For the purpose of this thread the term SMOT will be used. To date no one has looped a SMOT, largely because when a ball leaves the SMOT ramp it ends up at a height equal to or lower than the point at which it started. To over come that problem it is necessary to have the ball leave the SMOT ramp at a height that enables feeding the ball back to the start point.
Most previous designs utilize the ramp design in US4215330 A which consists of an incline with two rows of magnets, one fixed either side of the incline with a track positioned in between the two. The ball is drawn up the ramp by the magnets and leaves the top of the ramp and under gravity falls off the end. Always ending up at a point lower than or equal to the start point which then leaves the problem of getting the ball back to the start point.
My design (Patent Pending) approaches the problem in a different and unique way, which I hope some of you replicate independently.
I will start by saying I will not be showing my finished design for a while and if that is what you want to see please come back to this thread in the future when I will post a video of my unit.
What I will do however is tell you how to go about building a self looping "SMOT" of your own using the principles employed in my design.
I will include rough drawings (sorry its not one of my strong points) I shall also include experiments for you try out which I used myself to create my own design. The experiments are worth doing, especially for the naysayers as they will show the working principle and give you chance to make adjustments before you go into a full fledged build.
Most of you who have played at trying to loop a SMOT and those who work with magnets will probably have all the parts to hand. For those who do not have the parts, there are very few and my prototype cost less than £15 (approx $23)
I will list the parts I used myself, but other parts may be used.
19 mm steel ball
40 x 1" x 1.5" x .25" C8 magnets ( I have also used neo blocks but they were harder to set correctly)
3 meters of 2.5 mm rod/wire for track, my prototype used aluminum but copper should be fine, you may even get away with the wire from a few wire coat hangers. Copper is probably best as you can easily solder the track, and it is reasonably flexible whilst being able to maintain its shape.
Next the working principle.
My design which is not called a "SMOT" but will be for the purpose of this thread works in the following manner.
A track is formed in a "teardrop shape" one long side of the "teardrop" is straight and at approximately 2/3rds of the way up is joined to the return via a junction in the track.
This junction is critical and must be designed correctly. The best way to describe the junction is that of a set of railway points where the ball can pass in one direction when travelling forward but exits in the other direction when travelling in reverse.
The straight side of the track is inclined and forms the ramp, magnets are placed on ONE side of the ramp in a manner which allows the ball to be drawn up the ramp but NOT to the end of the ramp.
The ramp does not work in the same manner as a normal "SMOT" instead the ramp pulls the ball up most of the ramp and as the ball loses its forward momentum is no longer pulled by the magnets, gravity takes over and the ball starts to roll in reverse back down the incline.
When the ball reaches the junction of the track it takes the alternate route (built into the design) and makes its way down the track and back to the entrance of the magnetic ramp.
Approximate track shape:
Experiment 1: Getting the ramp to function correctly.
Your set up should be like that represented in the drawing below, raise one end of the track to form a ramp and then play with the position of the magnets until the ball is drawn up the ramp but loses momentum and starts to reverse. When you get the magnets in the correct position The ball will readily be drawn toward the top of the ramp but never quite makes the top, as it loses its forward momentum gravity will make it roll most of the way back down. the drawing shows ariel and side view
I will set up my experiments again and post videos in the next few days if anyone is having a problem getting the effect.
The following drawing shows an approximation of what you should aim for. The red dots represent the points on the track and their approximate set heights (you may be able to go higher or lower but those heights worked best for me with the materials I used)
The rails of the track are set at 12 mm outer edge to outer edge for the 19 mm ball.
And when completed should represent the schematic below.
I will post more details tomorrow, in the meantime I will be happy to answer any questions. Bare in mind I am in the UK and there may be quite a time difference.
I would also be happy to hear from anyone who plans on a replication.
Elecar, by patent pending, are you saying you have a working design? How long does your work? Or are you just trying to get others to work on your idea?
Bill
Hi Bill, yes I have a working design and I received the receipt I was waiting for from the UK IPO.
Just to be clear and maybe I should have said it from the get go, I do not care whether anyone wants to build one or not I am asking for nothing. I am not selling plans or parts.
However if anyone is going to build one or wants to I am happy to help.
Hi Elecar,
On your working device: I am curious whether the 19mm steel ball (or maybe more balls?) just keep on rolling on the track for hours and hours? Do you mean that when you say you have a working device?
If yes, how do you think to extract some energy from the setup?
If yes, does the ball or (balls) get magnetized in time and influence operation?
Thanks, Gyula
Quote from: elecar on October 08, 2013, 05:03:18 PM
Hi Bill, yes I have a working design and I received the receipt I was waiting for from the UK IPO.
Just to be clear and maybe I should have said it from the get go, I do not care whether anyone wants to build one or not I am asking for nothing. I am not selling plans or parts.
However if anyone is going to build one or wants to I am happy to help.
Hi Elecar,
Thank you for the positive news. I am also interested in how long you have had your working design run.
Now that you have the Patent pending and info from you IPO can you share some photos???
I would love to try to build one.
Bill
Hi Gyula,
Yes I really do have a working prototype. It runs for as long as I am able to stand the noise. I tried running more than 1 ball but sometimes they catch up to each other and cause a complete stop.
I had to be careful when making the application and I knew not to use the term perpetual or overunity and I still do not claim either.
Up to now I have had no problem running a single ball, however as you have mentioned I suspect that the ball may get magnetised over time which may bring it to a halt or at the very least mess up the operation. But then I have not claimed perpetual motion nor over unity.
As far as extracting any usable energy goes I can only imagine something simple like peizo, the biggest problem is the incline is so shallow that the speed is pretty much unusable, perhaps as I mentioned elsewhere in the forums the high road low road effect may be a way of getting some speed and possibly some work from the ball.
Elecar,
This gets more interesting as you comment. Can you post or send us video now that you are protected via patent pending?
Bill
Hi Bill,
I have to be honest I have never timed the runs, I can tell you that I did leave one test running whilst we went shopping and returned over 3 hours later and it was still running. I knew I would run into trouble when I claimed I would not be showing my design for a while, of course it appears like a dodge and I accept that. But the simple truth is I am talking with a toy manufacture who is interested in the design, and for that reason I am holding off disclosing my prototype. I am however not keeping the working details away from anyone. And a self build should be reasonably easy for anyone with some simple DIY skills and a bit of spare time on their hands.
If you just want to see my model running you should visit the thread in the future when I will post a video, I promised on another thread I would do that and I will post that video in the near future.
Hi,
I have been interested in "SMOTS" for a while, you say you are helping people build them if they want. *puts hand up*, email poit187@gmail.com if you prefer?
in summary, I would like help building it :)
Thank you
Pete
Where the energy comes from:
In the attached drawing I have indicated how the steel ball consumes energy.
By a "run" I mean: ball runs down the linear start incline, goes around the loop and remounts the linear start incline.
For the 1. run the ball is released at the top (the start of the linear incline, see arrow "1. run"). When the ball comes back from the loop it mounts a little less (as indicated by the arrow "2. run").
After the second run it mounts even less (as indicated by the arrow "3. run").
In practice the ball might only loose 0.5 mm or 0.1 mm at every run, but eventually it will have lost all the energy induced by having it start at the highest point of the linear incline.
The run time will be fairly long in case the steel ball runs very slowly.
And now a question: is there some electronics or mechanical contraption (e.g. descending weight) at the highest point of the linear incline which pulls the steel ball up a little bit when it comes back from a run?
Praise: It is a good idea to break the loop in a SMOT.
Greetings, Conrad
Hi Conrad, the drawing indicates where I usually start the ball. The point you indicated is the top of the ramp.
The ball can be released from anywhere on the curved section leading away from the ramp and still completes a circuit. I can release the ball from a point only 2mm higher than the bottom of the ramp and the ball is still drawn up the ramp by the magnets.
Where the track junction leaves the straight section the ball is approximately 6 mm higher than the bottom of the magnetic ramp. And the ball picks up sufficient momentum on the way down the incline to carry it the start of the magnetic ramp.
One set of tests I did was to release the ball on the track at different heights without the magnets in place, I marked the test track where the ball came to rest (lowest point) I then released the ball from the different heights and it always traveled further under gravity than the entrance to the magnetic ramp.
In summary you do not need to release the ball from the highest point even when released from the start of the curve (approx 2mm) higher than the lowest point on the track it is drawn up the ramp.
To answer your questions, there are no electronics and no mechanical devices other than those indicated.
Hi Conrad, please see the attached photos.
These photographs are of the test track, they are NOT of a self looping SMOT, the test track was put together to see if the idea was viable before a prototype build.
Some things to note, the track was put together from a waste aluminum shelf runner. It is very rough and if you look at how I formed the curve you will see there is a great deal of friction. That said it still worked as I had wished and is the reason I went ahead with the prototype.
I hope the pictures show the curve and the incline clear enough.
I have put a video together of the tests I carried out on the test track and I will post it later with details of the tests that were being done.
Please see the attached pictures which show the height from the MDF board to the bottom of the track at 4 points 0 mm, 2 mm, 6 mm and 12 mm. The second picture shows some red marks on the track. Those marks represent where the ball will roll to WITHOUT magnets in place. The 3rd mark should be ignored when watching the video as the 3rd mark was where the ball rolled to when the ramp was at a steeper angle.
When you watch the video you will see clips of 3 tests. please excuse the jerry rigged set up, that is all the C8 magnets I have left after building my prototype. I would have preferred to show test 3 on a longer length of ramp, but I do not have enough spare magnets and I do not have a longer piece of aluminum track as I butchered it all for the track. Test 3 does however show how the ball can reverse under gravity in the magnetic field.
Test 1: The ball being released from different positions on the track 2mm - 6mm higher than the lowest point. Note how the ball always makes it to the first 2 marks when rolling under gravity regardless of where it is released from even when traveling around "friction" bend.
Test 2: Magnets in place, this test is the same as test one but with the magnets positioned to draw the ball up the ramp. Note how it makes it all the way to the "hole" no matter where the ball is released from on the same section of track as shown in test 1 Also note the ball ends higher than it starts every time.
Test 3: Magnets in place but positioned to prevent the ball making it to the hole, Note the ball loses its forward momentum and reverses under gravity whilst in the magnetic field. It does this from any position as in test 1 and test 2.
This video will self destruct in 24 hours :o
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=--3rugO_RMg&feature=youtu.be
Quote from: conradelektro on October 09, 2013, 03:41:57 AM
Where the energy comes from:
In the attached drawing I have indicated how the steel ball consumes energy.
By a "run" I mean: ball runs down the linear start incline, goes around the loop and remounts the linear start incline.
For the 1. run the ball is released at the top (the start of the linear incline, see arrow "1. run"). When the ball comes back from the loop it mounts a little less (as indicated by the arrow "2. run").
After the second run it mounts even less (as indicated by the arrow "3. run").
In practice the ball might only loose 0.5 mm or 0.1 mm at every run, but eventually it will have lost all the energy induced by having it start at the highest point of the linear incline.
The run time will be fairly long in case the steel ball runs very slowly.
And now a question: is there some electronics or mechanical contraption (e.g. descending weight) at the highest point of the linear incline which pulls the steel ball up a little bit when it comes back from a run?
Praise: It is a good idea to break the loop in a SMOT.
Greetings, Conrad
Hi Conrad, I hope the video shows that the loss you claim does not occur, regardless of the release position of the ball it always travels the same distance in the magnetic field.
Now that you have shown how it's done, you might as well just show the real prototype running endlessly, yes?
Quote from: lumen on October 09, 2013, 12:00:36 PM
Now that you have shown how it's done, you might as well just show the real prototype running endlessly, yes?
Sigh
Quote from: elecar on October 08, 2013, 03:34:35 PM
For the purpose of this thread the term SMOT will be used. To date no one has looped a SMOT, largely because when a ball leaves the SMOT ramp it ends up at a height equal to or lower than the point at which it started. To over come that problem it is necessary to have the ball leave the SMOT ramp at a height that enables feeding the ball back to the start point.
Most previous designs utilize the ramp design in US4215330 A which consists of an incline with two rows of magnets, one fixed either side of the incline with a track positioned in between the two. The ball is drawn up the ramp by the magnets and leaves the top of the ramp and under gravity falls off the end. Always ending up at a point lower than or equal to the start point which then leaves the problem of getting the ball back to the start point.
My design (Patent Pending) approaches the problem in a different and unique way, which I hope some of you replicate independently.
I will start by saying I will not be showing my finished design for a while and if that is what you want to see please come back to this thread in the future when I will post a video of my unit.
What I will do however is tell you how to go about building a self looping "SMOT" of your own using the principles employed in my design.
I will include rough drawings (sorry its not one of my strong points) I shall also include experiments for you try out which I used myself to create my own design. The experiments are worth doing, especially for the naysayers as they will show the working principle and give you chance to make adjustments before you go into a full fledged build.
[snip]
Next the working principle.
Thanks so much for sharing what you have, Elecar. I enjoyed the intriguing video.
You said clearly, "I will start by saying I will not be showing my finished design for a while", and that's fine.
You also said,
"
What I will do however is tell you how to go about building a self looping "SMOT" of your own using the principles employed in my design. "
Hurray! thanks for this. I'd like to give it a try, and contribute if I may.
Thank you again.
Steve
Elecar, making your tear-drop-shaped track took some time, no doubt.
I wonder if a plastic track, U-shaped, would work and be easier to bend into the proper curve? Screwed down to a board still, as you have done. Or perhaps model-train (or car) tracks? Hmmmm... something flexible and hopefully cheap...
How about a clear plastic TUBE? tubing would be flexible... might work if the friction were low enough. A track is probably better. 3D printer, with track built in? that would be cool. Thinking out loud here.
Hi Jouleseeker. I thought about acrylic tube when I set out to design a track, but they are not easy to bend (actually they bend easily but do not keep their shape).
I am not sure about a model train unless you were to use the D type which I think is the smallest gauge. A 3D printer would be awesome if not a little expensive.
I also toyed with the idea of aluminum channel wide enough to sit the ball in as I had an idea for the junction, in the end I settled with aluminum rod.
If you were referring to the bend in the test track, no it took a few minutes with a hacksaw.
I think one could just machine it from a solid plate of aluminum about 1.25" thick.
Could first layout in cad to get a good passive crossover where the rail furthest from the magnets would taper closer to the other rail until the ball just falls over it onto the exit track. This could be done smoothly as to cause no change in height of the ball. (almost)
Hi Elecar,
Thank you for sharing your design and video.
I'm interested in your original track. What is the length of the track in the video?
I also attached a picture of a possible circular design(minus support structures to reduce clutter). It's an untested idea so it may or may not work.
It is at an exaggerated scale to show the curve better, the angle and curve would be a lot less perceptible. The idea is the same as yours but curved and where the ball would usually start to fall back down the ramp there is a very slight gradient tilting it towards the down side.
The way to build would be to make two rings of wire for the track, inner and outer. Then slightly bend the inner ring at the top towards the down side where the ball starts to fall back. 3D printing is also an option once measurements are nailed down.
Elecar this is very exciting. By using only one side of a smot you left the other side
open for the escape. I have always believed that permanent magnets can do work because
of 1. Finsrud's device and 2. my pendulum that swings higher than its dropped point and
3. now your modified smot......
Thank you very much....
I will stick one together tomorrow I hope.
my pendulum drops from 2 oclock and travels to noon here.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4FzK2XKQ-74
Norman
I think there's more to it than that, just like a steel ball will always pull to the edge of a magnet because there is less attraction in the center.
So the main acceleration is pulling into the magnet and there is less attraction in the center of the ramp, but can be controlled by the magnets angle to the track.
The idea is to gain moving into the ramp and exit just after the peak of the gain and where there is less attraction.
May be?
elecar:
Wow! I have read this topic and seen your video. I think what you have devised is brilliant Sir. I have no problem taking you at your word, even though we here on OU.com have been burned before as we all know.
I believe everyone should read your first post and respect your position. You spelled out what you would, and would not reveal. I accept this.
Once your idea is fully understood, selecting the materials for easier building for the experimenters is where the folks here can contribute. We all have to work with the tools we have and the materials we can easily get. What a great job you have done using that metal bracket. I wish you much success and I appreciate your willing to share with us on here as much as you are able.
If I were in your position, it would be killing me to not be able to do so. Very well done Sir.
Bill
Quote from: lumen on October 09, 2013, 09:00:40 PM
I think one could just machine it from a solid plate of aluminum about 1.25" thick.
Could first layout in cad to get a good passive crossover where the rail furthest from the magnets would taper closer to the other rail until the ball just falls over it onto the exit track. This could be done smoothly as to cause no change in height of the ball. (almost)
Hi Lumen, you have grasped the importance of the "crossover" (junction) it is as I mentioned way back, critical. You do not need to change the height of the ball only its direction. It must be guided away and down from the magnetic field.
The angle of exit must not be too sharp either. The closer you can run the angle of the exit to the straight the better.
Quote from: DreamThinkBuild on October 09, 2013, 09:12:20 PM
Hi Elecar,
Thank you for sharing your design and video.
I'm interested in your original track. What is the length of the track in the video?
I also attached a picture of a possible circular design(minus support structures to reduce clutter). It's an untested idea so it may or may not work.
It is at an exaggerated scale to show the curve better, the angle and curve would be a lot less perceptible. The idea is the same as yours but curved and where the ball would usually start to fall back down the ramp there is a very slight gradient tilting it towards the down side.
The way to build would be to make two rings of wire for the track, inner and outer. Then slightly bend the inner ring at the top towards the down side where the ball starts to fall back. 3D printing is also an option once measurements are nailed down.
Hi DTB. I am envious of your drawing skills. The original track is 330mm long and the diameter of the curve is 150mm.
I do not know if the circular design would work, I am not saying it would not, but you are asking the ball to leave at the strongest point of attraction. I think it could be a sticky point. You could however possibly have the exit dissect the circle before the ball reaches the end of your magnetic ramp. Think slightly bigger than semi circle.
Quote from: norman6538 on October 09, 2013, 09:14:06 PM
Elecar this is very exciting. By using only one side of a smot you left the other side
open for the escape. I have always believed that permanent magnets can do work because
of 1. Finsrud's device and 2. my pendulum that swings higher than its dropped point and
3. now your modified smot......
Thank you very much....
I will stick one together tomorrow I hope.
my pendulum drops from 2 oclock and travels to noon here.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4FzK2XKQ-74
Norman
Hi Norman, I have watched your video before, and it is interesting. I believe magnets can do work also, I think my video shows that the ball is pulled up the ramp regardless of its release point. Where is that gain coming from ?
I guess we both know the naysayers are going to say "from my hand"
Quote from: lumen on October 09, 2013, 10:32:37 PM
I think there's more to it than that, just like a steel ball will always pull to the edge of a magnet because there is less attraction in the center.
So the main acceleration is pulling into the magnet and there is less attraction in the center of the ramp, but can be controlled by the magnets angle to the track.
The idea is to gain moving into the ramp and exit just after the peak of the gain and where there is less attraction.
May be?
Hi Lumen, Pretty much in a nut shell, you have to position the magnets in such a way that they draw the ball up the ramp but fall short of the end. There has to be the point where gravity takes over from magnetism and you need to use that gravity to your advantage whilst the ball is still high enough to be returned to the start.
Quote from: Pirate88179 on October 10, 2013, 12:52:18 AM
elecar:
Wow! I have read this topic and seen your video. I think what you have devised is brilliant Sir. I have no problem taking you at your word, even though we here on OU.com have been burned before as we all know.
I believe everyone should read your first post and respect your position. You spelled out what you would, and would not reveal. I accept this.
Once your idea is fully understood, selecting the materials for easier building for the experimenters is where the folks here can contribute. We all have to work with the tools we have and the materials we can easily get. What a great job you have done using that metal bracket. I wish you much success and I appreciate your willing to share with us on here as much as you are able.
If I were in your position, it would be killing me to not be able to do so. Very well done Sir.
Bill
HI Pirate, I did consider not posting anything at all yet, but I have a patent pending and I am having exchanges with a toy manufacture who is interested. There are parts of the patent that I do not wish to disclose in full as it would not be right in light of the talks I am having. It really is that simple.
I believe there are many ways of doing it using any number of materials I have a number of my own designs drawn up. I also believe the simple tests that I put together in the video absolutely show that it is for real. Get the ramp right and get the junction right and you will have built a self looping "SMOT" using the principles I have shared.
Your use of ceramic magnets is most interesting. I have been reading scientific papers regarding the MOMENTUM carried by the magnetic field itself, and how non-conducting magnets may offer a chance to explore this effect.
I also agree that the "EXIT" is critically important. Can you give us sometime more detail about how you achieve the exit for the ball, so that it proceeds back downward, away from the magnets? That would be needed for a replication I think.
Hi Jouleseeker, I could not get it to work with the neos, I could get them to pull the ball up the ramp and the to get the ball to reverse. But I could not get the ball to move away from the magnetic field. The C8 magnets have worked best.
You are correct the exit is absolutely critical, in that the ball must be able to roll freely and at the shallowest angle possible and there must be NO resistance or the ball will hang up, I only have a cheap plastic protractor and checking mine it is 12-14 degrees. My track is pretty much like that shown in reply #3 on page one of this thread.
Hi DTB, I hope you do not mind me using your drawing, hopefully the alteration is self explanatory, the area indicated by the red ball would need to have a greater influence from gravity than that of the magnets. I have no idea if it would work just thinking out loud.
Hi Jouleseeker, I have not tried this, but it is one of my designs. the track is constructed of aluminum channel, a NON magnetic "gate" is placed at the junction. It would need to be super light and as friction free as possible. The orange dot represents the hinge. The red dot represents a very small ferromagnetic fixture which would allow the gate to be "pulled shut" by the attraction to the magnets on the side of the ramp. Which leaves only one way for the reversing ball to travel.
Again I have not tried it, its just one design idea.
Quote from: elecar on October 10, 2013, 11:23:16 AM
Hi Jouleseeker, I could not get it to work with the neos, I could get them to pull the ball up the ramp and the to get the ball to reverse. But I could not get the ball to move away from the magnetic field. The C8 magnets have worked best.
Yes! and just a quick follow-up, in your self-looping prototype,
the C8 magnets do allow the "the ball to move away from the magnetic field" and move back down the ramp (right-hand ramp, i.e., the ramp without magnets nearby) --
is that correct? this is crucial.
There must be no input from the outside by any prosaic force such as a finger-touch or moving a magnet or vibration or anything like that. (No such input, right?)
PS - note- I'll be driving a friend right away to a VA hospital, gone all afternoon.
Quote from: JouleSeeker on October 10, 2013, 12:18:37 PM
Yes! and just a quick follow-up, in your self-looping prototype, the C8 magnets do allow the "the ball to move away from the magnetic field" and move back down the ramp (right-hand ramp, i.e., the ramp without magnets nearby) -- is that correct? this is crucial.
There must be no input from the outside by any prosaic force such as a finger-touch or moving a magnet or vibration or anything like that. (No such input, right?)
PS - note- I'll be driving a friend right away to a VA hospital, gone all afternoon.
There are no tricks employed, the ball exits on the "down ramp" without any outside influence. Only magnets gravity, and track design are the driving forces.
I hope your friend is ok.
Quote from: elecar on October 10, 2013, 12:26:24 PM
There are no tricks employed, the ball exits on the "down ramp" without any outside influence. Only magnets gravity, and track design are the driving forces.
Hello elecar,
THANKS for sharing your design, photos and video! This is SUPER exciting! You have been around OU for a while, so this probably goes without mentioning, but please remember to steel yourself for the inevitable troll attacks. You're doing a right and good thing -- don't let any verbal attacks / insinuations / hostile questions deter you. We've seen so many productive experimenters run off by over-aggressive, badgering skeptics. >:(
Regards,
-Joel D. Sanders
Quote from: elecar on October 10, 2013, 12:26:24 PM
There are no tricks employed, the ball exits on the "down ramp" without any outside influence. Only magnets gravity, and track design are the driving forces.
I hope your friend is ok.
Thanks for the re-affirmation, and WOW! Again I think the non-conducting ceramic magnets are a key here.
Yes, my friend is fine - and I just drove him back from the Kansas City hospital.
Quote from: elecar on October 08, 2013, 05:58:53 PM
Hi Bill,
I have to be honest I have never timed the runs, I can tell you that I did leave one test running whilst we went shopping and returned over 3 hours later and it was still running. I knew I would run into trouble when I claimed I would not be showing my design for a while, of course it appears like a dodge and I accept that. But the simple truth is I am talking with a toy manufacture who is interested in the design, and for that reason I am holding off disclosing my prototype. I am however not keeping the working details away from anyone. And a self build should be reasonably easy for anyone with some simple DIY skills and a bit of spare time on their hands.
If you just want to see my model running you should visit the thread in the future when I will post a video, I promised on another thread I would do that and I will post that video in the near future.
Thank you Elecar for the photos and video of your test build. Nice work.
The junction must have taken some tries to get right.
I invision something like a rubber bumper, like one you find on an older mechanical pinball machine. If there is enough momentum the ball should bounce off at the angle that is setup and down the ramp??
Bill
@elecar
I think you really started some gears turning in this thread.
If what you show is true, then there are many ways to improve this to the point of real output energy.
Hi JDSanders, I am a grandad to 8 girls, so there is nothing that anyone can throw at me on here that will bother me.
Lumen, I am pretty sure there are many ways to improve on the design, I have actually just ordered some more materials to try a couple of them out.
Hi Bill, I did not use a bumper as such during my trials, what I did was attach a very slim wedge shaped piece of acrylic to the magnet side rail of the track to try and guide the ball, it did NOT work the resistance was enough to stop the ball and it was held where it was by the magnets.
Please look at the drawing, the rail circled is the critical rail. It must allow the ball to travel smoothly up the ramp and when the ball descends it must be positioned to guide it onto the exit. It does take a lot of playing with you can not have the rail sit too high where it impedes the ball traveling up but high enough that it will bias the ball rolling in reverse to the exit. although that is how I did it, I really do believe there are easier ways. Something else that is important is that you can not divert the ball just as it starts to reverse, you have to allow it at least a third of the straight section to gain enough momentum to exit. That is why I said you should do the tests because they will help you get the magnet positions correct. You will get an idea of how the ball reverses and how much space/length you need before the junction. Do not build your ramp with too steep an angle otherwise the magnets will have to be placed to close to the track and your ball will not escape the field.
Quote from: lumen on October 11, 2013, 10:24:35 AM
@elecar
I think you really started some gears turning in this thread.
If what you show is true, then there are many ways to improve this to the point of real output energy.
This device is carefully balanced and when you take power out you upset that balance
and risk stopping it entirely.
Think about this. Where is the energy? It can only be from the normal stopping point of
a pendulum where the magnets lift the ball further along to the where it runs out of
inertia and the small attraction force and gravity wins again and the ball drops.
So its only the gravity power at that small distance where it drops to its starting point. Lets say you scale this up to the size of a one car garage with a big ball. With proper timing I think you could take a small amount of power out without destroying the balance but nothing in the order of significant horsepower - maybe light a small light or something.
HOWEVER - anything at all will disturb the establishment greatly.....
If Elecar simply turns a tiny fan or something he will be out in front of the other horses in this race. Yeah Elicar!!!! So this is small like the sputnik satellite but
major.
Norman
This "SMOT" design idea presented by elecar is very interesting to me. I've been thinking there might be an easy and effective way to switch/gate/redirect the ball at the tear-drop point. Look at the following drawing. If the "main" track would narrow and narrow as it went up the ramp to the point where the ball would simply "drop" off onto the return track wouldn't this make a non-friction and non-energy-using "switch"? But perhaps I'm not grasping all the angles.
truesearch
Truesearch, I like your thinking but alas I tried that and it failed. I think I have an idea of why, when you set your magnets to pull the ball up the track they are set in such a way to act on your Specific ball and specific track. If you alter the track as it rises the ball will get pulled off of the track toward the magnets. As Norman has said, it is a balancing act.
Here is something interesting, you would think that if you have a 19mm ball running on the tack it would require more work than a 12mm ball ?
NOPE the 12 mm ball will not even travel as far up the ramp as the 19mm ball when you set the magnets and ramp for the 19mm ball.
Maybe just me but you would think the smaller lighter ball would travel further ?
Truesearch - you have a great idea there, especially the horizontal smot, but the real problem is, in terms of a clock the ball is dropped from noon or thereabouts but it will not go past 11 or thereabouts and the smot is the trick that lifts the ball that final hour and then the "elecar trick" gets it past the sticky spot so the cycle can be repeated again.
Norman
Oh, I see. I hadn't rationalized the effect of the underlying magnet and the ball being attracted at the DROP down toward B in my previous diagram ~ and that would be the "sticky" spot. Thanks for that info.
@elecar: did you try having a "bump" so that the ball would be directed toward the return-downhill ramp? I've attached another drawing below.
And maybe this isn't a concern at all. I'm only considering the need for a no-energy-wasted method of directing the ball down around the tear-drop track.
truesearch
Hi elecar,
I think your teardrop idea is great, but I don't see how the ball travels back under the gravity towards the junction point,
since it has to go against the magnets which pulled it up against the gravity.
Won't it get stuck, or there is some other trick which is "patent pending"?
Hi truesearch see my reply at the top of this page, I did not use a bump I used an acrylic wedge and it did not work.
Quote from: telecom on October 11, 2013, 12:06:42 PM
Hi elecar,
I think your teardrop idea is great, but I don't see how the ball travels back under the gravity towards the junction point,
since it has to go against the magnets which pulled it up against the gravity.
Won't it get stuck, or there is some other trick which is "patent pending"?
Hi telecom, the effect is self explanatory, as the ball reverses in the magnetic field (see video) it moves from the strongest part of the field toward the weakest.
As it reverses under gravity it is still in the magnetic field, but which way is it going ? Is it being pulled up from the influence of the magnets ? or is it traveling backwards under the force of gravity ? Which one is having the greatest influence ?
When it is in the weaker part of the field it is diverted, gently away from the magnetic field and on to the downward incline. Gravity then takes it back to the start.
Remember the drawings here are a guide, you need to keep the two sections of track from the junction as close as possible until you are in that weak field. There are no "tricks" you just have to get the magnets and junction right, it took me months to get it right.
Quote from: norman6538 on October 11, 2013, 11:15:05 AM
This device is carefully balanced and when you take power out you upset that balance
and risk stopping it entirely.
Think about this. Where is the energy? It can only be from the normal stopping point of
a pendulum where the magnets lift the ball further along to the where it runs out of
inertia and the small attraction force and gravity wins again and the ball drops. So its only the gravity power at that small distance where it drops to its starting point.
Lets say you scale this up to the size of a one car garage with a big ball. With proper timing I think you could take a small amount of power out without destroying the balance but nothing in the order of significant horsepower - maybe light a small light or something.
HOWEVER - anything at all will disturb the establishment greatly.....
If Elecar simply turns a tiny fan or something he will be out in front of the other horses in this race. Yeah Elicar!!!! So this is small like the sputnik satellite but major.
Norman
Hi Norman,
If you just scale it up, then the energy gain would remain proportional and likely very small.
The idea is to understand what is the principal that allows this to work at all, and work to increase the cause.
I might need to build this to work on the principal behind it, but off hand I think it depends greatly on the magnets used. Not so much the type, but the shape.
My reasoning is that it may be much easier to build a working device using magnets 2" square x .12" thick so the attracting array would be 2" x 8" rather than something narrow like 1" x 8".
The idea would be to enter the ramp with three edges pulling on the ball causing good acceleration, then somewhere close to the center, only two edges would be pulling on the ball with less force. This is what helps it to achieve breakaway from the magnets near the center of the ramp where the attraction is less.
Of course, this is only my guess and only elecar knows for sure, but I am working to find the logic as this entire concept in itself is impossible but there it is!
Where's the video of the device running continuously without outside power?
:Screenshot or it didn't happen:
;)
@TK Don't you think the video posted of the ball returning to the original position is proof? Seems to me if the opening were wide enough to let it drop, it would loop. But I could be wrong. Still, returning to the starting point is pretty remarkable. (I realize it's not technically the original spot, but it is above it with enough momentum to drop. It is probably equal to the input required to hold the ball in position and release from a few inches below?)
I don't have the magnets to try it but I bet you do, left over from the Mylow days.
If it is legit this would probably considered a gravity assisted SMOT (?)
Quote from: TinselKoala on October 11, 2013, 04:06:48 PM
Where's the video of the device running continuously without outside power?
:Screenshot or it didn't happen:
;)
Whats up ? No elderly ladies to stalk and harass ? Nothing to prove to you TK you know it all already.
Quote from: happyfunball on October 11, 2013, 04:46:52 PM
@TK Don't you think the video posted of the ball returning to the original position is proof? Seems to me if the opening were wide enough to let it drop, it would loop. But I could be wrong. Still, returning to the starting point is pretty remarkable. (I realize it's not technically the original spot, but it is above it with enough momentum to drop. It is probably equal to the input required to hold the ball in position and release from a few inches below?)
I don't have the magnets to try it but I bet you do, left over from the Mylow days.
If it is legit this would probably considered a gravity assisted SMOT (?)
No, I don't. How hard is it to open up an opening to be wide enough for a ball to drop? I'll bet even you could do it... and I'll bet that if it worked, you would show it working. I know I would!
Quote from: elecar on October 11, 2013, 05:00:35 PM
Whats up ? No elderly ladies to stalk and harass ? Nothing to prove to you TK you know it all already.
Ah.... I see you need to resort to off topic insults, ad-hominem abuse, and that you cannot produce what you have been claiming. That's not how to refute a challenger, there, elecar, but it's surprising how many people try to do it that way.... and fail.
I say again:
Screenshot, or it didn't happen.
You don't need to prove anything to me. Prove it to these other hopeful people who you are stringing along. I don't think you can, and I'm sure you won't.
Quote from: TinselKoala on October 11, 2013, 05:09:42 PM
No, I don't. How hard is it to open up an opening to be wide enough for a ball to drop? I'll bet even you could do it... and I'll bet that if it worked, you would show it working. I know I would!
Come on man, the ball rests in the opening after traversing the loop, and could clearly drop.
I've never seen that, I know you haven't either.
Quote from: happyfunball on October 11, 2013, 04:46:52 PM
@TK Don't you think the video posted of the ball returning to the original position is proof? Seems to me if the opening were wide enough to let it drop, it would loop. But I could be wrong. Still, returning to the starting point is pretty remarkable. (I realize it's not technically the original spot, but it is above it with enough momentum to drop. It is probably equal to the input required to hold the ball in position and release from a few inches below?)
I don't have the magnets to try it but I bet you do, left over from the Mylow days.
If it is legit this would probably considered a gravity assisted SMOT (?)
Happyfunball feel free to direct your questions to TK, as he is the forum know it all.
But I can assure you the ball will NOT drop from the test track and loop back. The ball needs to be traveling in reverse in the field and be directed away from the field whilst in the weaker section of field. Does not matter how wide the opening is it will not escape the magnetic field as set up on the test track.
And just to be clear I have never stated it would.
Quote from: elecar on October 11, 2013, 05:14:05 PM
Happyfunball feel free to direct your questions to TK, as he is the forum know it all.
But I can assure you the ball will NOT drop from the test track and loop back. The ball needs to be traveling in reverse in the field and be directed away from the field whilst in the weaker section of field. Does not matter how wide the opening is it will not escape the magnetic field as set up on the test track.
And just to be clear I have never stated it would.
Ummm... ok...
Well good luck then with whatever it is you have there.
Quote from: happyfunball on October 11, 2013, 05:12:54 PM
Come on man, the ball rests in the opening. after traversing the loop and can clearly drop.
I've never seen that, I know you haven't either.
Wrong. It can't "clearly drop" and I've seen it many times. Do you think this is the first SMOT we've seen here? The first time even that that design variant has been shown?
Go on, show it dropping, if you can, and repeating the cycle without outside help. I say you cannot.
Why not? What possible reason is there for not showing the complete cycle with the thing running along all by itself over and over?
What reason, other than the fact that it is physically impossible, I mean?
Quote from: TinselKoala on October 11, 2013, 05:15:58 PM
Wrong. It can't "clearly drop" and I've seen it many times. Do you think this is the first SMOT we've seen here? The first time even that that design variant has been shown?
Go on, show it dropping, if you can, and repeating the cycle without outside help. I say you cannot.
Why not? What possible reason is there for not showing the complete cycle with the thing running along all by itself over and over?
What reason, other than the fact that it is physically impossible, I mean?
You're not being honest.
It could obviously drop, and no I have never seen a SMOT make it that far. If you have, please point me to a video. Thanks.
Regardless, elecar has now stated it won't loop as shown so... next
Quote from: happyfunball on October 11, 2013, 05:18:28 PM
You're not being honest.
It could obviously drop, and no I have never seen a SMOT make it that far. If you have, please point me to a video. Thanks.
Even elecar says it cannot drop. So how is it "obvious" to you that it could?
Not everything I've seen is available on video, but there are plenty of SMOTs on YouTube and none of them work, they all get hung up. Please don't ask me to do your homework for you.
Is everything you have seen, on YouTube?
Quote from: elecar on October 11, 2013, 05:14:05 PM
Happyfunball feel free to direct your questions to TK, as he is the forum know it all.
But I can assure you the ball will NOT drop from the test track and loop back. (snip)
I don't know everything, elecar, but I know a false claim when I see one presented, with no supporting evidence at all.
Think of how easy it would be for you to refute me and make me look totally stupid: all you have to do is to provide real evidence that you have what you claim. What's your excuse for not supporting your claim with evidence? Are you just being polite to the "forum know it all" ? Refute me. You cannot, so you will insult me instead.
Quote from: TinselKoala on October 11, 2013, 05:21:36 PM
Even elecar says it cannot drop. So how is it "obvious" to you that it could?
Not everything I've seen is available on video, but there are plenty of SMOTs on YouTube and none of them work, they all get hung up. Please don't ask me to do your homework for you.
Is everything you have seen, on YouTube?
You really are an obnoxious horse's ass.
Take it down a notch.
Actually happyfunball to correct myself it can drop, but it is only 6 mm above the lowest point at the point the "hole" is, so when it drops it has 2 problems (1) it is at the same height as the start point with no way to return (2) it is right near the strongest part of the magnetic ramp and would not escape the field.
I am happy to provide you with video proof of that.
Quote from: elecar on October 11, 2013, 05:27:08 PM
Actually happyfunball to correct myself it can drop, but it is only 6 mm above the lowest point at the point the "hole" is, so when it drops it has 2 problems (1) it is at the same height as the start point with no way to return (2) it is right near the strongest part of the magnetic ramp and would not escape the field.
I am happy to provide you with video proof of that.
Ok. I mean in the video it comes to rest in the notch, so obviously could drop.
I still think it shows more than any SMOT video I've seen.
Thanks for posting.
Quote from: TinselKoala on October 11, 2013, 05:25:01 PM
I don't know everything, elecar, but I know a false claim when I see one presented, with no supporting evidence at all.
Think of how easy it would be for you to refute me and make me look totally stupid: all you have to do is to provide real evidence that you have what you claim. What's your excuse for not supporting your claim with evidence? Are you just being polite to the "forum know it all" ? Refute me. You cannot, so you will insult me instead.
Please read the whole thread and the answer is there, even in the very first couple of posts and has been repeated since.
You are of no consequence to me TK, as I have said before you are a bully, a know it all, and some have their noses buried so far up your ass they can see out of you nostrils. But you do not impress or bother me in the least. You are nothing but fodder to play with and abuse. You reap what you sow TK, you don't get respect from me without showing respect. How about you read the thread and then come in with you comments and questions ?
Quote from: elecar on October 11, 2013, 01:24:00 PM
Hi telecom, the effect is self explanatory, as the ball reverses in the magnetic field (see video) it moves from the strongest part of the field toward the weakest.
As it reverses under gravity it is still in the magnetic field, but which way is it going ? Is it being pulled up from the influence of the magnets ? or is it traveling backwards under the force of gravity ? Which one is having the greatest influence ?
When it is in the weaker part of the field it is diverted, gently away from the magnetic field and on to the downward incline. Gravity then takes it back to the start.
Remember the drawings here are a guide, you need to keep the two sections of track from the junction as close as possible until you are in that weak field. There are no "tricks" you just have to get the magnets and junction right, it took me months to get it right.
Ok, I understand what you are saying.
in this case it is probably more realistic to draw the junction at some distance away from the magnets. In this case magnets would push the ball forward, where the gravity could take over. Than the ball will reverse and slide down into the circular branch.
Have I understood this correctly?
Someone suggested to have a spring at the end of the straight section to deflect
the ball. I think this is a very bright idea which will allow to preserve the impulse of the ball after its pushed out from the magnetic field.
Can you please provide the link to the video you are referring to?
Thank you for being patient!
Hi Telecom, The spring idea might work, I do not know. But as I stated I did use a wedge of acrylic and even that was enough to stop the ball. So a spring may well impede the ball also I really do not know.
The video is on the 2nd page of this thread, the post above the video link explains the tests being done (for some reason I could not add the video to that post after I had posted the text.
Hi Telecom, sorry for not answering all the question.
You need to position the junction around a 1/3rd of the distance the ball rolls in reverse. I suspect 1/2 way would be even better.
You can work out the distance by seeing how far your ball travels from the start of the ramp to where it starts to reverse, then place your junction a minimum of 1/3 back. Keep the return track at as shallow angle as you can, the ball will readily roll out of the weaker part of the field but will not roll out where the field is strong.
Quote from: elecar on October 11, 2013, 05:54:04 PM
Hi Telecom, sorry for not answering all the question.
You need to position the junction around a 1/3rd of the distance the ball rolls in reverse. I suspect 1/2 way would be even better.
You can work out the distance by seeing how far your ball travels from the start of the ramp to where it starts to reverse, then place your junction a minimum of 1/3 back. Keep the return track at as shallow angle as you can, the ball will readily roll out of the weaker part of the field but will not roll out where the field is strong.
Thank you, I more or less understand now.
It also very much depends on the shape, position and other variables of the array
of the magnets.No wonder it took months! I can see lots of tedious work, even with the info you provided!
Hi Happyfunball I sent you a link in a PM, have you seen it ?
Quote from: elecar on October 11, 2013, 07:10:39 PM
Hi Happyfunball I sent you a link in a PM, have you seen it ?
Yes thanks.
Have you tried any sort of magnetic shielding?
Quote from: happyfunball on October 11, 2013, 07:16:54 PM
Yes thanks.
Have you tried any sort of magnetic shielding?
Not shielding as such but I have used steel bars to help with shaping.
Quote from: TinselKoala on October 11, 2013, 05:15:58 PM
Wrong. It can't "clearly drop" and I've seen it many times. Do you think this is the first SMOT we've seen here? The first time even that that design variant has been shown?
Go on, show it dropping, if you can, and repeating the cycle without outside help. I say you cannot.
Why not? What possible reason is there for not showing the complete cycle with the thing running along all by itself over and over?
What reason, other than the fact that it is physically impossible, I mean?
If you look at my pendulum that drops from 2 oclock and rises to noon you can see that
magnets and gravity can work together to assist each other. But in Elecar's setup he escapes via the switch where my pendulum was fastened to the axle and could not escape and repeat.
here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4FzK2XKQ-74
Oh and enough of the ego stuff please. I'm here to learn and don't have time to waste on
useless bickering.
Norman
Quote from: norman6538 on October 11, 2013, 07:27:59 PM
Oh and enough of the ego stuff please. I'm here to learn and don't have time to waste on
useless bickering.
Norman
Norman I am with you 100% and it is only TK I have a problem with, you have seen how he talks to people. I mean he did not even show enough respect to read the thread before he came charging in like a bull in a china shop.
Anyhow I believe the "high road low road effect is probably the way to get some work from the ramp.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H2QPMO6bo4E
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JzZ9AKwZw28
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IoOtDBCJ7T0
Hi Elecar,
Excellent thread!
This reminds of a few years back when Greg Watson built the first SMOT and was offering it in kit form but never managed to send any kits out if I remember right.
I am not sure if he did get it to loop, but I think he claimed he did.
What you have here is very interesting.
This evening I have been playing with some 10 x 13 x 10 x 1.5mm x 1m aluminium chanel and a 24mm steel ball bearing and a very large 6 x 4 x 1" ceramic 8 slab magnet.
I can see the effect where the ball is pulled up the incline and then falls back down again under gravity, the cycle then repeats, with the ball zipping up and down the track for around 30 seconds before it stops.
I tried it with the track sitting on top of the slab magnets long edge on so the N-S faces of magnet face out to the sides.
Not sure it this config would be good for your setup as the magnet is below the track.
I have been using Lego bricks to build the support for the tracks.
You are right about the null spot in the middle of the magnet array, this would make the logical exit point away from the magnet using the downward momentum to carry it away from the null point and back around to the start.
I think a key thing is to have one uniform magnet as any ripples in the field tend to spoil the effect.
I am still trying to figure out the best way of get the ball to use the exit track on its downward journey.
My thoughts are with 3 rails that come to a point, as the ball reaches its max position it falls onto the outer 2 rails then returns down the 1/3 section before swinging out and away from the magnetic field.
For material, brass would be a good choice for tracks too as it can also be soldered and is easy to get hold of from B&Q and places like that.
I would like to see your working prototype if that is possible.
Meggerman
Hi Meggaman, thank you.
The reason your ball is going up and down is the large magnet. I believe having the steps works best. The first part of my ramp has 2 small magnets, then 4 then 6 then 8 and so on. The "bottom" of the ramp is much weaker.
Yes the middle is a "null" area, thats the area you must take advantage of, you can 100% get the ball to leave the field there. I have shown that to one member of the forum.
All the info to build one is right here in this thread, I will not be showing my unit until I am done with the toy manufacture, as soon as I am. like I promised I will post it here and may even stick a web cam on it.
Quote from: elecar on October 11, 2013, 11:11:41 AM
Hi Bill, I did not use a bumper as such during my trials, what I did was attach a very slim wedge shaped piece of acrylic to the magnet side rail of the track to try and guide the ball, it did NOT work the resistance was enough to stop the ball and it was held where it was by the magnets.
Please look at the drawing, the rail circled is the critical rail. It must allow the ball to travel smoothly up the ramp and when the ball descends it must be positioned to guide it onto the exit. It does take a lot of playing with you can not have the rail sit too high where it impedes the ball traveling up but high enough that it will bias the ball rolling in reverse to the exit. although that is how I did it, I really do believe there are easier ways. Something else that is important is that you can not divert the ball just as it starts to reverse, you have to allow it at least a third of the straight section to gain enough momentum to exit. That is why I said you should do the tests because they will help you get the magnet positions correct. You will get an idea of how the ball reverses and how much space/length you need before the junction. Do not build your ramp with too steep an angle otherwise the magnets will have to be placed to close to the track and your ball will not escape the field.
Elecar, Thank you for your reply. I think I understand about the reverse momentum.
I am curious about how you keep your base level. If sold as a Toy it may be difficult to get everything level for kids. Also, you mentioned you used aluminum rods. Did you space the rods like a train track or another method?
Bill
Anyhow I believe the "high road low road effect is probably the way to get some work from the ramp.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H2QPMO6bo4E
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JzZ9AKwZw28
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IoOtDBCJ7T0
[/quote]
I've never learned this in school, but it appears that the ball which gains more speed in the beginning has more energy, even though the potential energy is the same.
Not sure how it can be explained though...
Quote from: maw2432 on October 11, 2013, 08:11:12 PM
Elecar, Thank you for your reply. I think I understand about the reverse momentum.
I am curious about how you keep your base level. If sold as a Toy it may be difficult to get everything level for kids. Also, you mentioned you used aluminum rods. Did you space the rods like a train track or another method?
Bill
Hi Bill, the base is just MDF, I would think more along the lines of executive desktop toy/novelty the track is set up just like a marble race.
Hi Telecom, us mere mortals do not need to understand, all we need to know is it works. It is amazing how the ball traveling a further distance ends up at the same place faster than the ball traveling the shorter distance. I am sure someone smarter than me can derive some work from that.
Hi Elecar,
I whipped up some simple tests with just the ramp.
I tried neo magnets since I have many of those on hand. Neo magnets are very strong and from my experiment did not allow the 2cm diameter steel ball to fall back down. The sphere moves up the ramp and just sticks to the side. I would need a larger sphere to get the fall away effect with neos.
With the few ceramic magnets I have they work much better. I get the effect of the ball rolling up a slight incline then rolling back. I see where the challenge is switching, because it still wants to stick to one side but decreases as it falls back.
I also tried with a smaller sphere 1cm diam, it will pull up faster but stick more. It didn't have enough mass to fall back.
The switch between magnetic and fall back to gravity is where the challenge lies in this design.
I attached a picture of the quick ramp tests. The rise isn't very big because I don't have enough ceramic magnets to create a strong enough pull. (3.2mm per flat Lego block so the end height for 3 flats+track 6.4mm= 16mm height at the end)
Quote from: telecom on October 11, 2013, 08:14:03 PM
Anyhow I believe the "high road low road effect is probably the way to get some work from the ramp.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H2QPMO6bo4E (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H2QPMO6bo4E)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JzZ9AKwZw28 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JzZ9AKwZw28)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IoOtDBCJ7T0 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IoOtDBCJ7T0)
I've never learned this in school, but it appears that the ball which gains more speed in the beginning has more energy, even though the potential energy is the same.
Not sure how it can be explained though...
Interesting
Do both balls eventually stop at the same point if they're allowed to keep going? I'd assume they must
Hi DTB, I was not able to get the ball away from the field with neos, I have a large collection of magnets but ended up buying C8s which did the trick.
