) must be checked.
Quote from: billmehess on January 30, 2011, 05:32:28 PM
So are you saying that a working smot would be a game changer and the possible precursor to a working magnetic motor?
I cannot see mechanically how an operating smot runner would not allow
a yoke type device to be connected from it to a central point - that's
my definition of a motor. Once something was working it would be easy
to optimise to higher power densities and build one as one goes.
:S:MarkSCoffman
Quote from: billmehess on January 30, 2011, 06:44:38 PM
"I am trying to figure out if it is a self looped SMOT... just like the topic states"
I completely appreciate what you are saying. As for trying to determine if it self loops it must start, run, and then go past its "start" point multiple times. Without revealing what you have does it do this?
Here's the thing it is possible to get a machine that operates more than
one turn what one would call probablistical. Which means it would *not*
run past a given point with sufficient configuration energy to *always*
come back around every time, for example something with a bouncing
weight that had only a random probability of being in a certain
configuration. Whether a machine stops now and then and had to be
restarted would depend on how much restart energy is required. Even
computer circitry doesn't work every time - but with a probability is small
enough to ignore the number of times when it does fail. The key is to
cut the friction down and improve the device's operating margins.
:S:MarkSCoffman
I have added a poll to the top of page 2
Bill
The significance of a closed loop smot is well beyond the unquestionable marketing success.
Can you guarantee that?
Pherhaps then we both could be rich... :)
Like I said, self-sustaining smot will bring about more important let alone interesting things than you and I becoming rich.
Like what?
And you didn't answer the question...
Study my earlier postings if you need answers to your questions.
before you judge what I am about to say, hear this .......... I would LOVE for a closed loop smot to exist.... but after experimenting and countless hours researching, I don't think it can be done...
The only way I can in-vision a smot device to work is this..... a huge long rail that curves back to the starting position, along the rail is coils picking up charge as the ball travels down the rail and back up, then when it reaches the starting position the energy collected powers a solenoid to push the ball back to the starting position................
in my mind, its impossible for this to NOT work.... since you can indefinite rail length... hence indefinite coil pick ups..... may be impractical... i.e a kilometer of track JUST to get enough power to power the solenoid ...... heh.... would be cool though, just to see it be self sustaining haha....
ALL THAT SAID............
Asking the question (topic - "Would a self looping SMOT be proof of OU?") is like asking "If I was flying, would that be proof that I could fly?"
Answer... of course! you see the stupidity of the topic question now?
Pete
Quote from: XS-NRG on January 31, 2011, 11:04:16 PM
Can you guarantee that?
Pherhaps then we both could be rich... :)
Market it as a "Perpetual Motion" toy, kinda like those marble run thingies... ::
Quote from: Lakes on February 01, 2011, 05:16:26 AM
Market it as a "Perpetual Motion" toy, kinda like those marble run thingies... ::
It already is that.
And it's not going to make me rich nor will it provide any free energy other then turning itself.
So you are wrong.
well then being you are CLOSED minded then piss it away in a Closet . Grow old and die with nothing . Simple .You dont have anything anyone one else does then . Right ? Otherwise anyone with 1/1000th of brain Knows already it's a no brain er and a multimillion dollar concept of proof Model . I have a Friend in Turkey ready to buy the right and manufacture Millions for any Pm device to export so i on the otherhand i know different and once your beaten to the Draw you will have nothing once someone else secures a REAL proved Smot patent and manufacturing Contract.
~Albert
XS , question...
Can you easily replicate your own work or do you have just a one of a kind? Are the parts expensive or easy to obtain? If not too expensive and easy to replicate, you could make and sell them yourself. Patent pending is a good idea..... If some big company would start making them you could negotiate patent royalties.
I believe the members of this forum would like to understand your invention and see if it can be replicated, thus proven to work. Peer review of any idea is needed to generate interest as well as make improvements. The suggestions to how to modify your device to get to the 1 watt would be like having a free development team working for you.
My suggestion is to patent pend your idea (self patent thru internet) then show the community a video and start explaining or getting help explaining how the device is working. Get some replications going to prove it is not a fake. Then things will fall into place for you.
Bill
Quote from: maw2432 on February 01, 2011, 11:12:58 AM
XS , question...