On your test ramp if you add a ramp that feeds the ball into the magnetic ramp (like shown in my video) you will get the ball to travel further up the ramp even when the magnets are placed further away, you should find that your ball will not only just roll back, but will roll right out of the bottom of the magnetic ramp.
Hi Happyfunball, I have no idea if they would end up the same distance if the tracks continued on a level, but it does appear, at least to me that the ball taking the longer route is traveling faster at the exit ? I could be wrong.
Hi DTB try this with your test rig.
Hi Elecar,
You said you did not want to post the video of it running just yet, but could you post just the sound of it running continuously?
What size is your magnet array (width and depth)?
When you said you start with 2, 4,6 and 8 magnets, are they arranged in portrait orientation to the track and stacked one in front of the other?
When looking from above do the magnets present a stepped face or flat face to the track?
Have you opted to make the rails from 2 individual strips of metal to make a rail track?
How wide are your rails spaced?
Thanks
Meggerman
Quote from: elecar on October 11, 2013, 07:34:01 PM
Anyhow I believe the "high road low road effect is probably the way to get some work from the ramp.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H2QPMO6bo4E (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H2QPMO6bo4E)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JzZ9AKwZw28 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JzZ9AKwZw28)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IoOtDBCJ7T0 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IoOtDBCJ7T0)
Hi elecar,
The "high road low road effect" is based the so called "brachistochrone curve" or curve of fastest descent i.e. find the path that will carry a point-like body from place (A) to place (B) in the least amount of time. The name of the fastest path curve is the cycloid.
So a point-like body starts sliding from rest and accelerated by gravity will slip (without friction) from one point to another in the least time. Great minds like Galileo, Bernoulli, Newton, Leibniz etc were all challenged to solve the problem and they did by finding the curve cycloid. See some further historical info on this here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brachistochrone_curve (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brachistochrone_curve) and a few math animations are here: http://curvebank.calstatela.edu/brach/brach.htm (http://curvebank.calstatela.edu/brach/brach.htm)
Unfortunately, conventional science explains the faster speed at point (B) by starting out from the law of energy conversation: the sum of the potential energy and the kinetic energy is constant... at least I found a paper which deals with that: http://www.osaka-ue.ac.jp/file/general/4588 (http://www.osaka-ue.ac.jp/file/general/4588)
I fail to understand why the higher speed of the ball which arrives at point B earlier has no higher kinetic energy than the ball arriving to the same point B at a smaller speed... I am not good at understanding the Euler-Lagrange equations solved in the above paper, why are solved as shown, given that integral and diffential equations can have several conditions...
Definitely further measurements are needed, especially energy-wise (because measurements have been shown on the arriving speeds) and nobody should be discouraged to test a cycloid curve which is embedded into the return path of a SMOT or similar setups.
Gyula
Same game, same torrent of words, same lack of proof, same appearance of believers:
I really do not understand why the same sick game can be played over and over in this forum.
There appears an impossible claim, no proof is forwarded, thousands of words are offered instead.
The self proclaimed inventor wants to be a teacher, teaching the impossible without supporting his teachings with tangible proof. Drawings are no proof.
Nevertheless, some people appear who start to fight for the impossible claim. And these new recruits fight nastier than the self proclaimed inventor.
It is the same sad story as always.
Greetings, Conrad
P.S.: Attached please see my new house in Vienna. I heat the house with an OU-heating system. The proof lies in the fact that I could not afford conventional heating (oil, gas or wood) with such a big house. I filed a patent and can not show you the OU-heating system before the patent is granted and some investors are found. I now tell you how you can build this OU-heating system: the system has to put out more heat than you put in!
Dear Conrad,
Normally I give the benefit of doubt for such claims and eventually only time will tell. You are right in that so far the claims have remained for long, no any setup or device have been shown capable of performing the claims.
Sorry if I was the last drop of water into your glass and your glass has become full. ;)
Greetings, Gyula
Hi Meggerman, I shall post a picture of the magnet array for you tomorrow, it will be my final post as far as help and advice goes until I post the video of my unit self looping.
Hi Gyula, thank you for the high road low road info, it is way above my head. I am content enough knowing it does what it does.
Hi Conrad, I really did not set out to be a "teacher" to anyone. Although you mock about patents, I am not here to find some magic free energy device or overunity device for "the good of mankind". I have an interest in playing with magnets period.
I managed to do something which I felt was worth a patent, and so thats the route I took. Before I posted anything here I made sure I had that protection in place and I have a company who are interested in the device. I have never offered any parts, plans or anything else on here in exchange for money, not now, and not in the future.
However I take on board what you say, and to that end I will not post anymore details until the day I post the video of my unit running. There are enough details in the thread for anyone to replicate the effect and that will suffice for now.
PS: That is a nice home you have.
My ball performance is very poor. There are 18 inches to travel and the ball only goes 14 inches but I can increase the travel to 15 inches with hand held ceramic magnets. And when properly positioned they do not get stuck. So I have a long way to go but if Elecar took a month or so to tune it I guess I'm just beginning.
I used the opaque rigid tubing that refridgerator icemaker water supply line is made from but
it was 3/8 OD. I used a jig to space the tubing so the ball was up off the wood. And I predrilled
1/8 inch holes for wire brad nails to hold the tubing in place. And I used a jig to drill the holes about 1 inch apart but not all were needed to make the teardrop shape. The tubing and nails is a great rapid prototype method.
better luck to you all,
Norman
Quote from: norman6538 on October 12, 2013, 08:32:33 PM
My ball performance is very poor. There are 18 inches to travel and the ball only goes 14 inches but I can increase the travel to 15 inches with hand held ceramic magnets. And when properly positioned they do not get stuck. So I have a long way to go but if Elecar took a month or so to tune it I guess I'm just beginning.
I used the opaque rigid tubing that refridgerator icemaker water supply line is made from but
it was 3/8 OD. I used a jig to space the tubing so the ball was up off the wood. And I predrilled
1/8 inch holes for wire brad nails to hold the tubing in place. And I used a jig to drill the holes about 1 inch apart but not all were needed to make the teardrop shape. The tubing and nails is a great rapid prototype method.
better luck to you all,
Norman
Norman,
Do you have a photo?
Bill
Here is a photo. The ball is sitting where it stopped at 14 inches and was dropped from the top on the left. I did not have magnets in this photo but there are 2 jigs in the center. One has two half holes to align the tubing so the nails can hold it at the right place. The jig on the left was used to make the holes evenly and at the center of the tubing.
The tubing does not look evenly spaced due to the camera angles but it is quite evenly spaced.
Not much but may be helpful to other builders.
Norman
http://www.atlasrr.com/superflex.htm
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=atlas+flex+track&oq=atlas+flex+track&gs_l=youtube.3..35i39.1242.4480.0.4851.16.16.0.0.0.0.176.1779.6j10.16.0...0.0...1ac.1.11.youtube.BeoAw5DLsE4
Hi Elecar,
I've been "toying" with the idea some more and got it to arc away from the track. By adding a twist at the end will cause an increasing gradient away from the track.
I attached two pictures of the setup. The first one is the underlying framework. It's pretty simple to test we shorten the track lay card paper on top with a weight at the end. When you get the magnets aligned just right the sphere will be pulled down the track like normal but as the gradient increases the weight of the sphere will be greater than the pull of the magnets and arc away.
I visualize a possible butter bowl like shape with two ramps on opposite sides that curve towards the ends of the start of the next track. Like a racetrack, the raceways are the ramps and the two end corners are where it arcs. Attached is a rough render of the idea, the sides would be much higher than shown. Using this method we eliminate the problem of curving the magnets for a circular design.
It's untested so who knows.
Hi Norman,
Thanks for sharing your build.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vINnB7tii8s
Hi, Dreamthinkbuild, that is a very nice drawing that shows your concept very well. I want to put that idea together to see how it works. What software do you use to draw?
Norman
In this quest for new understanding, I think we should give Elecar's device a chance. And I think most of us are doing so. There is something about permanent non-conducting magnets well worth exploring, IMHO. And I appreciate Elecar's sharing.
Now there is a "sleeper" post from the last page that caught my attention -- by MeggerMan:
Quote
What you have here is very interesting.
This evening I have been playing with some 10 x 13 x 10 x 1.5mm x 1m aluminium chanel and a 24mm steel ball bearing and a very large 6 x 4 x 1" ceramic 8 slab magnet.
I can see the effect where the ball is pulled up the incline and then falls back down again under gravity, the cycle then repeats, with the ball zipping up and down the track for around 30 seconds before it stops.
I tried it with the track sitting on top of the slab magnets long edge on so the N-S faces of magnet face out to the sides.
Not sure it this config would be good for your setup as the magnet is below the track.
I have been using Lego bricks to build the support for the tracks.
You are right about the null spot in the middle of the magnet array, this would make the logical exit point away from the magnet using the downward momentum to carry it away from the null point and back around to the start.
Looks like you have an interesting "replication" MeggerMan.
Quote"I can see the effect where the ball is pulled up the incline and then falls back down again under gravity, the cycle then repeats, with the ball zipping up and down the track for around 30 seconds before it stops."
This is significant -- can YOU show us a video? Say, a 40 second video so we can see this cycle repeating? Very interesting stuff! And notice, again, the use of non-conducting permanent magnets...
Quote from: norman6538 on October 12, 2013, 09:04:34 PM
Here is a photo. The ball is sitting where it stopped at 14 inches and was dropped from the top on the left. I did not have magnets in this photo but there are 2 jigs in the center. One has two half holes to align the tubing so the nails can hold it at the right place. The jig on the left was used to make the holes evenly and at the center of the tubing.
The tubing does not look evenly spaced due to the camera angles but it is quite evenly spaced.
Not much but may be helpful to other builders.
Norman
Norman,
It looks like your ball may also be riding/touching the ply-wood base causing increased friction. If so, maybe your rails are too far apart?
Bill
I found the scientific treatise I was looking for, that I referred to earlier:
http://www.physics.princeton.edu/~mcdonald/examples/mansuripur.pdf (http://www.physics.princeton.edu/~mcdonald/examples/mansuripur.pdf)
I especially urge TK and Conrad to read and comment. It is an eye-opener!
Note that Dr. Kirk McDonald is writing from Princeton University and has written a number of papers on the momentum associated with magnetic fields.
Here I quote from the conclusion of the above-linked paper:
Quote
2.7 Physical Realizations of Magnetic Moments[/font][size=0px]The behavior of a moving current loop in an external electric field depends on the physical[/size][size=0px]nature of the current.[/size][size=0px]If the current flows in a resistive conductor, that conductor would "shield" the current[/size][size=0px]from a constant, uniform external electric field[/size][size=0px]E[/size][size=0px]if the conductor is at rest or in uniform[/size][size=0px]motion with respect to the field. In this case there would be no Lorentz force on the current[/size][size=0px]due to the external field, and no torque in the frame where the current loop has velocity v.[/size][size=0px]Similarly, if the current loop is a superconductor, the supercurrent is "shielded" from the[/size][size=0px]external field, and there is no torque.[/size][size=0px]A model of a neutral current loop that could realize Mansuripur's paradox is a pair of[/size][size=0px]nonconducting, coaxial disks with positive charge fixed to the rim of one and negative charge[/size][size=0px]on the other, with the disks rotating in opposite senses with the same magnitude of angular[/size][size=0px]velocity. The paradox applies also to models in which the current is a charged, compressible[/size][size=0px]gas or liquid that flow inside a nonconducting tube (models i and iii of [5]).[/size]25[/font][size=0px]In sum, the present example can be realized only in rather "academic" thought experiments if the magnetic momenent is due to conduction current loops.[/size][size=0px]The most practical realization of the present example would involve magnetic fields due[/size][size=0px]to intrinsic (Amp`erian) magnetic momentums, such as associated with a nonconducting permanent magnet, or a neutron.[/size]
Thus, there is something "different" with the "nonconducting permanent magnet" -- as found empirically by Elecar and I think MeggerMan and perhaps others.
Attached see some of the math behind his conclusion, to encourage further reading of the treatise:
Quote from: happyfunball on October 13, 2013, 06:58:24 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vINnB7tii8s (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vINnB7tii8s)
Happyfunball,
Good find. A self-looping marble run would be a good selling desktop toy.
Bill
I am not sure about the width of this track but maybe this would work?
See attached photo.
Also if you decide to build like a marble run, take a look at this how to video.
http://www.squidoo.com/HowToBuildAMarbleMachine (http://www.squidoo.com/HowToBuildAMarbleMachine)
Bill
Hi Jouleseeker,
I have not got a closed loop running.
All I have at the moment is some straight 1m aluminium channel, a large ferrite magnet and about 4 x 24mm ball bearings.
My experiment was a simple proof of concept of the idea about the ball being pulled up the track by the magnetic field and gravity pulling it back down again and the magnet pulling it back up again and so on.
But what I have found in this testing is that having a single pole facing the track is not as efficient as having the poles facing at right angles to the track (facing up/down).
The single pole facing the track is very "lumpy" even for a single 6" slab magnet.
So for a series of magnets, it too would appear very lumpy and this effects how evenly the ball is pulled up the track.
I will try to take a short video showing the difference in the two concepts.
With the right setup I was able to get the ball to move up and down the rail for about 38 seconds, with the tail end being just a few mm of movement up/down.
Elecar may be able to improve the working model by adopting a magnet array that has poles at right angles to the track.
@Maw2432,
The ball will probably ride up on the curve of the exit track and fall into the magnet array.
I think the switch points need to be around the mid point of the rails as per Elecar's drawing and the track banked away from the the magnet array slightly.
There may need to be a curved guide to push the ball across to the exit rails at the top of the climb - but you may be able to achieve this by an increased bank on the track to allow gravity to pull it over. Elecar may be able to comment on this.
I have some 19mm bearings on order and I will be getting some aluminium tube/rod to build the exit points and some more ferrite block magnets. Once the exit points work the rest should fall into place.
Thanks
Meggerman
You can just use wire hangers and epoxy or super glue the connecting piece to the outside of the rail. Easily bent /cheap/ low friction.
So now we have the same thing that always happens, we find several ideas as to why this impossible event can work.
If elecar has this working, then it's possible that he does not know exactly why it is working or the exact effect that enables it to operate.
It could be the ceramic magnets, the order of the sizes, the direction of the poles or many other reasons.
The only effect I know that may cause this is that any magnet attracts steel more when both poles are near as opposed to only one pole and especially the center of one pole.
So given that effect, when the ball approaches a large magnet, there is a greater attraction because it sees both poles. As it continues to the center, it is in effect shielded by it's single pole face and the attraction is greatly reduced.
If you place a large magnet under a sheet of glass and let a ball be pulled into it, it will gain enough energy to cross all the way to the other side of the magnet, moving through this weaker attraction area. Sometimes it will cross all the way to the other side and be pulled back with enough force to again cross the weaker area, back to the original pulling edge.
If the magnet was long enough and there was a track to keep it centered, it would cross the original pulling edge with acceleration and follow the track to a point of less attraction where it could be removed with less force.
I do not know if this is what's going on with elecar's device but it's another possible idea.
Megerman said "
But what I have found in this testing is that having a single pole facing the track is not as efficient as having the poles facing at right angles to the track (facing up/down)."
My pendulum has a magnet perpendicular to the flat magnets around the pendulum arm. And that is what I used in my pendulum that goes from 2pm to midnight.
And another important factor that Elecar and I used is to reduce the gravity because the magnets at a distance are weak but properly combined work can be done.
Norman
I think it depends on positioning of magnetic track with respect to ball. If magnet is positioned on one side, then it will attract the ball and ball will stick to the magnet.
If magnet is kept vertically above the ball then magnetic force will be balanced by weight of the ball hence ball will not jump and stick to the magnet. You have to select ( or adjust) magnet and ball in such a way that magnetic force pulling the ball upwards is exactly equal to weight of the ball acting downwards making the ball " weightless". ( I mean magnetic force is neutralised by gravity force).
This is same as sun's gravitational pull is neutralised by earth's centrifugal force making earth's motion perpetual. If centrifugal force is less than the gravitational pull, then earth will simply fall into the sun.
Quote from: norman6538 on October 13, 2013, 09:21:06 PM
Megerman said "
But what I have found in this testing is that having a single pole facing the track is not as efficient as having the poles facing at right angles to the track (facing up/down)."
My pendulum has a magnet perpendicular to the flat magnets around the pendulum arm. And that is what I used in my pendulum that goes from 2pm to midnight.
And another important factor that Elecar and I used is to reduce the gravity because the magnets at a distance are weak but properly combined work can be done.
Norman
Using the poles up and down will attract the ball much harder and also much more evenly, but then what is the method for the ball to escape the pull that would make it any different than any other non-working SMOT.
That's why I was thinking that it might be the softer attraction in the center of a large magnet face that allows the ball to escape and the only real acceleration is at the start of the ramp, or the edge of the magnet, where the ball connects with more of both poles.
It's just a thought.
Newton II
I had that thought also, because you are using only one side magnet, the pull will increase friction unlike a double sided magnet ramp where the two pulling magnets cause a balance on the track. But, using gravity as the other pull with a magnet overhead would do the same if the forces were well balanced.
It makes me think now that if the forces are weaker in the center of a large magnet and the magnet was overhead, then after the initial acceleration into the center, gravity could possibly take over and the ball would just fall away.
??? :-\
Quote from: MeggerMan on October 13, 2013, 04:58:56 PM
Hi Jouleseeker,
I have not got a closed loop running.
All I have at the moment is some straight 1m aluminium channel, a large ferrite magnet and about 4 x 24mm ball bearings.
My experiment was a simple proof of concept of the idea about the ball being pulled up the track by the magnetic field and gravity pulling it back down again and the magnet pulling it back up again and so on.
But what I have found in this testing is that having a single pole facing the track is not as efficient as having the poles facing at right angles to the track (facing up/down).
The single pole facing the track is very "lumpy" even for a single 6" slab magnet.
So for a series of magnets, it too would appear very lumpy and this effects how evenly the ball is pulled up the track.
I will try to take a short video showing the difference in the two concepts.
[snip]
Thanks
Meggerman
That would be very helpful. Thanks, Meggerman.
Looking at some of the vids with marbles rolling on wire-tracks, found a "bumper" = simple way to re-direct the motion of the moving marble. I added arrows to help you see the motion into and out of the junction.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dq-IzXgNa0I at about the 37 sec mark.
I believe this is a fraud in the making.
'elecar' make have discovered a way to loop a SMOT a few times by giving the ball some gravitational potential energy to start with , but it will stop once friction bleeds that excess away. Interestingly this would probably work better without the magnet in place.
His description of on-going self-looping is pure fantasy in my opinion.
Post a video of it working or withdraw your claim. You have nothing to loose as your patent application is sufficient IP protection already, if it works.
As I mentioned earlier, this document points to a "hidden" momentum associated in particular with non-conducting permanent magnets such as used by elecar:
http://www.physics.princeton.edu/~mcdonald/examples/mansuripur.pdf (http://www.physics.princeton.edu/~mcdonald/examples/mansuripur.pdf)
Note that Dr. Kirk McDonald is writing from Princeton University and has written a number of papers on momentum associated with magnetic fields.
I especially urge TK and Conrad and now LibreEnergia to read and comment. It is an eye-opener!
Quote from: JouleSeeker on October 14, 2013, 12:21:22 AM
As I mentioned earlier, this document points to a "hidden" momentum associated in particular with non-conducting permanent magnets such as used by elecar:
http://www.physics.princeton.edu/~mcdonald/examples/mansuripur.pdf (http://www.physics.princeton.edu/~mcdonald/examples/mansuripur.pdf)
Note that Dr. Kirk McDonald is writing from Princeton University and has written a number of papers on momentum associated with magnetic fields.
I especially urge TK and Conrad and now LibreEnergia to read and comment. It is an eye-opener!
Not really, Section 2.7 of that document discusses what physical situations such a paradox might apply to, and nothing in that description applies here.
Below is a direct quote from the scientific paper I cited, the concluding sentence, which seems does apply here since Elecar uses only "non-conducting magnet(s)", C8 magnets to be specific. And note that several other papers by Kirk McDonald of Princeton address the same paradox and the issue of "hidden momentum" associated with such magnets - and with neutrons.
If you really understand these papers, you should explain why Dr McDonald makes the concluding statement that
Quote "the most practical realization of the present example would involve magnetic fields due to intrinsic (Amperian) magnetic momentums, such as associated with a nonconducting permanent magnet..."
Why are "
nonconducting permanent magnet"s special? Or of course, you may wish to refute Dr McDonald's conclusion.
I await your explanation.
Quote from: lumen on October 13, 2013, 06:11:04 PM
If elecar has this working, then it's possible that he does not know exactly why it is working or the exact effect that enables it to operate.
It could be the ceramic magnets, the order of the sizes, the direction of the poles or many other reasons.
I have the impression that most of the people who claimed the impossible in this forum (or in other OU-forums) did not know what caused the effect they observed.
And I always observed that the inventors only had one working prototyp.
The obvious thing to try for an inventor is to reproduce his own invention. And during reproduction one could find out which parts are essential and which parts can be replaced by known alternative solutions.
So, the way to go for our SMOT-Wunderkind would be to build two more working SMOTS. This can not be that expensive.
An even better way would be to disclose everything in order to have more people experimentimng and observing. Of course this raises the age old question of how to make money without patents and all that capitalistic crap.
As I so often said, the chances to make money are very slim, particularily in the OU-field. By disclosing an "invention" the inventor would find out very fast whether he is deluded or not. This is a guaranteed benefit which saves a lot of money and hussle. But we all dream about the ultimate success, although it never comes for 99,9999999999% of us. May be that is the reason why we see no progress in the OU-field?
But this time it is the real thing! Hang on, the impossible has happened! Finally the big moment is there! Only a few more months, a few more things to add and we have got it! The perpetuum permanent magnet machine! Or is it?
Greetings, Conrad
Quote from: LibreEnergia on October 14, 2013, 12:09:11 AM
I believe this is a fraud in the making.
'elecar' make have discovered a way to loop a SMOT a few times by giving the ball some gravitational potential energy to start with , but it will stop once friction bleeds that excess away. Interestingly this would probably work better without the magnet in place.
His description of on-going self-looping is pure fantasy in my opinion.
Post a video of it working or withdraw your claim. You have nothing to loose as your patent application is sufficient IP protection already, if it works.
Exactly.
Dr Jones:
"It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong."
--Richard Feynman
Tinsel
So in this case the "proof of concept experiment" is defined by a static magetic ball rolling uphill towards a Ceramic magnetic array and at some point rolling back down free of that array back to where it started,[with no moving parts other than the ball]??
are you saying this can't be done as described by the inventor?
[and apparently replicated to some extent by meggerman]
Thx
Chet
Quote from: TinselKoala on October 14, 2013, 12:41:20 PM
"It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong."
--Richard Feynman
...unless, of course, the experiment is wrong.
A video showing the self loop in action over a reasonable period of time, would seem an obvious way to provide evidence for the claim.
Quote from: TinselKoala on October 14, 2013, 12:41:20 PM
Dr Jones:
"It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong."
--Richard Feynman
Note that Feynman's statement applies to YOUR theory as much as it does to mine!
Experiment trumps theory, as I've been telling students for decades!
Quote from: LibreEnergia on October 14, 2013, 12:09:11 AM
I believe this is a fraud in the making.
'elecar' make have discovered a way to loop a SMOT a few times by giving the ball some gravitational potential energy to start with , but it will stop once friction bleeds that excess away. Interestingly this would probably work better without the magnet in place.
His description of on-going self-looping is pure fantasy in my opinion.
Post a video of it working or withdraw your claim. You have nothing to loose as your patent application is sufficient IP protection already, if it works.
Wow I have learned to expect this type of reply from jumped up know it alls like TK and Conrad, but I had always given you more credit Libre. So now I have to treat you with the same disdain as those two idiots.
So in order for anything to be real, us mere mortals must bend and bow before you and the other 2 ass wipes before it could possibly be real ? You must be shown or it is a fraud ? please direct me to the forum rule that states that to be correct.
Here is the truth, You, TK and Conrad have nothing to show, not 1 of you 3 "experts" have ever bought anything to the table. I believe that what actually eats you 3 up is the thought that someone might actually do something that turns your little worlds upside down.
I have always treated you respectfully, I only expect the same. You decided to act like the other cretins and so that is how I shall treat you from now on.
Enough of this stupid bickering.
I learned that when someone says something bad about you it says more about who that person is than who you are.
Norman
Quote from: powercat on October 14, 2013, 01:53:22 PM
A video showing the self loop in action over a reasonable period of time, would seem an obvious way to provide evidence for the claim.
Hi Powercat, respectfully you state the obvious, I mean if your give me this coming Saturdays 6 winning lotto numbers I will win the lotto !!
I stated right off the bat I would not be disclosing my working prototype, I am in the middle of doing a deal with someone who may be prepared to pay me for my design. Is it really that hard for people to understand ? Should my word that was given to that person be made worthless, just so I can prove to some random strangers that I am telling the truth ?
I state again clearly on record here, I will NOT be showing my unit to ANYONE until I am done with the business I am conducting.
If anyone only want to see my unit working, is it so hard to understand what I wrote in the opening post of this thread "please come back later"
But no, post after post of "show it"
Quote from: Newton II on October 13, 2013, 09:37:17 PM
I think it depends on positioning of magnetic track with respect to ball. If magnet is positioned on one side, then it will attract the ball and ball will stick to the magnet.
If magnet is kept vertically above the ball then magnetic force will be balanced by weight of the ball hence ball will not jump and stick to the magnet. You have to select ( or adjust) magnet and ball in such a way that magnetic force pulling the ball upwards is exactly equal to weight of the ball acting downwards making the ball " weightless". ( I mean magnetic force is neutralised by gravity force).
This is same as sun's gravitational pull is neutralised by earth's centrifugal force making earth's motion perpetual. If centrifugal force is less than the gravitational pull, then earth will simply fall into the sun.
Hi Newton, sorry but you are wrong. If you make sure that the magnets are positioned correctly it matters not that they are on one side.
Quote from: conradelektro on October 14, 2013, 11:57:49 AM
I have the impression that most of the people who claimed the impossible in this forum (or in other OU-forums) did not know what caused the effect they observed.
And I always observed that the inventors only had one working prototyp.
The obvious thing to try for an inventor is to reproduce his own invention. And during reproduction one could find out which parts are essential and which parts can be replaced by known alternative solutions.
So, the way to go for our SMOT-Wunderkind would be to build two more working SMOTS. This can not be that expensive.
An even better way would be to disclose everything in order to have more people experimentimng and observing. Of course this raises the age old question of how to make money without patents and all that capitalistic crap.
Greetings, Conrad
CONrad,
I was already doing what you have just stated Constipated one. I decided that since I am not going to disclose my unit yet, I would try and reproduce the effect using a different design.
To all those that have managed to remain respectful.
There are few Ideas in the thread and I think some of them are workable, but I decided to go with Normans design. I chose Normans design for 2 reasons (1) It looked easy to replicate from easy to find parts. (2) He has always been respectful and genuinely seems to be trying to replicate the effect.
To that end, here is Normans track as he posted a couple of pages back. Credit for the track goes to Norman.
Using Normans design I will try to recreate the effect, I shall show my results succeed or fail with pictures and video, I can not say fairer than that,
Hi Norman, are you happy that my replication of your track is reasonably accurate ?
There are a few problems which will need attention on the track. I have dealt with the 1st one which was at the "pointed" end of the teardrop. I have marked the area in red.
Because of the relatively large diameter of the tube it is important that the spacing is as even as possible. I have marked the track in Blue and yellow to show the width difference.
Because of the large diameter of the tube even if you lay it absolutely level the ball will roll from the point that is closest together to the point that is furthest apart. Simply because the closer together you bring the two rails the higher the ball is riding.
Quote from: elecar on October 14, 2013, 04:34:21 PM
Hi Norman, are you happy that my replication of your track is reasonably accurate ?
Elecar that is great and as I said its a rapid prototype. Anxious to see how many inches you can get it to roll..... My concern is that the material might not be as low friction as lets say the thin aluminum used to cover the wood on the outside of a house. It comes in a roll and can be easily cut and perhaps hot glued in place.
Norman
Hi Norman, I agree the material is not ideal. However I intend on seeing the trial out to the end. What I have learned so far is the track needs attention, mainly the spacing needs much improvement. My plan is to run some non magnetic rod through the hollow to make the pipe a bit more stable. Then I need to find a way to space it evenly.
That said I am happy with the early tests I have done on your track and I think I should be able to loop it with a little more work.
Here is a video made in 3 parts.
Part 1 shows the ball being sucked up the ramp, but as it rolls away it gets hung up on the magnetic ramp. (yes I will show the fails too)
Part 2 Shows the same but after the magnets were adjusted and it was able to escape the field. (Note how the ball is sucked up high and drops down and out of the ramp)
Part 3 is a wider angle showing all the track and how much further I need to get the ball to travel to the point it will get sucked into the ramp.
Its early days but I am happy with the result so far. If I get time tomorrow I will try and make the adjustments to the track.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=igFrMNtFACg&feature=youtu.be
@elecar:
Thanks for sticking with us :)
I'm looking forward to your next part.
truesearch
Elecar, that is great. I really like the attraction, escape and track switching movement.
I did not see the magnets so I assume they are underneath. I held mine on the side where I could shift them easily.
Norman
Hi Norman, the magnets are at the side of the ramp. You can see the white nylon spacer standing upright that I am using to adjust the distance of the ramp from the track. I have a simple camera and no tripod so I will try and rig something that can get the full track and magnets in the shots.
If you recall my earlier test video, the magnets are the same arrangement.
Hi Norman,
Quote Libre
Quote'elecar' make have discovered a way to loop a SMOT a few times by giving the ball some gravitational potential energy to start with , but it will stop once friction bleeds that excess away. Interestingly this would probably work better without the magnet in place.
Quote TK
QuoteExactly
Please watch the following video, and the tests as described below. Then either retract your statement or supply the evidence that you are correct.
When you watch the video you will see clips of 3 tests. please excuse the jerry rigged set up, that is all the C8 magnets I have left after building my prototype. I would have preferred to show test 3 on a longer length of ramp, but I do not have enough spare magnets and I do not have a longer piece of aluminum track as I butchered it all for the track. Test 3 does however show how the ball can reverse under gravity in the magnetic field.
My text from page 2 of this thread.
Test 1: The ball being released from different positions on the track 2mm - 6mm higher than the lowest point. Note how the ball always makes it to the first 2 marks when rolling under gravity regardless of where it is released from even when traveling around "friction" bend.
Test 2: Magnets in place, this test is the same as test one but with the magnets positioned to draw the ball up the ramp. Note how it makes it all the way to the "hole" no matter where the ball is released from on the same section of track as shown in test 1 Also note the ball ends higher than it starts every time.
Test 3: Magnets in place but positioned to prevent the ball making it to the hole, Note the ball loses its forward momentum and reverses under gravity whilst in the magnetic field. It does this from any position as in test 1 and test 2.
My video from page 2 of this thread.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=--3rugO_RMg&feature=youtu.be
The tests carried out in that video clearly show that the 2 experts are wrong in their assumption,
The tests clearly show the ball being released at different points on the track without the magnets in place.
It shows (the 2 red marks) where the ball covers less distance rolling when released from the lowest point without the magnets in place.
With the magnets in place it clearly shows the same test carried out and the ball making the "hole" each time regardless of where it was released.
The video also shows the ball rising and falling in the magnetic field the same distance every time regardless of where the ball is released from.
The video clearly shows that the unit operated much better, in fact there was an obvious gain when the magnets were in place.
Quote from: elecar on October 14, 2013, 04:01:38 PM
Hi Powercat, respectfully you state the obvious, I mean if your give me this coming Saturdays 6 winning lotto numbers I will win the lotto !!
I stated right off the bat I would not be disclosing my working prototype, I am in the middle of doing a deal with someone who may be prepared to pay me for my design. Is it really that hard for people to understand ? Should my word that was given to that person be made worthless, just so I can prove to some random strangers that I am telling the truth ?
I state again clearly on record here, I will NOT be showing my unit to ANYONE until I am done with the business I am conducting.
If anyone only want to see my unit working, is it so hard to understand what I wrote in the opening post of this thread "please come back later"
But no, post after post of "show it"
Hi elecar,
note, I did used the word "obvious" In my original post.
There is a classic forum pattern emerging with the sceptics and the believers and as much as the believers try to get the skeptics to shut up, they so far have failed to produce a self looping model and that says it all, I have lost count how many times on this forum claims are made for self running / self looping, and yet no actual evidence of a continuous running model is shown.
@ all
I would love to see this device working so please don't start quoting theories at me just show the device working as claimed = self looping continuously.
Quote from: elecar on October 15, 2013, 07:23:53 AM
The tests carried out in that video clearly show that the 2 experts are wrong in their assumption,
The tests clearly show the ball being released at different points on the track without the magnets in place.
It shows (the 2 red marks) where the ball covers less distance rolling when released from the lowest point without the magnets in place.
With the magnets in place it clearly shows the same test carried out and the ball making the "hole" each time regardless of where it was released.
The video also shows the ball rising and falling in the magnetic field the same distance every time regardless of where the ball is released from.
The video clearly shows that the unit operated much better, in fact there was an obvious gain when the magnets were in place.
Ruling out some unknown deception, which I see no evidence of, I would say there is no way to refute what you've stated here. The video shows the ball completing the loop.
Quote from: happyfunball on October 15, 2013, 08:25:49 AM
Ruling out some unknown deception, which I see no evidence of, I would say there is no way to refute what you've stated here. The video shows the ball completing the loop.
Suggest watching the video again there is about a 1 inch gap between the start of the ball rolling and where it stops, most people would not consider that "completing the loop"
Quote from: powercat on October 15, 2013, 08:41:17 AM
Suggest watching the video again there is at least a 1 inch gap between the start of the ball rolling and where it stops, most people would not consider that "completing the loop"
It drops in the gap at the top of the incline. The ball is poised over a drop. How do you figure it wouldn't drop if the gap were wider.
The semantics game is silly.
If your (assumption) is right and I hope it is, there will be no problem for somebody to show a working model, self looping continuously, but so far that has not happened.
"SHOW ME"
?
We're talking about a few magnets [scrap from old speakers]some garden hose and a ball bearing.
there isn't even a paper clip or chewing gum involved here!!
@Elecar
Thank you for the demonstration ,I don't think it will break anyones bank account to play with your idea.
We have to repect your business Ethics, they are commendable .
Chet
Quote from: powercat on October 15, 2013, 08:41:17 AM
Suggest watching the video again there is about a 1 inch gap between the start of the ball rolling and where it stops, most people would not consider that "completing the loop"
Hi Powercat, please be aware that I made it clear the test rig was not looping.
My response was to two of the forums "experts"
One said
Quote" Interestingly this would probably work better without the magnet in place."
The other said
Quote"exactly"
Tell me Powercat did the ball perform better with or without the magnets ? Go on go out on a limb, dare to say what they dont want you to.
Elecar, can you elaborate a little on why you don't want to show the ball drop to the starting point?
As per my posts you know I don't feel you're being deceptive.
What is it you feel you'd be giving away by widening the gap and showing the ball drop.
Thanks
Hi Happyfunball, I hope you do not mind me mentioning the video link that I sent you. As you saw in that video the ball did drop away from the middle of the magnet array and out of the gap that I widened and onto a track where it rolled away. In order to make that video I butchered the test track as you could see. I showed it to you purely to show that TK was absolutely wrong when he said it could not happen.
I had to use my finger to push the ball into the magnet array as I had butchered the track to show you that test. If I had posted that video I would have got nothing but abuse and an accusation that my "finger" did the work.
Please feel free to correct anything I have stated above.
I can not pretend to understand on a nano level why it works, sometimes things occur that turns traditional thinking on its head. Apparently there are two mammals that lay eggs.
I am working on using the effect on someone elses design, I am openly showing the results. I have 50mm of ground to make up and a height of 1.7mm, I am reasonably confident I will show that design also works with the effect and that it will loop, regardless, the skeptics will still find a reason as to why it is not as shown.
Quote from: elecar on October 15, 2013, 10:14:54 AM
Hi Powercat, please be aware that I made it clear the test rig was not looping.
My response was to two of the forums "experts"
One said
The other said
Tell me Powercat did the ball perform better with or without the magnets ? Go on go out on a limb, dare to say what they dont want you to.
Hi,
Yes from what I can see in the video the ball performs much better with the magnates, hope you enjoyed reading those words, unfortunately that doesn't change the fact that we have seen
no self looping model from any body at all.If your believers want to prove your case they should show a continuous self looping model, until then the skeptics can keep saying it hasn't been shown to work and therefore it doesn't work.
Quote from: elecar on October 15, 2013, 10:39:56 AM
Hi Happyfunball, I hope you do not mind me mentioning the video link that I sent you. As you saw in that video the ball did drop away from the middle of the magnet array and out of the gap that I widened and onto a track where it rolled away. In order to make that video I butchered the test track as you could see. I showed it to you purely to show that TK was absolutely wrong when he said it could not happen.
I had to use my finger to push the ball into the magnet array as I had butchered the track to show you that test. If I had posted that video I would have got nothing but abuse and an accusation that my "finger" did the work.
Please feel free to correct anything I have stated above.
I can not pretend to understand on a nano level why it works, sometimes things occur that turns traditional thinking on its head. Apparently there are two mammals that lay eggs.
I am working on using the effect on someone elses design, I am openly showing the results. I have 50mm of ground to make up and a height of 1.7mm, I am reasonably confident I will show that design also works with the effect and that it will loop, regardless, the skeptics will still find a reason as to why it is not as shown.
Sorry, I don't really follow.
There is no indication of the ball being pushed in this first video you posted, that accusation would be silly.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=--3rugO_RMg&feature=youtu.be (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=--3rugO_RMg&feature=youtu.be)
What would be the problem with reassembling it and simply showing the ball complete the loop and drop to the starting point
thanks
Quote from: happyfunball on October 15, 2013, 11:33:30 AM
Sorry, I don't really follow.
There is no indication of the ball being pushed in this first video you posted, that accusation would be silly.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=--3rugO_RMg&feature=youtu.be (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=--3rugO_RMg&feature=youtu.be)
What would be the problem with reassembling it and simply showing the ball complete the loop and drop to the starting point
thanks
Hi happyfunball, I know that video is gravity fed, the video I sent you though required me to push the ball into the array as I had butchered the test track to show the ball dropping out through the gap I had widened. I had no other track to use so had to use the track I had, and although it fell away from the magnet array and ran away down the track from the widened hole it would not have gone back to the beginning as it would have been operating like a conventional SMOT. Where the ball would drop to a point equal to or lower than the start point.
It was only to show that the ball could escape the magnetic field when in the middle of the array. I never have claimed that the test rig would loop, it was never designed to loop, it was purely to test the concept.
Quote from: elecar on October 15, 2013, 12:06:44 PM
Hi happyfunball, I know that video is gravity fed, the video I sent you though required me to push the ball into the array as I had butchered the test track to show the ball dropping out through the gap I had widened. I had no other track to use so had to use the track I had, and although it fell away from the magnet array and ran away down the track from the widened hole it would not have gone back to the beginning as it would have been operating like a conventional SMOT. Where the ball would drop to a point equal to or lower than the start point.
It was only to show that the ball could escape the magnetic field when in the middle of the array. I never have claimed that the test rig would loop, it was never designed to loop, it was purely to test the concept.
Ok, that's a fair reply. I know you haven't claimed it loops continuously.
But it would have been neat to see it loop once. I frankly think that's a major feat in itself.
Quote from: elecar on October 08, 2013, 03:34:35 PM
I will list the parts I used myself, but other parts may be used.
19 mm steel ball
40 x 1" x 1.5" x .25" C8 magnets ( I have also used neo blocks but they were harder to set correctly)
3 meters of 2.5 mm rod/wire for track, my prototype used aluminum but copper should be fine, you may even get away with the wire from a few wire coat hangers.
Hello elecar!
Would you mind telling where you sourced your C8 magnets? I'm having trouble finding that size.
Regards,
-Joel D. Sanders
Quote from: elecar on October 15, 2013, 07:13:58 AM
Quote Libre
Quote TK
Please watch the following video, and the tests as described below. Then either retract your statement or supply the evidence that you are correct.
When you watch the video you will see clips of 3 tests. please excuse the jerry rigged set up, that is all the C8 magnets I have left after building my prototype. I would have preferred to show test 3 on a longer length of ramp, but I do not have enough spare magnets and I do not have a longer piece of aluminum track as I butchered it all for the track. Test 3 does however show how the ball can reverse under gravity in the magnetic field.
My text from page 2 of this thread.
Test 1: The ball being released from different positions on the track 2mm - 6mm higher than the lowest point. Note how the ball always makes it to the first 2 marks when rolling under gravity regardless of where it is released from even when traveling around "friction" bend.
Test 2: Magnets in place, this test is the same as test one but with the magnets positioned to draw the ball up the ramp. Note how it makes it all the way to the "hole" no matter where the ball is released from on the same section of track as shown in test 1 Also note the ball ends higher than it starts every time.
Test 3: Magnets in place but positioned to prevent the ball making it to the hole, Note the ball loses its forward momentum and reverses under gravity whilst in the magnetic field. It does this from any position as in test 1 and test 2.
My video from page 2 of this thread.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=--3rugO_RMg&feature=youtu.be
Here are my observations, and why this will never self loop continuously.
With no magnet present the ball completes only part of a loop due to friction. Starting the ball higher may allow the ball to loop back via a lower path if the track was properly designed. With a small amount of friction present it may even loop for a while. This is the source of my comment 'It would work better without the magnet'.
You then introduce the magnet into the setup, and it 'apparently' performs better in that the ball is propelled further up than in the no magnet case.
However you neglect to account for the fact that you are giving the ball potential energy by moving it within the magnetic field by hand.
The extra potential energy you give it manifests itself as the kinetic energy of the ball being propelled up the ramp. (This is exactly what would happen if you did NOT have a loop and placed a ball on a straight track adjacent to one end of a magnet.)
You will note that when the magnet is in place you must take the ball from its ending position and move it AWAY from the magnet for the ball to start moving around the loop. Think about that FACT carefully as that is where the energy to propel the ball is coming from.
All you have done is use a bit of misdirection and/or fool yourself as to the possibility that this particular geometry can magically cause magnetism to become a non conservative field (i.e. the net energy moving and object in the field around any closed path is somehow not zero.)
I don't know whether I have explained that very well but I'm sure pondering why you have to move the ball away from the magnet will give you the answer.
Quote from: LibreEnergia on October 15, 2013, 06:24:01 PM
Here are my observations, and why this will never self loop continuously.
With no magnet present the ball completes only part of a loop due to friction. Starting the ball higher may allow the ball to loop back via a lower path if the track was properly designed. With a small amount of friction present it may even loop for a while. This is the source of my comment 'It would work better without the magnet'.
You then introduce the magnet into the setup, and it 'apparently' performs better in that the ball is propelled further up than in the no magnet case.
However you neglect to account for the fact that you are giving the ball potential energy by moving it within the magnetic field by hand.
The extra potential energy you give it manifests itself as the kinetic energy of the ball being propelled up the ramp. (This is exactly what would happen if you did NOT have a loop and placed a ball on a straight track adjacent to one end of a magnet.)
You will note that when the magnet is in place you must take the ball from its ending position and move it AWAY from the magnet for the ball to start moving around the loop. Think about that FACT carefully as that is where the energy to propel the ball is coming from.
All you have done is use a bit of misdirection and/or fool yourself as to the possibility that this particular geometry can magically cause magnetism to become a non conservative field (i.e. the net energy moving and object in the field around any closed path is somehow not zero.)
I don't know whether I have explained that very well but I'm sure pondering why you have to move the ball away from the magnet will give you the answer.
Placing the ball in the magnetic field gives the system potential energy, supplied by your hand.
You release
Seems to me that placing a steel ball into a magnetic field only lowers the potential energy. Does not the ball have the most potential energy further from the magnet and lose it's potential energy as it gets closer?
I mean it's a one way trip, once it reaches the magnet there is no longer any potential energy, so placing the ball anywhere in the magnetic field is a point of already lower potential energy.
Is it possible to place a steel ball close to a magnet and then have it escape because of the energy you gave it placing it there?
When you "place" your steel ball by hand close to the magnet... are you preventing it from being attracted to the magnet, even faster than it would be without your hand "placing" it there? Are you restraining it in any way?
If so... you are adding energy to the system, doing work on it. Let's say you first feel the attraction of the ball to the magnet at 10 cm away, but you bring the ball in to 5 cm, hold it there, and then release it. Does the ball strike the magnet with more kinetic energy, or less kinetic energy, than it would if you had just let it "fall" in from the 10 cm distance?
The difference represents work you are _supplying_ to the system, since magnetic PE, just like gravitational PE... is negative.
Stop all the keyboard drivel and get out to the bench and experiment and you will be amazed at what you find.
I just dropped my tilt from 3 inches to 2 inches and the ball went much further. Who would have ever guessed that. Then when adding magnets it went all but the last inch. I'm gettin there......Slow but sure.
Norman
Quote from: norman6538 on October 15, 2013, 08:45:00 PM
Stop all the keyboard drivel and get out to the bench and experiment and you will be amazed at what you find.
I just dropped my tilt from 3 inches to 2 inches and the ball went much further. Who would have ever guessed that. Then when adding magnets it went all but the last inch. I'm gettin there......Slow but sure.
Norman
No offense intended but, thousands of folks (including me) have built devices that go "all but the last inch." It is this last inch that is the problem. That and adding additional energy into the system using "Mr. Finger".
Don't get me wrong here. I hope this fellow has actually done it, and his reasons for not disclosing were made clear in his first post. But, you have to admit that it does really fit the pattern we all have seen here before. "Well, I destroyed the one that worked and the second one almost works". That is so cliche on here now.
As I said in my first post here, I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt but, please don't blame folks if they point out all of the red flags we have all come to know so well...not to mention known physics.
Bill
***EDIT***
Forget the toy company contract, if his original design self-loops, we are talking about a Nobel Prize.
Quote from: norman6538 on October 15, 2013, 08:45:00 PM
Stop all the keyboard drivel and get out to the bench and experiment and you will be amazed at what you find.
I just dropped my tilt from 3 inches to 2 inches and the ball went much further. Who would have ever guessed that. Then when adding magnets it went all but the last inch. I'm gettin there......Slow but sure.
Norman
Thanks, Norman. Can you remind me -- what magnets are you using? (big c8?)
As a test, self-looping for 30 minutes (as previously discussed IIRC) is certainly a persuasive test.
Another goal, may I suggest, would be to see the ball ACCELERATE from the first loop-trip to the second and to the third trip around the track. It seems demonstration of acceleration over a closed loop would be scientifically compelling, and to me very strong evidence for a previously untapped source of energy.
Quote from: norman6538 on October 15, 2013, 08:45:00 PM
Stop all the keyboard drivel and get out to the bench and experiment and you will be amazed at what you find.
I just dropped my tilt from 3 inches to 2 inches and the ball went much further. Who would have ever guessed that. Then when adding magnets it went all but the last inch. I'm gettin there......Slow but sure.
Norman
Ah yes, that perennial 'last inch'. Some of us don't need experimentation to predict why you'll be only be able to reduce but never eliminate it for such a device.
As I've said before, these devices work better without magnets.
LibreEnergia said
"As I've said before, these devices work better without magnets."
Is this just a hollow statement or do you have facts and numbers to back
it up?
I assume you have not see my pendulum that drops from 2 and goes till midnight.
How do you explain that? My pendulum is very sick because normal pendulums just so not act that way. I think I'll take it to the vet and get some medicine for it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4FzK2XKQ-74 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4FzK2XKQ-74)
My Teardrop ball works better with magnets - show us yours.
Is this just a hollow statement or do you have facts and numbers to back
it up?
My magnets that perform best are the domino sized ceramics from Radio Shack.
I need to work more on the magnet array to get the full performance required.
Norman
Quote from: norman6538 on October 16, 2013, 07:31:57 AM
My magnets that perform best are the domino sized ceramics from Radio Shack.
I need to work more on the magnet array to get the full performance required.
Norman
Again the use of non-conducting permanent magnets!
(From an earlier post, quoting the concluding sentence of an enlightening paper by Dr. Kirk McDonald of Princeton University: )
Norman
Are these the same radio shack magnets?[seem small not quite Domino??]
http://www.radioshack.com/product/index.jsp?productId=2103429 (http://www.radioshack.com/product/index.jsp?productId=2103429)
can you give a part number?
thx
Chet
PS
Jouleseeker
Quite Sure Dr. Mcdonald would love to play with this "TOY" if it works as advertized!!
Preserved for the record.
The claim is that the claimant HAS (present tense) a WORKING prototype that runs, on its own, for over three hours. Yet what he has offered in support of his claims... is just the same stuff we have seen for years, working with SMOTs of various configurations. You get part of a full cycle and have to add energy in order to even complete the first cycle.
Perhaps the BEST way to record one's priority, after making the patent application, is to produce a demonstration of the claims, on video and in public.
Of course... that requires the claims to be true.
Conversely
Denying the claim requires the Claimant be called a liar ?
Typically this requires investigation [by those of sane mind].
At the very least [in this case] to find The ""effect"" insignificant
so as to base a self run claim?
To have Prejudice without investigation is Both ignorant and arrogant.
I chose to investigate pryer to Prejudice .
I also read the thread "" the part where he has entered into negotiations
with a MFG comp, ??
Its the "" League of extraordinarily benevolent but Poor businessmen association"".
I should know........
Basically You got all your gonna get at this point.
For the record!!
thx
Chet
PS
Norman is this the magnet you are using?
http://www.radioshack.com/product/index.jsp?productId=2103429 (http://www.radioshack.com/product/index.jsp?productId=2103429)
Quote from: ramset on October 16, 2013, 11:52:40 AM
Conversely
Denying the claim requires the Claimant be called a liar ?
Typically this requires investigation [by those of sane mind].
If someone claims something that is literally incredible... like the three hour runtime with no power input... then it is up to them to provide credible evidence. If they cannot-- or will not-- then "if the shoe fits... wear it."
Quote
At the very least [in this case] to find The ""effect"" insignificant
so as to base a self run claim?
To have Prejudice without investigation is Both ignorant and arrogant.
I chose to investigate pryer to Prejudice .
Just what is "unique" and new about what elecar has presented? Nothing, as far as I can see. Literally thousands of people have tried the same things he has presented, and nobody has made one work. Furthermore there are sound, and never refuted, theoretical reasons why it cannot work as claimed. So LET HIM PRESENT CREDIBLE EVIDENCE for his claims! That is where it stands at the moment, and you are doing a profound disservice to all those SMOT researchers who came before, with the same ideas, but could not make them work. The "pryer" investigations have already been done!
When elecar presents his fully working model that performs according to his claims... then let the "investigations" begin. At present all he has done is the usual: he claims one thing, shows another, and insults those who want him to provide evidence.
Well, I can "do the math" on that one, and I come up with "Wayne Travis".
Quote
I also read the thread "" the part where he has entered into negotiations
with a MFG comp, ??
Its the "" League of extraordinarily benevolent but Poor businessmen association"".
I should know........
Hey, I've entered into negotiations with a major Texas livestock ranch, to breed my invisible pink unicorns. I have a pair in my back yard paddock, don't you know. They eat paper and shit fully charged AA batteries. Unfortunately I can't show you a picture (they are invisible after all). Prove that I don't have them! Look, here is a fully charged AA battery. Smell it! That should be proof enough for anyone.
Or are you calling me a liar? You should know...
Quote
Basically You got all your gonna get at this point.
I could have told you that at the beginning of this thread, but I waited to see if elecar was going to follow the script. And of course he is, to the letter.
Quote
For the record!!
thx
Chet
PS
Norman is this the magnet you are using?
http://www.radioshack.com/product/index.jsp?productId=2103429 (http://www.radioshack.com/product/index.jsp?productId=2103429)
Tinsel
Your "script"?? "THE SCRIPT""
He has done everything he said would be done in the very first post of this thread ??
Whilst you may require more from him than his original commitment?
Some are not so Needy.........
Thx
Chet
Some thoughts about patenting a SMOT
(All touchy persons, specially the inventor of the SMOT in discussion, should assume that I am writing about any other SMOT, just not their favorite SMOT.)
In case you have a working SMOT (where the steel ball runs endlessly) the SMOT itself becomes unimportant. The "magnet arrangenment" capeabe of moving the steel ball does not need a track (which leads a steel ball around and finally back to the starting point) and it even does not need a steel ball.
This "magnet arrangement" will be the holy grail of all permanent magnet motors. If you can lift a steel ball over the proverbial "sticky point", you can do it with a rotor.
Of course one has to understand the never before understood principle of this "magnet arrangement". And this will be a never before understood property of magnets.
So, if you ever manage to make a steel ball run endlessly in a SMOT, shut up, and try to understand the "magnet arrangement". And if you ever understand it, build the elusive "permanent magnet motor" and patent this motor.
It makes no sense and it will be impossible to accurately describe a SMOT without describing the principle of the "magnet arrangement". And what would you patent besides the principle of the "magnet arrangement"? Do you want to patent some roundabout for a steel ball?
And then of course you run head on into the difficulty (or impossibility) to patent a newly discovered principle, which I explained several times in this forum.
http://www.overunity.com/10596/hydro-differential-pressure-exchange-over-unity-system/msg324092/#msg324092 (http://www.overunity.com/10596/hydro-differential-pressure-exchange-over-unity-system/msg324092/#msg324092)
http://www.overunity.com/12207/quentron-com/msg324294/#msg324294 (http://www.overunity.com/12207/quentron-com/msg324294/#msg324294)
Greetings, Conrad
@ramset (Chet):
I see that you climbed an other band wagon.
What happened to the big teacher Ernst who said he has the "goods" on Tesla and has filed a patent (http://www.overunity.com/13698/ernst-says-he-has-the-goods-on-tesla-and-has-filed-a-patent/msg367487/#msg367487)?
Greetings, Conrad
Quote from: ramset on October 16, 2013, 12:38:35 PM
Tinsel
Your "script"?? "THE SCRIPT""
He has done everything he said would be done in the very first post of this thread ??
Whilst you may require more from him than his original commitment?
Some are not so Needy.........
Thx
Chet
The guy just likes to pick fights.
Elecar has asked for nothing in this thread and does not claim the test track as shown will self loop.
Quote from: TinselKoala on October 16, 2013, 12:27:41 PM
If someone claims something that is literally incredible... like the three hour runtime with no power input... then it is up to them to provide credible evidence. If they cannot-- or will not-- then "if the shoe fits... wear it."
[snip]
"with no power input" -- on the contrary, I fully expect there to be power input - but from a source not previously known or not previously tapped. As one example, expanding fields associated with the ylem expansion.
Now back to building and testing. I am looking at the domino-scale magnets (ceramic) shown below, the two in the upper-left corner. What do you think, Elecar? Norman? others?
Quote from the CRETIN TK
QuotePreserved for the record.
Preserved for the record ? NO TK you are in your normal M.O mode. It will remain "preserved" on the original page you copied it from. Even a HALF WIT like you knows that you can not (well at least not the un-chosen ones) edit posts here.
You may have special dispensation as the admin here lets you do as you please. Whether that be harassing and stalking elderly ladies or trying to derail other peoples threads.
As already mentioned you have nothing to bring to the table, but please stay as I feel better knowing that no elderly ladies are being abused by you all the while you are here.
Hi Norman, I changed the track a bit, I have run aluminum rod through the center, but have still not found a satisfactory way to space the rails. The friction needs to be much lower than I am able to get from the pipes, but I shall persevere with it until I have to admit defeat.
I managed to get it to loop which is an improvement on the 50mm I was short on the first replication. Not anything to get overly excited about ATM but I hope to improve it further still.
Well anyway, 2 rotations of the track is more than anyone here has ever produced or even seen.
I shall attempt to add the video here on this post so it is "PRESERVED" for the know it all.
Quote from: elecar on October 16, 2013, 06:22:34 PM
Hi Norman, I changed the track a bit, I have run aluminum rod through the center, but have still not found a satisfactory way to space the rails. The friction needs to be much lower than I am able to get from the pipes, but I shall persevere with it until I have to admit defeat.
I managed to get it to loop which is an improvement on the 50mm I was short on the first replication. Not anything to get overly excited about ATM but I hope to improve it further still.
Well anyway, 2 rotations of the track is more than anyone here has ever produced or even seen.
I shall attempt to add the video here on this post so it is "PRESERVED" for the know it all.
Hi Elecar,
I am having trouble seeing 2 rotations from your video. It looks clipped in the front and at the end.
Can you do a retake? Thanks.
Bill
Hi Bill, There are no "clips" I will do a retake, but 2 rotations was my error, I looped it so the initial rotation plus the return to the start and a partial rotation.
The usual scenario is unfolding, the believers say it works because they believe it works and yet cannot produce a continuous self-running model,
if that wasn't bad enough they resort to attacking any sceptic that says it doesn't work, well I'm very sorry but I cannot run my home on belief or faith I need the reality of a device that actually works.
So the believers should stop wasting their time attacking people that challenge their claim and get on with proving that the claim is a reality by producing a working model,
until they do they have no credibility supporting a claim they cannot show working as claimed
Quote from: ramset on October 16, 2013, 09:55:13 AM
Norman
Are these the same radio shack magnets?[seem small not quite Domino??]
http://www.radioshack.com/product/index.jsp?productId=2103429 (http://www.radioshack.com/product/index.jsp?productId=2103429)
can you give a part number?
thx
Chet
PS
Jouleseeker
Quite Sure Dr. Mcdonald would love to play with this "TOY" if it works as advertized!!
No there is no hole and they are the same size ad the black dominos in the game we all know.
and are about 1/4 inch thick...I used them lengthwise...but I need to experiment more with that. I never use neos because they are too strong and cause serious mounting probllems.
Norman
Quote from: powercat on October 16, 2013, 07:01:13 PM
The usual scenario is unfolding, the believers say it works because they believe it works and yet cannot produce a continuous self-running model,
if that wasn't bad enough they resort to attacking any sceptic that says it doesn't work, well I'm very sorry but I cannot run my home on belief or faith I need the reality of a device that actually works.
So the believers should stop wasting their time attacking people that challenge their claim and get on with proving that the claim is a reality by producing a working model,
until they do they have no credibility supporting a claim they cannot show working as claimed
The usual scenario is unfolding, the
builders say it might work because one builder has seen it-- after much work and trial-and-error he has seen a model loop for a number of times. He is working on to produce a continuous self-running
replication. And other builders are jumping in to try to help.
Meanwhile, the skeptics (really, pseudo-skeptics) say it is impossible and they resort to attacking any builder who says it might work. well I'm very sorry but I cannot see how cheap pot-shots on the builders are going to get us to something that will run my home; certainly the belief or faith of the pseudo-skeptics does not help us get to
the reality of a device that actually works.So the pseudo-skeptics should stop wasting their time attacking builders that challenge pseudo-skeptics' claims that it cannot possibly work, and allow the builders to get on with replication.
Meanwhile the pseudo-skeptics have no credibility sitting back and taking cheap pot-shots.
Quote from: elecar on October 16, 2013, 06:22:34 PM
Hi Norman, I changed the track a bit, I have run aluminum rod through the center, but have still not found a satisfactory way to space the rails. The friction needs to be much lower than I am able to get from the pipes, but I shall persevere with it until I have to admit defeat.
I managed to get it to loop which is an improvement on the 50mm I was short on the first replication. Not anything to get overly excited about ATM but I hope to improve it further still.
Well anyway, 2 rotations of the track is more than anyone here has ever produced or even seen.
I shall attempt to add the video here on this post so it is "PRESERVED" for the know it all.
WOW - that is excellent elecar. I have my work cut out for me. To space the two tubes I
drilled two holes in a piece of wood then cut lengthwise so there was half a hole and
it might take two or three cuttings to get the right distance so the ball does not
drop and touch the board. I have holes every inch and that gives me some wiggle room
and then I put a piece of paper under the ball to make sure it never pinched the paper.
thanks elecar.......
Now will the naysayers please shut up and go away......
Now it is important to replicate this... My magnet setup is way to small...
Norman
Quote from: JouleSeeker on October 16, 2013, 07:45:18 PM
The usual scenario is unfolding, the builders say it might work because one builder has seen it-- after much work and trial-and-error he has seen a model loop for a number of times. He is working on to produce a continuous self-running replication. And other builders are jumping in to try to help.
Meanwhile, the skeptics (really, pseudo-skeptics) say it is impossible and they resort to attacking any builder who says it might work. well I'm very sorry but I cannot see how cheap pot-shots on the builders are going to get us to something that will run my home; certainly the belief or faith of the pseudo-skeptics does not help us get to the reality of a device that actually works.
So the pseudo-skeptics should stop wasting their time attacking builders that challenge pseudo-skeptics' claims that it cannot possibly work, and allow the builders to get on with replication.
Meanwhile the pseudo-skeptics have no credibility sitting back and taking cheap pot-shots.
History says enough,
you're eight times over unity thread was a huge disappointment, why don't you just tell the truth in the beginning that you're doing experiments and hoping for promising results instead of making claims that you cannot match and neither can anybody else,
all that happens in the long run is more people think that everyone on this forum is a scam artist or a liar. so many threads over the years with somebody claiming they have done it, but every time they say it nobody can ever successfully replicate their claim, Show me I'm wrong, show me the self looping device that actually works as claimed.
I really do hope this device works, but hearing the familiar excuses why the working model can't be shown and the lack of successful replications sounds like history repeating itself, and attacking skeptics for suggesting it doesn't work is hardly going to help the situation, but feel free to carry on regardless.
Quote from: elecar on October 08, 2013, 04:46:14 PM
...... in the meantime I will be happy to answer any questions.....
I have got one question.
Basic property of any OU device is that its output energy should go up with every completed cycle especially when the loop is closed and should reach some maximum value depending on various constants.
In this case the energy of ball hence velocity of ball should go up with the completion of every cycle and after few cycles it should become uncontrollable and should move up and fall out of straight portion of the track. Are you proposing any brake for it? I didnot see any blocking plate at the end of the track in your diagram.
I think in olden days when people were designing perpetual machines, they were proposing brakes for the machines because if output energy becomes uncontrollable the machine may break and parts may fly all over the place causing injury.
Quote from: powercat on October 16, 2013, 08:34:07 PM
History says enough, you're eight times over unity thread was a huge disappointment, why don't you just tell the truth in the beginning that you're doing experiments and hoping for promising results instead of making claims that you cannot match and neither can anybody else,
all that happens in the long run is more people think that everyone on this forum is a scam artist or a liar. so many threads over the years with somebody claiming they have done it, but every time they say it nobody can ever successfully replicate their claim, Show me I'm wrong, show me the self looping device that actually works as claimed.
Because of my experience with research through the years, the ups and downs, dead-ends and windy paths, I did not find the "eight times" thread a disappointment. Even the title of it ended with a question mark "?" , and that work continues. That research continues, but I'm not talking much about it here.
I attended ICCF-18 in July 2013 at the University of Missouri. (International Conference on Cold Fusion - 18) And presented some of my recent results, and discussed these with colleagues there. The work continues.
And YES - most of my colleagues there face naysayers and complainers. Yet we continue, despite the cheap pot-shots of the naysayers.
My own claims back in 1989 have been experimentally verified, but that required YEARS.
Much more remains to be understood. That is the nature of research.
JouleSeeker, I'm not doubting your capabilities but the 8 x OU thread was disappointing because we didn't even end up with 1 x OU, that is my point, exaggerating and making grand claims that end up with no over-unity give this community a bad name.
Quote from: norman6538 on October 16, 2013, 07:48:50 PM
WOW - that is excellent elecar. I have my work cut out for me. To space the two tubes I
drilled two holes in a piece of wood then cut lengthwise so there was half a hole and
it might take two or three cuttings to get the right distance so the ball does not
drop and touch the board. I have holes every inch and that gives me some wiggle room
and then I put a piece of paper under the ball to make sure it never pinched the paper.
thanks elecar.......
Now will the naysayers please shut up and go away......
Now it is important to replicate this... My magnet setup is way to small...
Norman
No, the naysayers are not going away because all we see is deception presented as fact and people fall for it time and again.
The video presented by 'elecar' is in this category. Sure the device completes a single loop but I'm very suspicious of the editing at the beginning of the clip. The hand placing the ball could easily have imparted some kinetic energy to the ball to allow it to complete a rotation.
How about posting a clip which shows the balls being placed carefully into position and starting with a stationary ball, to eliminate that as a factor.
Powercat
I suppose that the sceptic is the much easier path to take for folks who love to win ....
you get to polk and jab from the arm of the old wooden chair and never have to worry about "your reputation" or looking like a looser
its is so very Brave and safe!
you can pull all manner of examples from your posterior and fling them at will whilst quoting "for the good of the community" !!
sigh ..............
I actually find this behavior Bizzare and a bit Insane [dillusional]
to sit in a forum where no one has ever shared a working OU device {EVER} and take this stand in this thread ??
screwy!!
I have nothing but Grattitude for men like Jouleseeker ,he does much more for this planet then the people who sit on their Butt's and throw stones at the fish in the barrel from their lofty perch's.
And I suppose Being completely anonymous whilst throwing stones at Known persons must really be Fun................
Thx
Chet
Quote from: LibreEnergia on October 17, 2013, 06:46:49 AM
No, the naysayers are not going away because all we see is deception presented as fact and people fall for it time and again.
The video presented by 'elecar' is in this category. Sure the device completes a single loop but I'm very suspicious of the editing at the beginning of the clip. The hand placing the ball could easily have imparted some kinetic energy to the ball to allow it to complete a rotation.
How about posting a clip which shows the balls being placed carefully into position and starting with a stationary ball, to eliminate that as a factor.
There is no indication at all of pushing in this video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=--3rugO_RMg& (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=--3rugO_RMg&feature=youtu.be)feature=youtu.be (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=--3rugO_RMg&feature=youtu.be)
Maybe you're hallucinating
Quote from: Newton II on October 17, 2013, 01:18:44 AM
I have got one question.
Basic property of any OU device is that its output energy should go up with every completed cycle especially when the loop is closed and should reach some maximum value depending on various constants.
In this case the energy of ball hence velocity of ball should go up with the completion of every cycle and after few cycles it should become uncontrollable and should move up and fall out of straight portion of the track. Are you proposing any brake for it? I didnot see any blocking plate at the end of the track in your diagram.
I think in olden days when people were designing perpetual machines, they were proposing brakes for the machines because if output energy becomes uncontrollable the machine may break and parts may fly all over the place causing injury.
I will assume this is a serious question. Firstly I have not and still do not claim overunity . There is no deliberately fitted brake, however if you watch the video of the replication of Normans track you will see the ball being sucked into the magnet array and then rolling out of the array down the ramp. As the ball hits the end of the ramp you see the ball momentarily slow as it exits, because the magnets are still working against the ball. Just not with the same value as gravity.
Do not worry Newton, the fabric of the universe will stay intact, a little steel ball doing some circuits of a track will leave that track if it travels to fast and will come to a stop when it hits the floor.
Quote from: ramset on October 17, 2013, 06:54:51 AM
I suppose that the sceptic is the much easier path to take for folks who love to win ....
you get to polk and jab from the arm of the old wooden chair and never have to worry about "your reputation" or looking like a looser
its is so very Brave and safe!
you can pull all manner of examples from your posterior and fling them at will whilst quoting "for the good of the community" !!
sigh ..............
I actually find this behavior Bizzare and a bit Insane [dillusional]
to sit in a forum where no one has ever shared a working OU device {EVER} and take this stand in this thread ??
screwy!!
I have nothing but Grattitude for men like Jouleseeker ,he does much more for this planet then the people who sit on their Butt's and throw stones at the fish in the barrel from their lofty perch's.
Thx
Chet
You still don't get it, I'm complaining about people making claims they cannot support and that includes exaggerating and lying or misinterpreting measurements,
they are many good threads on here where over-unity, self-running is a goal, not something that had been already achieved , come on show me the thread that says "I've done it" and they have ?
For your information I have done experiments on this forum okay not recently, But attacking me for not getting involved is typical of believers when a claim can't be proved, so instead of attacking, why not do the experiment yourself ?
The whole point of science is being able to prove what you say with facts.
Quote from: elecar on October 17, 2013, 07:31:13 AM
I will assume this is a serious question. Firstly I have not and still do not claim overunity . There is no deliberately fitted brake, however if you watch the video of the replication of Normans track you will see the ball being sucked into the magnet array and then rolling out of the array down the ramp. As the ball hits the end of the ramp you see the ball momentarily slow as it exits, because the magnets are still working against the ball. Just not with the same value as gravity.
Do not worry Newton, the fabric of the universe will stay intact, a little steel ball doing some circuits of a track will leave that track if it travels to fast and will come to a stop when it hits the floor.
Question: if, as you said, the actual device loops continuously for hours, do you at least claim 'unity,' not factoring in friction?
Thanks
Quote from: happyfunball on October 17, 2013, 07:24:24 AM
There is no indication at all of pushing in this video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=--3rugO_RMg& (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=--3rugO_RMg&feature=youtu.be)feature=youtu.be (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=--3rugO_RMg&feature=youtu.be)
Maybe you're hallucinating
Hi happyfunball, the simple fact is no matter how I present any of my findings the skeptics will always have the same collection of reasons as to why it did what it did. I imparted potential energy into the system by placing the ball into with my hand.
I have shown every single step of how the effect works, I am doing my best to try and replicate it here. I have shown a ball roll into a magnet array, be lifted higher than it started and roll back out of that array. I have shown that it can even do it when the ball starts at a lower level than the ramp.
I have shown in the replication of Normans track, the ball get pulled into the ramp in the middle of the array (4mm higher than it was when I placed it in front of the array. It then rolls down the ramp, escapes the magnetic field and makes its way back toward the beginning.
Quote from: elecar on October 17, 2013, 07:48:59 AM
Hi happyfunball, the simple fact is no matter how I present any of my findings the skeptics will always have the same collection of reasons as to why it did what it did. I imparted potential energy into the system by placing the ball into with my hand.
I have shown every single step of how the effect works, I am doing my best to try and replicate it here. I have shown a ball roll into a magnet array, be lifted higher than it started and roll back out of that array. I have shown that it can even do it when the ball starts at a lower level than the ramp.
I have shown in the replication of Normans track, the ball get pulled into the ramp in the middle of the array (4mm higher than it was when I placed it in front of the array. It then rolls down the ramp, escapes the magnetic field and makes its way back toward the beginning.
I'm not asking you to show any more or assuage the professional skeptics. I'm simply asking if you feel the actual device, as you describe, would at least be considered 'unity.'
Hi powercat, I really do not mind the skeptics taking part in the thread, I do take exception to being called a scam, fraud, liar when those skeptics have not even given me enough opportunity to show the effect working.
I have never asked anyone here for anything, I have already said it, but not now and not in the future. There is nothing here for sale.
Yeah I will attack idiots with the same vigor they attack me, I mean TK I kind of understand because I dared call him out when he was leading the attacks on an elderly lady and stalking her, purely for his own gratification.
Watch the pattern Powercat, TK makes a comment and then his minions feel brave enough to step into the affray.
But more importantly watch how they never concede any ground even when they are shown they are wrong. Remember I asked you to dare to state whether the ball performed better with or without the magnets ?
Now show me where the 2 cretins gave any ground ? you can not and will not be able to, because the only reply from one of them on that matter was simply an attempt at moving the goal post and changing "what they meant"
They are not here for anything but their own gratification, heck, they do not even believe OU is possible. Think about that powercat, I hate golf, I think its a waste of time....... So guess what kind of forum I wont be joining !!
Hi happyfunball, I am not a scientist, I barely understand the concept of CoE or 2LOT, I played with magnets trying to get a conventional SMOT to work, I was inspired by Bills videos. During the course of trying it out I noticed strange (to me) behaviour when one side of the magnet array was removed. I toyed with it until I got the ball to rise to the top of the ramp and then roll back out of the ramp whilst still in the magnetic field.
I do not know what it is classed as, I tried to find out by posing a question on another thread which disintegrated in pretty much the same way as this one.
Here is my take as best as I can describe and my own understanding. The magnets can "pull" the ball up a ramp.
The ball is able to reverse and escape the field of that ramp from a height greater than it started. So in this case magnets = up - gravity = down.
All the threads I ever read said pretty much the same thing, " a smot can not be looped because the ball always leaves the ramp at a height equal to or lower than the point it started."
That was not what I was experiencing when using the effect instead of the conventional smot ramp with 2 arrays.
One thing I can tell you is that when making any application you must steer clear of OU or perpetual because it will not even be entertained. And that is why I have never and still do not claim either.
Quote from: elecar on October 17, 2013, 08:29:47 AM
Hi happyfunball, I am not a scientist, I barely understand the concept of CoE or 2LOT, I played with magnets trying to get a conventional SMOT to work, I was inspired by Bills videos. During the course of trying it out I noticed strange (to me) behaviour when one side of the magnet array was removed. I toyed with it until I got the ball to rise to the top of the ramp and then roll back out of the ramp whilst still in the magnetic field.
I do not know what it is classed as, I tried to find out by posing a question on another thread which disintegrated in pretty much the same way as this one.
Here is my take as best as I can describe and my own understanding. The magnets can "pull" the ball up a ramp.
The ball is able to reverse and escape the field of that ramp from a height greater than it started. So in this case magnets = up - gravity = down.
All the threads I ever read said pretty much the same thing, " a smot can not be looped because the ball always leaves the ramp at a height equal to or lower than the point it started."
That was not what I was experiencing when using the effect instead of the conventional smot ramp with 2 arrays.
One thing I can tell you is that when making any application you must steer clear of OU or perpetual because it will not even be entertained. And that is why I have never and still do not claim either.
Ok. But I think you're being quite modest, because if as you say the actual device runs continuously for 3 hours you would most likely have something that is of almost incalculable value. Certainly more than just a toy.
Hi Libre our little Marsupial's sidekick, you said.
QuoteThe video presented by 'elecar' is in this category. Sure the device completes a single loop but I'm very suspicious of the editing at the beginning of the clip. The hand placing the ball could easily have imparted some kinetic energy to the ball to allow it to complete a rotation.
Yes I cut out more than 7 minutes of me moving the magnets to where they worked. I have already said I will repost the video, again just an attempt to derail the thread as all my videos have been fairly presented. I will be loading them on here as opposed to youtube so they are "PRESERVED"
Powercat, its clear that we look at this research very differently, fine. Despite your naysaying comments, I have hope that ONE of these paths will produce a REPLICATABLE self-looping device, and that will benefit mankind.
Elecar's approach, using NON-CONDUCTING PERMANENT MAGNETS, looks promising.
Libre writes:
Quote" I'm very suspicious of the editing..."
Do you think that cheap pot-shots like this serve any worthwhile purpose? will they help us find out whether or not magnetic fields hold a key?
Quote from: elecar on October 17, 2013, 08:03:56 AM
Hi powercat, I really do not mind the skeptics taking part in the thread, I do take exception to being called a scam, fraud, liar when those skeptics have not even given me enough opportunity to show the effect working.
I have never asked anyone here for anything, I have already said it, but not now and not in the future. There is nothing here for sale.
Yeah I will attack idiots with the same vigor they attack me, I mean TK I kind of understand because I dared call him out when he was leading the attacks on an elderly lady and stalking her, purely for his own gratification.
Watch the pattern Powercat, TK makes a comment and then his minions feel brave enough to step into the affray.
But more importantly watch how they never concede any ground even when they are shown they are wrong. Remember I asked you to dare to state whether the ball performed better with or without the magnets ?
Now show me where the 2 cretins gave any ground ? you can not and will not be able to, because the only reply from one of them on that matter was simply an attempt at moving the goal post and changing "what they meant"
They are not here for anything but their own gratification, heck, they do not even believe OU is possible. Think about that powercat, I hate golf, I think its a waste of time....... So guess what kind of forum I wont be joining !!
Watched the pattern, the affray always starts
when somebody makes a claim they can't prove, generally in the other threats there is peace and harmony, it's good to hear that you're expecting other people to be able to match your results and produce a self looping model, I look forward to seeing it soon.
Quote from: happyfunball on October 17, 2013, 07:24:24 AM
There is no indication at all of pushing in this video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=--3rugO_RMg& (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=--3rugO_RMg&feature=youtu.be)feature=youtu.be (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=--3rugO_RMg&feature=youtu.be)
Maybe you're hallucinating
I was referring to this video http://www.overunity.com/13879/building-a-self-looping-smot/dlattach/attach/128652/
and no, I was not hallucinating.
Quote from: norman6538 on October 16, 2013, 07:31:57 AM
LibreEnergia said
"As I've said before, these devices work better without magnets."
Is this just a hollow statement or do you have facts and numbers to back
it up?..
I can't be bothered making a device but here is a simple experiment you could try at home.
1. Create a circular track that is low friction and completely flat.
2. Place a ball on the track and give it a little kinetic energy by pushing it by hand.
3. With luck, the ball should do at least 2 or 3 rotations before coming to rest.
That's at least one more rotation than any SMOT has achieved using the same energy source.
Happy experimenting.
Quote from: LibreEnergia on October 17, 2013, 04:39:48 PM
I was referring to this video http://www.overunity.com/13879/building-a-self-looping-smot/dlattach/attach/128652/ (http://www.overunity.com/13879/building-a-self-looping-smot/dlattach/attach/128652/)
and no, I was not hallucinating.
Ah, so you selectively ignore the first video because it contradicts your diatribe.
Got it.
Quote from: happyfunball on October 17, 2013, 05:45:01 PM
Ah, so you selectively ignore the first video because it contradicts your diatribe.
Got it.
if you'd read the thread you would see I have already posted my observations about the first video.
It does not show anything of interest from an over-unity perspective.
Hi Elecar,
The post #174 shows the ball going in the anti-clockwise direction and enters the magnet array in the middle.
In the original early drawings the arrows indicate the ball enters the ramp clock-wise from the lower end of the magnet array.
Is the replication for Normal using a clockwise run into the middle of the array but your working model uses an anti-clockwise run into the lower end of the array?
I am confused?
If it is meant to run anti-clockwise into the array centre then all my tests so far have been done wrongly.
Meggerman
Quote from: LibreEnergia on October 17, 2013, 06:00:56 PM
if you'd read the thread you would see I have already posted my observations about the first video.
It does not show anything of interest from an over-unity perspective.
Elecar is not claiming it shows OU. What part of that is difficult to understand
Quote from: happyfunball on October 17, 2013, 06:34:55 PM
Elecar is not claiming it shows OU. What part of that is difficult to understand
Then why would it be of interest? He claims a self looping SMOT, but provides a video showing one that doesn't and has no possibility of doing so.
What part of that is difficult to understand.?
Hi Meggerman, Normans track design did not allow for the ball to run up the ramp and rollback. The array still pulls the ball in at the center and allows the ball to exit under gravity.
Quote from the Marsupials sidekick.
QuoteIt does not show anything of interest from an over-unity perspective.
I have never claimed OU, so you make your first legit post. Which begs the question, why are you here considering the lack of interest ?
Quote from: elecar on October 17, 2013, 06:46:35 PM
Quote from the Marsupials sidekick.
I have never claimed OU, so you make your first legit post. Which begs the question, why are you here considering the lack of interest ?
Now you are just indulging in semantics
Make no mistake, if you claim a self looping SMOT then by implication you ARE claiming OU.
If not, where is the energy source coming from? If you believe you have discovered a new source of energy that could make the device work then lets have a discussion about that, rather than a device which from all the evidence so far does not do what is claimed.
Quote from: LibreEnergia on October 17, 2013, 05:07:40 PM
I can't be bothered making a device but here is a simple experiment you could try at home.
1. Create a circular track that is low friction and completely flat.
2. Place a ball on the track and give it a little kinetic energy by pushing it by hand.
3. With luck, the ball should do at least 2 or 3 rotations before coming to rest.
That's at least one more rotation than any SMOT has achieved using the same energy source.
Happy experimenting.
This is a great experiment suggested by one of the know it alls, I encourage you all to try it.
I then urge you to put a ramp in the "
circular track that is low friction and completely flat" and see if you get the same result.
Quote from: LibreEnergia on October 17, 2013, 06:50:36 PM
Now you are just indulging in semantics
Make no mistake, if you claim a self looping SMOT then by implication you ARE claiming OU.
If not, where is the energy source coming from? If you believe you have discovered a new source of energy that could make the device work then lets have a discussion about that, rather than a device which from all the evidence so far does not do what is claimed.
My thoughts were posted when I was asked the question some posts back, at least read before you post. I am not claiming OU, you are !!!
Quote from: elecar on October 17, 2013, 06:56:47 PM
My thoughts were posted when I was asked the question some posts back, at least read before you post. I am not claiming OU, you are !!!
I'll make it clearer
1. You said you have a self looping SMOT.
2. 'Self looping' implies no external energy source is being used.
3. No external energy source implies 'OU'.
Logic dictates you are claiming OU.
Working backwards
1. You're not claiming OU.
2. A device that is not OU will not 'self loop'.
3. Your SMOT is not self looping.
Such logic would not apply to the case where you believe there is a hither-to unknown source of energy driving it. In that case why don't you describe what that energy source might be?
QuoteSuch logic would not apply to the case where you believe there is a hither-to unknown source of energy driving it. In that case why don't you describe what that energy source might be?
TK's invisible pink unicorns, its only obvious.
Quote from: LibreEnergia on October 17, 2013, 06:39:11 PM
Then why would it be of interest? He claims a self looping SMOT, but provides a video showing one that doesn't and has no possibility of doing so.
What part of that is difficult to understand.?
He doesn't claim the test track he posted shows OU.
Why don't you try actually reading this thread.
If you don't see anything of interest stop trolling.
Happy
He's not trolling he's provoking,trying to get what he has been told he can't have ,this is a tactic used by those who always got what they wanted as a child .
Most adults can read and understand what has been said here.
Some choose to act as a child ,hoping it will trigger some knee jerk
reward .........
Elecar ,thanks for all you have shared ,I look forward to playing with this idea!
Chet
Quote from: ramset on October 17, 2013, 08:03:41 PM
Happy
He's not trolling he's provoking,trying to get what he has been told he can't have ,this is a tactic used by those who always got what they wanted as a child .
Most adults can read and understand what has been said here.
Some choose to act as a child ,hoping it will trigger some knee jerk
reward .........
Elecar ,thanks for all you have shared ,I look forward to playing with this idea!
Chet
When someone makes a claim that would overturn centuries of scientific endeavour and understanding they had better be prepared to back it up with credible evidence. None provided so far.
Elecar should either explicitly withdraw the claim or provide some evidence that it works
So far he has done neither. That troubles me.
How many people will waste their time on this when there is no hope of it working as initially described.?
Thats called doubling down [in provoke speak].
You are smart enuff to read and understand what is happening here,you are also smart enuff to change the channel if it troubles you so..........
I must add another one of our friends will be posting a SMOT Vid here soon, an older Vid I am told ?
We shall see?
Thx
Chet
I hate to repeat this but...
If indeed it is self-looping...
That would be overunity...
And, that would be worthy of a Nobel prize, not just a product from a toy company.
This is self-evident no?
Bill
Quote from: TinselKoala on October 15, 2013, 08:13:45 PM
When you "place" your steel ball by hand close to the magnet... are you preventing it from being attracted to the magnet, even faster than it would be without your hand "placing" it there? Are you restraining it in any way?
If so... you are adding energy to the system, doing work on it. Let's say you first feel the attraction of the ball to the magnet at 10 cm away, but you bring the ball in to 5 cm, hold it there, and then release it. Does the ball strike the magnet with more kinetic energy, or less kinetic energy, than it would if you had just let it "fall" in from the 10 cm distance?
The difference represents work you are _supplying_ to the system, since magnetic PE, just like gravitational PE... is negative.
So then you say slowing something down is adding energy?
That's a bit different logic, if that's what your calling it.
So I can add energy to my car by slowing it down?
WTF, I guess we learn something new every day.
I suppose I could take something off the table and move it closer to the floor to get a really big gain in potential energy!
And why has no one paid any attention to the magnet array in message 174?
http://www.overunity.com/13879/building-a-self-looping-smot/msg373740/#msg373740
Norman
Quote from: norman6538 on October 18, 2013, 04:50:58 AM
And why has no one paid any attention to the magnet array in message 174?
http://www.overunity.com/13879/building-a-self-looping-smot/msg373740/#msg373740 (http://www.overunity.com/13879/building-a-self-looping-smot/msg373740/#msg373740)
Norman
Norman,
Attached is the photo of the magnet array from message 174 -- what is it that caught your attention?
It is certainly quite clear how the magnets are ramped, even the number of magnets in each stack can be counted.
So a lot of information is being disclosed/provided by Elecar here, perhaps enough for a replication. I'd need to know what those bars are in front of and behind the magnets, and the orientation (N/S) of the magnets.
Is that what you're getting at?
Quote from: elecar on October 16, 2013, 06:22:34 PM
Extract from reply #174
Well anyway, 2 rotations of the track is more than anyone here has ever produced or even seen.
Does it mean that you don't have a track which runs the ball continuously for three hours without brake? Or you are talking about Norman's track? (just a question - don't mistake me)
Re Image 174
Thats a Huge amount Of Magnets as well as what appears to be some Shunting /tuning bars!! It would seem some of the array is in repulsion and needs to be contained in a Jig??
Thx
Chet
Following up on Norman's questions, below shows the aluminum track and magnet array from Elecar's early video.
Note that the ball here goes up the track, from fewer magnets to more magnets in the magnet array. One can compare the magnet arrays (looking also at my post previous to this one).
In the latest vid by Elecar, the ball goes in the opposite direction (evidently), and IIRC Elecar explained this, right?
To do a replication, a guy would need to know what the bars are made of that go in front of the array and also behind the magnets; in particular, is this magnetic material? If so, will affect the B field patterns dramatically. These "tuning bars" as Chet calls them do seem to be positioned somewhat differently in the two magnet-arrays shown (here and in my previous post). Curious...
The purpose of my question was to get you to focus instead of just keyboarding away and it worked very well in a short time. Thank you for getting focused. Now may the game continue.
My ball goes past its dropped point by about 1/4 inch now which is just like my sick pendulum.
I'm using a magnet array with stacked magnets and metal facing much like elecar's array.
gettin there only slowly.
Norman
Yes - good point, and I thank you, Norman. Can you provide a photo or vid of your magnet array and loop -- as Elecar has done?
Quote from: norman6538 on October 18, 2013, 09:08:41 AM
The purpose of my question was to get you to focus instead of just keyboarding away and it worked very well in a short time. Thank you for getting focused. Now may the game continue.
My ball goes past its dropped point by about 1/4 inch now which is just like my sick pendulum.
I'm using a magnet array with stacked magnets and metal facing much like elecar's array.
gettin there only slowly.
Norman
" metal facing" -- what material do you use here? and can you tell what is the N/S orientation of the magnets in the array? (Questions to Norman and Elecar)
I am using some stove pipe galvanized metal which is thin enough that the magnet stack penetrates it and reaches the ball. I play with both polarities and you should too. You can do it if you get off the keyboard and go to the bench...As you might suspect, I do more benchwork than keyboarding cause I get better results.
The real trick here is you have to balance the magetic forces and gravity forces and that requires the slight slope instead of a vertical pendulum which has too much gravity.
Norman
Quote from: lumen on October 17, 2013, 10:47:49 PM
So then you say slowing something down is adding energy?
That's a bit different logic, if that's what your calling it.
So I can add energy to my car by slowing it down?
WTF, I guess we learn something new every day.
I suppose I could take something off the table and move it closer to the floor to get a really big gain in potential energy!
I think you are deliberately misunderstanding me. GPE and MPE (attractive) are negative, with the "zero" at infinite distance.
The point is that all the work needs to be accounted for. When you position a magnet by hand in an attractive or repelling field, the work that you put in to do this is part of the energy input to the total system: it has to come from somewhere, in order to get the magnet to where you position it. It could represent energy you are storing in the system if you are putting the magnet into a repulsive zone, or it could represent energy that you are taking out of the system by letting it do work on you as you bring the magnet slowly to that position in an attractive zone. Either way, it represents an increase in the total energy that you have to account for. In the repulsive case you are "prestocking" the system with some extra energy, this should be obvious, I hope. In the attractive case you are removing some of the (potential) energy that was in there already... so really your "start" is not when you release the magnet, but rather when you started lowering the magnet into the "well" of attraction. In other words, the system contained more energy at the actual "start" than you think it does when you release the magnet within the attractive zone.
Stretch out a spring. Now use your hand to let the spring spring back slowly. Are you doing work or not? You are providing a force, over a distance, to _prevent_ the spring from snapping back quickly. Just so with the manual positioning of a magnet in an attractive field. If the magnet is attracted and you are preventing it from moving in at its "natural" speed, you are doing work. If you have to push the magnet into position against a repelling field, you are (obviously) doing work. If you have to push a magnet through a "gate" for it to snap rapidly out the other side... you are doing work, slowly, which is returned by the magnets more rapidly on the other side of the gate.
Mock me all you like, but ask Google "why are GPE and MPE (attractive) negative" first, please.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/gpot.html (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/gpot.html)
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/pegrav.html (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/pegrav.html) (read downwards)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potential_energy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potential_energy)
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=163171 (http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=163171)
http://www.sparknotes.com/testprep/books/sat2/physics/chapter11section3.rhtml (http://www.sparknotes.com/testprep/books/sat2/physics/chapter11section3.rhtml)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potential_energy#Magnetic_potential_energy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potential_energy#Magnetic_potential_energy)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_potential (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_potential)
Any time you are using your hands or any kind of outside mechanical force on your SMOT to move something into position for action, you are adding energy _to the system's total energy budget_ no matter in which direction the force acts.
If you have to move a magnet into position, resisting (pulling against) an attractive field or pushing against a repulsive field, then the total energy you have to use for the "input energy" in your system has to take the PE of its position, plus that work that you did, or was done on you, by your moving the magnet into position.
This is why your SMOTs will never sustain self-looping: because you have to provide some energy to move stuff into position to get the thing to start moving, and you only get to provide this energy once. It will soon run out (dissipated in friction) and your system will stop, until you start it again by moving the magnet or ball or lever back to the start position (by doing work) and releasing it into an attractive well or a repulsive zone.
Quote from: norman6538 on October 18, 2013, 10:10:19 AM
I am using some stove pipe galvanized metal which is thin enough that the magnet stack penetrates it and reaches the ball. I play with both polarities and you should too. You can do it if you get off the keyboard and go to the bench...As you might suspect, I do more benchwork than keyboarding cause I get better results.
The real trick here is you have to balance the magetic forces and gravity forces and that requires the slight slope instead of a vertical pendulum which has too much gravity.
Norman
You talk as though you have a self-looping system that runs of itself once started. But I don't think you do have such a system, however "close" you might be. Do you?
If you don't... how come you are such an expert? If you DO... then I will happily follow every bit of advice you give. After I see it demonstrated, of course.
The little red Hen syndrome...........
Not really,the little red hen used her keyboard and found out what to do and how to do it.
She then followed the instructions and hence got a result.
Mother nature is very very good at equations and she doesn't make mistakes. I agree
gravity and permanent magnets will do work as will a spring, the catch is that once the
work has been done that's it!
John.
@TK
You don't usually make a mistake as you have with confusing work with resistance. Energy/work is not required to slow a moving object, energy would need to be stored or converted or dissipated to reduce the energy of the moving object.
You call it negative energy and that is a point of view and is fine, but you cannot add negative energy to a system of positive value and end up with a larger positive value.
So placing a steel ball by hand into a magnetic field only reduces the potential energy.
Why?
Move to the extreme, I place the steel ball by hand tight to the magnet and thus leave how much energy in the system?
Hi all, no mystery with the magnets and bars. All the magnets are the same orientation, N or S does not appear to make any difference.
The bars are actually just some steel brackets and I just play with them for shaping the field. The reason there is one way over to one side is that it was on the board and got attracted to the array when I was taking the picture.
The piece at the front is just aluminum channel and is used to hold the magnets in place, because they are all aligned the same the sides are in repel and the tight fit in the channel stops them flying away from each other.
I do not believe the aluminum channel holding the magnets makes any difference.
Normans track does not have a ramp that continues past the pointed end of the teardrop, and so you can not get the ball to roll backward and into the exit ramp as they are at the same point.
The magnets work the same, they pull the ball in whilst allowing it to roll down the ramp and out of the field.
Those who have sent PMs, I will get round to answering them, but there are so many to deal with right now.
Quote from: lumen on October 18, 2013, 03:31:54 PM
@TK
You don't usually make a mistake as you have with confusing work with resistance. Energy/work is not required to slow a moving object, energy would need to be stored or converted or dissipated to reduce the energy of the moving object.
You call it negative energy and that is a point of view and is fine, but you cannot add negative energy to a system of positive value and end up with a larger positive value.
So placing a steel ball by hand into a magnetic field only reduces the potential energy.
Why?
Move to the extreme, I place the steel ball by hand tight to the magnet and thus leave how much energy in the system?
Nonsense.
Energy is required to slow a moving object. A force is required and it is exerted over a distance. Since the definition of work is force x distance then work is expended
Consider a rocket traveling to the moon (or anywhere in space) . To slow it down would require energy. We need to produce a force in the opposite direction of travel and that force is exerted over a distance. That is work done on the system.
Test video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vSXhQOrE6dc&feature=youtu.be
Normans track video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fHXTFfnon6g&feature=youtu.be
Elecar
it is plain to see in Your "Normans trac vid " the ball rising towards the array unassisted by Mr. Finger and escaping again to roll freely away [the ""effect""].
Thank you for taking the time to share this.
Chet
Quote from: TinselKoala on October 18, 2013, 10:29:15 AM
You talk as though you have a self-looping system that runs of itself once started. But I don't think you do have such a system, however "close" you might be. Do you?
If you don't... how come you are such an expert? If you DO... then I will happily follow every bit of advice you give. After I see it demonstrated, of course.
No No No, I don't have a looper. You jumped to a false conclusion. But I have seen the possibilities in the ball setup which is much like my pendulum that travels 2 hrs further than its dropped point. I'll get there, little by little.
Reread what I said back there and eek out the facts.
Norman
Quote from: ramset on October 18, 2013, 06:52:57 PM
Elecar
it is plain to see in Your "Normans trac vid " the ball rising towards the array unassisted by Mr. Finger and escaping again to roll freely away [the ""effect""].
Thank you for taking the time to share this.
Chet
Really? My eyesight is not is good as it once was but I can certainly see a finger pushing the ball up an incline to the point where magnetic attraction will allow it to rise up and then continue down. As it travels past the magnet the normal 'sticky spot' is overcome by the fact that the ball is travelling down an incline.
It converts enough gravitational potential to kinetic energy to escape the magnetic force. However, It ends up stationary and with less gravitational potential than the starting point. For the system to continue to work that potential has to be replaced by the 'finger' you insist is not supplying energy to the system.
LibraEnergia
Quote
""magnetic attraction will allow it to rise up and then continue down. As it travels past the magnet the normal 'sticky spot' is overcome by the fact that the ball is travelling down an incline.''
------------------------------
Thank you for that observation,you have just described the "Effect" which is at the heart of the self runner.
Attraction and gravity..........
Chet
Quote from: LibreEnergia on October 18, 2013, 08:53:35 PM
Really? My eyesight is not is good as it once was but I can certainly see a finger pushing the ball up an incline to the point where magnetic attraction will allow it to rise up and then continue down. As it travels past the magnet the normal 'sticky spot' is overcome by the fact that the ball is travelling down an incline.
It converts enough gravitational potential to kinetic energy to escape the magnetic force. However, It ends up stationary and with less gravitational potential than the starting point. For the system to continue to work that potential has to be replaced by the 'finger' you insist is not supplying energy to the system.
I agree, we are still waiting on the promised retake.
Bill
Quote from: ramset on October 18, 2013, 09:01:32 PM
LibraEnergia
Quote
""magnetic attraction will allow it to rise up and then continue down. As it travels past the magnet the normal 'sticky spot' is overcome by the fact that the ball is travelling down an incline.''
------------------------------
Thank you for that observation,you have just described the "Effect" which is at the heart of the self runner.
Attraction and gravity..........
Chet
Unfortunately not. All that has happened is the 'sticky spot' has moved to a new geometric location. A supply of energy is still required to move the ball from that point.
Quote from: LibreEnergia on October 18, 2013, 05:57:39 PM
Nonsense.
Energy is required to slow a moving object. A force is required and it is exerted over a distance. Since the definition of work is force x distance then work is expended
Consider a rocket traveling to the moon (or anywhere in space) . To slow it down would require energy. We need to produce a force in the opposite direction of travel and that force is exerted over a distance. That is work done on the system.
That's interesting but you are transferring the reference frame to suit your need.
One could have a rope connected to the rocket and slow it down while turning a generator extracting energy from the moving rocket.
In space, the rocket did not know it was moving until you said it was moving from earth, so energy can be extracted now by the rope otherwise, from the frame of the rocket, firing the jets will cause acceleration and will require energy.
Quote from: elecar on October 18, 2013, 05:18:57 PM
Hi all, no mystery with the magnets and bars. All the magnets are the same orientation, N or S does not appear to make any difference.
The bars are actually just some steel brackets and I just play with them for shaping the field. The reason there is one way over to one side is that it was on the board and got attracted to the array when I was taking the picture.
The piece at the front is just aluminum channel and is used to hold the magnets in place, because they are all aligned the same the sides are in repel and the tight fit in the channel stops them flying away from each other.
I do not believe the aluminum channel holding the magnets makes any difference.
This makes sense -- and is helpful to those of us trying to do some kind of replication. I may be slow these days, but appreciate (both Elecar and Norman) the swift kick in the fanny to get me going.
Norman, you mentioned the odd behavior of your pendulum - swung higher than the starting height? did I get that right? Man, I'd like to try that, too, (if I got it right) -- if you could provide any pointers on how you set your magnets relative to the pendulum ball (steel, or a magnet?) to accomplish this trick. Any info would be helpful and appreciated.
If the "pendulum approach" works, then the "track approach" should work also, and vice versa --- as well as several other innovative approaches using permanent magnets. I've been thinking of one involving spinning rather than a track...
This could get fun quick... it is already, to the builder/workers. Not so much to the sniper/gripers I suppose... but I guess not everyone likes to tinker and test. :)
Jouleseeker said "
Norman, you mentioned the odd behavior of your pendulum - swung higher than the starting height? did I get that right?
Yes you did. Norman
Man, I'd like to try that, too, (if I got it right) -- if you could provide any pointers on how you set your magnets relative to the pendulum ball (steel, or a magnet?) to accomplish this trick. Any info would be helpful and appreciated."
There are several tricks to the pendulum and I will enumerate but I suggest that you work on the ball and track because it has more potential.
1. metal under the flat magnets around the clock so that they can be adjusted and respaced easily because it takes lots of tweaking.. and those magnets need to be a bit away so that they will not get stuck. There is one polarity that works better so flip them to find out which one is best. I forget.