Can you easily replicate your own work or do you have just a one of a kind? Are the parts expensive or easy to obtain? If not too expensive and easy to replicate, you could make and sell them yourself. Patent pending is a good idea..... If some big company would start making them you could negotiate patent royalties.
I believe the members of this forum would like to understand your invention and see if it can be replicated, thus proven to work. Peer review of any idea is needed to generate interest as well as make improvements. The suggestions to how to modify your device to get to the 1 watt would be like having a free development team working for you.
My suggestion is to patent pend your idea (self patent thru internet) then show the community a video and start explaining or getting help explaining how the device is working. Get some replications going to prove it is not a fake.
Bill
It is very easy to replicate the device.
If i patent the device i cannot get to the money from the 1 Watt contest :-\
And i don't have money to prosecute people who want to why does nobody understand these things?
Quote from: maw2432 on February 01, 2011, 11:12:58 AM
Then things will fall into place for you.
Why do you say that?
All of you seem to think having a working device means you won't have any problems and all the money and things you want but this is NOT the case.
And besides why should i even continue with this since nobody believes it anyway.
Oh, c'mon. Everybody believes you.
Why should we believe you on your word?, a claim without proof is pointless.
You COULD make money out of this, if its real...
Quote from: Lakes on February 01, 2011, 12:26:37 PM
You COULD make money out of this, if its real...
HOW ?
XS
You know there's no way to make mula on this,
And you don't want to open source,
So why are you torturing us?
?
Chet
Thank you Chet.
You must be right.
Some people gave me the impression you could get rich by building FE devices.
I know this is not true that's why i ask those people HOW.
But you made it clear so thanks.
By the way i'm not against open source i just wanted to win the OU Prize.
I am scaling up to meet the 1 Watt challenge :)
XS
You're one of the brightest members we have here,If you couldn't think of a way to make money,[I'm sure you spent ALOT of time thinking on this}!
Then it must be a real problem!
Myself I never give it much thought,[making money on FE]
But an open source venue is not the best place to explore the Finance side of OU.
Of Course you could always share?? ;D
Tell Stefan you will share the "Basic" idea here,
On the premise that when we get it making power ,you get the prize money?
?
Chet
Quote from: billmehess on January 30, 2011, 02:55:12 PM
The topic is the question. Please weigh in on this, any comments would be appreciated.
Bill
IF you can loop a SMOT, and IF it works, even with friction, it would definitely be a proof ov OU. This far no one has prooved that SMOT can deliver excess energy - not even a small portion. No matter how perfect the design are, a SMOT can not achieve greater than COP 1 - at most. Which means it will stop definitely when trying to harness energy from it.
The magnetic force have no problems in pulling the ball up a gentle incline, because the force are allowed to spend a given amount of time to do it - maybe the magnets must pull 1gram for 20cm track which ends 2cm above ground. However, when the ball are on the top with respect to the gravitional field, the magnetic force are not sufficient to keep the 10gram ball from falling vertical, so the gravitional field, which is allowed to use a vertical slope to take that ball back, wins.
Imagine you are rolling a 1 ton steel ball up a gentle slope. Say you move the ball 100 meters forwards in order to get 1 meter up. You have now felt the force of 10kg against you these 100 meters. No problem. At the end of this slope there is a vertical slope downwards. One lucky bastard are told to keep that ball from falling down vertically. Who "wins"? The ball or the lucky bastard? Even if that lucky bastard will get the same amount of energy to lift that heavy ball down that 1 meter, as it took for you to roll it up that gentle slope, there is no way that lucky bastard will survive this exsercise...
The same mechanisms applies to the SMOT. What appears to be excess energy, are really not because we have to consider the spent time and force in every part of the exsercise, the conservative forces in the magnets and gravity cannot be turned on and off on demand either.
The discussion will however go on whether the SMOT can, or cannot provide excess energy.
Vidar
I have conclusively proved that smot producess excess energy and thus violates CoE. The fact that some people don't have basic understanding of physics which prevents then from understanding the proof doesn't make that proof one bit invalid.