2. a slight tilt of the pendulum so that gravity is not too strong.
3. the axle/axis is coat hanger wire sharply pointed and sitting in a centerpunched dimple so that there is almost no friction.
4. a small wooden block on that axle with a metal strip to hold the magnet and since it is off center I used a white paper pointer to show where its gravity center really is when it hangs straight down or else it is visually deceptive.
5. the metal strip has a curved bend toward the drop direction and where that curve starts is a small button neo mounted 90 degrees from the flat magnets around the clock.
6. and some times I doubled up on the higher magnets and played with the spacing so there is no sticky spot.
then I made a stop at 2 oclock and when testing used a stick or something to release it
so I didn't accidently add finger power and deceive myself.
It is very easy to construct ( not more than an hr) but it will take a lot of patience. I usually work on it for awhile and then walk away and usually when I come back things click better.
You have the advantage of a video showing what it can do. I did not have anything to go on.
Good luck, it will defy current scientific principles because we have all been taught that pendulums cannot go past the level of the dropped point but this one does. So scratch your head and ask where does the force/work come from to make it go higher than its dropped point? That discussion will probably take 20 years.
If you make it and it does not perform then I will make a closeup of the pendulum details so you can better see it but without a photo you might get it to work better than I did if you tinker enough.
Norman
Which post, Norman, gives details of your setup. Your work looks interesting and I would like to have a go.
Paul-R
Quote from: Paul-R on October 19, 2013, 09:50:33 AM
Which post, Norman, gives details of your setup. Your work looks interesting and I would like to have a go.
Paul-R
the video is here but I recommend elecar's because it has more potential.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4FzK2XKQ-74
Norman
Quote from: norman6538 on October 19, 2013, 07:39:26 AM
...Good luck, it will defy current scientific principles because we have all been taught that pendulums cannot go past the level of the dropped point but this one does. So scratch your head and ask where does the force/work come from to make it go higher than its dropped point? That discussion will probably take 20 years....
I don't believe any scientific principles are being violated by this setup. We haven't be taught that "pendulums cannot go past the level of the dropped point". What we are taught and is self evident is that a pendulum will not spontaneously move to a point of higher POTENTIAL than the point it was dropped. Now, the normal geometry of this situation where gravity alone is acting dictates that height and potential are directly related. In this case your observation that it 'cannot go higher than the dropped point' is correct.
However, When you introduce magnets into the situation this symmetry is no longer necessarily true. One thing that I can assure you is that the pendulum will never gain potential more that the combined magnetic and gravitational potential it has at the starting point.
All that happens in you video is that you move the pendulum BY HAND to a particular potential energy state and release it. It then swings to another location with EXACTLY THE SAME energy state (minus any losses caused by air resistance or bearing losses.)
Due to the magnetic field not necessarily being uniform that equipotential point will not necessarily be at the same height as it was released.
No energy gain has occurred and nothing of interest from an OU perspective has occurred.
LigreEnergia - go to the bench and do something and rest your keyboard.Then come back and tell us what you learned. That is what I did.
Norman
Quote from: norman6538 on October 20, 2013, 09:12:48 PM
LigreEnergia - go to the bench and do something and rest your keyboard.Then come back and tell us what you learned. That is what I did.
Norman
You may very well have done that, but without a suitable theoretical framework to hang your observations on you came to an erroneous conclusion.
I think that it's a challenge to understand and talk in terms of magnetic potential energy for some people. Gravitational potential energy is more intuitive.
Imagine a very simple setup, a straight track with two aluminum rails. A few inches away from the track there is a magnet.
M
A===========B
So you release the ball at point A, it's attracted to the magnet and speeds up and then stops at point B.
This is the type of effect that you are playing with when you put magnets around your closed-loop tracks and place the metal ball at a certain starting point.
It may seem that you got energy from the magnet and the ball moved from point A to point B for "free."
However, the truth of the matter is that in a way nothing happened. The ball moved down the track but no energy was gained and likewise no energy was lost. When you release the ball and it starts moving, the energy in the system does not change at all. We are ignoring friction.
Can any of you track builders explain that? You need to be able to explain that and fully understand it to work more effectively with your setups. You should become comfortable in discussing magnetic potential energy and use that terminology in your discussions.
@elecar,
Seeing your track and DTB's drawing this track (attached pdf file) flashed to me. Kindly have a look and let me have your thoughts.
Hi Vineet,
That is basically the same design used in a conventional SMOT. To my knowledge no one has ever looped one, not even one time.
I did see a design that I thought had potential that worked in a similar way, I will see if I can find the videos and post the links.
Quote from: maw2432 on October 18, 2013, 09:03:37 PM
I agree, we are still waiting on the promised retake.
Bill
Hi Bill, apologies, I did not forget, I tried to load the 7 1/2 minute video here and it took some 15 minutes or so, at the end of which I got a message saying that the upload had failed because of the file size exceeded 6000KB. I then answered 6 or 7 of the masses of PMs I had then went to bed as it was after midnight. I will get you that video up today, it is worth watching.
Some progress today. Increased the magnet stack and tweaked and tweaked and tweaked and got the ball to go 1/2 inch past its dropped point and then drop back down and away from the sticky spot. The ball weighs 64 grams so this is quite a bit of extra work over and beyond my small pendulum weight of about 10 grams.
Without the magnet stack the ball would normally go about 2 inches less.
Its quite easy to do so go try it.
I worked on the escape but have nothing impressive to report.
good luck with yours.
Norman
Quote from: lumen on October 18, 2013, 10:47:43 PM
That's interesting but you are transferring the reference frame to suit your need.
One could have a rope connected to the rocket and slow it down while turning a generator extracting energy from the moving rocket.
In space, the rocket did not know it was moving until you said it was moving from earth, so energy can be extracted now by the rope otherwise, from the frame of the rocket, firing the jets will cause acceleration and will require energy.
No 'reference frame is being transferred' at all.
The rocket requires energy to change its velocity in any way, whether that is to speed up or slow down or change direction.
That it can use other objects in space to achieve that is immaterial.
The end result is work must be done to achieve a velocity change.
Quote from: LibreEnergia on October 21, 2013, 10:25:44 PM
No 'reference frame is being transferred' at all.
The rocket requires energy to change its velocity in any way, whether that is to speed up or slow down or change direction.
That is can use other objects in space to achieve that is immaterial.
The end result is work must be done to achieve a velocity change.
That's great news! So when that asteroid moving in space at a few kilometers a second, slams into earth, we don't need to worry about all that energy output slowing it down because it only takes energy to slow it down.
Cool,
Hi All,
Still tinkering, first off this is not a replication of Elecar's model, this is experimenting with the arc away effect and reducing track length.
At certain points with the magnet I can get it to climb the first slope, arc to bottom of second track then stops. The issue that I didn't account for is interference from opposite side magnets. The middle needs to widened by at least 4.5mm to reduce this effect.
The magnets are aligned so that the strongest field is right at the tipping point before the arc, then weakens. The ball just needs to get over the ramp in the middle and arc into the start of next track. Then repeat for the opposite side, friction may kill it but it's a fun challenge to at least try.
Hopefully have more time this weekend to do some more tests and adjust the measurement.
@DreamThink,
That is really cool looking. I hope you get it to work.
Bill
@DreamThinkBuild:
That's a nice build! Good luck with it ~ I hope you get it to work. If elecar's design is actually "loop-able" then logically your application of the same principal "SHOULD" be able to work too. . . .
truesearch
@ DreamThinkBuild
Interesting concept, looks like 3d printed track?
I was thinking along the same lines but thought of using a small wheel with three balls on it instead of a track, but first thought it would be good to have a theory of operation. That's when I thought that additional magnets may cause interference with the theory of operation and decided to give it more thought.
Nice, very related idea!
Hope you come up with something, good luck.
Discussion also on another forum, Tinman notes
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MEOit3ff4Hg
So we see clearly that the ball goes UP the ramp due to magnets then falls out the hole at the top.
Very interesting. It appears his assistant is just placing the balls on the ramp, not giving them initial velocity.
His next vid continues the demo,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mUFhv-QsDvA
This was March 2012. Then he said he had military duty (see comments).
Up one ramp, drops out successfully, then onto and UP a second ramp. He says wants to do four ramps in a square -- thus, a loop.
In comments, he says he is out of money (6 months ago)... If anyone can contact him, I could provide some funding (no strings attached, to allow him to buy needed materials!)
There is no reason to fund Michael Q Shaw's YouTube project because it doesn't work. Let's look at the reasoning.
The first thing you notice is that with two ramps. you end up way below the starting point. If four ramps are supposed to self-loop, then they have to come back at least to the starting level over four ramps. Since all four ramps are symmetrical, then each ramp is equal and each ramp has to do it's fair share of the "work" to create a self runner. So after two ramps like we see in the clips, he still has to end up at the same level. That means that you don't even have to build all four ramps to make a proof of concept. Two ramps will suffice. You have to have the 90 degree turn when you switch ramps.
Where he makes the mistake is that the ball drop from the first ramp to the second ramp is way too long. You may ask why, because it looks like he has the space to move the second ramp up much higher. That should fix the problem of the dropping level. What he may not realize (or he may realize but he isn't telling) is that the dropping ball is the "sticky spot escape clause." If you raise the second ramp up to solve the dropping level problem. then he mass of magnets at the end of the first ramp is going to cause a sticky spot for the launching point on the second ramp. The ball won't race up the track anymore because the overhead magnets are too close and therefore much stronger.
So, the right angle turns will never work. Each right angle turn will be a sticky spot and kill the process. And again, you don't even need four ramps. You can completely test it with two ramps. Sometimes you need to think outside of the box.
MileHigh
And here I was thnking that the fact he could raise the ball from its starting point and then escape the field would just require a bit more engineering to sort out the rest?
He is showing "do work and Escape" [with something in the gravity bank].
I completely Disagree with Your "nothing to see here " Take on this MH.
But thanks anyway!
Chet
Quote from: MileHigh on October 25, 2013, 02:52:09 AM
There is no reason to fund Michael Q Shaw's YouTube project because it doesn't work. Let's look at the reasoning.
The first thing you notice is that with two ramps. you end up way below the starting point. If four ramps are supposed to self-loop, then they have to come back at least to the starting level over four ramps. Since all four ramps are symmetrical, then each ramp is equal and each ramp has to do it's fair share of the "work" to create a self runner. So after two ramps like we see in the clips, he still has to end up at the same level. That means that you don't even have to build all four ramps to make a proof of concept. Two ramps will suffice. You have to have the 90 degree turn when you switch ramps.
Where he makes the mistake is that the ball drop from the first ramp to the second ramp is way too long. You may ask why, because it looks like he has the space to move the second ramp up much higher. That should fix the problem of the dropping level. What he may not realize (or he may realize but he isn't telling) is that the dropping ball is the "sticky spot escape clause." If you raise the second ramp up to solve the dropping level problem. then he mass of magnets at the end of the first ramp is going to cause a sticky spot for the launching point on the second ramp. The ball won't race up the track anymore because the overhead magnets are too close and therefore much stronger.
So, the right angle turns will never work. Each right angle turn will be a sticky spot and kill the process. And again, you don't even need four ramps. You can completely test it with two ramps. Sometimes you need to think outside of the box.
MileHigh
Forget about the second ramp MH.
The ball is raised in hight,and then droped again at the end. So what was it that supplied the energy required to raise the ball?. We have all seen smots that can get a steel ball to roll up hill,but the sticky spot always stops it from droping back down again. But here we have a situation where the ball can drop out at the top of the ramp.
Lets look at this scaled up-say 100 time's. We now have a device that can lift 1kg steel balls up 1 meter,and drop them on a storage shelf. So a guy at the bottom of the ramp has to lift the ball onto the track-say 100mm high. The ball then is raised up another 900mm so as another guy can roll them into position on the storage shelf.
But for arguments sake,lets say there is a 100mm drop out of the ramp,so as the ball can exscape the magnetic field at the end of the ramp(like in the video). This still leaves a lift of 800mm.
So MH,what or where did the energy come from to lift the 1kg steel balls that extra 800mm?
The ball is oviously able to escape the magnetic field at the end of the ramp,or it wouldnt have fallen in the first place.
Quote from: ramset on October 25, 2013, 08:46:05 AM
And here I was thnking that the fact he could raise the ball from its starting point and then escape the field would just require a bit more engineering to sort out the rest?
He is showing "do work and Escape" [with something in the gravity bank].
I completely Disagree with Your "nothing to see here " Take on this MH.
But thanks anyway!
Chet
Absolutly correct Chet.
It takes energy to raise or lift a mass.The problem with almost all smot devices is the sticky spot at the end.It take just as much(if not more) energy to remove the ball from the sticky spot,as it would to raise it to that hight. But here we have a device that allows the ball to drop back down to it's starting hight. The release itself is proof that work was done throughout the whole process-unless some one else can show me a device that can raise and lower a mass without any energy being used?.
And they say magnets cant do useful work lol.
Work = mass x distance (raised) so if an object is lifted past its original
height and is not stuck to magnets when it escapes then you should be able to cascade this
into a looping device.
That is what we all want to see pure and simple.
Elecar has not shown us that yet.
Norman
I am surprised at you. Mile High is absolutely correct. If the thing could work, the single ramp is all you need. A very shallow slope from the end where the ball drops down, back to the starting point, is all you would need to show a complete self-looper. But of course it can't happen, because energy IS ADDED to the system whenever the hand is used to position the ball at the start. Without this added energy, nothing happens after the first _partial_ cycle, which never completes.
This (what MH says and what I say) has been proven empirically over and over by hundreds of people. You can go back through the various SMOT threads here and on other sites and see many designs that are functionally identical to what's in this thread. None of them work, and there are sound, never refuted, theoretical reasons and mathematical analyses as to why they don't.
You are wasting your time. You all have resources, creative energies, effort. It's all wasted, because this idea _cannot_ work.
What generally happens is that people will add a little solenoid or moving magnet, powered by a little power supply, to add just enough impulse to overcome the final sticky spot. Then they can show something that loops at least, and the sources of loss can be identified and corrected. But you can never get over the final need to supply a bit of energy to overcome the inevitable losses around the "cycle"... and there is no mechanism, other than the external provision of conventional work, that brings energy into the system.
You will find claimants who have designs that they are sure will "work".... who even make outlandish claims, like the usual "I went to work and when I came back after three hours it was still looping"... .but you will never actually see such a design working. The "smart money" will give up and go work on something that has some chance. The others will insult and weasel, flail and scramble... but they never are able to _prove me wrong_ by showing a self-looping design that works.
Quote from: TinselKoala on October 25, 2013, 09:35:53 AM
I am surprised at you. Mile High is absolutely correct. If the thing could work, the single ramp is all you need. A very shallow slope from the end where the ball drops down, back to the starting point, is all you would need to show a complete self-looper. But of course it can't happen, because energy IS ADDED to the system whenever the hand is used to position the ball at the start. Without this added energy, nothing happens after the first _partial_ cycle, which never completes.
This (what MH says and what I say) has been proven empirically over and over by hundreds of people. You can go back through the various SMOT threads here and on other sites and see many designs that are functionally identical to what's in this thread. None of them work, and there are sound, never refuted, theoretical reasons and mathematical analyses as to why they don't.
You are wasting your time. You all have resources, creative energies, effort. It's all wasted, because this idea _cannot_ work.
What generally happens is that people will add a little solenoid or moving magnet, powered by a little power supply, to add just enough impulse to overcome the final sticky spot. Then they can show something that loops at least, and the sources of loss can be identified and corrected. But you can never get over the final need to supply a bit of energy to overcome the inevitable losses around the "cycle"... and there is no mechanism, other than the external provision of conventional work, that brings energy into the system.
You will find claimants who have designs that they are sure will "work".... who even make outlandish claims, like the usual "I went to work and when I came back after three hours it was still looping"... .but you will never actually see such a design working. The "smart money" will give up and go work on something that has some chance. The others will insult and weasel, flail and scramble... but they never are able to _prove me wrong_ by showing a self-looping design that works.
Supprised at me?
Some one not showing a looped device dosnt mean it cant be done.
In this case,the ball is droped from one hight into the track.It then travels UP hill,and drops out of the ramp.
So i ask again,what lifted the ball to a higher level,and then allowed it to drop out?.
Can you show me a device that can do the same without useing any energy to do so?
There is a strange situation that take place when you have both sides of the smot magnets faceing like poles in,in that the ball is actualy repell from the magnets-not attracted to them. This may be what he is doing in the video?.Most will set up a smot ramp ,so as 1 side is north facing the track,and 1 side is south facing the track. This leads to the sticky point at the end.But if you have like poles facing the track,the ball is repelled-so no sticky spot at the end. the ramp could be switched in polarity half way up,so as you get an attraction at the start of the ramp,and a repulsion at the end of the ramp.Looking at the video,it dose seem like the track narrows,and then widens again at the end.
A smot dosnt have to loop to show work being done.We would only have to show the ball come to rest outside the smot,at a higher level than it started at.
Here is another video of the smot.this one shows a little more detail.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mUFhv-QsDvA
Quote from: TinselKoala on October 25, 2013, 09:35:53 AM
I am surprised at you. Mile High is absolutely correct. If the thing could work, the single ramp is all you need. A very shallow slope from the end where the ball drops down, back to the starting point, is all you would need to show a complete self-looper. But of course it can't happen, because energy IS ADDED to the system whenever the hand is used to position the ball at the start. Without this added energy, nothing happens after the first _partial_ cycle, which never completes.
I can agree for the most part that the system cannot work, but you still have it wrong saying that energy is added by placing a steel ball into a magnetic field. The most energy is at the outermost fringe of attraction, placing it anywhere closer is only a reduction of possible gain.
This is only true of a steel ball, using another magnet is another story.
I've never seen a steel ball escape a magnetic field just because I placed it very close to the magnet by hand giving it that huge gain in energy.
The system loss is actually at the end when extracting the ball from the ramp. This is where the attraction is still pulling on the ball and slowing it's decent. That's why the first ramp starts higher up and the final decent is lower than the starting point. By making the exit lower than the start, some additional energy can be gained from gravity and the ball can be moved into another ramp.
Without moving to a lower point on exit, even a second ramp would not work.
Tinman:
QuoteA smot dosnt have to loop to show work being done.We would only have to show the ball come to rest outside the smot [i.e., outside any magnetic-field trap],at a higher level than it started at.
Right (as I've noted before). And to me such an observation -- I'm still waiting for a solid observation of this -- would strongly evidence that a
previously-untapped source of ENERGY is entering the picture. No laws of physics would then be violated, just some people's opinions that "there are no more sources of energy to be found."
Tinman:
Let's try to look at the problem in another way.
You take the ramp and remove all of the magnets. You know the ball will not roll up the ramp. Imagine it's in front of you on a table.
I have to ask, do you know about the Universal Law of Gravitation? Supposing that we have a very large mass, millions of tons in the size of a cricket ball. The ball would create it's own localized gravitational field, and you can even pretend that you could feel it. It feels like what holding a magnet in a magnetic field feels like, but there is no magnet in your hand. The ball is literally attracted to your hand itself. You feel a moderate tug when you put your hand on the super heavy cricket ball that weighs millions of tons.
So go back to your ramp. Suppose we put the super heavy cricket ball at the end of the ramp. So now, it makes sense that the ball rolls up the ramp because there are two gravitational attractions pulling on it. There is a downward pull from the Earth, and a sideways pull from the super heavy cricket ball. So, the ball rolls up the ramp because the cricket ball has enough pull to do that.
Can you imagine doing the same test now? Dropping the ball on the left, and having it roll up the ramp towards the cricket ball and then repeat.
Can you agree with what I said so far?
MileHigh
JouleSeeker,
I have to agree with MileHigh, the video shows the drop point exit level well below the start point and it is this difference in height that allows the ball to escape the magnetic field.
Hopefully what Elecar has shown is that you can roll part way back into the centre of the field where the strength is less intense and escape using some momentum and more downhill track.
I have some more materials now and hope to build a full track using thin aluminium flat bar (2mm x 11.5mm x 1m) 2 of.
One thing I have noticed in my experiments is that the ball is magnetised through its axle point as it rolls up the track and causes it to keep a fixed orbital rotation - if that makes sense, almost as if the ball was barrel shaped.
When it rolls back down the track and curves out to the exit track then this should cause it to try to rotate clockwise slightly if looking from above. This in turn may assist with the field escape.
Meggerman
Quote from: JouleSeeker on October 25, 2013, 11:58:16 AM
Tinman:
Right (as I've noted before). And to me such an observation -- I'm still waiting for a solid observation of this -- would strongly evidence that a previously-untapped source of ENERGY is entering the picture. No laws of physics would then be violated, just some people's opinions that "there are no more sources of energy to be found."
Meggerman:
Quotethe video shows the drop point exit level well below the start point
Agreed, and that's why I clearly stated in my previous post,
Quote" I'm still waiting for a solid observation of this
referring to:
Quote.We would only have to show the ball come to rest outside the smot [i.e., outside any magnetic-field trap],at a higher level than it started at.
I haven't seen that "higher level" after exit YET.
Are you saying that a "higher level" after exit is impossible?
If one takes a single large magnet (2 x 2 ) and places it under a sheet of plexiglass, then when a steel ball is released just inside it's pull, the ball will travel to the magnet with increasing speed, then across the magnet to the other side then back again the the front edge crossing the much weaker field at the center of the magnet twice.
This effect is what I originally believed might enable a working SMOT.
Is there enough energy gained, that when the ball reaches the weaker center of the magnet, for the ball to escape attraction.
Possible? I don't believe so, but it's at least a theory of operation.
@MH
Yes i know all about mass and gravity relationship's,although gravity and magnetic fields have yet to be fully understood.Anything that has mass,has gravity-which is alomost all matter.The problem with your explination is that there is no other mass at the end of the track attracting the ball,only a magnetic field that is present along the whole track. Looking at the track and magnet placement,i would think the mass attraction is preaty uniform along the length of the track.It is obvious that the pull force of gravity on the ball is greater than the attraction force of the magnets on the ball at the end of the track,or the ball wouldnt drop in the first place.
If you think about this,then there is questions to be answered. How is it that the magnetic attraction force can overcome the gravitational pull force on the ball,while the ball is traveling up the ramp-and then at the end of the ramp,the gravitational pull force is greater than the magnetic attraction force ,allowing the ball to drop?.
You cant have it both way's,but here it seems we can.
Either the ball should roll up the ramp,by way of the magnetic attraction force being stronger than the gravitational pull force-and get stuck at the end of the ramp,or the gravitational pull force being the stronger of the two ,and the ball shouldnt roll up the ramp at all.
So how is it that these two forces can be switched at the end of the ramp, without any energy input?.
The only possable explination is that the ball has to be pushed(or forced)into the start of the ramp. But i dont think this is the case,as most ramps will draw the ball into the starting point-unless it is set up the way i explained a few post back-where the magnets have like fields facing the track-ball,causeing the steel ball to be repelled.
Quote JouleSeeker : I haven't seen that "higher level" after exit YET.
Are you saying that a "higher level" after exit is impossible?
No,im saying it is possable.
PM's can add work done to a lot of systems.Take the PM electric motor for example.If we take out the PM's,and replace them with steel or iron blocks of the same size and shape-would the motors output (HP or Kw) be the same as it was with the PM's in there,for the same P/input?. Well we know the answer is no,so it must have been the PM's that added the extra energy output ,for the same P/input to that electric motor.
What i do know,is that strange things can happen within magnetic fields that are interupted by magneticly active materials.
While gravity and magnetism remain a bit of a mistery,i will never say !!IT CANT WORK!!
And my challenge still remains-show me any other device that can raise a mass,and then let it drop back down,without any energy input.
Like MH said-we take away the magnets,and nothing will happen. This can only mean the magnets are the source of the energy that is raising the steel ball,and then gravity+mass excelleration(the stored energy in the moving ball), is the source of energy that pulls the ball out of the magnetic field.
There are other video's that show the steel ball being pulled into the SMOT,and then released at the other end.
I guess the best proof would be to see the ball come to rest at a slightly higher level than it started from-outside the megnetic field of the ramp.
No one here can say with 100% certainty,that it cant be done based only on the fact that it hasnt been done yet.History has proven time and time again,that what was thought to be impossible in the past,is now a reality.
The laws of physics are only theories,and based around what we know today. But they will constantly change,as man becomes more educated.
Tinman:
Good that you understood my example.
So let's look at what happens when the ball rolls up the ramp because it's attracted to the cricket ball. Relative to the Earth it gets raised up and increases in energy from the added height. But what about the case for the cricket ball? The cricket ball is like a small planet. In this case the ball moving up the ramp is getting closer to the cricket ball. So that means that the ball is falling towards the cricket ball. "Up" is when the ball moves to the left away from the cricket ball and "down" is when the ball moves to the right towards the cricket ball. Hence, the ball is falling towards the cricket ball, and falling means you are going down in energy.
So there are two energy effects taking place at the same time. The effect from the cricket ball is much greater than the effect from the Earth because it is much closer.
So can you picture that? When the ball rolls up the ramp it is also falling towards the cricket ball and going down in energy.
When you go back to the actual setup with the magnets, the exact same thing is happening. When the ball rolls up the ramp it is actually doing down in energy because the mass of magnets at the end of the ramp acts like the cricket ball.
So again, when you watch the balls roll up the ramp, they are "still rolling downhill." The "hill" in this case has two components, the slanted track, and the invisible magnetic hill that you can't see but you know it's there. The ramp is a hill that is going up, but the invisible magnetic hill that you can't see is going down, and it's steeper than the physical hill of the ramp.
So, when you see the balls rolling up the ramp, in terms of energy, it's like they are rolling downhill. <<< And that's why the balls can actually roll up the ramp. Balls can only roll "downhill" so they must be rolling "downhill" in real life also. >>>
This is only a little bit abstract, just remember the energy for a rolling ball in this situation is always some combination of (gravitational + kinetic + magnetic). You can't see the magnetic fields but you can feel them. When the ball rolls towards the end of the track in your mind you actually know that it's "rolling downhill" even though your eyes see it rolling up a physical hill.
This is an important concept that sets up the explanation for why the thing will never work. So if you get this concept the final step is easy.
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on October 26, 2013, 04:02:08 AM
Tinman:
Good that you understood my example.
So let's look at what happens when the ball rolls up the ramp because it's attracted to the cricket ball. Relative to the Earth it gets raised up and increases in energy from the added height. But what about the case for the cricket ball? The cricket ball is like a small planet. In this case the ball moving up the ramp is getting closer to the cricket ball. So that means that the ball is falling towards the cricket ball. "Up" is when the ball moves to the left away from the cricket ball and "down" is when the ball moves to the right towards the cricket ball. Hence, the ball is falling towards the cricket ball, and falling means you are going down in energy.
So there are two energy effects taking place at the same time. The effect from the cricket ball is much greater than the effect from the Earth because it is much closer.
So can you picture that? When the ball rolls up the ramp it is also falling towards the cricket ball and going down in energy.
When you go back to the actual setup with the magnets, the exact same thing is happening. When the ball rolls up the ramp it is actually doing down in energy because the mass of magnets at the end of the ramp acts like the cricket ball.
So again, when you watch the balls roll up the ramp, they are "still rolling downhill." The "hill" in this case has two components, the slanted track, and the invisible magnetic hill that you can't see but you know it's there. The ramp is a hill that is going up, but the invisible magnetic hill that you can't see is going down, and it's steeper than the physical hill of the ramp.
So, when you see the balls rolling up the ramp, in terms of energy, it's like they are rolling downhill. <<< And that's why the balls can actually roll up the ramp. Balls can only roll "downhill" so they must be rolling "downhill" in real life also. >>>
This is only a little bit abstract, just remember the energy for a rolling ball in this situation is always some combination of (gravitational + kinetic + magnetic). You can't see the magnetic fields but you can feel them. When the ball rolls towards the end of the track in your mind you actually know that it's "rolling downhill" even though your eyes see it rolling up a physical hill.
This is an important concept that sets up the explanation for why the thing will never work. So if you get this concept the final step is easy.
MileHigh
MH
I believe there is a flaw in the way you are trying to describe what is happening.The flaw is the relationship between a gravitational force and a magnetic field. Gravity acts apon all mass,where as a magnetic field dose not.
If we use you theory useing a mass and gravity,then a ball made of anything will roll up the ramp. But with magnetic fields,only balls made from magneticly active materials,weather they be Diamagnetic, Paramagnetic, or Ferromagnetic,would roll up the hill-depending on magnet orientation.
We cant compair apples to oranges here.
Looking at the picture below,we can run through what happens.The ball starts a point A,and rolls up hill to point B.While doing this,the force being applied to the ball by the magnets ,is strone enough to overcome the force being applied to the ball by gravity-taking into account the incline angle of the ramp.But once the ball gets to point B,the force of gravity is then strong enough to pull the ball away from the magnetic force being applied to it.
Even if the ball ended up at the same hight at the end,we still overcome frictional and air resistance-work being done.
Folks,
Naudin did some tests on SMOTs in 1997 or so, here are his results, unfortunately the old videos are not available from his site:
http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/smotidx.htm (http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/smotidx.htm)
He used a double sided magnet wall and at top of the exit point the ball dropped into a inclined pipe which is curved at its input to receive the falling ball to utilize some of the energy from the falling. http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/smotnrgt.htm (http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/smotnrgt.htm)
Gyula
I am getting a crazy idea after reading all the discussions and seeing videos:
Why we cannot use a sponge track? If you keep a heavy iron ball say a shot put ball on a sponge track, due to its heavy weight it compresses the sponge below its contact surface creating a gradient for itself to move forward. Once the ball moves forward the sponge behind it gets deformed due to release of weight. So the gradient also moves with the ball making the ball's journey perpetual.
This is same as tying a bunch of grass to the neck of a donkey few inches away from its mouth. Donkey moves forward to catch the grass through its mouth. But grass also moves since it is tied to its neck. So the donkey executes perpetual motion to catch the grass in vain.
Funny or interesting?
Quote from: Newton II on October 26, 2013, 06:25:06 AM
I am getting a crazy idea after reading all the discussions and seeing videos:
Why we cannot use a sponge track? If you keep a heavy iron ball say a shot put ball on a sponge track, due to its heavy weight it compresses the sponge below its contact surface creating a gradient for itself to move forward. Once the ball moves forward the sponge behind it gets deformed due to release of weight. So the gradient also moves with the ball making the ball's journey perpetual.
This is same as tying a bunch of grass to the neck of a donkey few inches away from its mouth. Donkey moves forward to catch the grass through its mouth. But grass also moves since it is tied to its neck. So the donkey executes perpetual motion to catch the grass in vain.
Funny or interesting?
Hi,
I think your idea is rather a drawback than advantage. It is okay that the ball would compress the sponge below its contact surface and it is also okay that the sponge gets deformed behind the ball.
However, the sponge gets deformed in front of the ball just like behind it and the front surface of the "moving pit" would consume all the energy coming from the deformed sponge behind the ball.
So all in all, ideally the sponge would give no gain no loss but still as there is no ideal sponge, this means slightly more loss than gain.
Funny or interesting? I think it's funny... ;)
Gyula
two points.
1. A ball going past a magnet will attract back unless it has enough velocity to exceed that back attraction. But the escape from the back attraction can be done with some gravity force. But no one has demonstrated net ball rise.
2. The Finsrud round track uses gravity to kick the attracting magnet down and out of the way thus exceeding the attract back. The weight of that magnet needs to be balanced so that minimal kinetic energy is lost when kicking the magnet down and out of the way.
If this elecar track does not work out I would like to try the Finsrud magnet kick away trick.
Norman
@gyulasun
You are right - Iron ball creates a 'moving pit' on sponge track. What happens if you fix a road roller like drum to the ball infront of the ball to flatten the track? (just a question - please don't be serious)
Norman
Quote
"" But no one has demonstrated net ball rise.""
---------------------------------------------------
Not true Norman
From Guyulas Naudin link
http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/smotidx.htm (http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/smotidx.htm)
Professor Pierre Clauzon and his team
Summary
The measured efficiency of my SMOT is 113.3%... BUT the mechanical losses AFTER the drop of the ball is about 34%... So this explain why the closed loop is not yet obtained. So this is not due to the principle of the device, but only due to the actual means used for catching the output energy ( the glass tube ). This is only a mechanical design problem...
The way is now (again) opened
thx
Chet
113.3 percent. Just an engineering problem.
Chet, your bullshit filter needs adjusting. How can you be sure it wasn't actually 113.2 percent... or 113.4 percent?
Tinman:
Don't worry about the cricket ball attracting everything, and the magnet only attracting metal. It does not affect the outcome of the experiment. You are making points but I am not addressing a lot of them because we are talking basic fundamentals here.
If I hold a metal ball in my hand and raise it up in the air, then the gravitational potential energy of the ball relative to the center of the Earth goes up. If I lower the ball in my hand then the gravitational potential energy of the ball relative to the center of the Earth goes down.
If I hold a metal ball in my hand and move it away from the cricket ball, then the gravitational potential energy of the ball relative to the cricket ball goes up. If I move the metal ball closer to the cricket ball, then the gravitational potential energy of the ball relative to the cricket ball goes down.
If I hold a metal ball in my hand and move it away from a big magnet, then the magnetic potential energy of the ball relative to the big magnet goes up. If I move the metal ball closer to the big magnet, then the magnetic potential energy of the ball relative to the big magnet goes down.
Have a look at those three statements and contemplate them. Each statement is true and makes perfect sense if you get it. You have to understand the concept of magnetic potential energy being a function of position. It's exactly the same thing for gravitational potential energy, it's a function of position.
Going back to what I said in my previous posting, "When the ball rolls towards the end of the track in your mind you actually know that it's "rolling downhill" even though your eyes see it rolling up a physical hill."
When you see the ball rolling up the ramp, when you keep in mind all the time that the ball has both gravitational and magnetic potential energy and you can't ignore either of them, then the ball is going down in energy when it rolls up the ramp.
Do you understand this and agree with this? Anybody that is trying to follow has to get this point to move on to the next step.
MileHigh
For people that get this concept then you realize there is already a big twist to the story and you might be surprised.
You look at the ball and see it rolling up the ramp due to the magnets and say, "See, magnets are a source of energy."
The ironic thing is exactly the opposite is going on from what you first thought. The ball is not really getting energy from the magnets and going up in energy. To your surprise, when you factor everything in, the ball is actually going down in energy.
It may be counter-intuitive at first glance but it is really understandable and clear as a bell if you put your preconceptions aside and really think about what is going on.
Quote
"" But no one has demonstrated net ball rise.""
---------------------------------------------------
Not true Norman
From Guyulas Naudin link
http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/smotidx.htm (http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/smotidx.htm)
The chart says the ball started at 31 mm and ended at 30mm.
By my calculations that is not a net ball rise.
If and when I get mine working I will use a colored water level (colored water in a clear tube)
to show the ball start and ball stop against the colored water level so there is no dispute about the ball rising.
Norman
@ webby1
You do realize that nobody is offering a prize of $2000 for a successful replication, and on that subject I thought by now you would be running your home on Wayne Travis's devices , what's wrong, successfully replicating one over unity device wasn't enough for you ?
Trouble is with the ramp video is that the girl is placing the ball by hand which is adding energy
and gravity is the escape mechanism which is losing energy and you end up with nothing.
According to Red Sunset, ask Wayne Travis, he knows about asymmetry!
John.
Norman
The gain appears to be self evident?
thx
Chet
Chet:
Here is a better link with enough description and pictures so that you don't need the lost video clip (from Gyula again.)
http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/smotnrgt.htm (http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/smotnrgt.htm)
I looked at the link carefully. Quite honestly from time to time I have looked in detail at some JL Naudin projects and I have seen mistakes. The same thing applies here. His analysis is bogus because it's flawed in its logic. Magnetic potential energy comes into play in his setup and he doesn't deal with it so he is toast. There is nothing there.
MileHigh
Such a familiar story, elecar started this thread claiming he has a working self-looping device, other members despite not seeing the device working believe it will work, yet they are incapable of producing a working model themselves, so they resort to having arguments instead , hopefully one day this pattern will change.
MH
I will make an attempt to speak wih The Dr Or one of his team to see if they have any
more info on the tests [or done further testing/"engineering"]
@Tinsel
Thx for the Little ground pounder .
I will be speaking with a few fellows about sponsering a contest here for the Smot ramp.
prize will hopefully be around 500.00.
would come in handy for the holidays and also be lots of fun to play with.
thx
Chet
PS
For Norman below,The ball starts at 31mm goes to 35MM and then escapes..................
Norman
The gain appears to be self evident?
thx
Chet
If the ball starts at 31 mm and ends at 30 mm my calculator says
negative gain. I am not looking at the energy numbers.
Norman
Quote from: MileHigh on October 26, 2013, 04:00:10 PM
Chet:
Here is a better link with enough description and pictures so that you don't need the lost video clip (from Gyula again.)
http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/smotnrgt.htm (http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/smotnrgt.htm)
I looked at the link carefully. Quite honestly from time to time I have looked in detail at some JL Naudin projects and I have seen mistakes. The same thing applies here. His analysis is bogus because it's flawed in its logic. Magnetic potential energy comes into play in his setup and he doesn't deal with it so he is toast. There is nothing there.
MileHigh
Note several things in the JLN description.
1. Where does the 55 mm "measurement" come from? It apparently comes from the hand-made marks a _centimeter_ apart on the tube. Hence it is a "false precision" number. There is no guarantee that the real value is not 54 mm, or 56 mm, or even 51 mm. The measurement system displayed is not capable of producing a real measurement accurate to the millimeter. All we "know" is that the result is between 5 and six centimeters.
2. Where does the slope angle "measurement" of 2.815 degrees come from? I defy anyone here to measure an angle to the thousandth of a degree precision. I think this value must be calculated from the measured ... in millimeters from what ruler?... rise and run of the pipe. Hence, to turn around and use it again in the calculation of "differential height" is circular, in addition to being another case of false precision.
3. The energy values again reflect false precision. Even if the "55 mm" measurement is taken as being fully correct, which is impossible using the displayed marks, you still only have two significant digits of precision and this limits the precision of the energy result. The same is true for all the other measurements cited. What was the precision of the weight measurement of the ball? On many digital scales, a reading of "16 grams" could result from an actual weight of anything between 15.5 to 16.5 grams, or even worse. If he measures accurately and precisely, he could have said 16.0 grams... which would indicate a true value of between 15.95 to 16.05 grams.
When these factors are taken into consideration, Jean-Louis's excess energy disappears into the noise level of experimental error. Let's see the results of twenty or thirty identical runs, with _accurate measurements_, plotted with means and error bars. Will we ever see such data from an overunity claimant?
But more to the point... will we ever see any proof of elecar's claimed self-running device? I predict not. And when my prediction comes true... I'll bet Chet won't award his prize to me.
:(
QuoteTinman:
Quote
A smot dosnt have to loop to show work being done.We would only have to show the ball come to rest outside the smot [i.e., outside any magnetic-field trap],at a higher level than it started at.
Previously I agreed, but then I thought of a potential problem with the above. It only works
IF the hand is not pushing or pulling the ball into place in the first place (even unintentionally), which seems unlikely but is difficult to strictly rule out.
How can you be sure the ball-placer did not have to push a little to get it to the starting position?
To illustrate: Consider two disk neos. One (A) on desk with N up, the other (B) PUSHED onto the first with N down. Now let go -- and B flies UPWARD, to a higher level than initial height.
It was in pushing the neos together that potential energy was stored --
like squeezing a spring. Let go, and you get kinetic energy - and in this case, a RISE in height -- all due to PUSHING A & B together with the hand in the first place.
Self-looping for hours gets around the problem of a hand PUSHING the object into place, i.e., storing energy using muscle power.
Count me in for a donation on your SMOT prize, Chet, but only IF the SMOT achieves self-looping...
Quote from: MileHigh on October 26, 2013, 10:43:01 AM
Tinman:
Don't worry about the cricket ball attracting everything, and the magnet only attracting metal. It does not affect the outcome of the experiment. You are making points but I am not addressing a lot of them because we are talking basic fundamentals here.
If I hold a metal ball in my hand and raise it up in the air, then the gravitational potential energy of the ball relative to the center of the Earth goes up. If I lower the ball in my hand then the gravitational potential energy of the ball relative to the center of the Earth goes down.
If I hold a metal ball in my hand and move it away from the cricket ball, then the gravitational potential energy of the ball relative to the cricket ball goes up. If I move the metal ball closer to the cricket ball, then the gravitational potential energy of the ball relative to the cricket ball goes down.
If I hold a metal ball in my hand and move it away from a big magnet, then the magnetic potential energy of the ball relative to the big magnet goes up. If I move the metal ball closer to the big magnet, then the magnetic potential energy of the ball relative to the big magnet goes down.
Have a look at those three statements and contemplate them. Each statement is true and makes perfect sense if you get it. You have to understand the concept of magnetic potential energy being a function of position. It's exactly the same thing for gravitational potential energy, it's a function of position.
Going back to what I said in my previous posting, "When the ball rolls towards the end of the track in your mind you actually know that it's "rolling downhill" even though your eyes see it rolling up a physical hill."
When you see the ball rolling up the ramp, when you keep in mind all the time that the ball has both gravitational and magnetic potential energy and you can't ignore either of them, then the ball is going down in energy when it rolls up the ramp.
Do you understand this and agree with this? Anybody that is trying to follow has to get this point to move on to the next step.
MileHigh
MH
While i agree with what you say,it would only be the case if the magnets were pulling the ball up the ramp-magnets arranged in attraction mode(noth and south). At the end of the ramp when the ball drops out,the magnetic pull on the ball would slow its decent speed-thus resulting in a potential energy loss,over gravitational free fall.
But if the magnets are arranged as to push the ball up the ramp-magnets in repulsion mode(like poles facing each other), Then the opposite would be true when the ball drop's. We would have gravitational pull,as well as magnetic push(repulsion) on the ball as it falls-thus increasing the potential energy of the ball.
It is hard to know how it is working(reguards to posted video) when we dont know the orientation of the magnets.
The reason that a loop system is so hard to achieve,is because of the friction created between the ball and track on the corners. Every corner will result in either the ball skiding on the inside rail of the track ,or the outside rail of the track. This is a big loss in energy,and most dont take that into concideration. It's like having the diferential in your car welded up,so as both axle's are locked to each other. Then you try and turn a corner,only to find it requires more power from the engine to do so,as the inside wheel wants to skid around the corner,as it is doing the same RPM as the outside wheel,but the distance it has to travel is less.
Quote from: TinselKoala on October 26, 2013, 10:18:25 PM
Note several things in the JLN description.
1. Where does the 55 mm "measurement" come from? It apparently comes from the hand-made marks a _centimeter_ apart on the tube. Hence it is a "false precision" number. There is no guarantee that the real value is not 54 mm, or 56 mm, or even 51 mm. The measurement system displayed is not capable of producing a real measurement accurate to the millimeter. All we "know" is that the result is between 5 and six centimeters.
2. Where does the slope angle "measurement" of 2.815 degrees come from? I defy anyone here to measure an angle to the thousandth of a degree precision. I think this value must be calculated from the measured ... in millimeters from what ruler?... rise and run of the pipe. Hence, to turn around and use it again in the calculation of "differential height" is circular, in addition to being another case of false precision.
3. The energy values again reflect false precision. Even if the "55 mm" measurement is taken as being fully correct, which is impossible using the displayed marks, you still only have two significant digits of precision and this limits the precision of the energy result. The same is true for all the other measurements cited. What was the precision of the weight measurement of the ball? On many digital scales, a reading of "16 grams" could result from an actual weight of anything between 15.5 to 16.5 grams, or even worse. If he measures accurately and precisely, he could have said 16.0 grams... which would indicate a true value of between 15.95 to 16.05 grams.
When these factors are taken into consideration, Jean-Louis's excess energy disappears into the noise level of experimental error. Let's see the results of twenty or thirty identical runs, with _accurate measurements_, plotted with means and error bars. Will we ever see such data from an overunity claimant?
But more to the point... will we ever see any proof of elecar's claimed self-running device? I predict not. And when my prediction comes true... I'll bet Chet won't award his prize to me.
:(
Why do small measurement errors always have to go against the device?,why not go in favour of the device?.The reason is because most look for reasons that the device couldnt exibit any form of excess energy,due to known laws of physics.
But any PM device that runs itself,would not break any laws of physics. The reason for this is because a magnet is an energy storage device. It took energy to create the magnet,and energy cannot be destroyed-only transformed. So the PM is nothing more than an energy storage device,one which we havnt yet worked out how to tap into.
So to have a SMOT work in a loop,would not violate any laws of physics. What it would mean,is we have worked out how to use the energy stored within the magnet.
When you work out how much energy was required to align all the magnetic domains within the PM's used to make the looped SMOT,you would find that that energy could indeed keep that ball rolling around the track for a very long time.
Tinman:
It's simpler than you are stating. Remember that it's just a metal ball, and North vs. South for the magnets is not important. There is no pushing on the metal ball when it falls through the hole ever. There is no such thing as repulsion vs. attraction to make the metal ball go up the ramp. In other words the metal ball is never pushed up the ramp, it is always pulled up the ramp. You are mistakenly thinking about pushing vs. pulling and polarities when they don't apply here.
What is the double magnet array that goes up the ramp? You can simplify this a lot because we are looking at the energy issues here. We are one step removed from looking at the magnets themselves. The only thing we are concerned about is what the magnets do in terms of how the ball changes in energy because of their presence. The two magnet arrays for purposes of this experiment and for purposes of looking at the energy dynamics are reduced to something very simple. The two arrays are reduced to a big magnetic blob that produces a big spread out field. In other words all of the individual magnets together look like some amorphous magnetic field blob. That's not important, it's what the blob does that's important. The blob is no different from the big magnet I referenced to in my three examples for potential energy.
Here is all you need to know: The metal ball runs up the track because it's attracted to the back of the magnetic field blob. That means that at the end the track you have a "center of attraction." The center of attraction is like the big magnet.
The center of attraction is where the metal ball would go if you placed it at the end of the track. Assume that there is no hole for the metal ball to pass through. The metal ball ends up at Ground Zero for the "center of attraction" or you could call it the "center of the sticky point."
Again, I will repeat. Forget about the whole experiment. You have the v-track perfectly level on the table with the two rows of magnets on each side. You let the ball go and the ball moves to the opposite end of the track and might oscillate back an forth a bit and then the ball will eventually stop and rest in the middle of the "sticky spot."
Think of it like this: You have a thin wood table and you put a magnet under the table surface. A metal ball rolls around on the table top and gets attracted to the magnet and stops right above the magnet. The metal ball is attracted to the magnet under the table and won't move and it's as simple as that. This is the same process in action.
So, you have a metal ball and it's in front of a "blob" consisting of the magnetic field pattern created by the individual magnets. The metal ball races to the opposite end of the "blob" and stabilizes at the center of the "sticky spot."
So what's happening here: As the metal ball rolls along the ramp it is going down in magnetic potential energy. When it gets to the center of the "sticky spot" we say that the ball is now at the bottom of a magnetic potential energy well. The ball has "fallen" to the bottom of a well and can go no "lower." The ball is now at its minimum magnetic potential energy and it will not move away from that spot. (Think of the magnet under the table.) To get the magnet to move away from that spot you have to add some energy from an external source, like your hand.
You can think of the ball as being at the bottom of a round bowl and the walls of the bowl are the the same as the walls of the magnetic potential energy well.
So, going back to your response to my previous posting, if you get what I am talking about you will realize that you are getting mixed up in details and the details you are concerned about don't count for this discussion about the magnetic potential energy of the ball with respect to its position along the track.
Can you see what I am talking about? Going back to the actual experiment clip with the two tracks, do you understand that when the ball rolls up the track it is going down in magnetic potential energy and at the end of the track there is the bottom of the magnetic potential energy well? If the ball reaches this point and it has no kinetic energy, then ball is simply stuck in the well and will not move.
Again, please forget about the hole in the ramp and the dropping, I am not talking about that at all.
MileHigh
Some colour commentary.
Perhaps that example of the old trick of putting a magnet under the table attracting and catching a metal ball that's rolling around on the top of the table is easier to look at. That's identical to the ball rolling up the ramp and assuming no hole to fall through, it ends up stuck at the center of the "sticky spot." In both cases you end up with the metal ball stuck in the center of the "sticky spot."
In both cases above the ball is now at the bottom of a magnetic potential energy well. It's in its lowest potential energy state and you have to do physical work to move it from that spot. As you move the ball away from the center spot you do work to make it move. The energy you expend to make the ball move becomes the magnetic potential energy of the ball.
People must understand this concept to understand why the two inclined tracks in the video clip will never work. For people that are getting it, they should be starting to see the light. With the inclined tracks at right angles you lose most of the kinetic energy that is in the ball when it gets to the end of the track. That leaves the metal ball at the bottom of a potential energy well, and no magic source of energy to get it out of the well.
Like I originally stated, when the ball drops through the hole at the end of the track it simply leaves the magnetic environment entirely. The second track may as well be 10 feet below, it's a separate track with it's own magnetic environment that has almost no relation to the first track's magnetic environment.
MileHigh
Chet, TK:
That JL Naudin experiment is absolutely wretched. I hate these moments when people that are supposed to have credibility in the realm of free energy produce junk. The problems with significant figures and eyeballing distances are irrelevant - the experiment is totally flawed, pure junk that doesn't even make sense. I may post about it in a day or two. The sad thing is I am probably not going to be the first one that has mentioned these issues but people will keep on referring to it in the future. I bet you nearly nobody will even acknowledge it when I explain how bad things are.
Tinman:
QuoteSo to have a SMOT work in a loop,would not violate any laws of physics. What it would mean,is we have worked out how to use the energy stored within the magnet.
This is an incorrect statement. The notion of "using the energy stored in a magnet" until the magnet "runs dry" is pure fiction and I know many people believe it. If you can understand my previous postings about the ramp experiment you will be making progress. It's important to understand the energy dynamics of magnets if you are going to try to make a SMOT, which should really be called a SMUT, but that's a bad word acronym.
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on October 27, 2013, 03:51:30 AM
Chet, TK:
Tinman:
This is an incorrect statement. The notion of "using the energy stored in a magnet" until the magnet "runs dry" is pure fiction and I know many people believe it. If you can understand my previous postings about the ramp experiment you will be making progress. It's important to understand the energy dynamics of magnets if you are going to try to make a SMOT, which should really be called a SMUT, but that's a bad word acronym.
MileHigh
MH
We will have to agree to disagree on this. What is to say my understanding of magnets and there properties is incorrect,and yours is correct.
Do a simple test,like i stated above. Take a PM DC motor,and replace the PM's with blocks of iron or steel of the same size and shap as the PM's. The motor will have less power output than it had with the PM's in place. So where dose that extra energy come from when the PM's are used in the motor,when useing the same P/in as we did with the iron blocks?
I also dissagree with your statement that a steel ball is never repelled by magnetic field's-as i know through experiments that this is not true. When a steel ball is placed between two magnets with like fields facing each other,the steel ball is pushed out of that field,as the ball carries the field of the magnetic poles closest to it. So now we have 3 like fields all apposing each other. As the two PM's are fixed in position,and cannot move,the ball that can move is forced away from the magnets-i have done the test that show this very clearly. It is the same as placing a steel bolt on one end of a magnet-we know the bolt will carry that field.
In time you will see why i stand by what i believe to be true,as not all has been shown yet.
Tinman:
Quote
I also dissagree with your statement that a steel ball is never repelled by magnetic field's-as i know through experiments that this is not true. When a steel ball is placed between two magnets with like fields facing each other,the steel ball is pushed out of that field,as the ball carries the field of the magnetic poles closest to it. So now we have 3 like fields all apposing each other. As the two PM's are fixed in position,and cannot move,the ball that can move is forced away from the magnets-i have done the test that show this very clearly.
Thanks for these experiments, Tinman. As always, "experiment always trumps theory".
That's how we find out, through experiments.
TinMan
The credibility that an actual experimenter [Like yourself] brings to the table is priceless.
Just a few of the experimental observations you have mentioned in the last few posts on this topic would seem able to manifest something the world has never seen ?
TK
Quote
I'll bet Chet won't award his prize to me..........
------------------
Its not "Chets Prize" !
All manner of men will be contributing ,One group in particular
"The League of extraordinarily Benevolent But terrible businessmen " Is still on the fence,
if they get involved the prize could go through the roof.
and yes Tinsel of course you would be awarded a prize,as a show of good faith I bear gifts for you.
thx
Chet
Quote from: tinman on October 27, 2013, 05:28:10 AM
..... When a steel ball is placed between two magnets with like fields facing each other,the steel ball is pushed out of that field....
I think the above siad principle is made use of in repulsive smot.
http://magnetmotor.go-here.nl/smot/text/
Quote:REPULSIVE SMOT
"The repulsive SMOT is some what less powerful and less popular. The ball rolls up the ramp while being attracted to the 2 rows of magnets. This causes the ball to become a magnet it self. As both sides of the ramp are of the same polarity both sides of the ball will become the same other polarity. The ball being slightly magnetized at the beginning of the ramp has 2 north poles and 2 south poles. BUT when it moves up the ramp the field intensity increases the flux grows exponential (the ball is even moving) So in stead of 4 poles the ball now becomes a magnet with only 2. This causes the attraction at one side of the ball to fail and allows for a time window where the ball may drop out of the fields"
End of quote. I think his explanation is wrong. 4 poles cannot become 2poles. 2 like poles will be concentrated (compressed) at the centre of the ball which will be stronger than 2 single poles on the circumferance of the ball. Hence ball will be repelled out of ramp magnetic field.
@tinman:
Why do the inaccuracies always go in favor of the overunity claims? Because inaccurate "results" that don't support the claims aren't reported! You and I can both point to many cases of claims of OU and poor measurements... when the measurements get better the degree of OU gets smaller and smaller, until the best measurements reveal that there was no OU there from the beginning. And the same thing has been done with SMOT ramps already. Perform accurate measurements, ensure that you are not adding any energy with Mister Hand by positioning things at the start... and the overunity measurements always..._always_... go away, disappearing into the noise.
We can also both point to many cases where JLN has "replicated" some claims and found OU. But he is still running his home and lab on the national electric grid, from nuclear power in France, the very dirtiest and unsafest form of electrical power generation there is.
Next, you are wrong about the energy used to magnetize a PM. It is quite small, compared to the energy needed to keep even a simple SMOT going for any substantial amount of time. Further, once a NdBFe magnet is magnetized, there isn't much that will demag it, other than high heat or exposure to a similarly strong demagnetizing pulse. I know of no motor that actually runs by demagnetizing its magnets. Do you?
Next, your example of replacing magnets in electric motors with iron blocks itself disproves your point. If the "extra power" was coming from the magnets, from the energy used to magnetize them, it would soon run out. I have little electric motors (in my helicopters and airplanes) that run very strongly, have done so for years, and aren't getting any weaker. The presence of the magnets is like the presence of a hard track for a runner. Put the runner on sand or mud and see how fast she runs, then put her on a solid track and compare the difference. Is the difference due to the stored energy in the track? Does the track lose its stored energy as runners run across it? No, it is because the track provides a solid surface for the runner's muscles to react against. Same with magnets in motors: without them the electric field from the coils is largely wasted.
@Chet:
Your offer of a prize as incentive to work on SMOT self-looping is done in good faith, I know... but it is a cynical and safe bet nevertheless. First.... doesn't elecar already claim to have what you are offering your prize for? Check the first page of this thread. I don't think you should offer a prize until elecar either shows that his claims are true, or withdraws them. But regardless.... your prize money is safe. Heck, I'll even pledge ten bucks to the prize fund myself..... because I know two things: the task is impossible so the money is safe, and anything that would win the prize money is worth BILLIONS and would turn conventional physics on its head.
Your offer of a prize is going to make some people dig in even deeper, spinning their wheels, buying magnets and ramp material, wasting their time with a true obsession. Plus, there are already several large prizes out there that would easily be won by such a device. Hal Puthoff's "one watt challenge" would be easy to win, just set up your SMOT and let it run. Each cycle it will be producing some milliWatts of excess power... or it would not keep running, making little sounds and pushing air out of the way (not to mention eddy current losses, etc.) So let it run a thousand cycles: there's your one or more Watts of excess power. Stefan Hartmann's Overunity Prize would also be easy to win with a self-looping SMOT.
But it will never happen. Are any of the researchers here going to try more things, more configurations than, say, Howard Johnson did? Finsrud has never applied for any overunity prizes with his clockwork sculpture, that should tell you something right there.
Your "beating a dead horse" cartoon is very apt, because that is just what SMOT builders are doing. Now you are offering a prize for someone to beat the dead horse back to life. It ain't gonna happen, but people will beat and beat, using bigger and more expensive clubs.... that horse is staying dead.
TK
I like the Drop ,{Elecar said the Noise got to him after a while] I think a trap can be set for the ball as it approaches the top of an array [MUCH higher than 35mm].
OR a high ramp which hooks straight down at the end ?
Tinsel you are not the only one who is allowed to have fun around here ,this whole concept would make a wonderful "Toy" and as you stated it would change the world.
regarding costs ? Ceramic magnets can be harvested from amy number of things for free [speakers]....
BTW The little Gift was not meant to imply anything derogatory towards you,it's just
Funny and I hope it made you laugh.
Thx
Chet
Quote from: TinselKoala on October 27, 2013, 09:17:44 AM
.....anything that would win the prize money is worth BILLIONS and would turn conventional physics on its head......
I don't think that invention of a PMM would turn the conventional physics on its head - It might only open a new branch in physics. Because we have infinite number of machines infront of us which work confirming to the law of conservation of energy and laws of thermodynamics.
If a PMM is ever invented, it might divide conventional physics into two main branches :
1) Systems in which energy is conserved - Newtonian Mechanics
2) Systems in which energy is created - Overunity SMOTics
Tinman:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MEOit3ff4Hg (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MEOit3ff4Hg)
In the case of the ramps in the Michael Q Shaw video clip the metal balls are being drawn into an increasingly strong magnetic field as they roll up the ramp. If there was no hole in the track the moving ball would come to a stop at the top of the track. At that point the ball will resist moving in either direction. That's the bottom of the magnetic potential energy well.
It doesn't even matter if you think the ball might be pushed or pulled when you look at the energy. The only thing that counts is the magnitude and direction of the force. They are the same in both cases and the force is always in the direction of the bottom of the well.
Look at the table example. Imagine you have a big magnet under the table and you are looking at the trapped metal ball on the table. The ball is at the bottom of the potential energy well caused by the magnet. If you had a strain gauge and a setup to pull on the ball, in small steps you could measure the force x displacement required to move the ball away from the sticky spot. You could imagine drawing concentric circles around the sticky spot. One circle could be labeled the "One Joule" line. That means it takes one joule of mechanical work to move the ball from the center of the sticky spot to any point on that circle. A larger circle could be the "Two Joule" circle and so on. Do you see what you would be doing? You would be mapping out the magnetic potential energy well caused by the magnet under the table.
The ramp segment is fundamentally the same energy system as the magnet under the table. In both cases the ball is drawn to the center of a magnetic potential energy well. It's like the ball is rolling down a hill into a hole and settling at the bottom. In this case it's an invisible "magnetic hole" but it is just as real in terms of energy analysis as a real hole.
So each track is a magnetic potential energy well that the ball "falls" into. So that means when you get to the end of the first track, you can't just "hitch a ride" on the next track and continue moving forward. Your starting position is at the bottom of a well. If you are following along, you realize that your destination is another potential energy well. In fact all four corners of a completed four-track system will be potential energy wells. You can think of all four corners having the gravitational cricket balls. It would be the same deal, each cricket ball in a corner would be the bottom of a gravitational potential energy well. In simple terms, there are four sticky spots and each sticky spot pulls balls towards the center.
So think of the operation: The ball rolls up the first ramp. It's now supposed to "hitch a ride" on the second ramp to continue on it's journey. You know that the second ramp is supposed to do the same thing as the first ramp. But what many people are forgetting, is that the ball has to be pulled out of the well. The ball is in a sticky spot and that sticky spot is very close to the ball itself, as opposed to the second ramp which wants you to keep rolling downhill into a new potential energy well. It's not going to happen because the ball is trapped in the much closer well.
So that's why this setup will never work. You are making the mistake of seeing a ball fall into a magnetic potential energy well and thinking that that means that magnets are a source of energy. It's almost like seeing water fall in a power dam and thinking that gravity is the source of the energy. The real answer of course is that the Sun is the source of energy because it lifted the water. In cases of the these magnetic systems, it's more often "Mr. Hand" that is the source of the energy.
The thing to think about is that this example can be applied almost anywhere. Whenever you see two magnets interacting or a magnet and metal interacting you can be conscious of the magnetic potential energy available, and where the magnetic potential energy wells are in any system. This doesn't even have to do with the magnetic fields themselves, just the energy effects of the magnetic fields.
MileHigh
Going back to the imaginary setup with the four tracks. At the end of the of the track the ball changes direction and you lose most of the kinetic energy in the ball. That kinetic energy was your only hope of getting out of the local potential energy well. So without any kinetic energy available the ball gets stuck in the potential energy well.
What that means is that if you built all four tracks and set it up perfectly, the thing would not work at all. There is just no way. There is a magnetic potential energy well at each corner, and when the ball falls into the well it loses most of its kinetic energy and you are done. Will all four tracks there is no fist track to "launch" from like where you see the girl in the clip placing balls in the "starting gate." The "launching" process is killed because, one more time, the "starting gate" is very close to the bottom of a magnetic potential energy well. The ball will be stuck in the "starting gate" for the real build and resist being moved at all.
MileHigh
@MH: You are describing the situation very "well".
And if you think about it a bit more you will see, from your description, why Magnetic Potential Energy, and also gravitational PE, are _negative_ values, with the "zero" being in the wells you describe, and more and more _negative_ values the further away you get, with maximum _negative_ PE at infinite distance from the magnet or the gravitating body like the Earth. SMOT builders do not realize that the "well" with the ball stuck to the magnets, or deep inside the "well", is actually the _starting position_, and energy must be supplied, doing work, to get the ball out of this position. You need to put work in, to get the ball further away from the magnet or the planet. This is the only work that is returned when you release the ball in the _more negative_ PE position farther away. This is also why you can set your "zero" value of PE at some arbitrary location. (What is the PE of a ball dropping from a table to a floor... on the 56th floor of a skyscraper?)
We often talk as though PE is a positive value... and in the sense that it takes work to "store" the PE in the object's position, you can think of it that way.... but you will eventually fool yourself into thinking that you can get energy out that you didn't put there in the first place if you continue to think that way.
Why is PE negative:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/pegrav.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potential_energy
http://capone.mtsu.edu/phys2010/Lectures/Part_3__L12_-_L17/Lecture_11/Potential_Energy/potential_energy.html
and many many more.
@Chet:
You have a funny definition of "fun"! It amuses me greatly to see people like elecar making his claims and stirring up a fuss without providing any proof at all of his claims. But is it fun to beat your head against the wall, trying to get blood out of the stones? Apparently so, for some people.
Bothered by the noise of his perpetual motion machine? Aww... cue tiny violins playing sad music. I do believe that I could put up with even the sound of a perpetual jackhammer, long enough to make a video proving it works as I claim it does. Earplugs! But that's just me. If all you require as "proof" of a self looping SMOT is for someone to claim he's got one.... I call that religious faith, not a scientific attitude.
Don't you remember Wayne Travis, with all his engineers and big machines and two visits from Mark Dansie? He couldn't meet the objections on this forum, couldn't demonstrate his claims, and finally asked for his thread to be closed, with great insults to all his critics. And now he's in full on damage control mode, being sued by early investors and trying to find someone to buy out all the others before they sue him too, because he cannot produce a self running machine like he claimed to. That's what happens when you substitute religious faith for real scientific scepticism.
Quote from: TinselKoala on October 27, 2013, 01:55:11 PM
Don't you remember Wayne Travis, with all his engineers and big machines and two visits from Mark Dansie? He couldn't meet the objections on this forum, couldn't demonstrate his claims, and finally asked for his thread to be closed, with great insults to all his critics. And now he's in full on damage control mode, being sued by early investors and trying to find someone to buy out all the others before they sue him too, because he cannot produce a self running machine like he claimed to.
Those are very interesting facts you are relaying. Can you provide any references? I'd like to learn more about it.
M.
I will give you my take on the Naudin "The SMOT Energy - Efficiency and Gain" clip.
http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/smotnrgt.htm (http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/smotnrgt.htm)
Hi first measurement is to measure the distance up the tube for a pure gravity drop, which is fine. That's his reference distance.
He has a magnetic v-gate ramp. It's the same deal as before. The v-gate ramp is just another magnetic potential energy well and the bottom of the well is at the end of the ramp.
You can think of the v-gate ramp as being like a slingshot. But of course it's a slingshot with a major problem, the ball remains connected to the elastic bands when you release the slingshot. So think of this in terms of the setup, the ball runs up the ramp, past the sticky spot, and continues on. Eventually the ball will stop from the elastic bands, losing all of it's kinetic energy trying to get past the sticky spot, a.k.a.; the magnetic potential energy well.
So that means, that the "cocking" of the "rail gun" pushes the ball past the sticky spot by a certain distance. The more magnetic potential energy in the ball before you release it, the farther the ball will travel past the sticky spot before it runs out of energy. Let's call that the "overshoot" distance.
Think of the setup, the ball emerges from the rail gun with the kinetic energy from the rail gun cocking and the available gravitational energy for the fall.
Your reference is the distance for a pure gravity fall.
That is being compared to some unknown overshoot distance due to the cocking energy plus the expected distance from the gravitational fall. Note the gravity fall itself is being affected by the effort required to pull out of the magnetic potential energy well.
i.e.; the experiment is this:
[reference gravity fall distance] <= [[unknown kinetic energy distance] + [exit gravity fall distance less well losses]]
So it looks to me by cocking this system with energy from Mr. Hand, that this will give the ball an extra boost and result in it moving further up the tube. This is a preliminary analysis. I think its because of this: The "bonus" unknown extra distance from the kinetic energy is eventually all lost. However, in a manner of speaking, this "transports" the ball into a region where the the gravity-to-kintetic energy can then continue running the ball up the tube. In this region the effects of the magnetic potential energy well are greatly reduced and so the ball travels farther overall.
I think the key point is that the magnetic rail gun is energetically neutral. It doesn't add any energy to the system. However, it has the ability to move the ball from one side of the sticky spot to the other side of the sticky spot with zero net expenditure of energy. So it's like you get displacement with no net energy cost for free. In this case the "free displacement" from the magnetic rail gun results in the ball rolling further up the tube.
I could be wrong but I believe this is the explanation.
MileHigh
Quote from: mondrasek on October 27, 2013, 02:06:11 PM
Those are very interesting facts you are relaying. Can you provide any references? I'd like to learn more about it.
M.
Weren't you in his "inner circle"? You probably know more about it than I do.
Well, surely you don't need any references to the old, closed thread. And you can check mrwaynesbrain.com to see that he has stopped with his public "updates" and has gone into stealth mode. His lawyers finally told him he can't make false claims while soliciting investment in public, I guess.
I've seen material from and about Travis that I am not at liberty to share fully at the moment. I have a video of a 16 minute presentation Travis made but if I show it he is likely to try to sue me, since it is supposed to be "confidential". But on the internet, nothing is really confidential, is it. In the presentation Travis does not claim to have a self running, energy producing machine any more, but he does talk a lot about his business plan, about Tesla and Ford, the Wright brothers and Einstein, about "milestones" and "efforts"... and of course TAZ and ZED and other ridiculous meaningless acronyms. He mentions the lawsuit at 15:32 into the video when he talks about "hard doors closing on us" and trying to find new investors to buy out the old, dissatisfied ones.
The still frame below is presented in accordance with the Fair Use clause of the DMCA: it is for educational use and is part of a critical and forensic review of claims made by Wayne Travis concerning his alleged self-running energy producing machine.
Webby1:
If you have contact between the magnet and the metal ball, the ball will typically jump to the middle of either face of the magnet where the field lines emerge. So that is your lowest potential energy. Then you have to do work to pull the ball away and that ties into the convention that TK mentioned. If you have to work on a system to move it from it's rest state, then by convention that's negative energy. When the system does work on you, that's positive energy.
But you don't always have to be in contact with a magnet to be at the bottom of a potential well for a given setup. For the rails, you assume that the ball stays on the track. So within that confine the bottom of the well is a certain spot on the track.
As we know with big neo magnets the trip to the bottom of the magnetic potential energy well can be a perilous journey. They can smash themselves up or crush your fingers. Then when you finally pull them back apart you have "charged" them with potential energy that came direct from your own brute force and of course that came from the sun.
With regard to the strength of the field, it will simply increase the steepness of the walls and the depth of the magnetic well. The actual motive force has to do with the changing of the strength of the magnetic field with respect to displacement. If the field is constant, the spherical ball will not experience a force on it. So I suppose a strong absolute field strength and a rapidly changing field strength in a certain direction gives you the most force.
I hope that answered your question.
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on October 27, 2013, 03:26:57 PM
Webby1:
If you have contact between the magnet and the metal ball, the ball will typically jump to the middle of either face of the magnet where the field lines emerge. So that is your lowest potential energy. Then you have to do work to pull the ball away and that ties into the convention that TK mentioned. If you have to work on a system to move it from it's rest state, then by convention that's negative energy. When the system does work on you, that's positive energy.
But you don't always have to be in contact with a magnet to be at the bottom of a potential well for a given setup. For the rails, you assume that the ball stays on the track. So within that confine the bottom of the well is a certain spot on the track.
As we know with big neo magnets the trip to the bottom of the magnetic potential energy well can be a perilous journey. They can smash themselves up or crush your fingers. Then when you finally pull them back apart you have "charged" them with potential energy that came direct from your own brute force and of course that came from the sun.
With regard to the strength of the field, it will simply increase the steepness of the walls and the depth of the magnetic well. The actual motive force has to do with the changing of the strength of the magnetic field with respect to displacement. If the field is constant, the spherical ball will not experience a force on it. So I suppose a strong absolute field strength and a rapidly changing field strength in a certain direction gives you the most force.
I hope that answered your question.
MileHigh
"Then when you finally pull them back apart you have "charged" them with potential energy that came direct from your own brute force and of course that came from the sun."
Just to inject a point. When you pull the magnets back apart, the magnets expend more energy to keep you from doing this due to the magnetic lock. If this is not true and your statement above is true, you should be able to charge up magnets. I have never seen this done or proven, and don't believe that it is possible to "charge" a magnet by pulling them apart. I don't see that magnets are discharged either. Magnets can become unaligned, and appear to be weakened if particles become unaligned, but can be realigned again, but are never "charged" by an outside source.
By spreading magnets apart, there is room to travel to the magnetic field again. By this, there is now potential energy available again from the magnet to the steel ball to perform work. (travel distance with velocity).
Webby1:
I think we are in agreement. The field is not a source of work at all. Rather, you do work on the field. You move a ball from point A to point B and you expend work to do that. You can then exploit your own work later, and let the ball move from point B to point A and turn your millstone. It's almost like the field is a "backdrop" that you are moving around in. It's very analogous to a gravitational field. You do the work to pump the water into the water tower, and then later you extract that work when you turn on a tap.
The gravity field around the water tower is as dead as a doornail. It's up to you to move up and down in it. The same things apply to charged objects moving up and down in an electric field. All three work the same way.
Liberty:
I did not literally mean "charge" the magnets like changing their physical properties. The magnets don't change. I meant "charge" in a metaphorical sense.
MileHigh
Quote from: TinselKoala on October 27, 2013, 02:56:06 PM
I've seen material from and about Travis that I am not at liberty to share fully at the moment. I have a video of a 16 minute presentation Travis made but if I show it he is likely to try to sue me, since it is supposed to be "confidential". But on the internet, nothing is really confidential, is it. In the presentation Travis does not claim to have a self running, energy producing machine any more, but he does talk a lot about his business plan, about Tesla and Ford, the Wright brothers and Einstein, about "milestones" and "efforts"... and of course TAZ and ZED and other ridiculous meaningless acronyms. He mentions the lawsuit at 15:32 into the video when he talks about "hard doors closing on us" and trying to find new investors to buy out the old, dissatisfied ones.
Well that is a bit disappointing to me personally. I was hoping you would be able to share some solid facts to support what you said here:
Don't you remember Wayne Travis, with all his engineers and big machines and two visits from Mark Dansie? He couldn't meet the objections on this forum, couldn't demonstrate his claims, and finally asked for his thread to be closed, with great insults to all his critics. And now he's in full on damage control mode, being sued by early investors and trying to find someone to buy out all the others before they sue him too, because he cannot produce a self running machine like he claimed to. I understand if you have "evidence" that you cannot share in order to protect yourself from any sort of retribution. But without that evidence are not your claims against Wayne Travis just as fantastical as his? And I'm not attacking you or supporting Wayne in this. I'm just pointing out that hearsay is hearsay. And that is all you are presenting currently. I was hoping for more because I had never heard of any law suits and assumed that they would be a matter of public record that we could research.
If you find a way to present evidence of the law suits against Wayne Travis, please do! I personally hate all the lies, liable, and MIB crap that goes on in these cases while I welcome the unabridged truth.
M.
Quote from: mondrasek on October 27, 2013, 04:18:23 PM
Well that is a bit disappointing to me personally. I was hoping you would be able to share some solid facts to support what you said here:
Don't you remember Wayne Travis, with all his engineers and big machines and two visits from Mark Dansie? He couldn't meet the objections on this forum, couldn't demonstrate his claims, and finally asked for his thread to be closed, with great insults to all his critics. And now he's in full on damage control mode, being sued by early investors and trying to find someone to buy out all the others before they sue him too, because he cannot produce a self running machine like he claimed to.
I understand if you have "evidence" that you cannot share in order to protect yourself from any sort of retribution. But without that evidence are not your claims against Wayne Travis just as fantastical as his? And I'm not attacking you or supporting Wayne in this. I'm just pointing out that hearsay is hearsay. And that is all you are presenting currently. I was hoping for more because I had never heard of any law suits and assumed that they would be a matter of public record that we could research.
If you find a way to present evidence of the law suits against Wayne Travis, please do! I personally hate all the lies, liable, and MIB crap that goes on in these cases while I welcome the unabridged truth.
M.
On the contrary, I
can provide evidence for everything I've "claimed", and Wayne Travis
cannot. That puts us on a completely different footing. Whether or not I want to provide the evidence, and why or why not, is another matter altogether. Travis cannot produce what he claims due to the nature of the world: physics. I don't want to provide you with the complete video because I am not financially able to deal with Travis's lawyers, not because the Universe forbids it.
You do have access to the old thread, I hope. If not I do have it completely archived and can send it to you as a set of zip files. In it you can see Travis making his claims, and you can see the insults that he and others in his camp delivered to people who challenged him to provide evidence. On YouTube you can see Mark's two visits, and you can ask Mark himself about his conclusions wrt Mr. Wayne. So I hope I don't have to provide you with those "evidences" for what I said in the post you quote. And I've already posted a still shot from the video I "claim" to have.
Under the provisions of the DMCA regarding Fair Use for Educational, Critical... or forensic... purposes, I've excerpted the relevant segment from the video that Wayne Travis posted publicly to his YouTube account, and then somewhat later made "private".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kKctCl_pr7A (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kKctCl_pr7A)
Pretty funny, huh? Instead of showing a working demonstration model that unequivocally demonstrates the truth of his claims.... he has to admit "expectations not met" and funding not delivered.... because he actually has nothing to show other than his externally pre-charged powered kludges that stop running when the precharge runs out. If he actually had what he claims, investors would be tripping over each other, having fistfights in the hallway, trying to be the first to cut him a big check and get his product into the market. Instead ... you get this. What, four years or more into the project he's still looking for help pushing his rock uphill.
It does work, and MileHigh, you appear to be the biggest skeptic on here, it works bottom line and yes, you can in fact build a magnetic propulsion ramp, call them a SMOT if you will, that can lift to a higher level and then release. While building my ramps I found, for any of the real builders out there, that they can operate in both directions, just like a spring and bounce back and forth until all energy is spent, not if you drop it out and continue to another. "Sticky spot" or so called "gate" is not a problem, all you must do is avoid any "Gates" . Run a V-Gate in reverse and escape at the opening of the V where the field becomes increasingly weaker. The only reason I placed them so far apart on my two interconnected tracks is because both tracks have a tendency of slamming together if they are too close together, of course, there are so many magnets on there! It is possible to connect them and to continue on. If you also note in my videos, the only time the run fouls is when my assistant daughter's hand fouls the run, it never failed at the second drop off when properly placed in the starting position. I made one work over nine feet long and so called "Gates" did not stop me. I am still building my 4 foot ramp and I will post a video that shows that achieving a higher level after exit (hlae) is certainly possible. Call me crazy all you people want, I am very sane, I know it works, my children and my wife know it works, I have seen it with my own eyes. I know I can connect them and make them continue on, and I will not stop building them until I have proven it. I know that I can build it to continue on. Don't give up everyone, I'm not.
Quote from: Michael Q Shaw on October 27, 2013, 05:19:45 PM
It does work, and MileHigh, you appear to be the biggest skeptic on here, it works bottom line and yes, you can in fact build a magnetic propulsion ramp, call them a SMOT if you will, that can lift to a higher level and then release. While building my ramps I found, for any of the real builders out there, that they can operate in both directions, just like a spring and bounce back and forth until all energy is spent, not if you drop it out and continue to another. "Sticky spot" or so called "gate" is not a problem, all you must do is avoid any "Gates" . Run a V-Gate in reverse and escape at the opening of the V where the field becomes increasingly weaker. The only reason I placed them so far apart on my two interconnected tracks is because both tracks have a tendency of slamming together if they are too close together, of course, there are so many magnets on there! It is possible to connect them and to continue on. If you also note in my videos, the only time the run fouls is when my assistant daughter's hand fouls the run, it never failed at the second drop off when properly placed in the starting position. I made one work over nine feet long and so called "Gates" did not stop me. I am still building my 4 foot ramp and I will post a video that shows that achieving a higher level after exit (hlae) is certainly possible. Call me crazy all you people want, I am very sane, I know it works, my children and my wife know it works, I have seen it with my own eyes. I know I can connect them and make them continue on, and I will not stop building them until I have proven it. I know that I can build it to continue on. Don't give up everyone, I'm not.
When will you be showing us your self-looping model that runs all by itself once started?
Never, that's when. That's what is generally meant when we say "IT WORKS" with reference to a SMOT. Having a ball or magnet end up higher after a PARTIAL CYCLE is easy to do. Where is your video of a complete cycle that completes with more energy than it started with, and thus can be self-looped? There isn't one. Not from you, not from elecar, not from JLN, not from Omnibus not from anybody.
Well, there is always Mylow, I guess.
Hi,
nice little clip of Travis. I presume that's him himself. A long while ago he had a drawing of one
of his mahines running a local church or something. One aspect that he'd got really right was
the provision of an adequate cooling system for the fluid system!
When I was eight years old I tried for ages to get a self runner using a great big magnet and
abandoned the idea when I had no success. Now about sixty years later I see people are still
trying.
I'm surprised at some ideas some people have about permanent magnets and I feel that
they should do a bit more studying and thinking before trying to argue their case.
Gravity machines, if there was any chance of them working, would have to be absolutely
colossal because the acceleration is so poor, you just couldn't get a decent rate of doing work.
I have for a long time thought that a good electrical storage battery is the way to go. Most
of us have a huge amount of energy from the sun and solar cells are getting better all the time.
A battery needs to be developed that has 25 year lifespan and could be buried in the garden
store energy while we're out at work in the day or off peak grid and be there for us at night.
John.
@Michael,
I suspect you need to have a complete looping device even if you can prove the exit point is higher than the insertion point because there is an effect that no-one seems to have mentioned yet.
I seem to remember and I could be wrong but way back when Greg Watson was building the original SMOT device he or someone else noticed that the steel ball bearing undergoes a very slight repulsion before it enters the magnetic field array that pulls it up the ramp.
I think this has something to do with the magnetic field from the array causing the ball to be slightly magnetised and creating a very slight repulsive force between itself and the array.
So by placing the ball bearing inside the magnetic field of the array, just ahead of the ramp, you have already given the ball a head start in terms of magnetic potential energy. Therefore you need sufficient slope or momentum to get past this sticky insertion point.
All the negative views here are not stopping me from experimenting with this.
Its a good engineering challenge and hopefully within the scope of most people to be able to be built with basic tools.
Meggerman
Quote from: TinselKoala on October 27, 2013, 05:44:50 PM
When will you be showing us your self-looping model that runs all by itself once started?
Never, that's when. That's what is generally meant when we say "IT WORKS" with reference to a SMOT. Having a ball or magnet end up higher after a PARTIAL CYCLE is easy to do. Where is your video of a complete cycle that completes with more energy than it started with, and thus can be self-looped? There isn't one. Not from you, not from elecar, not from JLN, not from Omnibus not from anybody.
Well, there is always Mylow, I guess.
Never say never, I am still actively working on it. Even then a self looped SMOT would only have the amount of "energy" that you "built" into it, plus what is given initially by placement to begin its operation, getting it to self loop is possible, but if you try to take much energy away from it yes, it more than likely will stop. The only possible manner to get anything out of it would be during the portion of operation when it is driven by the magnetic fields, yes like a sling shot, at least that is how mine operate, and they release just fine. For instance, my 1/2 inch lift track is made with enough strength to lift up to 3/4 inches, you must purposely build them stronger and extend them beyond the point of exit for a smooth disconnect. I will one day, before life escapes me. I honestly believe that four of my 4 foot tracks connected in a square will prove the operation best, then using clear rubber tubing curved into the starting position of the next ramp, in that manner the ball will already begin rolling in the new direction of travel of the next ramp on the downward roll -because it cannot cross the magnetic field of the adjoining ramp, hence why I made my video with a right angle, it gets stuck on it otherwise, so no after looking at drawings of 2 four foot tracks side by side or even three in a triangle may work. Yes it does work, and yes... you can successfully connect them. I am not Mylow and I am not "faking" my results. Thank you for the chide though, I am getting used to it by now.
Quote from: MeggerMan on October 27, 2013, 07:28:03 PM
@Michael,
I suspect you need to have a complete looping device even if you can prove the exit point is higher than the insertion point because there is an effect that no-one seems to have mentioned yet.
I seem to remember and I could be wrong but way back when Greg Watson was building the original SMOT device he or someone else noticed that the steel ball bearing undergoes a very slight repulsion before it enters the magnetic field array that pulls it up the ramp.
I think this has something to do with the magnetic field from the array causing the ball to be slightly magnetised and creating a very slight repulsive force between itself and the array.
So by placing the ball bearing inside the magnetic field of the array, just ahead of the ramp, you have already given the ball a head start in terms of magnetic potential energy. Therefore you need sufficient slope or momentum to get past this sticky insertion point.
All the negative views here are not stopping me from experimenting with this.
Its a good engineering challenge and hopefully within the scope of most people to be able to be built with basic tools.
Meggerman
Thanks Meggerman, I agree and will not give up as well. In my most popular video, I successfully connected two and got the drop-off and hand-off working awesome, I just need to build them longer to obtain the height to provide the separation to keep adjoining tracks from trying to slam together.
Quote from: Michael Q Shaw on October 27, 2013, 07:35:02 PM
Never say never, I am still actively working on it. Even then a self looped SMOT would only have the amount of "energy" that you "built" into it, plus what is given initially by placement to begin its operation, getting it to self loop is possible, but if you try to take much energy away from it yes, it more than likely will stop. The only possible manner to get anything out of it would be during the portion of operation when it is driven by the magnetic fields, yes like a sling shot, at least that is how mine operate, and they release just fine. For instance, my 1/2 inch lift track is made with enough strength to lift up to 3/4 inches, you must purposely build them stronger and extend them beyond the point of exit for a smooth disconnect. I will one day, before life escapes me. I honestly believe that four of my 4 foot tracks connected in a square will prove the operation best, then using clear rubber tubing curved into the starting position of the next ramp, in that manner the ball will already begin rolling in the new direction of travel of the next ramp on the downward roll -because it cannot cross the magnetic field of the adjoining ramp, hence why I made my video with a right angle, it gets stuck on it otherwise, so no after looking at drawings of 2 four foot tracks side by side or even three in a triangle may work. Yes it does work, and yes... you can successfully connect them. I am not Mylow and I am not "faking" my results. Thank you for the chide though, I am getting used to it by now.
So we appear to have another claim that "yes it does work"... without the slightest evidence given in support of the claim.
No, Michael, it does NOT work, and you cannot demonstrate a working triangle, or square, or circle of ramps that will self-loop. Do all the tinkering and thinking that you like, but do not make claims you cannot support. Especially claims that have been proven wrong over and over. Do you really think you are the first one to think of putting four smot ramps in a square?
If you want to state that you BELIEVE it WOULD WORK if only you can find the right configuration... that is fine, work away, tell us about your BELIEFS. But when you claim "it does work" or that "you can successfully connect them" or that it runs for three hours unattended.... unless you provide evidence, you are just another hot-air claimant, and you'll fade away in frustration like all the rest of them do.
Why aren't you, Michael, insisting that elecar prove his claim by demonstrating a self-looped system? Don't you believe him? Wouldn't it be nice if he'd tell you the complete details, so that you could build it and then there would now be TWO demonstrations of a self-looped system? But it will never happen... yes, I said never.
I didn't mean to accuse you of being another Mylow.... I brought him up because, after all, he understood what was necessary to make his motors "work": an outside source of power. Of all people, don't you think he would have made a self-runner if it were possible to do so? He had support, he was working with the allegedly "proven" Howard Johnson design... he even prayed over Howard Johnson's grave.
Feel free to PROVE ME WRONG with a credible demonstration of a self-looping system. Anyone?
If you cannot demonstrate the earth-shaking, physics-defying, thermodynamically impossible system that you are claiming to have, then you should not claim it. It is as simple as that.
Quote from: TinselKoala on October 27, 2013, 07:57:54 PM
So we appear to have another claim that "yes it does work"... without the slightest evidence given in support of the claim.
No, Michael, it does NOT work, and you cannot demonstrate a working triangle, or square, or circle of ramps that will self-loop. Do all the tinkering and thinking that you like, but do not make claims you cannot support. Especially claims that have been proven wrong over and over. Do you really think you are the first one to think of putting four smot ramps in a square?
If you want to state that you BELIEVE it WOULD WORK if only you can find the right configuration... that is fine, work away, tell us about your BELIEFS. But when you claim "it does work" or that "you can successfully connect them" or that it runs for three hours unattended.... unless you provide evidence, you are just another hot-air claimant, and you'll fade away in frustration like all the rest of them do.
Why aren't you, Michael, insisting that elecar prove his claim by demonstrating a self-looped system? Don't you believe him? Wouldn't it be nice if he'd tell you the complete details, so that you could build it and then there would now be TWO demonstrations of a self-looped system? But it will never happen... yes, I said never.
I didn't mean to accuse you of being another Mylow.... I brought him up because, after all, he understood what was necessary to make his motors "work": an outside source of power. Of all people, don't you think he would have made a self-runner if it were possible to do so? He had support, he was working with the allegedly "proven" Howard Johnson design... he even prayed over Howard Johnson's grave.
Feel free to PROVE ME WRONG with a credible demonstration of a self-looping system. Anyone?
If you cannot demonstrate the earth-shaking, physics-defying, thermodynamically impossible system that you are claiming to have, then you should not claim it. It is as simple as that.
Never said that I had a complete connected loop, just said my ramps work and I have found a way to connect them that works. I am working as diligently as possible while buying parts with just the change from recycling. I never made any wild or crazy hot-air claims and I do plan to continue to post my results every chance I get. I wish elecar the best of luck with his designs, Yes it does work, and yes... you can successfully connect them, I have already provided my evidence and have shared what I have learned with everyone. like I said, I will continue to work diligently and will share everything that I possibly can. Please calm down, unless you are the site moderator or watchdog, even then, I have said nothing that should have upset you nor did I ever "claim" to have completed the holy grail. I would love to prove you wrong, this is a thread for people working to connect a completed loop isn't it? Not a thread for people to prove that it is not possible. I thought at least on this thread there would at more open mindedness than what you have displayed. If I don't get it completed fine -you can say I told you so, but if I do, I get to tell you I told you so, or even elecar may get to say it. We all will see in the end then I may fade away in frustration like all the rest of them do or you may.
Micheal:
I had no idea you were reading the thread. The analysis mostly was done to explain what is going on in more scientific terms. Many people may be aware now that when a ball rolls up your ramp, it's actually going down in energy. It's the exact opposite of what they were thinking. It can be difficult for people to understand magnetism so I made some postings to explain your setup.
The burden of proof is on you to make a self-runner. The problem is that when you arrange your four ramps there is not going to be any magic. Each of your ramps does not add any energy to the ball. Like I have explained, the ball goes down in energy, even if your eyes see it has raised in height. You are slightly raised in height but at the bottom of a magnetic potential energy well. That magnetic potential energy well might be invisible, but it is absolutely real and you can feel it just by picking up the ball and trying to move it. Each ramp decreases the amount of energy in the ball. There is just no escape from this fact. Your attempts to build the 4-track looping system will be frustrated by Mother Nature.
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on October 27, 2013, 08:46:44 PM
Micheal:
I had no idea you were reading the thread. The analysis mostly was done to explain what is going on in more scientific terms. Many people may be aware now that when a ball rolls up your ramp, it's actually going down in energy. It's the exact opposite of what they were thinking. It can be difficult for people to understand magnetism so I made some postings to explain your setup.
The burden of proof is on you to make a self-runner. The problem is that when you arrange your four ramps there is not going to be any magic. Each of your ramps does not add any energy to the ball. Like I have explained, the ball goes down in energy, even if your eyes see it has raised in height. You are slightly raised in height but at the bottom of a magnetic potential energy well. That magnetic potential energy well might be invisible, but it is absolutely real and you can feel it just by picking up the ball and trying to move it. Each ramp decreases the amount of energy in the ball. There is just no escape from this fact. Your attempts to build the 4-track looping system will be frustrated by Mother Nature.
MileHigh
Cool, Thank you, yeah I spent today relaxing, and reading almost every comment, had to carve the family pumpkin for Ol' hallows eve, or harvest festival if you will, and roast the salted seeds. I respect your analysis, I respect everyone's analysis, I still cannot hide what is actually happening with each and every subsequent build. For instance, if you actually look at my 9 foot track, I made it when I lived in military family housing back at Sheppard AFB in Texas. It received an input initially from a 3/4 inch downward decline, then it rolls back up and over a 3/4 inch incline, this in physics, should not be possible, if you roll anything between two equally sized hills for instance, unless you provide more force in any other particular direction somehow, that object will only roll back and forth between the two hills until it stops motionless -in the center of the valley of both hills- this is physics and this is what happens in life everywhere everyday, just like a bouncing ball loosing height and eventually stopping motionless on the ground. Yet, I was able to make it to continue rolling on and then did it again a second time with a 3/4 inch drop back uphill then flat, flat, and even then the ball continues on for over thirteen feet of total distance traveled. I ran this track in both directions, flipped it 180 degrees just to prove that my foundation did not have an incline so NO, it is not rolling down to a lower energy level like a roller coaster would operate. By making the magnetic fields stretch longer and allowing for a smooth removal the ball rolls uphill with the magnetic slingshot, then rolls back downhill with gravity. I made the last two track flat in the video to show that I could connect them on a flat plane and make them continue on, I originally had all of them uphill-downhill with all 3/4 inch lift configurations and when properly aligned, it worked every time. I am just trying to share what I see, what my family and I are seeing and the reason why I will not give up on this.
This is the question:
If a steel ball is attracted upward by a magnet against gravity with a force that is unable to hold it against the pull of gravity, does the ball fall any slower?
The ball would seem to weight less at the start of the fall because of the upward pull of the magnets, but the acceleration in gravity is the same regardless of an objects weight. So I would say no, the ball falls the same speed. (straight down only)
Now when you think about that, does that not indicate that a magnetic ramp could be overunity?
Quote from: lumen on October 27, 2013, 10:24:13 PM
This is the question:
If a steel ball is attracted upward by a magnet against gravity with a force that is unable to hold it against the pull of gravity, does the ball fall any slower?
The ball would seem to weight less at the start of the fall because of the upward pull of the magnets, but the acceleration in gravity is the same regardless of an objects weight. So I would say no, the ball falls the same speed. (straight down only)
Now when you think about that, does that not indicate that a magnetic ramp could be over-unity?
lumen, now take it for what this is worth, I know what you are trying to say, and this is only my opinion and from what I have learned so far...my beliefs, the magnetic ramp must be stronger than the force of gravity lengthwise, which is why it is able to pull the ball up against it's own mass, against the force of gravity, but it is not stronger than the force of gravity through the thickness of the magnet, the width of the magnet stack, which is how it can slip out below. The ball is able to slip through the width very easily, it gets pulled back by the the strength of the cumulative magnetic field strength through the length or at the so called "gates" or "sticky spots". I do not believe it is over-unity, I believe it should be classed as an "open system" in thermodynamics -receiving a force input during all reactions. When it slips out there is a slight tug against it yes, but that is why a ball sphere shape works so well and gravity can easily overcome it. Look at a sphere sectional, a sphere starts small then gets bigger and bigger then it gets smaller and smaller, in other words the force gets stronger and stronger at first and upon disconnect, the magnetic field gets weaker and weaker, and the ball falls at the same speed as soon as it breaks free of the propelling field. Great question.
@ Michael
Great to see you here,and good to see your still working on your device.
You probably already know this,but you will find that many here love sticking to there text book physics,while others actualy experiment and see what is fact. Most people will say-what crap,when i tell them a steel ball can actualy be repelled by a magnetic field-until i show them my video's of it doing just that.
I wonder how many of the naysayers have actualy tried building a SMOT them self?My guess is none,as they have that!!IT CANT BE DONE!! attitude. Thankfully,the wright brothers never had that attitude.
Well.
I see that this thread has descended into a list of bad assumptions, poor observations, claims without evidence and even the usual "you didn't try to build it so you can't know" canard. You don't know what I've built or how much I've learned from the FAILED builds of others, now do you.
You are oblivious to scientific analysis and are happily fiddling along making assumptions, poor measurements and insulting your critics. Fine. Here's my prediction: none of you will EVER be able to show a self-looping SMOT! Not even close. Michael especially is making lots of faulty assumptions. If only his assumptions were true, he could easily loop his tracks. But he cannot... he must be really puzzled as to why not. The reason lies in the assumptions, which are actually false.
Learn from the mistakes of others, friends. You are all of you repeating work that has been done over and over and you are adding nothing new... so why do you expect to succeed where people like Howard Johnson couldn't? Never mind, it's a rhetorical question. It amuses and saddens me greatly to see such minds as yours wasting your time on this silly SMOT idea which will never work.
At least re-examine your assumptions. Yes, a ball that is attracted by a magnet above, will fall more slowly until it's out of the magnetic field. The acceleration of the ball is the result of the two forces it experiences, one of them doesn't magically vanish! Of course it's possible to get a ball to rise higher than the release point if it enters a zone of magnetic attraction. This doesn't mean it will _exit_ that zone with enough energy to go around and re-enter it! And uninformed allegations and assumptions about who built what are just silly. Thousands of people, quite literally, have tried every conceivable SMOT ramp arrangement and all have found the same thing: it doesn't work. But many more people, with firm groundings in physics, the mechanics of materials, dynamics, and experimentation have realized it's impossible, and why, and so they don't waste their time or money on it.
Carry on. When someone has something _new_ in the area of SMOTs, please let me know. So far.... this thread is like watching re-runs from the Seventies. Examine your assumptions, people; you are just wrong about many things, there are at least three major errors of fact on this page alone.
And by the way... the Wright brothers were surrounded by working examples of what they were trying to do: Birds. Where are your natural examples of what you are trying to do? Nowhere in the universe. But counterexamples exist all around you. So the popular ploy of mentioning the Wrights, or any other successful development that is founded on science, does not apply here. Where is your "magnetic wind tunnel" where you explore the characteristics and behaviour of magnets, before you try to "fly" them? Nowhere. So quit talking bollocks about the Wright Brothers.
I would like to second TK's points with a bit of a caveat.
There is much merit in reproducing the experiments of others, even if they failed to accomplish what they originally set out to do. I believe Faraday is a good example of an experimentalist that recreated every effort of those before him. He was not content to simple believe what was presented by those who had come before, but instead took the time to learn all the subtle knowledge that those earlier scientists had acquired along the way. Whether they succeeded or failed.
However, claiming to be able to do what others have shown before to be impossible, and failing to accept sage advice from those that have tried before, to the point of even dismissing their warnings and suggestions is fruitless. It can only lead to wasted time. I believe wisdom can more quickly be gained by researching what they have to say and/or trying the experiments that they suggest.
My $0.02.
M.
Thats the spirit guy's-lets throw in the towl because others have failed.
Evolution or creation???- neither proven or disproven.
Bark all you want about laws that are not set in stone,but i for one will not give up because of others failures. It's my time,so let me waiste it as i see fit-if you believe that is what im doing?.
I thought the whole idea of these forums,was to go against the grain,and find those anomalies that are yet to be discovered?,and allow people to post there belief's.
If we all agreed on thing's,then there wouldnt be many new discoveries made-our world would still be flat.
Like you said TK,the answer for the wright brothers was flying around the skies for million's of years. But there were still many that thought heavier than air machines would never fly.
As far as the thread go's,it hasnt veered off topic at all. The thread is about a looped SMOT device,which is exactly what we have been discusing.
Have you seen a magnetic field repel a steel ball? What would be the outcome if the ball was repelled out of the ramp by the magnetic field when it was falling?.
Yes many have tried and failed,but to many doors still to open on this one.
To date,you and MH are correct as it stands now,in that no one has been successful in looping a smot. But hopefully that will change soon.
So is my head on your chopping block,simply because i dont agree with what yourself and MH are saying? Do i have to agree with the big gun's to be seen as a valid experimenter that could contribute to forums like this?.
I have great respec for you,MH and many others here,but that dosnt stop me from trying thing's myself,and it dosnt mean i am going to agree with everything you and others have to say. I have seen to many thing's through my own experiments,that go against what was said to be possible,so now i prefer to disprove thing myself through my own build's.
@TK
If you are correct and the magnetic field makes the ball fall slower, then one can assume that the energy lost in the fall would be exactly the same as the energy gained in raising the ball and this is the point where all SMOT ramps will fail.
Hi elecar,
You seem to be silent I hope you are still around? With your silence you only feed negative opinions.
About 10 days ago you mentioned retaking a video and upload it, please continue and show it. Afterall, you wrote in Reply #193:
"Hi powercat, I really do not mind the skeptics taking part in the thread, I do take exception to being called a scam, fraud, liar when those skeptics have not even given me enough opportunity to show the effect working.
I have never asked anyone here for anything, I have already said it, but not now and not in the future. There is nothing here for sale."