I would like to see XS's device working. A video would have been nice but I do not think he will share. :-[
Bill
Quote from: maw2432 on February 07, 2011, 06:33:34 PM
I would like to see XS's device working. A video would have been nice but I do not think he will share. :-[
Bill
Oh, don't ask XS that. His device is too good to be shown here.
Just a thought, maybe XS could provide a Non-disclosure aggreement (NDA) like Steorn, of his device for some of us to verify that is real and works...????? But I doubt he would do it ....
Bill
What device? XS is too good to have a device.
Quote from: Omnibus on February 07, 2011, 06:15:14 PM
I have conclusively proved that smot producess excess energy and thus violates CoE. The fact that some people don't have basic understanding of physics which prevents then from understanding the proof doesn't make that proof one bit invalid.
No, you haven't. The fact isn't that people don't have basic understanding of physics. The fact is that you have overlooked important details which you are too ignorant to see no matter how many times I have to repeat that for you. SMOT does not violate CoE.
My proof that smot-like devices are OU is definitive and needs no further discussion. Those interested in the details of the proof may go back in the forum and read the arguments. Of course, the fact that someone doesn't understand the arguments doesn't mean that the arguments are invalid.
Besides, I have proven definitively that the standard physics contains inherently violation of CoE. This should never be forgotten by those who need firm ground for their OU claims. Thus, we don't need to concede with the foisting of the mainstream that standard science denies violation of CoE and therefore have to look for esoteric, mostly unacceptable explanations for our OU findings such as energy from the vacuum, zero point energy and what not. Luckily, everything fits right into the framework of the known science, understood deeply and correctly.
Quote from: Omnibus on February 08, 2011, 04:35:57 AM
My proof that smot-like devices are OU is definitive and needs no further discussion. Those interested in the details of the proof may go back in the forum and read the arguments. Of course, the fact that someone doesn't understand the arguments doesn't mean that the arguments are invalid.
Besides, I have proven definitively that the standard physics contains inherently violation of CoE. This should never be forgotten by those who need firm ground for their OU claims. Thus, we don't need to concede with the foisting of the mainstream that standard science denies violation of CoE and therefore have to look for esoteric, mostly unacceptable explanations for our OU findings such as energy from the vacuum, zero point energy and what not. Luckily, everything fits right into the framework of the known science, understood deeply and correctly.
What appears to be a proof are not a real proof. Even you can get wrong once in a while. I have proven definitely that a SMOT are not violating CoE. One really do not need to be very skilled to understand that SMOT cannot violate CoE. The explanation lies in its simple and understandable physics of a SMOT.
Because the SMOT also use magnetic force, means you cannot rely the proof of CoE just by considering the balls delta H with respect to the gravitional force only. This is not the only thing you have missed. Also that the ball gains potential energy at the very moment you use your hand to place the ball at the beginning of the track. So it is the hand that applies potential energy into the system. What appears to be a violation of CoE, is your hand applied that energy in advance. There is more to the SMOT that proves no violation of CoE. If you want to know, try studying your papers a few times more.
No matter what you reply, a SMOT does not violate CoE. There is no real proof of violation of CoE other than an apparent proof due to ignorance.
Vidar
Any objections regarding my proof for OU character of smot can only be due to misunderstanding of basic physic, as is obvious in the last attempt as well. So, it's a waste of time, as has been proven time and time again, to try to refute the proof I've given.
There is a set of proofs and notions which I've developed throughout these years which already forms the OU area as a well-defined scientific discipline of its own. We need such firm basis so that we can further our efforts in a more systematic way, rather than rely on trial and error. Of course, I'm continuing to develop this discipline and perfection its logical structure and scientific basis.
Quote from: Omnibus on February 08, 2011, 05:18:49 AM
There is a set of proofs and notions which I've developed throughout these years which already forms the OU area as a well-defined scientific discipline of its own. We need such firm basis so that we can further our efforts in a more systematic way, rather than rely on trial and error. Of course, I'm continuing to develop this discipline and perfection its logical structure and scientific basis.
Oh, you sicko...
You're the one who will "develop this discipline and perfection its logical structure and scientific basis", eh?
Science is what you personally despise the most, remember?
Perfection? Logical structure? And -YOU?
ROTFL!
Moderator, moderator ... A moderator is needed to take care of an impudent spammer such as @spinn_MP.
Oh, STFU...