And on your own setup you wrote in Reply #194:
"Hi happyfunball, I am not a scientist, I barely understand the concept of CoE or 2LOT, I played with magnets trying to get a conventional SMOT to work, I was inspired by Bills videos. During the course of trying it out I noticed strange (to me) behaviour when one side of the magnet array was removed. I toyed with it until I got the ball to rise to the top of the ramp and then roll back out of the ramp whilst still in the magnetic field.
I do not know what it is classed as, I tried to find out by posing a question on another thread which disintegrated in pretty much the same way as this one.
Here is my take as best as I can describe and my own understanding. The magnets can "pull" the ball up a ramp.
The ball is able to reverse and escape the field of that ramp from a height greater than it started. So in this case magnets = up - gravity = down.
All the threads I ever read said pretty much the same thing, "a smot can not be looped because the ball always leaves the ramp at a height equal to or lower than the point it started."
That was not what I was experiencing when using the effect instead of the conventional smot ramp with 2 arrays.
One thing I can tell you is that when making any application you must steer clear of OU or perpetual because it will not even be entertained. And that is why I have never and still do not claim either."
This is clear enough, your setup is not the usual SMOT, so please do continue your work here. Your statement from above: "I noticed strange (to me) behaviour when one side of the magnet array was removed. I toyed with it until I got the ball to rise to the top of the ramp and then roll back out of the ramp whilst still in the magnetic field." sounds significant and especially the second half of your sentence is perhaps the most crucial point in your setup.
Surely there are some members and other readers here who still give you the benefit of doubt. However, with your silence the number of those people will gradually run out and your setup remains a daydream.
rgds, Gyula
@elecar:
Yeah, I second what @gyulasun says. There are some of us still watching this thread to see what you will share next. Don't ignore us :)
Of course, feel free to ignore the negative detractors. 8)
truesearch
Quote from: lumen on October 28, 2013, 04:14:21 PM
@TK
If you are correct and the magnetic field makes the ball fall slower, then one can assume that the energy lost in the fall would be exactly the same as the energy gained in raising the ball and this is the point where all SMOT ramps will fail.
To be honest, I could care less how fast or slow the ball falls, so long as it escapes that first propelling field and delivers it to the starting position of another.
Quote from: tinman on October 28, 2013, 01:14:57 AM
@ Michael
Great to see you here,and good to see your still working on your device.
You probably already know this,but you will find that many here love sticking to there text book physics,while others actualy experiment and see what is fact. Most people will say-what crap,when i tell them a steel ball can actualy be repelled by a magnetic field-until i show them my video's of it doing just that.
I wonder how many of the naysayers have actualy tried building a SMOT them self?My guess is none,as they have that!!IT CANT BE DONE!! attitude. Thankfully,the wright brothers never had that attitude.
Thank you Tinman, good to be here, cannot believe I took so long to get involved.
Quote from: TinselKoala on October 28, 2013, 12:23:22 PM
Well.
I see that this thread has descended into a list of bad assumptions, poor observations, claims without evidence and even the usual "you didn't try to build it so you can't know" canard. You don't know what I've built or how much I've learned from the FAILED builds of others, now do you.
You are oblivious to scientific analysis and are happily fiddling along making assumptions, poor measurements and insulting your critics. Fine. Here's my prediction: none of you will EVER be able to show a self-looping SMOT! Not even close. Michael especially is making lots of faulty assumptions. If only his assumptions were true, he could easily loop his tracks. But he cannot... he must be really puzzled as to why not. The reason lies in the assumptions, which are actually false.
Learn from the mistakes of others, friends. You are all of you repeating work that has been done over and over and you are adding nothing new... so why do you expect to succeed where people like Howard Johnson couldn't? Never mind, it's a rhetorical question. It amuses and saddens me greatly to see such minds as yours wasting your time on this silly SMOT idea which will never work.
At least re-examine your assumptions. Yes, a ball that is attracted by a magnet above, will fall more slowly until it's out of the magnetic field. The acceleration of the ball is the result of the two forces it experiences, one of them doesn't magically vanish! Of course it's possible to get a ball to rise higher than the release point if it enters a zone of magnetic attraction. This doesn't mean it will _exit_ that zone with enough energy to go around and re-enter it! And uninformed allegations and assumptions about who built what are just silly. Thousands of people, quite literally, have tried every conceivable SMOT ramp arrangement and all have found the same thing: it doesn't work. But many more people, with firm groundings in physics, the mechanics of materials, dynamics, and experimentation have realized it's impossible, and why, and so they don't waste their time or money on it.
Carry on. When someone has something _new_ in the area of SMOTs, please let me know. So far.... this thread is like watching re-runs from the Seventies. Examine your assumptions, people; you are just wrong about many things, there are at least three major errors of fact on this page alone.
And by the way... the Wright brothers were surrounded by working examples of what they were trying to do: Birds. Where are your natural examples of what you are trying to do? Nowhere in the universe. But counterexamples exist all around you. So the popular ploy of mentioning the Wrights, or any other successful development that is founded on science, does not apply here. Where is your "magnetic wind tunnel" where you explore the characteristics and behaviour of magnets, before you try to "fly" them? Nowhere. So quit talking bollocks about the Wright Brothers.
Didn't the Juno spacecraft just glean energy from the Earth using it as a gravity sling-shot out on it's course to Jupiter? Couldn't that very well be considered as using gravity to accomplish work and an example of it in our natural world? After all, the spacecraft did increase it's velocity, and not by burning fossil fuels or more rocket fuel. Am I wrong again? dang. Wright Brothers rock!
Quote from: webby1 on October 28, 2013, 06:56:13 PM
To point out a few "birds" from my perspective.
We live in a universe that is expanding at an accelerating rate,, interesting
We now have 2 new toys to play with, dark matter and dark energy,, interesting
Then there is the big ugly wart on everyones nose, that thing that resides at the center of our little galaxy, and it seems to NOT be the only one,, yep the Black Hole,, that thing that does not follow the rules as they have been set forth by man.
These are some of the birds that show me that we do not know and or understand all of the workings of the things we play with.
I appreciate the knowledge and skills of the members of this board,, but that does not mean I agree with all that is said in either direction, I make my own decisions and observations.
To start a quest we must start with an assumption, upon testing for that assumption we need to be able to change it with the information gained.
Some assumptions have not been changed even with the advent of more information that is not in line with those assumptions. I read a report some time ago about triangulating with some distant known objects to see if the universe is round or not,, and they came beck with exactly 180 degrees,, not round,, that is interesting.
My 2 cents worth.
Awesome, that my friend is a mouthful of 2 cents.
Quote from: Michael Q Shaw on October 28, 2013, 06:42:44 PM
Didn't the Juno spacecraft just glean energy from the Earth using it as a gravity sling-shot out on it's course to Jupiter? Couldn't that very well be considered as using gravity to accomplish work and an example of it in our natural world? After all, the spacecraft did increase it's velocity, and not by burning fossil fuels or more rocket fuel. Am I wrong again? dang. Wright Brothers rock!
There is nothing unusual or 'over-unity' about using earth as a gravity slingshot. The speed of the spacecraft increased because the earth was slowed down (although by such a tiny amount that it probably could not be measured). Simple Newtonian mechanics at play here.
My two cents.
This thread is a good example of a well established pattern when it comes to how free energy devices get evaluated on threads. We all know the pattern so I am not going to repeat it. I am just going to share my feelings and just discuss the Michael Q Shaw video clip, because that's the only thing I was involved in.
There was lots of enthusiasm for the clip. I looked at it and made some critical (as in the sense of analysis) comments about the clip. I said that the ball ends up at a lower elevation and you don't even need to complete all four ramps to properly evaluate it.
Then I looked at an individual ramp and explained how it's basically a magnetic energy sinkhole. The ball might go up in elevation a bit but typically you lose all or most of the kinetic energy in the ball and as a result this this leaves you at the bottom of a magnetic potential energy well. So you have gone down in energy as compared to where you started. None of the enthusiasts or believers had anything to say.
Then I looked at what the real device would look like with four ramps. Based on how a single ramp behaves, it clearly indicates that the setup will not work.
Tinman said that it's all just textbooks. I didn't open up a single textbook. I just looked at the setup and did an evaluation of what was going on to the best of my ability. I did not hear any substantial counterarguments to what I had to say.
Then Trueresearch stated, "Of course, feel free to ignore the negative detractors." That is the worst of the worst when you see comments like that. Reading between the lines it says this to me, "Don't try to learn, don't try to think for yourself, don't listen to others that have a differing opinion from you, stay ignorant and comfortably numb and play with your magnets." On top of that, the characterization of "negative detractor" is a loaded term with negative connotations and it's not even true. A "detractor" is just a trash talker from the sidelines that has nothing to say of substance. The ramp was really analyzed in detail, and it's all in the thread for those that want to read it.
This "anti thinking" undercurrent is so strong sometimes that I think people are actually afraid to post and say they understood the analysis and they got it and appreciate it. Instead, you get posts after the end of the discussion where people only mildly infer that they got the message and understood the analysis. This is dangerous and it's totally counter-productive and results in the collective intelligence of the group advancing at the pace of a glacier. How often do you hear the term, "magnetic potential energy" in a thread when people are talking about SMOTs? Almost never.
This is not about "textbooks vs. alternative thinkers." Firstly and foremost, it's about simply trying to understand what is going on and to see if it has any merit. There is no "textbook" explanation of the magnetic ramp, and there is no "alternative" explanation for the magnetic ramp. There is only the truth. I stated the truth when I said that when you see the ball roll up the ramp it is actually rolling downhill into a magnetic potential energy well. This IS true, and anybody building one of these things to experiment would be a fool to ignore these facts.
It's like the people with hope and the believers and the promoters all fall silent when the technical merits or lack of technical merits for a given proposition are discussed. They have almost no comments whatsoever with respect to the technical discussion. Then when the discussion is over they come back and say, "that's all just crap from books and "laws" are made to be broken." That's a total cop out. Discuss the merits or lack of merits of the proposition instead of just stating the old tired cliches. And just saying to ignore what you don't like to hear is simply ridiculous.
Anybody that is playing with SMOTs and has followed this thread has read the terms "gravitational potential energy" and "magnetic potential energy" and "well" a lot of times. If you really want to up your game you should go on Google to flesh out the concepts if you need extra learning material and then start using the terms.
Anyway, the analysis was done. Your typical magnetic rail that lifts up a metal ball a few centimeters normally represents a huge loss of energy. That is the reality of this situation and it's not dependent on books, it's not dependent on an "alternative view," it's just the honest to goodness truth and there is only one truth about the metal rail.
MileHigh
Quote from: gyulasun on October 28, 2013, 05:30:42 PM
Hi elecar,
You seem to be silent I hope you are still around? With your silence you only feed negative opinions.
About 10 days ago you mentioned retaking a video and upload it, please continue and show it. Afterall, you wrote in Reply #193:
I think I got his idea. The self destructing video which he has posted in Reply #18 itself is his working device.
Ball is getting jammed at junction. He needs help from the forum to solve that problem. He is making others to get involved just to solve his problem telling that he has a working device in which ball runs continuously for three hours without attaining escape velocity.
If somebody in this forum succeds in making self looping SMOT and post the video, he may make some alterations in his design, make it to work and claim the invention is his.
INGENIOUS!!!!
PS : He is also telling that he would post the video of his 'working device' after striking deal with toy manufacturer. But once he strikes deal with toy manufacturer, I don't think he is supposed to leak out the design without their permission. SO we would never see his 'working device' here. We may have to buy the toy in market after TM manufactures it.
Newton II:
QuotePS : He is also telling that he would post the video of his 'working device' after striking deal with toy manufacturer. But once he strikes deal with toy manufacturer, I don't think he is supposed to leak out the design without their permission. SO we would never see his 'working device' here. We may have to buy the toy in market after TM manufactures it.
I can't take comments like that seriously and I don't know how anybody can. Those comments are just a ridiculous as Wayne of HydroEnergy Revolution stating that he was going to "identify customers" for his alleged free energy machine or the Quentron guy stating about his alleged technology that his first market would be to replace batteries in hearing aids with new Quentron-tech batteries that never have to be replaced.
If the little track ran continuously it would probably be the
biggest news story of the entire 21st century, and we are only 13 years into the century. Can't you see and understand that? It's completely and utterly ridiculous to suggest that the guy is going to go to a toy manufacturer so that toddlers and very young children can play with a free energy toy. It's simply insane and ridiculous and it means that you should be highly suspect of the person that stated that.
MileHigh
Quote from: lumen on October 28, 2013, 04:14:21 PM
@TK
If you are correct and the magnetic field makes the ball fall slower, then one can assume that the energy lost in the fall would be exactly the same as the energy gained in raising the ball and this is the point where all SMOT ramps will fail.
I am certainly correct, and the people on this thread who are building SMOT ramps have the means to construct and perform comparison tests to see for themselves. The "magnetic wind tunnel", remember? The Wrights didn't just start putting stuff together and try to fly it... they examined their assumptions by doing background research -- inventing the wind tunnel along the way -- that showed them that a built-up wing _could indeed_ generate enough lift to make further research efforts worthwhile.
So let's see some experimenter set up an experiment to TEST the proposition, if you can't believe it from first principles. You can even use Galileo's trick of using ramps instead of dropping your balls straight down, to slow the acceleration due to gravity and make the data easier to gather. If -- or rather _when_ you find that what I say is true.... what then? (The experiment has been done before, many times, so I am confident of the outcome, but don't take my word for it, do the experiment yourself.)
Is this the point at which all SMOT ramps fail? Well, if they are built upon the assumption that you stated in the post, then it is certainly _one_ of the failure points. There are others, though. Inevitable losses of momentum due to friction, eddy currents, aerodynamic drag and even the Earth's magnetic field are going to be loss mechanisms that subtract from the kinetic energy of the moving parts. Where is this energy replaced, in any of the SMOT designs we have seen? Do you think that JLN's apparatus would work in a vacuum, frictionless environment? Well, consider the pendulum. In a vacuum, a pendulum can swing for a _long_ time and it can be very difficult to detect, from one swing to the next, that it is decaying. Some pendulums I have worked with are so sensitive that they effectively couple vibrations from the ambient, into their swing and without active damping would indeed keep swinging forever. But this is because there IS a mechanism to replace the decreasing energy; it's coming in from outside. In one case I can tell you about, the very sensitive Cavendish torsion pendulum was so very sensitive that it actually responded to a heavy truck that parked, once every few days, across the street while the driver went into a business. Just occasionally, and the presence and removal of the heavy truck was enough to keep the undamped pendulum swinging. It took nearly two years to track down and confirm this source of artefact in this very sensitive experiment.
By the way, if you think about pendulums enough you will realize that you have a ready-made SMOT ramp analog right there. Just position a magnet somewhere along the steel ball's travel and see if you can make a perpetual swinger. The pendulum does away with all problems associated with ramps: consistency, friction, cost, etc. but is functionally equivalent to a two-ramp system. And you can have that little insight for free.
Quote from: Michael Q Shaw on October 28, 2013, 06:42:44 PM
Didn't the Juno spacecraft just glean energy from the Earth using it as a gravity sling-shot out on it's course to Jupiter? Couldn't that very well be considered as using gravity to accomplish work and an example of it in our natural world? After all, the spacecraft did increase it's velocity, and not by burning fossil fuels or more rocket fuel. Am I wrong again? dang. Wright Brothers rock!
Wrong? Yes, the craft gained energy. Did it come from nowhere, as you seem to be assuming? No, it did not. Please read up on gravitational slingshots, if you can take time out from reading up on what the Wright brothers _actually_ did.
Once again, your assumptions are faulty.
Quote from: webby1 on October 28, 2013, 06:56:13 PM
To point out a few "birds" from my perspective.
We live in a universe that is expanding at an accelerating rate,, interesting
We now have 2 new toys to play with, dark matter and dark energy,, interesting
Then there is the big ugly wart on everyones nose, that thing that resides at the center of our little galaxy, and it seems to NOT be the only one,, yep the Black Hole,, that thing that does not follow the rules as they have been set forth by man.
These are some of the birds that show me that we do not know and or understand all of the workings of the things we play with.
I appreciate the knowledge and skills of the members of this board,, but that does not mean I agree with all that is said in either direction, I make my own decisions and observations.
To start a quest we must start with an assumption, upon testing for that assumption we need to be able to change it with the information gained.
Some assumptions have not been changed even with the advent of more information that is not in line with those assumptions. I read a report some time ago about triangulating with some distant known objects to see if the universe is round or not,, and they came beck with exactly 180 degrees,, not round,, that is interesting.
My 2 cents worth.
When you figure out how to incorporate dark matter, dark energy and black holes into a SMOT, please be sure to let me know.
BTW, while black holes are pretty much accepted these days, the existence of dark matter and dark energy is still very much an open question. The galactic rotation profile data that is the "best" evidence for dark matter is very controversial, counterexamples abound, and recent re-evaluations of things like the Pioneer "anomaly" have called into question the idea of dark energy as well.
2 cents won't buy you much these days. That's one kind of "inflation" that is very real.
Someday, webby, we'd like to hear your complete story of the Wayne Travis affair. One has to wonder, considering your history, why you aren't right there by his side in Oklahoma, helping him to bring his "flat-pack" rotary Zed-Taz free energy overunity buoyancy drive to market. Don't you believe in Travis any more?
Quote MH: Tinman said that it's all just textbooks. I didn't open up a single textbook. I just looked at the setup and did an evaluation of what was going on to the best of my ability. I did not hear any substantial counterarguments to what I had to say.
I to had no reply from you or TK ,in reguards to a steel ball being repelled by a magnetic field-that was my counter argument.
So how is it that a magnetic field can repel ferromagnetic materials?
Where in the text books dose it show you how to do that?
This i discovered through my own experiments,not through any text book.
@TK
Your magnetic wind tunnels you speak of,are something we have been useing for years in our window motor builds-maglev bearings-infact any MLD shows this magnetic wind tunnel you speak of. The magnets are provoding a continual force that is equal and opposite to the force of gravity-without physical attachment-show me any other device that can do the same without any energy input.
It all comes down to how you see thing's,and some can step back and see the bigger picture.
Here is an example.
We take a house brick,and attach neo magnets to the bottom of it. We then have the same neo magnets placed on the ground-with like fields faceing eachother between the brick and the magnets on the ground.Lets say we can get a stable situation(ballance),where the brick is now magneticly levitated 1 inch of the ground. To most,the magnets arnt seen to be providing any useful work,or energy output.But then we grab the same house brick,sit on the ground,and we hold that brick 1 inch off the ground, we now have a situation where energy is being used,and provided by our muscles.
So how is it that energy is provided in one situation,and not the other,when doing the very same thing,on the very same object?. The magnetic levitated spinning top is another prime example. If you had to hold that top in the air,you would be useing energy to do so. But when it is held in the air via magnetic field's,all of a sudden no energy is being used or provided.
It either takes energy to suspend a mass in the air,or it dosnt-which is it?.
Tinman:
I will get to your other points later but I will discuss the levitating spring top now and touch on other matters later.
It is counter intuitive to see a levitating top or a brick and be told that no work is being done because there is force but there is no displacement.
For starters, let's forget about holding a brick in your hand. Yes, it takes energy for your body to do that. But it's a completely different thing all together. What your body is doing compared to what is going on in an experimental setup are completely different things and not to be mixed up. Your body is expending energy to hold the brick steady but if the brick is not moving then you are doing no work on the brick itself. It should be easy to distinguish the two.
Take an example of a brick with magnets on the bottom and an electromagnet setup with an on-off switch. You know the switch has to be on for the brick to float. You know current is flowing through the electromagnets. Same question here applies, are the electromagnets doing any work to keep the brick floating in place?
MileHigh
The second force present in the smot,is gravity.
Once again,it depends on how you look at this force to see if it actualy outputing any energy.Most say a gravity powered device is impossible,and yet we live on one very large gravity engine.Gravity is continualy providing a force greater that the centrifugal force of the spinning planet on all mass that resides on our planet. As we know,if there was no gravity,we would all fly off into space.The amount that the gravitational force is greater than the centrifugal force,is simply the weight of the object. Now ,if we go to the moon,we become lighter,even though the moon dosnt spin-no centrifugal force.But due to its small mass,we still weigh less, as there is less gravitational force.
(Maybe gravity is our monopole magnet we all seek. Most seem to think a monopole magnet will either have a north or south field. But what if it is a combination of both,and was attracted to all other monopole magnets of the same configuration?. Well we already have that,and that is gravity.All mass has gravity,and all masses are attracted to eachother.)
Whats interesting about magnet's,is being able to transfer weight without physical contact. This is one thing overlooked with the smot device,amoungst a few.These i will post in my next post.In the mean time,i will go and prepair my agrument,so as you all will understand. I will make it as clear as possable,so as it's easy to follow.
In the mean time,lets have a look at this video,and see if you can realy look at it,and account for everything taking place-(MH)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4VN6KWM8Rbc
Quote from: MileHigh on October 29, 2013, 01:51:41 AM
Tinman:
I will get to your other points later but I will discuss the levitating spring top now and touch on other matters later.
It is counter intuitive to see a levitating top or a brick and be told that no work is being done because there is force but there is no displacement.
For starters, let's forget about holding a brick in your hand. Yes, it takes energy for your body to do that. But it's a completely different thing all together. What your body is doing compared to what is going on in an experimental setup are completely different things and not to be mixed up. Your body is expending energy to hold the brick steady but if the brick is not moving then you are doing no work on the brick itself. It should be easy to distinguish the two.
Take an example of a brick with magnets on the bottom and an electromagnet setup with an on-off switch. You know the switch has to be on for the brick to float. You know current is flowing through the electromagnets. Same question here applies, are the electromagnets doing any work to keep the brick floating in place?
MileHigh
That would depend on your frame of reference point. From our reference point,the brick would seem to be not moving. But in reality,it is traveling at the same speed as the earth through space.
As far as the electromagnets doing work while keeping the brick floating in space go's-my answer is yes. But you must have the ability to stand back,and see everything that is happening to know why i answered yes-i wonder how many can do that.
Speaking of Elecar's possible or alleged self-looping device, MH writes:
Quote from: MileHigh on October 28, 2013, 09:02:29 PM
Newton II:
If the little track ran continuously it would probably be the biggest news story of the entire 21st century, and we are only 13 years into the century. Can't you see and understand that? It's completely and utterly ridiculous to suggest that the guy is going to go to a toy manufacturer so that toddlers and very young children can play with a free energy toy. It's simply insane and ridiculous and it means that you should be highly suspect of the person that stated that.
MileHigh
On the contrary, approaching a toy manufacturer seems to be a quick way to get some funding without going through the "censors" at the US patent office, which office has written that they will NOT fund "perpetual motion" devices. But a toy manufacturer might just go by what he sees in front of his face -- if the device self-loops! Which I still haven't seen yet.
Nice vid, Tinman.
Along similar lines, but on a larger scale: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U9BsOW6P7QM (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U9BsOW6P7QM)
Starting around the 8:30 mark, Gil.. does an interesting experiment. We observe a fairly massive "roller" accelerating up the magnetic ramp from starting point A, and then INERTIA carries it past the "sticky point" to exit point B, where it goes down a ramp and effectively out of the magnetic field.
Unfortunately, the experimenter does not measure the starting height ( A) nor the height of point B. A few simple measurements would tell us a lot. As it stands, there is no claim of untapped energy entering the system somehow. I would like to see the experiment re-done with careful measurements taken. (There are a few other measurements needed as well,like the mass of the roller and the work needed to move it into initial position.)
He does talk about working towards a looping device, but I see nothing along these lines in his later vids (which are numerous and quite interesting).
Hi,
in all of these things there's always the ubiquitous hand. Let's see a hands free demo.
Question, I put my ball on the scale and weighed it, held my magnet above the ball and the
weight got less,is my magnet doing any work?
I dropped my ball through a vertical plexiglass tube, I positioned my magnet so that
it retarded the fall, was my magnet doing any work?
I put a glass of water on my scale, noted the weight and then dipped my finger into
the water, what happened?
I watched the Tinselzed and it stopped, what happened?
John.
Quote from: minnie on October 29, 2013, 10:36:39 AM
Question, I put my ball on the scale and weighed it, held my magnet above the ball and the
weight got less,is my magnet doing any work?
Magnetic potential at any point in a magnetic field is defined as ' work done on a unit north pole to bring it from infinity to that point'. Which means you have already done work to bring the magnet above the ball and holding it with force to balance force of attraction between ball and magnet. The weight lost by the ball appears on your hand and you will feel that magnet has become heavier. ( you will feel the force of attraction on your hand).
If ball jumps and sticks to the magnet, it is only dissipating the energy which you have already done on the magnet to bring it from infinity to that point.
Quote from: minnie on October 29, 2013, 10:36:39 AM
I dropped my ball through a vertical plexiglass tube, I positioned my magnet so that
it retarded the fall, was my magnet doing any work?
Magnet does the work by imparting additional acceleration to the falling ball and ball falls with higher speed than under normal gravity and sticks to the magnet. But to seperate them and take ball to the original place you have to do equal amount of work which magnet did on ball while falling.
Hi,
thank you Newton, it appeaars as if the magnet does do some work but infact your
hand is doing the work- eventually!
John.
Quote from: tinman on October 29, 2013, 01:26:40 AM
(snip)
@TK
Your magnetic wind tunnels you speak of,are something we have been useing for years in our window motor builds-maglev bearings-infact any MLD shows this magnetic wind tunnel you speak of. The magnets are provoding a continual force that is equal and opposite to the force of gravity-without physical attachment-show me any other device that can do the same without any energy input.
(snip)
I think you have missed my point. The Wright brothers invented the wind tunnel as a tool to test different airfoil shapes, angles of attack and so on. I am not making an analogy between "wind" and the magnetic field. I am saying that I haven't seen anyone explore the critical features of magnets and magnetism _without_ trying to build some kind of functional apparatus. Have you ever seen anyone build a test fixture and use a force gauge to measure the relative attraction of gravity and magnetism for magnets and balls in various positions, to determine whether or not the SMOT idea is viable? That is the kind of "wind tunnel" for magnetism I mean, just one example.
When I was working on Steorn's Orbo, I constructed just such a fixture, to determine the actual relationship between applied current and the "core effect" decrease in attraction of the core to a PM, by plotting current, separation distance and force for many different kinds of toroid material. What I found was very surprising to me, and I have never seen anyone else perform such a test, not even Steorn ... so I think my knowledge of the Core Effect and its ability to drive motors may be more complete than others. I used my knowledge to select the optimum toroid material, to make a core effect motor (Orbette 2.0) and test it, even to the point of reproducing Steorn's scope displays showing the negative energy integral, "proving" that my Orbette 2.0 was doing the same things that Steorn claimed indicated OU.
That's what I mean by "wind tunnel": A system that allows you to examine the critical parameters of your idea _before_ you try to build something by trial and error. People apparently think the Wrights just slapped together a bunch of old bicycle parts and went flying. The truth is very different. For example, they had already been flying, and even soaring for sustained flights, for several years, perfecting their control system and flying skills on _kites and gliders_ before they took their best-performing _glider_ design and added a motor to it to make the first real airplane. They used the wind tunnel invention to try shapes and motions before they put anything together to take flying. They knew without doubt that a certain wind speed over their wing would provide enough lift to fly, that their control system (wing warping) would work, and that their structures could carry the strain, before they ever built anything to take out to Kill Devil Hill.
So my "wind tunnel" suggestion was to examine the particular assertion that a magnet above doesn't retard the fall of a ball in gravity. Build an apparatus that isn't an attempt to make a running SMOT, but just to test that particular bit of critical behaviour. The things you might find out by examining the critical parts of SMOT ideas may change your position about the feasibility of the idea. Or you may discover something that makes it all possible. Without actually doing the work you will never know. Repeating the designs and experiences of hundreds of previous failures isn't really going to teach you anything much. Testing the fundamental assumptions will.
It's odd that you think repulsion or attraction of a PM isn't a "physical attachment". I know what you mean, of course, you mean non-contact. Now I'll get whacky: Gravity is not a force. It is one kind of "space warpage" that is caused by the presence of mass. Magnetism is another kind of "space warpage" that is caused by certain configurations of electric fields: moving charges within bulk material. The motion of a ball that feels both gravity (because it has mass) and the magnetic field (because its atoms have a certain electron configuration) is the result of the total warpage of space by the mass and the moving electric fields. The ball, left to its own devices, takes the route that represents the _least energy_, that is, a "geodesic" path to the local energetic (PE) minimum or "potential well".
Quote from: webby1 on October 29, 2013, 01:39:57 PM
Question.
I built a ramp shaped magnet stack and tried my best to fill in the staked ends so as to make a field that is as uniform as I could with a very long pole face.
The ramp is 22 inches long and goes from 3\4 inch to 3 1\4 inches
Using a string there is a change in pull as observed by the string being stretched down to the ramp on the thick end and being about 3\16 of an inch above the ramp on the short end,, level base and level face.
My initial thought was that the thicker, stronger end of the ramp should have an influence on a magnet or steel ball and that should cause a migration from the thin weaker end up to the thick stronger end.
This was not happening for me so I tried hanging them from a string,, I could get a tilt in the string but that took motion and it would tilt either way,, a little more when moving from the thin end to the thick end,, maybe.
Not happy with a basic non-result I thought that hanging an electromagnet on the string should do the job,, I tried that and could get no deflection in the string that it was suspended by,, 30 inches in length,, and was wondering if this is a fair test or not.
I was trying to test for the motive value coming from a gradient in the PM field with a fixed distance of spacing,,, if that makes sense.
I think this is more like what I meant when I talked about a "wind tunnel" test program. You are exploring force vs distance within that presumed gradient field. Perhaps your null result was because you didn't really have a gradient over the area you were sensing. Without a full dimensioned drawing including orientations of everything it's hard to say for sure. You did say that you tried to make it as uniform as possible, maybe you succeeded, so there's no gradient within your test zone.
Quote from: minnie on October 29, 2013, 10:36:39 AM
Hi,
in all of these things there's always the ubiquitous hand. Let's see a hands free demo.
Question, I put my ball on the scale and weighed it, held my magnet above the ball and the
weight got less,is my magnet doing any work?
I dropped my ball through a vertical plexiglass tube, I positioned my magnet so that
it retarded the fall, was my magnet doing any work?
I put a glass of water on my scale, noted the weight and then dipped my finger into
the water, what happened?
I watched the Tinselzed and it stopped, what happened?
John.
Q1-The magnet is transfering the work being done to your hand and arm.
Q2-yes,it requires energy to slow a moving mass.
Q3-your finger got wet. But on a serious note,
1:the glass of water becomes heavier
2:the potential energy within that glass of water is raised.
3:energy is also being used,in that you are holding up your hand and arm.
Quote from: TinselKoala on October 29, 2013, 01:53:59 PM
I think you have missed my point. The Wright brothers invented the wind tunnel as a tool to test different airfoil shapes, angles of attack and so on. I am not making an analogy between "wind" and the magnetic field. I am saying that I haven't seen anyone explore the critical features of magnets and magnetism _without_ trying to build some kind of functional apparatus. Have you ever seen anyone build a test fixture and use a force gauge to measure the relative attraction of gravity and magnetism for magnets and balls in various positions, to determine whether or not the SMOT idea is viable? That is the kind of "wind tunnel" for magnetism I mean, just one example.
When I was working on Steorn's Orbo, I constructed just such a fixture, to determine the actual relationship between applied current and the "core effect" decrease in attraction of the core to a PM, by plotting current, separation distance and force for many different kinds of toroid material. What I found was very surprising to me, and I have never seen anyone else perform such a test, not even Steorn ... so I think my knowledge of the Core Effect and its ability to drive motors may be more complete than others. I used my knowledge to select the optimum toroid material, to make a core effect motor (Orbette 2.0) and test it, even to the point of reproducing Steorn's scope displays showing the negative energy integral, "proving" that my Orbette 2.0 was doing the same things that Steorn claimed indicated OU.
That's what I mean by "wind tunnel": A system that allows you to examine the critical parameters of your idea _before_ you try to build something by trial and error. People apparently think the Wrights just slapped together a bunch of old bicycle parts and went flying. The truth is very different. For example, they had already been flying, and even soaring for sustained flights, for several years, perfecting their control system and flying skills on _kites and gliders_ before they took their best-performing _glider_ design and added a motor to it to make the first real airplane. They used the wind tunnel invention to try shapes and motions before they put anything together to take flying. They knew without doubt that a certain wind speed over their wing would provide enough lift to fly, that their control system (wing warping) would work, and that their structures could carry the strain, before they ever built anything to take out to Kill Devil Hill.
So my "wind tunnel" suggestion was to examine the particular assertion that a magnet above doesn't retard the fall of a ball in gravity. Build an apparatus that isn't an attempt to make a running SMOT, but just to test that particular bit of critical behaviour. The things you might find out by examining the critical parts of SMOT ideas may change your position about the feasibility of the idea. Or you may discover something that makes it all possible. Without actually doing the work you will never know. Repeating the designs and experiences of hundreds of previous failures isn't really going to teach you anything much. Testing the fundamental assumptions will.
It's odd that you think repulsion or attraction of a PM isn't a "physical attachment". I know what you mean, of course, you mean non-contact. Now I'll get whacky: Gravity is not a force. It is one kind of "space warpage" that is caused by the presence of mass. Magnetism is another kind of "space warpage" that is caused by certain configurations of electric fields: moving charges within bulk material. The motion of a ball that feels both gravity (because it has mass) and the magnetic field (because its atoms have a certain electron configuration) is the result of the total warpage of space by the mass and the moving electric fields. The ball, left to its own devices, takes the route that represents the _least energy_, that is, a "geodesic" path to the local energetic (PE) minimum or "potential well".
It just so happens that i started a thread on my forum to do just what you describe above.
Your last paragraph i will leave alone,as that is way above my head.
I also have been doing such testing for many years with magnets,there fields ,and the interaction they have on feromagnetic material's. This is how i found that a feromagnetic steel ball can actualy be repelled by a magnetic field,when that field is constructed in a certain configuration.
So yes,i have done some!wind tunnel ! testing on magnets,magnetic field's, and different types of materials. But i also know i have a lot more to do,befor the plane flies.
Hi,
as far as the Wright bros. are concerned somebody was going to achieve powered flight
around that time. The key to success was the internal combustion engine. I seem to
recall an earlier attempt, albeit a model guided by wire and powered by a steam engine.
The scientists who have made an impression on me are the likes of Einstein, Peter Higgs
and Hawking who have done the paper and pencil work.
My point being that by experimenting you've got to almost stumble on to something
whereas by carefully working with the facts that have been established and well proven
you've got a good chance of a result.
John.
Quote from: minnie on October 29, 2013, 03:25:04 PM
Hi,
as far as the Wright bros. are concerned somebody was going to achieve powered flight
around that time. The key to success was the internal combustion engine. I seem to
recall an earlier attempt, albeit a model guided by wire and powered by a steam engine.
The scientists who have made an impression on me are the likes of Einstein, Peter Higgs
and Hawking who have done the paper and pencil work.
My point being that by experimenting you've got to almost stumble on to something
whereas by carefully working with the facts that have been established and well proven
you've got a good chance of a result.
John.
My answers to your question John,incase you missed them.
1:the glass of water becomes heavier
2:the potential energy within that glass of water is raised.
3:energy is also being used,in that you are holding up your hand and arm.
Quote from: LibreEnergia on October 28, 2013, 08:20:58 PM
There is nothing unusual or 'over-unity' about using earth as a gravity slingshot. The speed of the spacecraft increased because the earth was slowed down (although by such a tiny amount that it probably could not be measured). Simple Newtonian mechanics at play here.
I wasn't saying there was anything unusual or "over-unity about using earth as a gravity slingshot. I am saying that those are the birds we are looking at. I was saying that it is an example of work being done by gravity. I Got ch ya.
Quote from: Michael Q Shaw on October 29, 2013, 05:48:30 PM
I wasn't saying there was anything unusual or "over-unity about using earth as a gravity slingshot. I am saying that those are the birds we are looking at. I was saying that it is an example of work being done by gravity. I Got ch ya.
It is not.
When you hammer in a nail, is the hammer doing work, or not?
You might as well say that the gravitational slingshot is an example of work being done by equations -- that would be more true than what you are claiming.
I know this wouldn't technically be overunity, but has anyone though of using the curie point as a mechanism to help past the sticking point? Just look up the 'nickel curie point motor' video on youtube. It was just a thought anyways....
Quote from: MileHigh on October 28, 2013, 08:31:23 PM
My two cents.
This thread is a good example of a well established pattern when it comes to how free energy devices get evaluated on threads. We all know the pattern so I am not going to repeat it. I am just going to share my feelings and just discuss the Michael Q Shaw video clip, because that's the only thing I was involved in.
There was lots of enthusiasm for the clip. I looked at it and made some critical (as in the sense of analysis) comments about the clip. I said that the ball ends up at a lower elevation and you don't even need to complete all four ramps to properly evaluate it.
Then I looked at an individual ramp and explained how it's basically a magnetic energy sinkhole. The ball might go up in elevation a bit but typically you lose all or most of the kinetic energy in the ball and as a result this this leaves you at the bottom of a magnetic potential energy well. So you have gone down in energy as compared to where you started. None of the enthusiasts or believers had anything to say.
Then I looked at what the real device would look like with four ramps. Based on how a single ramp behaves, it clearly indicates that the setup will not work.
Tinman said that it's all just textbooks. I didn't open up a single textbook. I just looked at the setup and did an evaluation of what was going on to the best of my ability. I did not hear any substantial counterarguments to what I had to say.
Then Trueresearch stated, "Of course, feel free to ignore the negative detractors." That is the worst of the worst when you see comments like that. Reading between the lines it says this to me, "Don't try to learn, don't try to think for yourself, don't listen to others that have a differing opinion from you, stay ignorant and comfortably numb and play with your magnets." On top of that, the characterization of "negative detractor" is a loaded term with negative connotations and it's not even true. A "detractor" is just a trash talker from the sidelines that has nothing to say of substance. The ramp was really analyzed in detail, and it's all in the thread for those that want to read it.
This "anti thinking" undercurrent is so strong sometimes that I think people are actually afraid to post and say they understood the analysis and they got it and appreciate it. Instead, you get posts after the end of the discussion where people only mildly infer that they got the message and understood the analysis. This is dangerous and it's totally counter-productive and results in the collective intelligence of the group advancing at the pace of a glacier. How often do you hear the term, "magnetic potential energy" in a thread when people are talking about SMOTs? Almost never.
This is not about "textbooks vs. alternative thinkers." Firstly and foremost, it's about simply trying to understand what is going on and to see if it has any merit. There is no "textbook" explanation of the magnetic ramp, and there is no "alternative" explanation for the magnetic ramp. There is only the truth. I stated the truth when I said that when you see the ball roll up the ramp it is actually rolling downhill into a magnetic potential energy well. This IS true, and anybody building one of these things to experiment would be a fool to ignore these facts.
It's like the people with hope and the believers and the promoters all fall silent when the technical merits or lack of technical merits for a given proposition are discussed. They have almost no comments whatsoever with respect to the technical discussion. Then when the discussion is over they come back and say, "that's all just crap from books and "laws" are made to be broken." That's a total cop out. Discuss the merits or lack of merits of the proposition instead of just stating the old tired cliches. And just saying to ignore what you don't like to hear is simply ridiculous.
Anybody that is playing with SMOTs and has followed this thread has read the terms "gravitational potential energy" and "magnetic potential energy" and "well" a lot of times. If you really want to up your game you should go on Google to flesh out the concepts if you need extra learning material and then start using the terms.
Anyway, the analysis was done. Your typical magnetic rail that lifts up a metal ball a few centimeters normally represents a huge loss of energy. That is the reality of this situation and it's not dependent on books, it's not dependent on an "alternative view," it's just the honest to goodness truth and there is only one truth about the metal rail.
MileHigh
MileHigh, I realize that the ball ends up at a lower elevation in my video of two linked tracks. Please just hear me out, I built it like that on purpose. Please think about everything I am saying here. On my nine foot track Magnet Ramp 16, 17 and 18, I actually first built it with 4 equal 3/4 inch hills if you will. Four decline to incline each lifted at an angle equal to a 3/4 inch lift. It worked every time, even two equal sized hills should get my point across, as this should not be possible with conventional physics. Then, I built the all aluminum 2 foot tracks, I guess you could call them my second or third generation tracks, they can also achieve a 3/4 inch lift but were not gravity fed, I operated them at a stand still...just from holding the ball in position at the starting position and letting them go...allowing the pull of the magnetic field do all of the "work" -not with an initial rolling start.
Now, with two 2 foot long tracks, I attempted to connect them, but when they get to close, they have a tendency to slam together because of the strength of attraction of all of the magnets at the intersection, it does not matter what angle you try to connect them linearly, 15, 20, 30, 45 or 90 degree right angle, when they get in close proximity, the driving magnetic field of one ramp interferes with the driving magnetic field of another, using the magnets that I used, they want to slam together when too close together. Now, you can tell me my assumption is wrong or TinselKoala can say I have a list of all of my "bad assumptions" but as far as I am concerned, this tells me that I need to keep the magnetic ramps separated at the "hand-off" or gravity disconnect, of course they were at least 1 foot away in my nine foot track. Realizing that the angle determines how hard it is for the magnets to lift up the rolling ball or determines how hard the magnets work, and that a more gradual gradient is best as well as faster, I saw that there needed to be at least a 3/4 inch to 1 inches of separation between both tracks at the hand off using the strength of magnets that I used. This requires using a longer ramp to achieve this height at a small gradient.
Quote from: TinselKoala on October 29, 2013, 06:09:42 PM
It is not.
When you hammer in a nail, is the hammer doing work, or not?
You might as well say that the gravitational slingshot is an example of work being done by equations -- that would be more true than what you are claiming.
Think about what you just said to me, I have been wrong before, yes I am human, but I feel that it is you that is wrong this time around TinselKoala. When you hammer in a nail, you are doing the work with the muscles in your arm and using your energy. In my example, the Juno spacecraft is not connected to any arm or muscles, it is in the vacuum of space...with nothing connected to it at all, so the only correct response is that gravity did the work when it increased its velocity while it sling-shot using earths gravity, not Earth's arm. Saying otherwise is only lying to ourselves. That is what actually happened, regardless if textbooks (or our equations) agree.
Don't listen to a Newbie like me, all of you professors know everything there is to know somehow.
Quote from: Staffman on October 29, 2013, 06:11:22 PM
I know this wouldn't technically be overunity, but has anyone though of using the curie point as a mechanism to help past the sticking point? Just look up the 'nickel curie point motor' video on youtube. It was just a thought anyways....
There is no sticky point when you exit through the width. it drops right out. Just the proof anyways...TinselKoala, Oh, your name is so cute.
Curie point?...Whatever. Air Force Energy...Whatever, Air Force Energy, does not believe me!
Quote from: Michael Q Shaw on October 29, 2013, 06:33:12 PM
Think about what you just said to me, I have been wrong before, yes I am human, but I feel that it is you that is wrong this time around TinselKoala. When you hammer in a nail, you are doing the work with the muscles in your arm and using your energy. In my example, the Juno spacecraft is not connected to any arm or muscles, it is in the vacuum of space...with nothing connected to it at all, so the only correct response is that gravity did the work when it increased its velocity while it sling-shot using earths gravity, not Earth's arm. Saying otherwise is only lying to ourselves. That is what actually happened, regardless if textbooks (or our equations) agree.
I am so sorry that you are wrong!
Michael:
QuoteThere is no sticky point when you exit through the width. it drops right out.
That's the magic energy injection that keeps your ball moving onto the next track. This is hard to visualize. The gravity field will give you energy when you drop. Literally, the ball is being sucked out of the magnetic potential energy well when the ball falls. That is a "magic" injection of energy. You just have to think about it. Gravity literally makes your problem go away by pulling the ball out of the well.
When the ball falls it's acceleration is slower than it should be but you can't see it by eye. You could video it and make measurements, or perhaps something much simpler than that: If you have a small gram scale that hopefully won't affect the field or be affected by the field, and you slowly lower the ball you will see it's measured weight is lower than it should be as you pull away from the hole.
Height is another energy component in your system. It applies when the balls are going up the ramp, and it equally applies for the short free fall to the lower ramp. Height = energy, as simple as that.
So try to imagine an "injection" of energy due to the height drop, and that's why the ball shoots down the next track. However, one more time the ball is dropping into another magnetic potential energy well at the end of the second track.
MileHigh
Tinman:
For the steel ball repelled by the magnetic field, I don't view that as a counter argument. It's an unrelated example and if you could link to a clip that would be appreciated. For the subject at hand, do you agree that the ball is being drawn into a magnetic field with increasing strength? As far as the textbooks go, have you read them to be sure? Experimenters can make "discoveries" and usually there is a logical explanation. What's more important is to remember the basics. When you look at the ball rolling around in energy terms, the way you look at the magnetic fields can change if you want to simplify things. Magnetic fields in this case just act like a local unusually shaped gravity field. You go up and down in energy in the magnetic field and in the gravity field. The change in field potential is converted into kinetic energy. The friction is a constant drain on the kinetic energy.
To get around the track so that the thing runs continuously you are constantly monitoring the energy state of the ball in the hope that it gets back to the starting gate at the same or greater energy. You can measure this stuff yourself. You know the weight of the ball, you can analyze video frames to measure speed and acceleration, you know the acceleration due to the ramp, you can measure it's height, and so on. All this stuff about the energy analysis is what has to be met for the thing to run. So the track lifts the ball up but the energy situation is constantly going down unless you can make energy come from nowhere or pulse the ball with a triggered coil for a fun demo. The ball ultimately heats up the room.
I am not suggesting anybody do this unless they were truly interested. You will find that your measurements will pretty much fall in line with predicted theory.
MileHigh
Tinman:
For your video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4VN6KWM8Rbc
Just for a change of pace since I am often asked to explain things, can you give us your comments first?
QuoteAs far as the electromagnets doing work while keeping the brick floating in space go's-my answer is yes. But you must have the ability to stand back,and see everything that is happening to know why i answered yes-i wonder how many can do that.
The electromagnets only do work to lift the brick, after that they do no work. The only work that is being done after the lift is to overcome the electrical resistance of the coils to keep the current flowing.
There is a very simple and elegant thought experiment that explains this. At the start, you do electrical work to create the magnetic field and lift the brick. Then imagine after that, that the coils are superconducting coils. So after the current starts flowing you simply short the superconducting coils into closed loops and the brick remains floating. See, no electrical work being done and the brick remains suspended in the air.
MileHigh
Quote from: Michael Q Shaw on October 29, 2013, 06:33:12 PM
Think about what you just said to me, I have been wrong before, yes I am human, but I feel that it is you that is wrong this time around TinselKoala. When you hammer in a nail, you are doing the work with the muscles in your arm and using your energy. In my example, the Juno spacecraft is not connected to any arm or muscles, it is in the vacuum of space...with nothing connected to it at all, so the only correct response is that gravity did the work when it increased its velocity while it sling-shot using earths gravity, not Earth's arm. Saying otherwise is only lying to ourselves. That is what actually happened, regardless if textbooks (or our equations) agree.
Quote from: Michael Q Shaw on October 29, 2013, 08:16:17 PM
Don't listen to a Newbie like me, all of you professors know everything there is to know somehow.
Sounds to me like you are claiming to know more than the professors who wrote the textbooks and equations.
I'm not a professor, but I know what I know because I studied the works of others, not "somehow". The process is very definite, intensive, years long, costly, reviewed and assessed by peers and superiors along the way. It's called a "university education". Very different from "somehow".
You do realize, I hope, that a spacecraft undergoing a gravitational slingshot is in _free fall_ the whole time. If you were aboard it, with no windows, you would never even feel it, you'd be floating the whole time in zero-g. Pretty funny way for a "force doing work" to act.
Quote from: Michael Q Shaw on October 29, 2013, 08:21:48 PM
There is no sticky point when you exit through the width. it drops right out. Just the proof anyways...TinselKoala, Oh, your name is so cute.
And yet.... nothing you can do will cause your system to self-loop, as you are finding out to your continuing frustration. I can feel it in your desperate comments.
Let's see... what could that "Q" mean. Quimby? That's pretty cute. Quincy, like the medical examiner? Quentin... that's probably it, like San Quentin or Quentin Tarantino. I'll bet you got a real ration of teasing when you were in grammar school. Or Quinn... the mighty Quinn, Quinn the Esquimo.....
lol.
Experimenting with the SMOT devices is evidently time-consuming, and I congratulate those who persevere like Michael Shaw (where is elecar?)
In 2011, Bill Mehess did SMOT work, and claims (see vid) 1/8" rise from the input to the exit height...
but no self-looping (he tried).
QuoteHere is the youtube link.
http://youtu.be/wKC1i3PCtpQ (http://youtu.be/wKC1i3PCtpQ)
I can now exit the SMOT down the uchannel at a greater height than the entry height.
Bill
Quote from: MileHigh on October 29, 2013, 10:30:35 PM
Tinman:
For your video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4VN6KWM8Rbc
Just for a change of pace since I am often asked to explain things, can you give us your comments first?
The electromagnets only do work to lift the brick, after that they do no work. The only work that is being done after the lift is to overcome the electrical resistance of the coils to keep the current flowing.
There is a very simple and elegant thought experiment that explains this. At the start, you do electrical work to create the magnetic field and lift the brick. Then imagine after that, that the coils are superconducting coils. So after the current starts flowing you simply short the superconducting coils into closed loops and the brick remains floating. See, no electrical work being done and the brick remains suspended in the air.
MileHigh
In regards to the video,the ball manages to escape the magnetic field,and roll along the table because of the extra energy gained from the greater falling distance than that of which it started at-much like the ball just rolling down a hill,and along the flat road at the bottom of the hill.
But two other thing's happened during the process in that video,both of which are energy gains-can you see what they were?.
Quote: The electromagnets only do work to lift the brick, after that they do no work.
In regards to the electromagnet(your example),that is incorrect.
The electromagnet will continue to do work in the way of producing heat. The heavier the mass to be lifted to a set hight,the more heat the electromagnet will produce,thus the more work being done-as we would need to put more P/in to the electromagnet,to lift a heavier load.
My point is MH,we must observe all energy in and out of a system as a whole. Here with the smot device,most seem only interested in what the ball is doing,insted of standing back and looking at all the energy transfers that are takeing place.
To show that magnets were doing useful work within the SMOT device,the ball would only need end up outside the magnetic field of the ramp,on the same plane it started on,as it takes energy to move a mass from point A to point B.
I am working on a ramp at the moment,but i need to get myself some more magnets of the right kind. But this ramp is like no other,and uses one of those energy transfers that all seem to be missing here.
The other thing to note with the video i posted,and Michael's setup(and all other smots of the same design),is once the ball drops out of the ramp, the ball is already under exceleration once it passes the level it started at,at the begining of the ramp.This in itself shows that it can be made to work,as the ball has gone from standing still,to a state of exceleration once at the same plane level.This tells us that the pull of gravity on the ball,is greater than the attraction of the magnets on that ball-or the ball wouldnt drop at all.
So why dose the ball return back to the magnets if we try to drop it out at the same level as it started from?.Well the answer is quite simple,and i am supprised no one has mentioned it,as it's text book physics.It is a fault with every smot device i have viewed so far. This is where my ramp will differ from the other's. TK,yourself and many others have said-many have tried,and all have failed. But what i see in all these smot devices is,all are building the same sort of ramp's,that have the same problem built into them on the exit of the ball.
Although i have done much experimenting with magnet's,and how the fields interact in different configuration's,i have never paid much attention to the SMOT-until now,after Chet messaged me about this thread. So like you MH,i started to look at the video's,and analyze what was going on with the devices,and finding the errors made in the designs.I looked at how the magnets were arranged,and how they were acting on the steel ball,and how the steel ball was destorting those field's.I see where energy in gained,and lost in all the smot's i have viewed.
So what is your take on the video we are talking about?.
Looking at Bill Mehess' device, one sees - and hears -- a lot of frictional losses as the steel ball moves around the track. Yet he manages (or claims, his measurement was perhaps a bit crude) to raise the ball 1/8"... but could not get it to self-loop (evidently).
TK mentioned used of a steel-ball pendulum - but where would one put the magnet-ramp so as to have acceleration in BOTH directions of the swing?
I think a conical pendulum might solve the problem. Here the pendulum ball traces a circle (or ellipse) and the height of the ball correlates with the radius of the circle - and the energy in the system. So if the ball rises, the energy has increased - and this can be seen as an increase in the radius of the circle traced by the ball. (If an ellipse, still solvable, more math required.)
So one places the mag-ramp along one side... Might work, probably would distort from a circle to an ellipse and complicate calculations and measurements.
Another approach is to place the steel ball (or 2 or 3 or...n) on a wheel with a GOOD bearing. And a mag-ramp along one side (or 2 or so). Here an increase in energy in the system is reflected in an increased speed of rotation (omega). And the wheel can be horizontal or vertical (or in between). The wheel becomes the "track" and should have much less frictional losses.
This is the one I will try. Does anyone know if the wheel-SMOT has already been tried? (by whom if so?) Note: I'm not talking about the wheel-device which raises the magnet to get things past the sticky-point (although that is interesting, especially if it worked and accelerated).
I plan to use inertia and gravity to get past the sticky-point, as in the vids by Mehess and Shaw and wytdyk, but with a low-friction wheel this time, instead of a track.
http://www.packratworkshop.com/wwork.htm
http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/museum/smot.htm
TinMan
The Only thing I find Wierd about all these ramps is No One seems to be Hanging the Carrot out in front of the donkey [Overhead].
Seems to me if the array can be switched to above at some point [I believe Jouleseeker
Had One From a man doing it with Leggos claiming a lift?]
and once it is above The drop would seem to be more easy to Do {trap Door]
I see Bill Mehess being Mentioned here ,Didn't he also have a claim with the cat chasing its tail { What he called his Magnetic self runner ?}?
Also ran off to Patent {maybe??]
These fellows that Patent never seem to get anywhere with it
I stopped in to see One man who has been fighting with the US patent office for several years now about his Magnet Motor, William Landen Jr.[retired Nasa Scientist] a few months back.
Told me to come back in a few Months to see about something "New" ?
He's still plugging away,
I think the Dollar and the scent of Money Ruins most of these Ventures,[and the dreams of the inventors]
To try and Patent Magnetism would be Like trying to Patent Air,
It belongs to all ,Not for sale!!
Despite what TK says about _Time wasting_ with Magnets ..
They Hold the Keys to the City IMO and need to be Played with !
Thx
Chet
@JS
Interesting idea,but would it then start to become something like romero's little number?.
The problem with suspending the ball,is that you loose one potential energy source that exist in the ramp type smot. This is one potential energy source that no one has recognised yet.
Below i have a pic,showing the normal style SMOT setup.So we need to look at this,and see exactly what is happening.This is one where point A and D are level-there is no drop bellow point A,as in all smot's we see,where the ball escapes the magnetic field.
The ball leaves point A,and rolls up hill to point B.As this is happening,the ball gains and then looses potential energy-gained as it accelerates up the ramp,then is lost as it aproaches the end of the ramp. But there is still enough left to leave the ramp,and the ball drops from point B to point C. From point C,the ball will start to head to point D,but is then drawn back to point C by the magnetic field.
So why dose this happen? Who here can see where a lot of the potential energy(more than 50%) stored in the ball (from the fall)went?
Well rather than keep everyone guessing,i will tell you where it went.
To change the direction of travel of any moving mass, takes a given force over a given time.
When the ball drop's out of the smot,it hit's the ramp(point C)and then makes a 90* change of direction. 50%(+friction losses)of the potential energy stored in the falling ball is transfered to the track at point C,then through the track to the bench,then from the bench to the ground.This is one energy transfer that has never(to my knowledge)been taken into account,when it come to the smot device we are looking at, at the moment. A way to look at this ,is to take a large steel ball(say 1 foot round,and solid),and fire a bullet at it,so as the bullet hit's 45* off center of the ball. The bullets projectory will change,and it will also slow down. It slows down because the steel ball absorbed some of the bullets potential energy.
If we look at Michael's smot,we can hear the energy transfer from the ball to the ramp,when the ball drops from the first ramp,to the second ramp.
This is the energy loss we must try to stop,and keep it in the ball.
There is a second energy transfer hidden in the smot device that no one has taken into account.It is this potential energy that can remove the loss of potential energy stated above.
This one i will be keeping to myself for the time being.
Below is a rough sketch of the energy transfer between the ball,and ramp-and i mean only rough.
But it will give you an idea as to where most of our potential energy is being lost in our ball.It also shows the direction of the energy left,that has to get our ball out of the magnetic field of the ramp.
Although it might look wrong,we must believe it is right,as every action has an equal and OPPOSITE reaction-and you will see that the green arrows are opposite to the red one's,and equal in length(roughly)The same go's for force applied-every force applied must have an opposite force of an equal amout. So from the pic,things just dont look to good for our ball,as most of the energy left is not going in the direction we want.So we can asume that a ramp setup like this,would result in a large loss of potential energy within the ball.
Edit-missed one green arrow,but you get the picture.
@Tinman - remember that forces and energy are different quantities. However, SOUND at points on the track represent energy loss, and clearly, there is energy loss at the drop points as you say. Putting the steel (or the magnets) on a rotor as I've noted in my previous post should get rid of this energy loss; although there will be energy lost due to friction in the bearings.
@Chet:
QuoteI see Bill Mehess being Mentioned here ,Didn't he also have a claim with the cat chasing its tail { What he called his Magnetic self runner ?}?
Also ran off to Patent {maybe??]
These fellows that Patent never seem to get anywhere with it
I stopped in to see One man who has been fighting with the US patent office for several years now about his Magnet Motor, William Landen Jr.[retired Nasa Scientist] a few months back.
Told me to come back in a few Months to see about something "New" ?
He's still plugging away,
Is it possible to check with Landen and Mehess to see where they are now? did Mehess seek a patent - and if he did, does he now regret this?
At the Iccf-18 conference last July, I met with Dr Mitchell Swartz. He tried for a patent on one of his LENR devices and got slapped with a national security order - could not even talk about his invention. He fought it, and finally the gag order was lifted; which is how we can know about this event now. But this harassment was real, reportable, documented. I would agree that seeking patents is NOT a good idea. Seek to benefit mankind, rather. "
Cast thy
bread upon the
waters: for thou shalt find it after many days." Eccles. 11
Quote from: JouleSeeker on October 30, 2013, 09:06:03 AM
@Tinman - remember that forces and energy are different quantities.
@ JS
It's not that there different quantities-there just different-but directly related.
For example,if we want to push a car down the road at 10kph,it would take a certain force applied to the car to do so. The force applied /over time will depend on how much energy can be supplied to that force,and for how long it can be supplied.
An electric car is a good example.The force applied to the wheels to move that car comes from the electric motor.The energy that is supplied to create that force comes from the energy stored within the batteries.So as we apply a force to the wheels to move the car,we loose energy.
The same is true for my picture above. As we apply a force on the exit ramp,we use energy that is contained in the ball.
Some of the energy being drawn from the ball can be heard as sound,and some maybe felt as vibrations. But the bulk of it will be sent to ground,and our little steel ball isnt going to have much effect on the earth. This would be like putting a AA battery,and small electric motor from a toy car into your vehicle,and expect it to move. The battery will still expell it's energy,but we wont see anything happen in the way of the car moving.
JS
Yes I will stop and see William Landen Jr. in the next week or so,I'll see if he is ready to Share his Tech Yet?
@Tinman
Thx for peeking our interest ,yes the flea steering the Elephant would _seem_
a very tuff task........
Chet
Quote from: Newton II on October 30, 2013, 04:37:07 AM
http://www.packratworkshop.com/wwork.htm (http://www.packratworkshop.com/wwork.htm)
http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/museum/smot.htm (http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/museum/smot.htm)
Simanek's explanation is a great one. Whenever I post links to Simanek's site I don't get much feedback; maybe people will now give it a read and try to refute points he makes, rather than just slinging mud and stomping their feet.
The other site is very interesting indeed. The "Minto" type wheel is nearly identical to Mondrasek's old design that he wanted to patent several years ago, and that I built (variation) to test ... prior art? I don't remember the exact year Mond put his idea forth.
Did you notice that he claims to have gotten one variant to work for hours, but dismisses his result as not useful? I'd like to find out more, if there is a video, what he actually used, etc. The gif below is animated on the site, but I don't know how to make it animate here.
Quote from: tinman on October 30, 2013, 06:12:27 AM
Below is a rough sketch of the energy transfer between the ball,and ramp-and i mean only rough.
But it will give you an idea as to where most of our potential energy is being lost in our ball.It also shows the direction of the energy left,that has to get our ball out of the magnetic field of the ramp.
Although it might look wrong,we must believe it is right,as every action has an equal and OPPOSITE reaction-and you will see that the green arrows are opposite to the red one's,and equal in length(roughly)The same go's for force applied-every force applied must have an opposite force of an equal amout. So from the pic,things just dont look to good for our ball,as most of the energy left is not going in the direction we want.So we can asume that a ramp setup like this,would result in a large loss of potential energy within the ball.
Edit-missed one green arrow,but you get the picture.
If you are going to try and produce any kind of convincing analysis then you would be wise to use the generally accepted terminology and usage when discussing Newtonian mechanics. Otherwise it just makes your explanation look totally meaningless . (Which it is).
Firstly, energy is a scalar quantity. It does NOT have a direction associated with it.
What you have drawn is an estimation of the FORCES acting on the ball.
The ball only has 'energy' due to it either moving (kinetic energy) or having potential to move (gravitational and/or magnetic potential energy).
Quote from: TinselKoala on October 29, 2013, 10:38:13 PM
Sounds to me like you are claiming to know more than the professors who wrote the textbooks and equations.
I'm not a professor, but I know what I know because I studied the works of others, not "somehow". The process is very definite, intensive, years long, costly, reviewed and assessed by peers and superiors along the way. It's called a "university education". Very different from "somehow".
You do realize, I hope, that a spacecraft undergoing a gravitational slingshot is in _free fall_ the whole time. If you were aboard it, with no windows, you would never even feel it, you'd be floating the whole time in zero-g. Pretty funny way for a "force doing work" to act.
I am not claiming to be smarter than or any better than anyone, nor even professors, its just hard to get anyone to listen to your point of view, or new ideas. Please consider according to information available at Wikipedia, a hammer is just a force amplifier which works by converting mechanical work into kinetic energy and back (the energy still comes from your arm and you.)
Based on the equations, it took a predetermined amount of fuel/propellant to lift the mass of the rocket carrying the Juno spacecraft against the force of gravity out into space then to break free from the Earth's gravity and then for it to travel to a certain velocity. Once that fuel/propellant was spent, in order to increase this velocity, even in the low friction vacuum of space requires more fuel/propellant to be spent. Juno used the gravity sling-shot to increase its velocity without burning more fuel/propellants to do so. Was more fuel spent? If it was, was it spent to increase its velocity or only to maintain direction and for control? So, Yes, the increase in velocity was accomplished by a gravity sling shot effect...means gravity produced work, the same effect as burning more fuel/propellants.
Quote from: Michael Q Shaw on October 30, 2013, 06:50:08 PM
///So, Yes, the increase in velocity was accomplished by a gravity sling shot effect...means gravity produced work, the same effect as burning more fuel/propellants.
NO. Gravity did not produce net work. The total energy of the combined earth/Juno system was the same both before and after the slingshot.
What happened is the earth was slowed down and the spacecraft sped up. Kinetic energy of the earth was lowered and the kinetic energy of Juno was increased by the same amount.
Energy in the system remained the same.
Quote from: LibreEnergia on October 30, 2013, 07:07:46 PM
NO. Gravity did not produce net work. The total energy of the combined earth/Juno system was the same both before and after the slingshot.
What happened is the earth was slowed down and the spacecraft sped up. Kinetic energy of the earth was lowered and the kinetic energy of Juno was increased by the same amount.
Energy in the system remained the same.
So you are telling me that no work is done unless fuel is consumed, got it.
QuotePlease consider according to information available at Wikipedia, a hammer is just a force amplifier which works by converting mechanical work into kinetic energy and back.
This is exactly what _you_ need to consider. The gravitational slingshot transfers momentum from the Earth to the spacecraft. Gravity does work on the craft on the way in, and does "negative work" on the way out, and since the spacecraft is NOT doing a closed loop but is sent off in a different direction, with the additional momentum given it, you are no longer making a closed path all within a conservative field of force. If you close the path into an elliptical orbit, then the system does just what is predicted: gravity does no net work, the orbit can be stable and last... well... a long long time, since no energy is being subtracted or added during the long falls in and the long climbs out. A closed path in a conservative force field is "net work zero". As you are discovering with your SMOT experimentation, because superposing two conservative fields doesn't change anything. Since there is no input of extra work other than what you provide by bringing the ball into position initially, and you can't eliminate losses... your SMOT can't work.
The idea that "gravity does no net work" applies to the closed path within the field: the SMOT. A gravitational slingshot system is not a closed path so there can be net work done. But you can't get to where you can do this, without first getting to a position of greatly _negative_ GPE and this takes an input of work from some other source: your chemical rockets.
Have you yet grasped the reason that PE is _negative_ and the position of zero PE is arbitrary?
Quote from: Michael Q Shaw on October 30, 2013, 07:17:45 PM
So you are telling me that no work is done unless fuel is consumed, got it.
No, I'm not saying that. Work was done on the spacecraft. It experienced a force over exerted over a distance, (the definition of work). Work was also done on the earth. It experienced a force (but in the opposite direction) exerted over a distance.
@All
I may need to admit defeat with this project.
After completing my test track this evening, the best I could manage was 2 circuits of the ball by starting about 50mm up the ramp from the cross over point.
This is running the ball clockwise so that it enters the magnet array in the center.
After the first circuit it moves up the ramp about 25mm from the cross over.
After the second circuit, it only just manages to make it over the cross over, then finishes about 60mm before the cross over owing to a lack of ball momentum.
The 50mm point is perhaps a height difference from the cross over of about 1.5mm
I probably should post a picture of my test track + video.
Meggerman
Quote from: MeggerMan on October 30, 2013, 07:39:58 PM
@All
I may need to admit defeat with this project.
After completing my test track this evening, the best I could manage was 2 circuits of the ball by starting about 50mm up the ramp from the cross over point.
This is running the ball clockwise so that it enters the magnet array in the center.
After the first circuit it moves up the ramp about 25mm from the cross over.
After the second circuit, it only just manages to make it over the cross over, then finishes about 60mm before the cross over owing to a lack of ball momentum.
The 50mm point is perhaps a height difference from the cross over of about 1.5mm
I probably should post a picture of my test track + video.
Meggerman
Sorry to hear that Meggerman, I will still not give up on my Propulsion track, I have seen it work, I know it works, I just need to connect them at the transition, just one inch between wining or loosing, just one inch between living and dying will make all the difference.
Tinman:
I hit my keyboard the wrong way and I lost my posting by closing the browser tab. I hate that so I'm just going to rattle it off from memory.
For the brick, I mentioned the resistance of the wire. But in the context of the question, "work on the brick" only refers to whether the brick is lifted or not. Beyond that I agree that all sources of energy should be taken into account when you analyze a system.
For the clip, I don't see two other places where there is increased energy. Please indicate what you mean. My take on the clip is that it's pretty straightforward. The ball gets no net energy as it goes through the ramp and it's the gravity boost at the end that allows the ball to continue rolling.
QuoteThe other thing to note with the video i posted,and Michael's setup(and all other smots of the same design),is once the ball drops out of the ramp, the ball is already under exceleration once it passes the level it started at,at the begining of the ramp.This in itself shows that it can be made to work,as the ball has gone from standing still,to a state of exceleration once at the same plane level.
You are still forgetting or having trouble visualizing the fact that the ball is still inside a potential energy well as it falls when it gets back to the same level it started at. The ball may be moving, as compared to being still when it starts. But you still are not factoring in the magnetic potential energy at both positions and you have to. The falling ball has less energy than the ball in the starting position.
Quotei started to look at the video's,and analyze what was going on with the devices,and finding the errors made in the designs.
I looked at the Billmehess video that was linked to and I saw two major errors.
Sorry, but there is something about rewriting a posting that you lost that is so difficult, I don't know why.
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on October 30, 2013, 08:12:53 PM
Tinman:
I hit my keyboard the wrong way and I lost my posting by closing the browser tab. I hate that so I'm just going to rattle it off from memory.
For the brick, I mentioned the resistance of the wire. But in the context of the question, "work on the brick" only refers to whether the brick is lifted or not. Beyond that I agree that all sources of energy should be taken into account when you analyze a system.
For the clip, I don't see two other places where there is increased energy. Please indicate what you mean. My take on the clip is that it's pretty straightforward. The ball gets no net energy as it goes through the ramp and it's the gravity boost at the end that allows the ball to continue rolling.
You are still forgetting or having trouble visualizing the fact that the ball is still inside a potential energy well as it falls when it gets back to the same level it started at. The ball may be moving, as compared to being still when it starts. But you still are not factoring in the magnetic potential energy at both positions and you have to. The falling ball has less energy than the ball in the starting position.
I looked at the Billmehess video that was linked to and I saw two major errors.
Sorry, but there is something about rewriting a posting that you lost that is so difficult, I don't know why.
MileHigh
"Potential Energy Well" are you certain you did not make this up? "Potential Energy Well" Really?
Michael:
If you have been reading the thread that concept has already been mentioned multiple times with examples provided. You have to understand it to understand your experimenting.
MileHigh
You have to understand my experimenting to understand anything. Nobody...is building them the way I do. Please do not lie about it again. Unless you are still Milehigh on whatever you are milehigh on.
Not sure what you are alleging but I am not lying about anything. I did some physics experiments in my time with those "air hockey" very low friction floating on air rails. If you believe what you have then demo it for us when you can.
MileHigh
Based on the equations, it took a predetermined amount of fuel/propellant to lift the mass of the rocket carrying the Juno spacecraft against the force of gravity out into space then to break free from the Earth's gravity and then for it to travel to a certain velocity. Once that fuel/propellant was spent, in order to increase this velocity, even in the low friction vacuum of space requires more fuel/propellant to be spent. Juno used the gravity sling-shot to increase its velocity without burning more fuel/propellants to do so. Was more fuel spent? If it was, was it spent to increase its velocity or only to maintain direction and for control? So, Yes, the increase in velocity was accomplished by a gravity sling shot effect...means gravity produced work, the same effect as burning more fuel/propellants. So you are telling us that no work is done unless fuel is consumed, got it.
Quote from: MileHigh on October 30, 2013, 09:07:47 PM
Not sure what you are alleging but I am not lying about anything. I did some physics experiments in my time with those "air hockey" very low friction floating on air rails. If you believe what you have then demo it for us when you can.
MileHigh
I'm not lying either, then why are you still a mile high?
Here I found a document on the Internet. I hope that you have an Apple II.
Quote from: JouleSeeker on October 30, 2013, 01:27:23 AM
Another approach is to place the steel ball (or 2 or 3 or...n) on a wheel with a GOOD bearing. And a mag-ramp along one side (or 2 or so). Here an increase in energy in the system is reflected in an increased speed of rotation (omega). And the wheel can be horizontal or vertical (or in between). The wheel becomes the "track" and should have much less frictional losses.
This is the one I will try. Does anyone know if the wheel-SMOT has already been tried? (by whom if so?) Note: I'm not talking about the wheel-device which raises the magnet to get things past the sticky-point (although that is interesting, especially if it worked and accelerated).
I plan to use inertia and gravity to get past the sticky-point, as in the vids by Mehess and Shaw and wytdyk, but with a low-friction wheel this time, instead of a track.
Yes, I posited this idea on this site here somewhere about 3 years ago and have a great set-up for testing my theory. I have never posted any videos of my work in this area because, thus far, nothing to show. My idea was to use the SMOT approach from the 2 o'clock position to the the 5 o'clock position such that, gravity would aid in the steel ball mounted on my bicycle rim (with very good low friction bearings using light machine oil) and it would pick up just enough push to make it go past 12:00 and repeat. The steel ball will go from 12 back to 11 without any magnets.
So far, no dice. Maybe when I get done with some other projects, I will get back to it again.
Bill
Quote from: Michael Q Shaw on October 30, 2013, 09:09:22 PM
Based on the equations, it took a predetermined amount of fuel/propellant to lift the mass of the rocket carrying the Juno spacecraft against the force of gravity out into space then to break free from the Earth's gravity and then for it to travel to a certain velocity. Once that fuel/propellant was spent, in order to increase this velocity, even in the low friction vacuum of space requires more fuel/propellant to be spent. Juno used the gravity sling-shot to increase its velocity without burning more fuel/propellants to do so. Was more fuel spent? If it was, was it spent to increase its velocity or only to maintain direction and for control? So, Yes, the increase in velocity was accomplished by a gravity sling shot effect...means gravity produced work, the same effect as burning more fuel/propellants. So you are telling us that no work is done unless fuel is consumed, got it.
The problem here is that it was not the gravity that did the work, it was the earth moving through space that applied the energy.
Gravity served only as a tie to earth much the same way as a rope or rubber band. The same effect can be seen in a water skier as the boat makes a turn the skier can accelerate to a speed faster than the boat, but it was not the rope doing the work, it was the boat and the skier doing a slingshot effect.
Quote from: LibreEnergia on October 30, 2013, 06:46:20 PM
If you are going to try and produce any kind of convincing analysis then you would be wise to use the generally accepted terminology and usage when discussing Newtonian mechanics. Otherwise it just makes your explanation look totally meaningless . (Which it is).
Firstly, energy is a scalar quantity. It does NOT have a direction associated with it.
What you have drawn is an estimation of the FORCES acting on the ball.
The ball only has 'energy' due to it either moving (kinetic energy) or having potential to move (gravitational and/or magnetic potential energy).
The ball has both kinetic and potential energy-the ball is moving,and gravity is acting apon it.
Force has direction associated to it,and a given force over time requires a given amount of energy.
What part dont you understand?.
Quote from: MileHigh on October 30, 2013, 08:12:53 PM
Tinman:
I hit my keyboard the wrong way and I lost my posting by closing the browser tab. I hate that so I'm just going to rattle it off from memory.
For the brick, I mentioned the resistance of the wire. But in the context of the question, "work on the brick" only refers to whether the brick is lifted or not. Beyond that I agree that all sources of energy should be taken into account when you analyze a system.
For the clip, I don't see two other places where there is increased energy. Please indicate what you mean. My take on the clip is that it's pretty straightforward. The ball gets no net energy as it goes through the ramp and it's the gravity boost at the end that allows the ball to continue rolling.
You are still forgetting or having trouble visualizing the fact that the ball is still inside a potential energy well as it falls when it gets back to the same level it started at. The ball may be moving, as compared to being still when it starts. But you still are not factoring in the magnetic potential energy at both positions and you have to. The falling ball has less energy than the ball in the starting position.
I looked at the Billmehess video that was linked to and I saw two major errors.
Sorry, but there is something about rewriting a posting that you lost that is so difficult, I don't know why.
MileHigh
Quote; For the clip, I don't see two other places where there is increased energy.
Not increased energy,but the potential to increase the energy of the ball,and decrease it's energy loss. This is why i say that the present design is not as efficient as it could be made.
You said in a previous post that you can look at the video clip's,and determond what was happening. So i would like you to look at it again,and tell me where you think we can gain both kinetic and potential energy in the ball,useing the motion of the system. 1 of these losses i have already shown in post 393Im refering to this video,and this design of smot.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4VN6KWM8Rbc
Quote: You are still forgetting or having trouble visualizing the fact that the ball is still inside a potential energy well as it falls when it gets back to the same level it started at.
Absolutely not.Look at my pic on post 392. You will see that i have included the magnetic field,and im well aware that it is acting apon the ball.
Please note that both scetches are only a visual recognition,and are not intended to be exact,but an indication of my thoughts.
Quote: The falling ball has less energy than the ball in the starting position.
I believe that the ball at the start position only has potential energy(due to the magnetic field),and only gains kinetic energy once it starts moving. The ball,once leaving the smot ramp ,has both kinetic and potential energy. The gravity potential is obviously greater than the magnetic potential,or the ball wouldnt drop. Most of the energy in the ball is lost on the exit ramp,where it has to make a 90* change of direction. This is something that must be eliminated. This is the same flaw in all the smot devices i have seen.
Quote from: Michael Q Shaw on October 30, 2013, 09:11:18 PM
I'm not lying either, then why are you still a mile high?
Michael
I found that in 99% of cases,MH has been correct,along with TK.
What im saying is ,put forth your case,but keep your argument civil.Name calling or quick punt's at other members,only results in a thread turning to trash.
MH has earned respect in the time he has been here,and although i may not agree with him on all thing's,dosnt give me the right to badger him. In regards to this thread,i will probably find he is right again,but if there is a chance that what i think is correct,then i keep on looking.
This is what you must do. If you believe you are right,then continue with your work,but let the argument remain civil.
I myself believe it can be done-i dont have a CANT DO attitude-unless it is completly obvious that it wont work.
Tinman:
There is nothing that you can do about the friction losses except to reduce them as much as possible but they will still be there. Is that your strategy to decrease the energy losses? I still can't see how you can increase the energy when you factor in all three components as the true definition for the energy of the ball, KE + GPE + MPE. One of the problems with the Billmehess clip is he just looks at the GPE.
Your reference to post #393 suggests to me that you want to change the way the downward part of the ramp is formed to preserve as much energy as possible. Here is where I simplify and just think in terms of energy. The ball has it's three energy components let's say at point A at the top of the ramp. Lets say point B is three inches away from that at the bottom of the ramp. So there is an energy change there for the magnetic potential energy and the gravitational potential energy. That will determine what kinetic energy the ball has at point B. In other words, it's "predetermined" how fast the ball will be moving at point B, and it's independent of the form of the ramp. The form of the ramp is within reason, it can't be a straight drop down. It's like watching a roller coaster but you also throw magnets into the mix.
QuoteI believe that the ball at the start position only has potential energy(due to the magnetic field),and only gains kinetic energy once it starts moving. The ball,once leaving the smot ramp ,has both kinetic and potential energy. The gravity potential is obviously greater than the magnetic potential,or the ball wouldnt drop. Most of the energy in the ball is lost on the exit ramp,where it has to make a 90* change of direction. This is something that must be eliminated. This is the same flaw in all the smot devices i have seen.
That sounds just about perfect. I would add that the ball also has GPE when it starts. If you decide that the height where you release the ball is zero, then the ball has zero GPE at the start. Note that when the ball finally falls down onto the second track, that full dropping distance is the total GPE that the ball has "absorbed." You are trying to preserve that precious GPE by turning it into KE. You need the KE to get you back up to where you started. It's like juggling three "energy balls."
Here is the issue: When you really get down to the nitty-gritty, no mater how good or unique or alternative-thinking your setup is, as the ball interchanges GPE, KE and MPE through time as it runs down the track, friction is always eating away at the KE and bleeding off some of your available energy and turning it into heat. You can approach the limit and build it out of ceramics or some high tech composite material, and run it in a vacuum chamber, and you still can't remove all of the friction.
Anyway, you are well on your way and I hope that you have fun doing the build and doing the testing.
MileHigh
This makes me think of how to measure the speed of the ball. Assume you don't use a camera and process video frames which is a hassle in itself. Is there a system that anybody has come up with? Perhaps it's already in the Arduino grab bag?
The first thing that comes to mind for me is an optical slot switch, connected an Arduino A/D converter, or perhaps a digital input, and some software. There may be serious alignment issues with an optical slot switch, I am not sure. Don't forget it's a ball and has a variable profile as you go off center. Perhaps there are "smart" optical slot switches where the ball passes through a series of parallel IR beams and so the alignment issue is not a factor.
You could also do something like a guitar pickup. It's also another op-amp project. You take a relay coil and carefully remove the core. Then you put a long and thin cylindrical magnet into the core. You connect the relay coil to an op-amp configured as a comparitor. Something very simple something like Conrad's circuit. Then when the ball rolls past the relay coil the slight change in the permeability of the immediate surroundings will induce a voltage in the coil and trigger the comparitor.
So when the ball rolls past the sensor coil it should trigger the comparitor. Obviously the faster the ball is moving the shorter the comparitor is triggered. So you connect the comparitor output to an Arduino digital input, turn the crank, and the Arduino displays meters per second on the display. You could easily use the hardware timer(s) built into the Arduino so that the software just has to read a count register, which makes life easier. There is the issue of calibration, and probably still the issue of alignment, to be determined. Even if it only made relative measurements, it would be a fun project.
It's a fun little challenge; how do you measure the speed of the ball in a cheap and reliable home-brew kid of way?
MileHigh
Quote from: tinman on October 30, 2013, 11:13:08 PM
The ball has both kinetic and potential energy-the ball is moving,and gravity is acting apon it.
Force has direction associated to it,and a given force over time requires a given amount of energy.
What part dont you understand?.
The bit that I don't understand is why you would persist in displaying such basic errors of understanding when I have already pointed out that you should at least be using the commonly accepted definitions when talking Newtonian mechanics.
The quantity force over time is known as impulse, not energy.
A "given force over a given time" does not require a given amount of energy. It only results work done if it causes an object to move.
@MH
I was thinking the same thing,in regards to setting up a test exit ramp,and measureing how much the ball is slowed when makeing the 90* turn.By useing my HD camera,and having a 3 decimal point timer behind the ramp,i could calculate the speed loss of the ball after the turn. If the ball lost half it's speed,that would mean the ball lost half it's kinetic energy + friction losses.
I am also supprised that you cannot see the other action takeing place,that could be turned into an energy gain. At the moment with setups like the video i posted last,not useing this potential gain is resulting in two losses within the system. No extra work has to be done by the system to get this gain,and as far as the system go's-this will be a big gain.
The fact that you cant see it(or anyone else so far),gives me reason to press on. Could it no be possable that i see something others have not?
Like i said befor,i have never paid much attention to the smot device,until Chet asked me to have a look at this thread. Within the first couple of video's i watched,i saw the enegy gain possibility in the system-which removes two losses when applied.
What i would like,is for you to also look into the energy loss as the ball makes that 90* turn on the exit ramp.i already have a way to remove all that loss,but we need to know what% that loss is. This will give us an idea as to how much we will gain. Maybe TK(if he has the time) could look into this loss aswell.
I have just got back from our plastic factory here,and have all the material i need to build the ramp.I also just cleaned out the hobby store of all there PM's lol. I wont be useing an aluminum track,as we know that places drag on a moving magnet-which the ball becomes when in the smots magnetic field.
So now,off to start my test ramp,and try and get some speed reduction calculations on the ball.
Quote from: tinman on October 31, 2013, 03:28:51 AM
@MH
I was thinking the same thing,in regards to setting up a test exit ramp,and measureing how much the ball is slowed when makeing the 90* turn.By useing my HD camera,and having a 3 decimal point timer behind the ramp,i could calculate the speed loss of the ball after the turn. If the ball lost half it's speed,that would mean the ball lost half it's kinetic energy + friction losses.
Wrong.
Kinetic Energy == 1/2 (mass x velocity SQUARED) so half the speed = 1/4 the KE.
And don't try to say that this error doesn't matter! If you have been thinking all this time that KE is directly proportional to velocity, rather than to the square of the velocity... that's a pretty big conceptual error and will "resonate" through your whole world-view.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_energy
http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/energy/u5l1c.cfm
http://formulas.tutorvista.com/physics/kinetic-energy-formula.html
Quote from: TinselKoala on October 31, 2013, 04:37:27 AM
Wrong.
Kinetic Energy == 1/2 (mass x velocity SQUARED) so half the speed = 1/4 the KE.
And don't try to say that this error doesn't matter! If you have been thinking all this time that KE is directly proportional to velocity, rather than to the square of the velocity... that's a pretty big conceptual error and will "resonate" through your whole world-view.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_energy
http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/energy/u5l1c.cfm
http://formulas.tutorvista.com/physics/kinetic-energy-formula.html
Yes,i was just comeing back to correct that after doing some reading,but i see(as usual) you have quickly jumped on my mistake. But it was a mistake that is in our favour. So the correction would be,if our ball slows by 1/2 of it's speed makeing that 90* turn,then we have lost 4x the kinetic energy that ball had-Did i get that right?.
Now another mistake i made (some where back in the thread)was to say mass is directly related to weight,which is not the case. But who is going to the moon or another planet anyway.
You are good at picking up on mistakes of others TK,so maybe you can watch the video,and find the potetial energy gain we could get from the system?-MH has missed it so far. Can you spot it as well as you spot peoples mistakes?.
@TK
You seem to be intelligent in answering qustions. I have got one question:
The motion of earth around the sun, motion of electrons around nucleus and several such cases are accelerated motions. For accelerated motions you have to apply force continuously inturn supply continuous energy since these bodies are in motion. For bodies in uniform motion in space you need not supply energy unless you intend to accelerate it.
Who is supplying energy to keep these bodies in continuous accelerated motion? Is it God or field? If gravitational field is supplying continuous energy to keep earth in accelerated motion then should gravitational field be considered as force field, energy field or God field or just a space time curve in space?
The following wiki page says that psuedo-forces can do work.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fictitious_force
Tinman asked,
"So the correction would be,if our ball slows by 1/2 of it's speed makeing that 90* turn,then we have lost 4x the kinetic energy that ball had-Did i get that right?."
Well, that's not quite the way I'd put it in words. If you lose 1/2 the speed, you wind up with 1/4 the KE remaining.
For example, if you have a 1 kilogram mass and you are first going 2 m/sec, your KE is (1kg x 2 m/sec x 2 m/sec)/2 or 2 Joules. If you slow down to 1 m/sec your KE is (1kg x 1 m/sec x 1 m/sec)/2 or 0.5 Joule. Half the speed = a quarter the KE.
So you are losing 3/4 of the KE the ball had. Or you could say, if you reduce (or increase) your speed by a factor of 2, you reduce (or increase) your KE by a factor of 22, or 4. If you reduce speed by a factor of 3 (leaving 1/3 of what you started with) you reduce KE by 32, or a factor of 9, leaving 1/9 of what you started with.
Now, linear _momentum_ is just "p = mv" so maybe that's what you were thinking of at first. But in momentum, the "v" is a vector, that is, it has a direction as well as a magnitude, and momentum is also always conserved.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Momentum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Momentum)
I'll watch the video _yet again_ with an eye to what you are looking at, but I still think some of your basic assumptions are wrong, and so it is likely that you and I will interpret what we are seeing differently.
(Please check my math, I'm notorious for misplacing decimals or forgetting to divide by two in the KE calculation).
Quote from: Newton II on October 31, 2013, 07:38:11 AM
@TK
You seem to be intelligent in answering qustions. I have got one question:
The motion of earth around the sun, motion of electrons around nucleus and several such cases are accelerated motions. For accelerated motions you have to apply force continuously inturn supply continuous energy since these bodies are in motion. For bodies in uniform motion in space you need not supply energy unless you intend to accelerate it.
Who is supplying energy to keep these bodies in continuous accelerated motion? Is it God or field? If gravitational field is supplying continuous energy to keep earth in accelerated motion then should gravitational field be considered as force field, energy field or God field or just a space time curve in space?
The following wiki page says that psuedo-forces can do work.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fictitious_force (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fictitious_force)
In the accelerated motions you mention, uniform circular motion, the direction of the applied force is always at a right angle to the circular motion. The accelerated object does not travel in that direction, though, so there isn't any work done, therefore no energy is "expended".
From your Wiki reference:
QuoteFictitious forces can be considered to do work (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechanical_work), provided that they move an object on a trajectory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trajectory) that changes its energy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy) from potential (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potential_energy) to kinetic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_energy).
The acceleration due to gravity that keeps planets in circular orbits does not change the planet's energy from PE to KE, because it always acts at a right angle to the motion. No work is done since the force does not act over a distance (the radius of the orbit isn't changing). For closed elliptical orbits the inward work is balanced by the outward work so over a full orbit, again no net work, no energy expended.
Quote from: tinman on October 30, 2013, 11:13:08 PM
The ball has both kinetic and potential energy-the ball is moving,and gravity is acting apon it.
Force has direction associated to it,and a given force over time requires a given amount of energy.
What part dont you understand?.
Again... wrong. A given force acting over a _distance_ requires a given amount of energy. Work, with the same units as Energy, is Force x Distance, there is no time element involved until you start talking about power.
Are you sitting down? Feel the force from the chair pressing against your bottom? Does that force do more and more work, expending more and more energy, the longer you sit there? No, it doesn't, because it isn't moving anything. You can apply force all day long without using any energy, as long as you aren't moving something. This is why rocks, sitting on the ground, don't get tired.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Work_%28physics%29
Quote from: TinselKoala on October 31, 2013, 07:44:43 AM
Tinman asked,
"So the correction would be,if our ball slows by 1/2 of it's speed makeing that 90* turn,then we have lost 4x the kinetic energy that ball had-Did i get that right?."
Well, that's not quite the way I'd put it in words. If you lose 1/2 the speed, you wind up with 1/4 the KE remaining.
For example, if you have a 1 kilogram mass and you are first going 2 m/sec, your KE is (1kg x 2 m/sec x 2 m/sec)/2 or 2 Joules. If you slow down to 1 m/sec your KE is (1kg x 1 m/sec x 1 m/sec)/2 or 0.5 Joule. Half the speed = a quarter the KE.
I'll watch the video _yet again_ with an eye to what you are looking at, but I still think some of your basic assumptions are wrong, and so it is likely that you and I will interpret what we are seeing differently.
(Please check my math, I'm notorious for misplacing decimals or forgetting to divide by two in the KE calculation).
[/quote
Yes, 1/4 thanks for clearing that up. Sometimes i know what i mean,but word it wrong-we all make mistakes.
My aim is to take away this loss,and it can be done by the action takeing place within the smot.This is the potential energy source i am waiting for some one else to see within the smot. It may give you a better chance if you watch michael's video's,to see this potential,as the video i posted has a very short ramp.
If we can some how remove that loss of kinetic energy in the ball,would that be enough to have the ball escape the magnetic field at the same level as the starting point of the track?.
@tinman: Ok, I've watched the short video again, several times.
Do you remember pinball machines? The kind where you pull back on a spring-loaded plunger, release it, it strikes a ball and propels it upward into the game field?
When you use your hands to place the ball in the starting position you are storing energy in the system, just as if you were pulling back the pinball machine's plunger. If your red magnet blocks were inert, and you attached a rubber band across them like a slingshot, and launched the ball that way, it would be pretty much the same thing. When you release the ball, the stored energy (Magnetic potential energy) causes the ball to accelerate. It has enough momentum to go past "bottom dead center" a bit... where it suddenly encounters the cliff and falls down. You could have made this downfall arbitrarily high and thus accelerated the ball very fast, and then it would go much farther once it hit the horizontal part of the track. But once again... this is only returning the stored GPE that you put into the ball by raising it up to the top starting point. So your hand is storing two quantities of energy in the ball when you place it in the start position: GPE due to its height above the end point, and MPE due to its distance from the "sticky point" where the ball would come to rest if it didn't fall off the cliff.
I see no mechanism for energy gain in the system, other than a re-use of Mister Hand to reposition the ball.
Furthermore, in your nice diagrams where you use arrows to point out "energy transfer" you really are thinking of momentum, I think, not energy. Believe it or not, momentum is absolutely conserved, so when your ball makes the right-angle turn, you are actually causing the Earth to move a bit in the opposite direction.
Quote from: TinselKoala on October 31, 2013, 08:46:39 AM
[snip]
I see no mechanism for energy gain in the system, other than a re-use of Mister Hand to reposition the ball.
...
And that is why, if there is energy gain as the object passes through the SMOT, we would consider that energy gain "anomalous". But we cannot say in advance that there are NO untapped energy sources in nature to be uncovered -- do you agree we can not rule out novel (currently untapped) sources of energy? From you earlier link:
Quote
"The PM enthusiasts claim that the SMOT increases the energy of a ball moving through it. That's the claim we must test. Friction can never be completely eliminated in any mechanical system. So we arrange a way to move a ball through the smot, then do the same motion through the same space without the smot in place. We then compare the performance with and without the SMOT. If conventional physics is applicable, the performance should be no better (and probably somewhat worse) with the SMOT than without it....
With the SMOT in place, a similar set of repeated measurements is made. The error limits are determined. If the performance in the two cases [control and SMOT] differs by an amount greater than the error limits, and the difference favors the SMOT, then we might have something going on that is worth further investigation. But if the difference is within the error limits, or if the difference favors the case without the SMOT, then the fantastic claims of the SMOT are not supported.
The "black box" labeled "SMOT" in the diagram may be replaced by any magical device that is claimed to boost or increase energy of material objects passing through it.
At least he allows for the experimental possibility that the SMOT may "boost or increase energy of material objects passing through it." Do you?Unless you are saying that we now know EVERYTHING about Nature, no surprises left, no possibility of anomalous or untapped energy entering into the system...
Quote TK: Furthermore, in your nice diagrams where you use arrows to point out "energy transfer" you really are thinking of momentum, I think, not energy. Believe it or not, momentum is absolutely conserved, so when your ball makes the right-angle turn, you are actually causing the Earth to move a bit in the opposite direction.
Yes exactly,and this is what i said in my post about that drawing.We loose energy from the ball(because we loose momentum in the ball),as it is transfered to the ground.As the earth is so large,we wouldnt notice the energy transfer-just like the slingshot effect around a planet or moon.
This is the very thing i want to eliminate. I dont want the ball trying to move the earth,i want that energy there to escape the magnetic field at the end of the ramp.
The means to eliminate that right angle already exist in the smot device(the inclined ramp type).
If you watch the action taking place once the ball starts rolling,and note everything that is happening from begining to end,then you will see how we can do this,or maybe you wont. Either way,the means is there at no extra energy cost to the system.
TK -- I await your reply. Would also like to hear from MH and LibreE on this question -- the possibility of untapped or anomalous energy sources.
ICCF-18 - notice the subject of the conference, using the scientific method to study numerous reports of "anomalous heat" or energy.
I was there and gave a presentation. Great conference. Let me note here that Iwamura's claim of anomalous Cs to Pr transmutation (as deuterium gas passes through the cesium) has been replicated and confirmed by a Toyota team of scientists. Their results were recently published in J-JAP (Japanese Journal of Applied Physics).
Quote from: JouleSeeker on October 31, 2013, 09:39:33 AM
TK -- I await your reply. Would also like to hear from MH and LibreE on this question -- the possibility of untapped or anomalous energy sources.
I don't doubt that there are untapped energy sources waiting to be found. Where there is plausible experimental evidence and or theory then there is likely something real happening and it should be investigated as far as possible.
LENR or whatever acronym is fashionable these days would definitely fall into that category for me. Barring outright fraud there seems to be enough experimental evidence to confirm it and some theories proposed seem plausible.
However I would draw the line at devices such as SMOTs and other magnetic or gravity based devices. We know enough about the EFFECT of gravity and magnetism to completely discount such devices ever working.
It is true that questions remain about what gravity and magnetism actually ARE and how the various forces are transmitted.
If you were to propose a device that could alter the way space-time worked and offer a plausible explanation of how to achieve it then I certainly would not discount it out of hand. Barring that level of technology and understanding the chances of a SMOT working are precisely zero.
Quote from: JouleSeeker on October 31, 2013, 09:27:00 AM
And that is why, if there is energy gain as the object passes through the SMOT, we would consider that energy gain "anomalous". But we cannot say in advance that there are NO untapped energy sources in nature to be uncovered -- do you agree we can not rule out novel (currently untapped) sources of energy?
Yes, I agree. My eyes are not yet so bad that I need the bold typeface though.
Quote
From you earlier link:
At least he allows for the experimental possibility that the SMOT may "boost or increase energy of material objects passing through it." Do you?
No, I do not. Magnetism and gravity and their interactions with ordinary matter are pretty darn well understood, and if you don't believe me, look up "Cassini mission" and explore the details of its navigation. Neither Gravity nor Magnetism is an energy _source_. And you, of all people on this thread, should know that much.
Quote
Unless you are saying that we now know EVERYTHING about Nature, no surprises left, no possibility of anomalous or untapped energy entering into the system...
Non sequitur.
Quote from: LibreEnergia on October 31, 2013, 04:28:59 PM
I don't doubt that there are untapped energy sources waiting to be found. Where there is plausible experimental evidence and or theory then there is likely something real happening and it should be investigated as far as possible.
LENR or whatever acronym is fashionable these days would definitely fall into that category for me. Barring outright fraud there seems to be enough experimental evidence to confirm it and some theories proposed seem plausible.
However I would draw the line at devices such as SMOTs and other magnetic or gravity based devices. We know enough about the EFFECT of gravity and magnetism to completely discount such devices ever working.
It is true that questions remain about what gravity and magnetism actually ARE and how the various forces are transmitted.
If you were to propose a device that could alter the way space-time worked and offer a plausible explanation of how to achieve it then I certainly would not discount it out of hand. Barring that level of technology and understanding the chances of a SMOT working are precisely zero.
+++++ thumbs up.
(excluding Rossi and Defkalion from the "real" LENR research of course.)
Quote from: MileHigh on October 31, 2013, 02:47:09 AM
This makes me think of how to measure the speed of the ball. Assume you don't use a camera and process video frames which is a hassle in itself. Is there a system that anybody has come up with? Perhaps it's already in the Arduino grab bag?
The first thing that comes to mind for me is an optical slot switch, connected an Arduino A/D converter, or perhaps a digital input, and some software. There may be serious alignment issues with an optical slot switch, I am not sure. Don't forget it's a ball and has a variable profile as you go off center. Perhaps there are "smart" optical slot switches where the ball passes through a series of parallel IR beams and so the alignment issue is not a factor.
You could also do something like a guitar pickup. It's also another op-amp project. You take a relay coil and carefully remove the core. Then you put a long and thin cylindrical magnet into the core. You connect the relay coil to an op-amp configured as a comparitor. Something very simple something like Conrad's circuit. Then when the ball rolls past the relay coil the slight change in the permeability of the immediate surroundings will induce a voltage in the coil and trigger the comparitor.
So when the ball rolls past the sensor coil it should trigger the comparitor. Obviously the faster the ball is moving the shorter the comparitor is triggered. So you connect the comparitor output to an Arduino digital input, turn the crank, and the Arduino displays meters per second on the display. You could easily use the hardware timer(s) built into the Arduino so that the software just has to read a count register, which makes life easier. There is the issue of calibration, and probably still the issue of alignment, to be determined. Even if it only made relative measurements, it would be a fun project.
It's a fun little challenge; how do you measure the speed of the ball in a cheap and reliable home-brew kid of way?
MileHigh
Optical sensing is the best, because there is no chance of perturbing the system this way. It is also simpler. Just a phototransistor and LED is all you need (the rest of the opamp circuit is of course also required, or Arduino can do it with almost no extra components). Optical triggers can be arranged to trigger on the rising or trailing edge of the shadow of the ball. As long as the mounting of the sensor is rigid and the ball isn't jumping up and down as it rolls thru the gate, there isn't any problem with consistent edge-triggering. Remember my vids demonstrating the optical trigger/delay system with the GenRad Strobotac? I'm not even looking at an opaque object, just water drops, and the system is precise. My arduino-controlled magnetic levitation apparatus also uses optical triggering on the edge of the shadow of the levitated object.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xkiGTWODERo (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xkiGTWODERo)
JouleSeeker:
For the anomalous energy question, I also agree with LibreEnergia's comments. I am really hoping for a positive "shake out" in the LENR realm, and so far things look promising. However, there still is not a "critical mass" of bulletproof evidence yet in my opinion. I qualify my statement by saying that I don't actively follow the story. You posting of the Toyota lab research was a pleasant surprise for me. I am intentionally being very conservative in my voicing of my opinion here. Sometimes for big issues I get very conservative. If the science is real, then that information has to eventually be disseminated in the scientific community and then industry. I think that somebody has to get a real commercial project going to bring everyone around. For example, if you used an LENR reactor to provide heat to some industrial process in a real factory then people would take notice. Or use an LENR reactor to heat the cargo hold of a giant ship. It could then spawn a whole new industry within two years. It's exciting to think about the fact that the basic elements are so abundant such that our energy problems could be solved for the foreseeable future.
MileHigh
Tinsel
Quote
""Neither Gravity nor Magnetism is an energy _source_.""
--------------
All that would be requiered to change that would be a new discovery ....
perhaps an effective shielding or means to Focus either?
Sort of like saying water is not a fuel........
The discovery of LENR has shown we can harvest energy from the world around us in ways we never thought possible?
As well Gravity and magnetism....We have no idea what secrets lay hidden within these fields and how we may use them!
There is __NOTHING__ on this planet that is not effected by these fields!
Of one thing you can be certain Your statement above will not stand the test of time!
Thx
Chet
TK:
That looked like 1/2 of the Nomad probe. lol
I agonize over the speed measurement issues because I envision a portable test jig that you can move around on the track to measure speeds in different places. So how precisely does it have to be positioned and stuff like that.
I uploaded a picture of an air track in case some people have never seen one. Dance on air like Fred Astaire.
MileHigh
Dead on, Chet.
Such is the cry of the jaded ones. And if discoveries are allowed to proliferate, rather than change, and to protect their intellectual fragility, they will simply adapt their rationalizations to include such explanations as, "it's still not an energy "source" as the energy is coming from somewhere else"....secure in the circular "knowledge" that we will never get to the source of it all.
Yet, according to Highly placed sources....the source of it all is coming to us.
We'll see what we'll see....
TS
Another pic of interest.
I remember calling these the "equations of linear motion." There is a newfangled name for them, the "SUVAT" equations. I feel like I am not cool anymore. I barely understand all the hand signs that the kids make these days.
For you SMOT people, if you are not familiar with the equations in the attached pic, then you owe it to your self to look this stuff up.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equations_of_motion
Techstuff
""Coming to us""
------------------
Here is a recent discovery which comes from the sun!!
http://science1.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2008/30oct_ftes/ (http://science1.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2008/30oct_ftes/)
Imagine that..............
Thx
Chet
Quote from: MileHigh on October 31, 2013, 06:39:21 PM
TK:
That looked like 1/2 of the Nomad probe. lol
I agonize over the speed measurement issues because I envision a portable test jig that you can move around on the track to measure speeds in different places. So how precisely does it have to be positioned and stuff like that.
I uploaded a picture of an air track in case some people have never seen one. Dance on air like Fred Astaire.
MileHigh
You could use a pair of gates a fixed distance apart, like two full ball widths or maybe even just one, and then position this gate array anywhere along the track. The Arduino's timing is accurate enough (it has a microsecond timer routine built in, and with 2 uS resolution, iirc) to get a speed over that short a distance. So you could get speeds anywhere along the track by repositioning the gate array. The "point" of instantaneous speed would be the midpoint between the gates. You might even be able to do it with a single gate by timing on the leading and the trailing edges of the shadow as the ball passes through it.
Quote from: ramset on October 31, 2013, 06:26:02 PM
Tinsel
Quote
""Neither Gravity nor Magnetism is an energy _source_.""
--------------
All that would be requiered to change that would be a new discovery ....
perhaps an effective shielding or means to Focus either?
Sort of like saying water is not a fuel........
The discovery of LENR has shown we can harvest energy from the world around us in ways we never thought possible?
As well Gravity and magnetism....We have no idea what secrets lay hidden within these fields and how we may use them!
There is __NOTHING__ on this planet that is not effected by these fields!
Of one thing you can be certain Your statement above will not stand the test of time!
Thx
Chet
Your "certainty" is based on faith. My certainty is based on fact.
Water is not a fuel. In fact it is an "ash", the product of burning hydrogen. Can you use the ashes from your BBQ pit for fuel? Good luck.
Quote from: ramset on October 31, 2013, 07:01:24 PM
Techstuff
""Coming to us""
------------------
Here is a recent discovery which comes from the sun!!
http://science1.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2008/30oct_ftes/ (http://science1.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2008/30oct_ftes/)
Imagine that..............
Thx
Chet
You know, perhaps, that I am a "believer" in some Electric Universe theories. Gravity alone can't be the only force acting over cosmological distances, and I think that "dark matter" and "dark energy" are conventional, gravity-only, attempts at explaining the motions that we see on a large scale in the cosmos. Perhaps when electric fields are taken fully into account there will be no need for "dark matter" or "dark energy" to explain what's going on.
This is my "faith" that is contrary to conventional science. The linked article shows that electric forces and effects are beginning to be acknowledged by the "mainstream".
Tinman:
QuoteI was thinking the same thing,in regards to setting up a test exit ramp,and measureing how much the ball is slowed when makeing the 90* turn.By useing my HD camera,and having a 3 decimal point timer behind the ramp,i could calculate the speed loss of the ball after the turn. If the ball lost half it's speed,that would mean the ball lost half it's kinetic energy + friction losses.
Although we are conscious of the equal and opposite reaction of the Earth itself, we can ignore it. You can imagine if you built a very solid right-angled turn that the ball would change direction but lose very little energy. But don't let that discourage you in making the measurement, because finding the velocity change would indeed be a real challenge if the speed reduction is very small. If a microcontroller runs on a 4 MHz clock for example (ultra slow by modern CPU standards but just fine in the world of microcontrollers) and you have cascadeable internal timer registers, then you could get something like a 32-bit counter that's clocked at 4 MHz. That's super-high sub-microsecond timing precision. You can start and stop that counter via some I/O bits on the microcontroller. You can make some amazing measurements like that. One event from your sensor starts the counter and the second event stops the counter. Then an interrupt is triggered and the interrupt service routine reads the timer registers and away you go. I did it with a Vic20! lol
QuoteCould it no be possable that i see something others have not?
Did you buy the X-Ray specs from the inside back cover of the comic books?
QuoteWhat i would like,is for you to also look into the energy loss as the ball makes that 90* turn on the exit ramp.
You can distill this concept down to this configuration as a thought experiment: Blow off the hills for starters. If the SMOT ramp is supposed to be adding energy, why all the up-down business? Imagine four magnetic rails laid out flat on a table in a square. Everything is held securely in place. At each corner the ball rolls into a machined aluminum block that has a perfect 90-degree turn that's a perfect fit for the ball. Each aluminum block is secured down into the table so it doesn't budge.
Now with this simple track if every SMOT adds even a tiny bit of energy you might be able to overcome the relatively small friction losses and you will have a self runner. If you can imagine this then you might be able to imagine the outcome! lol
MileHigh
Tinsel
Quote
Neither Gravity nor Magnetism is an energy _source_
My certainty is based on fact
---------------
So the fact that Flowing Magnetic Rivers /ribbons were recently discovered connecting us to the sun
Which came as a complete surprise to the authors of your other "Facts".
Would lead me to believe that ultimately "fact" is a temporary condition when it comes to Men and our Knowledge.
Bask in your brilliance whilst you can
it grows dimmer with each passing Breath..............
Which in this case is a good thing..[maybe not so much for the fellows who make all the "rules "]
Tx
Chet
Quote from: ramset on October 31, 2013, 08:05:00 PM
Tinsel
Quote
Neither Gravity nor Magnetism is an energy _source_
My certainty is based on fact
---------------
So the fact that Flowing Magnetic Rivers /ribbons were recently discovered connecting us to the sun
Which came as a complete surprise to the authors of your other "Facts".
Would lead me to believe that ultimately "fact" is a temporary condition when it comes to Men and our Knowledge.
Bask in your brilliance whilst you can
it grows dimmer with each passing Breath..............
Tx
Chet
Have you refuted me somehow? Pardon me, I didn't notice. Certainly the article you linked doesn't refute anything I've said.
Tinsel
Last week it was a fact that LENR was a fallacy,No possible source of energy.
Science will refute your Fact ....
Its what science does,that should be self evident!
In the mean time some of us will have some fun wasting time with Magnets
and the "what Ifs" ...perhaps even the role they might play in aternative methods of harvesting energy.
thx
Chet
QuoteThis is my "faith" that is contrary to conventional science. The linked article shows that electric forces and effects are beginning to be acknowledged by the "mainstream".
Hey, it's a start. Faith is an absolute requirement for the continuation of anything important.
http://www.kingdombiblestudies.org/2hands/2hands1.htm (http://www.kingdombiblestudies.org/2hands/2hands1.htm)
Quote from: ramset on October 31, 2013, 08:44:06 PM
Tinsel
Last week it was a fact that LENR was a fallacy,No possible source of energy.
Science will refute your Fact ....
Its what science does,that should be self evident!
In the mean time some of us will have some fun wasting time with Magnets
and the "what Ifs" ...perhaps even the role they might play in aternative methods of harvesting energy.
thx
Chet
I don't recall ever saying "it was a fact that LENR was a fallacy,No possible source of energy." Link please?
I have said, and will continue to say, that the experimental evidence for LENR is controversial and largely questionable, and that I think Rossi is a bigtime fraud, and that I think that Defkalion is a money-laundering operation, also without any real system.
Another basic building block:
If the ball is at the top of a ramp of a certain height, how do you calculate it's final velocity at the bottom of the ramp?
We simplify and assume no air friction or rolling friction.
First step is to solve the problem using energy. The potential energy at the top of the ramp will get 100% converted into kinetic energy at the bottom of the ramp.
mgh = 1/2mv^2, just solve for v. Notice the m's are going to cancel out, so it's not dependent on mass.
It's actually more complicated than that. Note the ball has rotational kinetic energy also. So the kinetic energy magnitude is mgh, but the kinetic energy itself is the rotational kinetic energy plus the linear kinetic energy. So when you solve for v above, that velocity will actually be higher than the true final velocity. So it's an approximation.
MileHigh
Quote LibreEnergia: I don't doubt that there are untapped energy sources waiting to be found.
Quote LibreEnergia: However I would draw the line at devices such as SMOTs and other magnetic or gravity based devices.
An oxymoron post,and would only be true if both magnetism and gravity were fully understood-which they are not,and that is fact.
Here is another fact. The ball will loose some kinetic energy as it make's the 90* turn at the bottom of the exit ramp. I have posted the question many time's-where in the smot device lies the potential to almost eliminate this loss,without effecting any of the potential energy within the system. Neither you Libre,TK or MH have seen this gain. Insted we get 1 posting statements that are unfounded,in that neither magnetism or gravity are fully understood.2-some one who spends more time looking for others errors,and trying to disprove the experimenter. And 3-one who mocks a fellow forum member-experimenter by posting funny pictures,purely because that fellow member can see something they did not.
Here is another fact. You guys are stuck in the here and now,and seem to have no room for exspansion-that is until some one else come's up with the solution to the problem. You base every conclusion on what is known only today,and have no room for change on todays science.
And because you guys like to deal with fact's,here is another fact.
lets look at the yildis magnet motor.Now i also have my doubt's about this-just so as you know. But i (nor anyone else here)can or have proven that his claims are faulse,and that the motor dosnt work. And this fact is based on the reality that magnetism isnt yet fully understood-right along with gravity.
Our asumptions are base only on what we know today-another fact.
Only when you or some one else has taken the yildis motor apart and found the batteries,then to say that it dosnt work is only based around what we know so far-and we dont know all there is to know-fact.
@TK
As you love browsing post,and looking for peoples error's,lets have a look at some of yours
Quote to Chet: Water is not a fuel. In fact it is an "ash",
Wrong. Water is a fuel in it's raw product,the same as crude oil is the raw product of gasoline.The human body is a machine,and water is one of it's fuel sources in it's raw product.Carbohydrates contain equal parts of hydrogen, carbon, and oxygen,and water is the source of that hydrogen and oxygen.The good thing about burning or useing hydrogen and oxygen as a fuel,is like you stated-the ash is water. So we now once again have our raw fuel.What do you end up with once you have burnt your gasoline?.
Then there was your comment to me about the rock sitting on the ground dosnt get tired. Im guessing that is because it isnt doing any work. We can also say that it has no potential energy either. Well the same could be said for a bucket sitting on the ground. The bucket isnt doing any work,and has no potential energy. But if we combine the two,and place the rock in the bucket,the rock then has the potential to create energy-even though it isnt moving,and is still on the ground via the bucket that is also on the ground,and not moving.This potential energy the rock posses actual comes from the sun,and gravity.
My point is guy's,that what seems impossable,can actualy become a reality-no mater how stupid it sound's.
What you need to do,is to open your mind a little,and start to look at what is actualy possable.
I mean,who ever has heard of a solar/gravity powered rock?.
Tinman:
I wasn't trying to offend you with the picture. I apologize if you took it in a bad way. It's Halloween and it was a lousy joke. I thought that you may have grown up seeing the X-Ray Specs ads in the back of the comic books that you read as a kid.
We may not know about the precise mechanism for gravity and magnetism but we know about the effects of gravity and magnetism. It's just Mother Nature making sense, what you put in is what you get out.
For Yildiz, it's about the burden of proof and the fact that you can't prove a negative. You can't prove there isn't an alien technology miniature atomic reactor inside the Yildiz motor either. There is an infinity of possibilities that you can't prove. So logically the burden of proof falls on Yildiz to prove that he has something.
Your discussion about water as fuel is incorrect. For starters, there is a limit to poetic license when you talk about science. There is normally a mutually understood frame of reference for the discussion. Carbohydrates are outside the frame of discussion. This comment, "the ash is water. So we now once again have our raw fuel." is off base. The water is the low chemical potential energy state. The separate hydrogen and oxygen molecules represent the high chemical potential energy state. To split water molecules apart, somebody has to pull. It's almost like pulling two magnets apart one more time. You have to pull freaking hard to rip the individual water molecules apart. You have to put energy into that process. Water is no fuel, it's the much lower energy state you end up in after the hydrogen and oxygen fuel are burnt.
MileHigh
Continuing on...
The potential energy of a rock depends on your relationship to the rock considering that you and the rock are in a gravity field. If you are above the rock that one thing, if you are below the rock, it's another thing. How does the sun come into play? If you say it heats the rock, one more time, we are not talking about that in the context of this discussion.
Yes indeed what seems impossible can actually become possible. I guess it all depends on where you want to look. It also depends on the technological level that the society is at. Imagine that in 1890 you went to a telephone exchange and saw the operators plugging their wires into their patch panels. You could show them a thin strand of glass and say that in the future you will be able to pass a million simultaneous telephone conversations through the the glass fiber. They would think that you were crazy. But note that this is all technically feasible to do if you have the technology. That example will continue to be repeated over and over by other things that become technically feasible that we are not aware of. It's a different story when it comes to trying to extract extra energy from magnets. It's just not technically feasible because of the the way the magnets act. Observation and theory are in accord here.
I know it's not going to stop people from experimenting. I suppose one of the challenges is to do X number of experiments and then arrive at a conclusion and have the conviction to accept the conclusion and then move on. Suppose you do 10 different experiments with SMOTs, and magnet motors and stuff like that. Suppose that everything that you observe is textbook. So what then? Do you accept the established theory and move on or do you do an 11th experiment?
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on November 01, 2013, 02:21:34 AM
Continuing on...
The potential energy of a rock depends on your relationship to the rock considering that you and the rock are in a gravity field. If you are above the rock that one thing, if you are below the rock, it's another thing. How does the sun come into play? If you say it heats the rock, one more time, we are not talking about that in the context of this discussion.
Yes indeed what seems impossible can actually become possible. I guess it all depends on where you want to look. It also depends on the technological level that the society is at. Imagine that in 1890 you went to a telephone exchange and saw the operators plugging their wires into their patch panels. You could show them a thin strand of glass and say that in the future you will be able to pass a million simultaneous telephone conversations through the the glass fiber. They would think that you were crazy. But note that this is all technically feasible to do if you have the technology. That example will continue to be repeated over and over by other things that become technically feasible that we are not aware of. It's a different story when it comes to trying to extract extra energy from magnets. It's just not technically feasible because of the the way the magnets act. Observation and theory are in accord here.
I know it's not going to stop people from experimenting. I suppose one of the challenges is to do X number of experiments and then arrive at a conclusion and have the conviction to accept the conclusion and then move on. Suppose you do 10 different experiments with SMOTs, and magnet motors and stuff like that. Suppose that everything that you observe is textbook. So what then? Do you accept the established theory and move on or do you do an 11th experiment?
MileHigh
The rock in the bucket was just a crazy thought experiment,but just for your amusment,i will tell you my thought.
Sitting on the ground,we have two 20 gallon bucket's. One of these buckets has the rock in it,and the other dose not.Lets say that rock has a displacement volume of 5 gallons. So now,this is where the sun comes into play,in the way of evaporating water from the ocean,and other water bodies. This in turn eventualy becomes water droplet's that form in rain clouds. Then gravity comes into play,and once those droplets become large enough in mass,gravity pulls them back to earth-and we have rain.
So lets say we had enough rain to fill those two buckets with 10 gallons of water each.
So here is the question now-which bucket of water has the most potential energy?.
One bucket of water now has a higher head preasure than the other,but the volume of water that can be used is still the same in each bucket-and the motionless rock(or any other object that can displace a liquid) makes it all possable.
The point of this is to look at the enviroment(system) around the rock,and see how we could use that rock to increase energy that that enviroment already creates.
And in regards to water as a fuel-once again we need to look at the system as a whole,and the individual fuel requirements of that system. Fuel is needed to keep a machine running,and our body is just a machine. If you stop drinking water,i can quite safely say that the machine will stop running within 10 day's. When we say water as fuel,the kneejerk reaction is-oh HHO,explosions= fuel. This is tunnel vision,the inability to stand back,and see things for what they are,other than presented commonly used definitions.
Many great discoveries come from crazy thought's. And what happens when some one find something new?,our scientist go-oh yea,i see how that can work now-we'll just modify the laws of physics a bit to account for that action-it's happened time and time again,as we learn more.
If 10 test were done on a device,and all came back the same,then test 11 would be done on a device with configuration changes.
Quote from: tinman on November 01, 2013, 01:21:17 AM
Quote LibreEnergia: I don't doubt that there are untapped energy sources waiting to be found.
Quote LibreEnergia: However I would draw the line at devices such as SMOTs and other magnetic or gravity based devices.
An oxymoron post,and would only be true if both magnetism and gravity were fully understood-which they are not,and that is fact.
Here is another fact. The ball will loose some kinetic energy as it make's the 90* turn at the bottom of the exit ramp. I have posted the question many time's-where in the smot device lies the potential to almost eliminate this loss,without effecting any of the potential energy within the system. Neither you Libre,TK or MH have seen this gain.
And neither have you, you only falsely assume that you have.
The question isn't how to eliminate the loss, but rather "where is the gain". You can eliminate all the losses like the one you are (falsely) worried about and you STILL cannot self-loop because THERE IS NO GAIN MECHANISM.
QuoteInsted we get 1 posting statements that are unfounded,in that neither magnetism or gravity are fully understood.
I never said magnetism and gravity are fully understood. What I said, if you actually read and think about my post, is that we understand them _pretty darn well_ and and I will say further that we use them in ways that utterly refute your false assumptions. Read up on the Cassini mission!
Quote
2-some one who spends more time looking for others errors,and trying to disprove the experimenter.
Is this a reference to me? Would you like to continue in your silly errors or would you like someone to point them out to you if you don't find them yourself? And I am not trying to "disprove the experimenter" because so far, there is NOTHING TO DISPROVE... has someone presented a self-looping SMOT, or not? I have yet to see one, and neither have you seen one, in spite of the claims made by elecar and others. On the contrary, I am demanding that people who make claims must present evidence for those claims. Where is your evidence of any gain in any of the SMOT systems? Nowhere but in your false assumptions.
Quote
And 3-one who mocks a fellow forum member-experimenter by posting funny pictures,purely because that fellow member can see something they did not.
Here is another fact. You guys are stuck in the here and now,and seem to have no room for exspansion-that is until some one else come's up with the solution to the problem. You base every conclusion on what is known only today,and have no room for change on todays science.
And because you guys like to deal with fact's,here is another fact.
lets look at the yildis magnet motor.Now i also have my doubt's about this-just so as you know. But i (nor anyone else here)can or have proven that his claims are faulse,and that the motor dosnt work. And this fact is based on the reality that magnetism isnt yet fully understood-right along with gravity.
Our asumptions are base only on what we know today-another fact.
Only when you or some one else has taken the yildis motor apart and found the batteries,then to say that it dosnt work is only based around what we know so far-and we dont know all there is to know-fact.
@TK
As you love browsing post
Oh... I thought I should read every post in the thread. Sorry... maybe you can put a little disclaimer on the ones you don't want me to read.
Quote
and looking for peoples error's
They are hard to miss when they are so gob-smacking obvious, like "half the speed means half the KE".
Quotelets have a look at some of yours
Please do. Please be sure, like I ALWAYS DO, to provide checkable outside references that support your analysis of my errors. So far... you haven't done so, you simply repeat your mistaken assumptions.
Quote
Quote to Chet: Water is not a fuel. In fact it is an "ash",
Wrong. Water is a fuel in it's raw product,the same as crude oil is the raw product of gasoline.The human body is a machine,and water is one of it's fuel sources in it's raw product.Carbohydrates contain equal parts of hydrogen, carbon, and oxygen,and water is the source of that hydrogen and oxygen.The good thing about burning or useing hydrogen and oxygen as a fuel,is like you stated-the ash is water. So we now once again have our raw fuel.What do you end up with once you have burnt your gasoline?.
You are defining "fuel" in a non-standard way. Water is NOT a fuel. It does not provide energy. It takes more energy to split water into H2 and O2 than you can recover by burning the hydrogen and oxygen together. If you think otherwise, then perhaps you should write a thermodynamics textbook, because according to you they are all wrong. However.... the existing texts have strong experimental support. Where the experimental support for your assumptions? Nowhere.
Quote
Then there was your comment to me about the rock sitting on the ground dosnt get tired. Im guessing that is because it isnt doing any work. We can also say that it has no potential energy either. Well the same could be said for a bucket sitting on the ground. The bucket isnt doing any work,and has no potential energy. But if we combine the two,and place the rock in the bucket,the rock then has the potential to create energy-even though it isnt moving,and is still on the ground via the bucket that is also on the ground,and not moving.This potential energy the rock posses actual comes from the sun,and gravity.
This makes no sense to me. Go ahead and put a rock in a bucket, sitting on the ground. Now, show me it doing some work, powering something. Go ahead, it's simple enough according to you. I really really want to see this.
Quote
My point is guy's,that what seems impossable,can actualy become a reality-no mater how stupid it sound's.
What you need to do,is to open your mind a little,and start to look at what is actualy possable.
I mean,who ever has heard of a solar/gravity powered rock?.
Yes... start to look at what is _actually possible_. That is what I have been saying all this time. SMOT self looping is impossible, so don't waste your time, energy, creativity, etc. on it. There are sound physical reasons why it is impossible and nobody, nowhere, no time, has ever refuted those reasons. Some things that we can think of are indeed impossible. Don't believe me? Then swim to Tasmania, nude, carrying a 200 pound block of concrete, and do it in three hours. Why can't you? Open your mind a little. According to you it can actually become a reality, no matter how stupid it sounds.
You can swim, can't you? You can get nude. You can probably even carry a 200 pound block of concrete. And I know you can get to Tasmania in three hours. Now all you have to do is put them all together. Simple. I'll be waiting for your YT video.
MH
I would have to say that every single thing on this planet can be Fuel .all is locked into submission to a task ATM.
However There is a key to that task Lock [what makes a rock a rock],LENR Is merely a shadow of the possibilities and Methodology.
on another note more specific to the Topic and its plausibility
here is a man who claims a verifiable magnetic anomoly?
he wants to change the curriculum in our schools?
http://www.energy-ingenuity.com/index.html (http://www.energy-ingenuity.com/index.html)
Duncan has started a discussion over here
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/14534-use-force-luke-use-force.html (http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/14534-use-force-luke-use-force.html)
thx
Chet
Quote from: ramset on November 01, 2013, 08:51:27 AM
MH
I would have to say that every single thing on this planet can be Fuel .all is locked into submission to a task ATM.
However There is a key to that task Lock [what makes a rock a rock],LENR Is merely a shadow of the possibilities and Methodology.
on another note more specific to the Topic and its plausibility
here is a man who claims a verifiable magnetic anomoly?
he wants to change the curriculum in our schools?
http://www.energy-ingenuity.com/index.html (http://www.energy-ingenuity.com/index.html)
Duncan has started a discussion over here
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/14534-use-force-luke-use-force.html (http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/14534-use-force-luke-use-force.html)
thx
Chet
You can define things however you like, but the farther you stray from legitimate, agreed-upon definitions, the fewer and fewer people will understand you.
Quote
fu·elˈfyo͞oəl/nounnoun: fuel; plural noun: fuels1. material such as coal, gas, or oil that is burned to produce heat or power.| synonyms: | gas (https://www.google.com/search?client=ubuntu&hs=4Gv&channel=fs&q=define+gas&sa=X&ei=VaZzUsITk-OwBOu5gfgD&ved=0CC0Q_SowAA), gasoline (https://www.google.com/search?client=ubuntu&hs=4Gv&channel=fs&q=define+gasoline&sa=X&ei=VaZzUsITk-OwBOu5gfgD&ved=0CC4Q_SowAA), diesel (https://www.google.com/search?client=ubuntu&hs=4Gv&channel=fs&q=define+diesel&sa=X&ei=VaZzUsITk-OwBOu5gfgD&ved=0CC8Q_SowAA), petroleum (https://www.google.com/search?client=ubuntu&hs=4Gv&channel=fs&q=define+petroleum&sa=X&ei=VaZzUsITk-OwBOu5gfgD&ved=0CDAQ_SowAA), propane (https://www.google.com/search?client=ubuntu&hs=4Gv&channel=fs&q=define+propane&sa=X&ei=VaZzUsITk-OwBOu5gfgD&ved=0CDEQ_SowAA); Morepower source; petrol (https://www.google.com/search?client=ubuntu&hs=4Gv&channel=fs&q=define+petrol&sa=X&ei=VaZzUsITk-OwBOu5gfgD&ved=0CDMQ_SowAA) "the car ran out of fuel"firewood (https://www.google.com/search?client=ubuntu&hs=4Gv&channel=fs&q=define+firewood&sa=X&ei=VaZzUsITk-OwBOu5gfgD&ved=0CDQQ_SowAA), wood (https://www.google.com/search?client=ubuntu&hs=4Gv&channel=fs&q=define+wood&sa=X&ei=VaZzUsITk-OwBOu5gfgD&ved=0CDUQ_SowAA), kindling (https://www.google.com/search?client=ubuntu&hs=4Gv&channel=fs&q=define+kindling&sa=X&ei=VaZzUsITk-OwBOu5gfgD&ved=0CDYQ_SowAA), logs; coal (https://www.google.com/search?client=ubuntu&hs=4Gv&channel=fs&q=define+coal&sa=X&ei=VaZzUsITk-OwBOu5gfgD&ved=0CDcQ_SowAA), coke (https://www.google.com/search?client=ubuntu&hs=4Gv&channel=fs&q=define+coke&sa=X&ei=VaZzUsITk-OwBOu5gfgD&ved=0CDgQ_SowAA), anthracite (https://www.google.com/search?client=ubuntu&hs=4Gv&channel=fs&q=define+anthracite&sa=X&ei=VaZzUsITk-OwBOu5gfgD&ved=0CDkQ_SowAA); oil (https://www.google.com/search?client=ubuntu&hs=4Gv&channel=fs&q=define+oil&sa=X&ei=VaZzUsITk-OwBOu5gfgD&ved=0CDoQ_SowAA), kerosene (https://www.google.com/search?client=ubuntu&hs=4Gv&channel=fs&q=define+kerosene&sa=X&ei=VaZzUsITk-OwBOu5gfgD&ved=0CDsQ_SowAA), propane (https://www.google.com/search?client=ubuntu&hs=4Gv&channel=fs&q=define+propane&sa=X&ei=VaZzUsITk-OwBOu5gfgD&ved=0CDwQ_SowAA), lighter fluid; heat source "she added more fuel to the fire" |
short for nuclear fuel (https://www.google.com/search?client=ubuntu&hs=4Gv&channel=fs&q=define+nuclear+fuel&sa=X&ei=VaZzUsITk-OwBOu5gfgD&ved=0CD0QgCswAA).
food, drink, or drugs as a source of energy."any protein intake can also be used as fuel"| synonyms: | nourishment (https://www.google.com/search?client=ubuntu&hs=4Gv&channel=fs&q=define+nourishment&sa=X&ei=VaZzUsITk-OwBOu5gfgD&ved=0CD4Q_SowAA), food (https://www.google.com/search?client=ubuntu&hs=4Gv&channel=fs&q=define+food&sa=X&ei=VaZzUsITk-OwBOu5gfgD&ved=0CD8Q_SowAA), sustenance (https://www.google.com/search?client=ubuntu&hs=4Gv&channel=fs&q=define+sustenance&sa=X&ei=VaZzUsITk-OwBOu5gfgD&ved=0CEAQ_SowAA), nutriment (https://www.google.com/search?client=ubuntu&hs=4Gv&channel=fs&q=define+nutriment&sa=X&ei=VaZzUsITk-OwBOu5gfgD&ved=0CEEQ_SowAA), nutrition (https://www.google.com/search?client=ubuntu&hs=4Gv&channel=fs&q=define+nutrition&sa=X&ei=VaZzUsITk-OwBOu5gfgD&ved=0CEIQ_SowAA) More"we all need fuel to keep our bodies going" |
a thing that sustains or inflames passion, argument, or other emotion or activity."the remuneration packages will add fuel to the debate about top-level rewards"| synonyms: | encouragement (https://www.google.com/search?client=ubuntu&hs=4Gv&channel=fs&q=define+encouragement&sa=X&ei=VaZzUsITk-OwBOu5gfgD&ved=0CEQQ_SowAA), ammunition (https://www.google.com/search?client=ubuntu&hs=4Gv&channel=fs&q=define+ammunition&sa=X&ei=VaZzUsITk-OwBOu5gfgD&ved=0CEUQ_SowAA), stimulus (https://www.google.com/search?client=ubuntu&hs=4Gv&channel=fs&q=define+stimulus&sa=X&ei=VaZzUsITk-OwBOu5gfgD&ved=0CEYQ_SowAA), incentive (https://www.google.com/search?client=ubuntu&hs=4Gv&channel=fs&q=define+incentive&sa=X&ei=VaZzUsITk-OwBOu5gfgD&ved=0CEcQ_SowAA); Moreprovocation (https://www.google.com/search?client=ubuntu&hs=4Gv&channel=fs&q=define+provocation&sa=X&ei=VaZzUsITk-OwBOu5gfgD&ved=0CEkQ_SowAA), goading "his antics added fuel to the opposition's cause" |
verb: fuel; 3rd person present: fuels; past tense: fuelled; past participle: fuelled; gerund or present participle: fuelling; past tense: fueled; past participle: fueled; gerund or present participle: fueling1. supply or power (an industrial plant, vehicle, or machine) with fuel."the plan includes a hydroelectric plant to fuel a paper factory"| synonyms: | power (https://www.google.com/search?client=ubuntu&hs=4Gv&channel=fs&q=define+power&sa=X&ei=VaZzUsITk-OwBOu5gfgD&ved=0CEoQ_SowAA), fire (https://www.google.com/search?client=ubuntu&hs=4Gv&channel=fs&q=define+fire&sa=X&ei=VaZzUsITk-OwBOu5gfgD&ved=0CEsQ_SowAA), charge (https://www.google.com/search?client=ubuntu&hs=4Gv&channel=fs&q=define+charge&sa=X&ei=VaZzUsITk-OwBOu5gfgD&ved=0CEwQ_SowAA) More"power stations fueled by low-grade coal" |
fill up (a vehicle, aircraft, or ship) with oil or gasoline.
(of a person) eat a meal."arrive straight from work and fuel up on the complimentary buffet"
2. cause (a fire) to burn more intensely.sustain or inflame (a feeling or activity)."his rascal heart and private pain fuel his passion as an actor"| synonyms: | fan (https://www.google.com/search?client=ubuntu&hs=4Gv&channel=fs&q=define+fan&sa=X&ei=VaZzUsITk-OwBOu5gfgD&ved=0CE4Q_SowAA), feed (https://www.google.com/search?client=ubuntu&hs=4Gv&channel=fs&q=define+feed&sa=X&ei=VaZzUsITk-OwBOu5gfgD&ved=0CE8Q_SowAA), stoke up, inflame (https://www.google.com/search?client=ubuntu&hs=4Gv&channel=fs&q=define+inflame&sa=X&ei=VaZzUsITk-OwBOu5gfgD&ved=0CFAQ_SowAA), intensify (https://www.google.com/search?client=ubuntu&hs=4Gv&channel=fs&q=define+intensify&sa=X&ei=VaZzUsITk-OwBOu5gfgD&ved=0CFEQ_SowAA), stimulate (https://www.google.com/search?client=ubuntu&hs=4Gv&channel=fs&q=define+stimulate&sa=X&ei=VaZzUsITk-OwBOu5gfgD&ved=0CFIQ_SowAA), encourage (https://www.google.com/search?client=ubuntu&hs=4Gv&channel=fs&q=define+encourage&sa=X&ei=VaZzUsITk-OwBOu5gfgD&ved=0CFMQ_SowAA), provoke (https://www.google.com/search?client=ubuntu&hs=4Gv&channel=fs&q=define+provoke&sa=X&ei=VaZzUsITk-OwBOu5gfgD&ved=0CFQQ_SowAA), incite (https://www.google.com/search?client=ubuntu&hs=4Gv&channel=fs&q=define+incite&sa=X&ei=VaZzUsITk-OwBOu5gfgD&ved=0CFUQ_SowAA), whip up; Moresustain (https://www.google.com/search?client=ubuntu&hs=4Gv&channel=fs&q=define+sustain&sa=X&ei=VaZzUsITk-OwBOu5gfgD&ved=0CFcQ_SowAA), keep alive "the rumors fueled anxiety among opposition" |
Middle English: from Old French fouaille, based on Latin focus 'hearth' (in late Latin 'fire').
Sorry, formatting in the original.
Water doesn't seem to be mentioned, except in the context of hydroelectric generation. And of course the fuel that gets the water behind the dam in the first place for that is the sun's nuclear reactions.
face it.. all of you... all everyone is doing in this thread is what i like to call 'mental masterbation'.... there will never be a video (or the real deal in any shape or form).. the END.. why waste your time aruging over something? its just stupid.
Quote from: ramset on November 01, 2013, 08:51:27 AM
MH
I would have to say that every single thing on this planet can be Fuel .all is locked into submission to a task ATM.
However There is a key to that task Lock [what makes a rock a rock],LENR Is merely a shadow of the possibilities and Methodology.
on another note more specific to the Topic and its plausibility
here is a man who claims a verifiable magnetic anomoly?
he wants to change the curriculum in our schools?
http://www.energy-ingenuity.com/index.html (http://www.energy-ingenuity.com/index.html)
Duncan has started a discussion over here
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/14534-use-force-luke-use-force.html (http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/14534-use-force-luke-use-force.html)
thx
Chet
Insert ROFL animated gif here.
Tk
Here I have yours
Sorry I forgot to give it back
---------------------------
So what do you know about Steve Ward?
thx
Chet
PS
I don't see Rocks in your "year 0002 fuels we know of chart" either {thorium].?
Quote from: tinman on November 01, 2013, 01:21:17 AM
Quote LibreEnergia: I don't doubt that there are untapped energy sources waiting to be found.
Great! agrees with JouleSeeker and seems like just about everyone else on the forum.
I agree too!
Hope y'all don't mind if I jump in.
To me, its like Newton playing with a few pebbles on the seaside. Playing and thereby learning. Sure, why not?
Play is not a waste of time and may lead to something.
I say, play on... and keep your eyes open. enjoy the journey. why not?
Quote from: TinselKoala on November 01, 2013, 09:05:08 AM
Water doesn't seem to be mentioned, except in the context of hydroelectric generation. And of course the fuel that gets the water behind the dam in the first place for that is the sun's nuclear reactions.
You forgot gravity-to go along with the sun.If there was no gravity,your water would never fall behind the dam wall.
Quote TK: I never said magnetism and gravity are fully understood. What I said, if you actually read and think about my post, is that we understand them _pretty darn well_ and and I will say further that we use them in ways that utterly refute your false assumptions. Read up on the Cassini mission!
And that comment wasnt aimed at you.
Quote TK: This makes no sense to me. Go ahead and put a rock in a bucket, sitting on the ground. Now, show me it doing some work, powering something. Go ahead, it's simple enough according to you. I really really want to see this.
I guess you missed my post to MH.
32 pages and still no actual evidence of a successful self looping SMOT, what we do have is the usual skeptics and believers confrontations, why can't the believers ever understand that the only evidence that counts is an actual working device, but they seem to prefer pages and pages of argument with no working evidence.
Before all the believers jump down my throat, I'm not saying it can never work, but why are you saying it can work and yet are incapable of showing it working. Wouldn't it be more productive to say I believe it might work and I want to research and experiments and hope one day to produced a self looping working device, but I think that would be too easy as most of the believers seemed to enjoy the confrontation of words and blind faith, rather than civilized communication with fellow members.
Quote from: ramset on November 01, 2013, 09:25:22 AM
Tk
Here I have yours
Sorry I forgot to give it back
---------------------------
So what do you know about Steve Ward?
thx
Chet
Do you mean the Steve Ward that is listed on this page? Who wants to change the curriculum in schools so that they teach his confused garbage?
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Electromagnetic
lol
It's hard to see what advantage he has, considering all the other electromagnetic free energy and overunity devices and theories that work.
Oh... wait... none of those things actually _do_ work, do they.
Quote
PS
I don't see Rocks in your "year 0002 fuels we know of chart" either {thorium].?
My chart? I think maybe you have me confused with someone else.
Sure, thorium rocks and other kinds of radioactive or chemically reactive "rocks" can provide energy. And I'm sure you can trace the real origin of this energy back to its ultimate source.
But what does that have to do with gravitational PE and rocks in a bucket creating work?
By the way.... one very strong sign of "woo" is when the theory or device is self-named by the claimant. Steve Ward, "wardforce".... YGTBKM.
Quote from: webby1 on November 01, 2013, 04:55:16 PM
Let me put forward and example.
I see an area of improvement being the ball exiting the magnetic field.
I have found that this can be done and leave the ball at a higher velocity but I do not know the actual costs.
A level guide rail and a long pole face magnet,, and of course a steel ball.
Hold the guide level and hold the magnet up flush and level with the bottom of the guide.
Release the ball from an appropriate distance so that it is attracted into the magnet, then, at the point the ball is just before the first edge of the magnet release the other end of the magnet and allow it to drop an inch or so.
This needs to be done BEFORE the magnet is over the pole face. The ball will exit at an increased velocity,, if it goes really fast then you let the magnet move while the ball was over the pole face and that is a cost for sure.
I am not sure that if doing it just prior to the ball reaching the pole face there is a cost or not.
Answers please.
What is the question? You have stored energy in the system by placing your ball at " an appropriate distance so that it is attracted into the magnet". You have also stored energy by positioning the magnet so that the "other end" can be released and fall. You may have cleverly succeeded in transferring some GPE (the falling magnet end) into the velocity of the steel ball. So? There is no mechanism for gain. Look up "gauss rifle", or look at my videos concerning "nikolayev trailer hitch". Are these OU devices? They sure eject magnets fast.
Quote
And please, take the answers and consider them, if you disagree with an answer then put forward another solution without referencing the one you do not agree with.
Huh?
Quote from: TinselKoala on October 31, 2013, 10:42:17 PM
I don't recall ever saying "it was a fact that LENR was a fallacy,No possible source of energy." Link please?
I have said, and will continue to say, that the experimental evidence for LENR is controversial and largely questionable, and that I think Rossi is a bigtime fraud, and that I think that Defkalion is a money-laundering operation, also without any real system.
TK, you are most likely right. I have not seen any evidence of a large plant in the US making a Rossi hot water heater that runs on free energy LENR technology. The scam is all about greed. Some people think they can become rich by being one of the first investing in the scam technology.
I think it is too early to judge this SMOT claim as of today. I think we need some tests that refute his claims.
Bill
Quote from: powercat on November 01, 2013, 03:31:25 PM
32 pages and still no actual evidence of a successful self looping SMOT......
Where is elecar? Busy in writing book on SMOT - Elecarian Smotics? (or Cosmetics)
Quote from: webby1 on November 01, 2013, 07:08:09 PM
The question is if the other end of the magnet falling has a cost, there is the change in GPE of the magnet and if there is no cost then the change in GPE is reversible for the magnet. If there is a cost of the other end of the magnet falling, not the end next to the steel ball, caused by the steel ball, then there is a cost.
This is, as I stated, what I am not sure of,, does other end of the magnet falling before the steel ball is over the pole face have a cost due to the steel ball.
It does have a cost. Think of your mechanism. It has two states, the magnet up against the track, and one end of the magnet flopped down after it falls. The initial position is the _lower_ state, the "flopped" state, where gravity has pulled the magnet down. This is the "start" position. You must raise this fallen end up and keep it in position, against gravity, somehow until you are ready for it to fall. This is stored energy that you have put into the system.
Now you bring your steel ball in and place it into the field where it will get attracted when you release it. This is also stored energy that you have put into the system, just like pulling out a spring plunger on a pinball machine. (It doesn't matter that you've brought the ball in from "infinity".... because PE is _negative_ . You are storing energy in the system by holding the ball in the attractive field.)
Now you release the ball and it's sucked toward the magnetic potential well, the "sticky spot". It gets going, converting MPE into KE as it goes. This MPE is what you stored by placing the ball. Maybe you even "pushed" the ball a little with your hand when you released it; this adds KE to the total energy of the ball, but it came from your breakfast this time. Now it's time to release the other end of the magnet. If the ball is already too close, the magnet won't drop because it's attracted to the ball, unless the magnet is really heavy. But maybe if you do it at just the right time, it swings away, and like a spring attached to the ball, maybe it pulls the ball a bit more, adding more KE to the ball. Where did this KE increment come from? It was stored in the system as GPE when you raised the magnet and latched it into position at the start. The heavier the magnet, the more stored PE... and the more you have to replace when you reset for the next _full_ cycle.
So to get a device like this to self-loop, not only do you have to arrange for the ball to come back to the start point without your assistance, you also have to raise the magnet back up and latch it into position. Maybe the first part can happen just by rolling around, and in a totally frictionless and eddy current lossless, etc. environment, it might just do that. A frictionless flywheel in vacuum can turn at a constant rate for a long time... until you put any drag on it at all, then it starts to slow down. Maybe the "boost" from the magnet end falling adds enough KE to overcome some of the rolling losses. But raising up and latching that magnet end, to reset the system for another loop, has an inevitable cost in energy. Where does this come from? You have to put it there somehow, and whatever you put there is all you will get back.
Edit to add: The Cassini mission is one scientific mission that shows "science" understands gravity and magnetism "pretty darn well." Another great one is the Gravity Probe B experiment. Look it up! Check out its gyros, the most perfectly spherical things that humans have ever made, and how they are suspended, spun up, and how they produce data.
Quote from: maw2432 on November 01, 2013, 06:57:12 PM
TK, you are most likely right. I have not seen any evidence of a large plant in the US making a Rossi hot water heater that runs on free energy LENR technology. The scam is all about greed. Some people think they can become rich by being one of the first investing in the scam technology.
I think it is too early to judge this SMOT claim as of today. I think we need some tests that refute his claims.
Bill
Every failed SMOT, constructed by _believers_, is a refutation of elecar's claims. Let him provide his evidence! It is not the responsibility of skeptics to refute a claim that is made and given without evidence!
My position is clear, at least to me.
If a claimant wants to make a claim that goes against "conventional physics" then he/she should provide evidence that can be examined critically. If you don't provide this evidence then you should expect to be severely challenged by people like me, MileHigh, and others. No, we don't know everything but we do know some basic physics, that has never been refuted in literally hundreds of years of trying, and the claimants seem to lack this basic, unrefuted and unrefutable, knowledge a lot of the time.
If a claimant does provide evidence that supports their claims and is willing to discuss, analyze, examine, etc. in the spirit of Open Source research and development, fine, let's have at it. Anyone who knows my work knows that I will, if possible, construct and test devices according to the exact instructions from the claimant and I will report my results and conclusions willingly and for free. Generally, I report my work in "lab notebook" videos on YouTube for all to see and criticise, and I try to provide complete details so that anyone can repeat what I've done and check my work and my conclusions for themselves. Often I just illustrate things that I think are interesting, and I try to help people who have genuine questions. Sometimes a really good idea happens, like MileHigh's op-amp motor controller, which eliminates a lot of Bedini-problems but produces the same kind of HV spikes that Bedini and his fans think are so magical, and these can be used "downstream" in battery chargers, etc, just like his devices. And with the same effects, too!
Why haven't you seen my work with SMOT ramps and balls, etc? It's because I have nothing new or interesting to add. I can tell you how to make your ramps easily and cheaply, I can tell you how to measure velocities and displacements (Webby's use of shims of known thickness is a great idea) and I can tell you how to crunch your data to make it meaningful. I can challenge false claims of extreme precision when the measurements cannot be that precise, and I can even teach you how to use your oscilloscopes and other test equipment properly. What I cannot do is overcome the Laws of Thermodynamics! And...sadly... neither can anyone else that I've seen.
Why haven't we seen elecar's demonstration of the validity of his claims? I'll leave that as an exercise for the reader.
By the way, I could say, for instance, that I have an antigravity drive that works, runs by swinging a triple magnetic pendulum through a HHO gas chamber using Tesla longitudinal scalar technology, floats up by itself for hours and hours, but is too noisy to show on video. Patent Pending of course. Negotiations with a major airplane manufacturer are underway, and as soon as they cut me a check I'll reveal all to you.
What, you don't believe me?
Is it up to you, to disprove my claim? Or is it up to me, to provide evidence that supports it?
Quote from: powercat on November 01, 2013, 03:31:25 PM
why can't the believers ever understand that the only evidence that counts is an actual working device, but they seem to prefer pages and pages of argument with no working evidence.
Before all the believers jump down my throat, I'm not saying it can never work, but why are you saying it can work and yet are incapable of showing it working.
Almost sounds just like the bible and God-dosnt it
There are millions of believers in God,and pages apon pages of his existance-but no actual physical proof of any of it.No scientific proof or anything in physics that can proove his existance. Our God is based purely on belief and faith,and even go's as far as the courts. When you take an oath in court,it is done with your hand placed on the bible,and the last four words are-so help me God.
It is a good thing that PROOF isnt a requirement for beliefs.
In God we trust.
Here in Texas you'll often see a little sign up behind the counter of country stores and mom-and-pop diners, etc:
In God we Trust... All others pay Cash.
Think about it.
New discoveries made every day. Although the video is 3 years,it go's to prove that we are still learning about magnetic fields,and all is not yet know.
If all is yet not known,then to make a claim that a device powered only by magnet's can never happen-is faulse.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l5xSjCePgEQ
It is a bit underwhelming by comparison. The works of man compared to the works of our Creator, I mean. It's damn depressing to even consider such master work as having been done by blind, dumb accident. I mean, look at how man scrambles to copy Creation. He spends trillions of dollars and still doesn't even know where to begin to copy the simplest of the simple among God's works. Many here have seen the "inner life of a cell" on youtube. That video alone shows that Darwin was smoking crack to "believe" (faith. it's everywhere) that the single cell was merely a simple micro packet of protoplasmic goo. So, if even the simplest form of "life", the single cell, is so amazingly complicated....like a veritable city....Containing machines, cogs, levers, sprockets, highly efficient, self assembling highways, timely trash collectors, "sky scrapers", even bipedal organisms walking upright on those highways, hauling giant (by comparison) bags of cargo......
Then where does that leave man as the supposed "pinnacle" of evolution? As he is no where near as "wise" as his parts, let alone the sum of them. If man's focused wisdom doesn't even know where to begin to duplicate the simplest component of life in it's smallest, humblest form, then it explains much in the way of his legacy of fallen empires. As God said, it does not belong to man who is walking, even to direct his step. Yet Who governs the steps of those trillions of tiny two legged organisms walking upright in each of our cells long before the term "homo erectus" was so assumedly misapplied? Why do they slave away day after day, century after century.....to keep us walking upright?
When I see such efforts as the "SMOT" and other circular logic devices, so very many of them in institutionalized "education", cwhoreporations, politics, and the military industrial complex, I compare them to the simplest of God's works and sometimes cannot decide whether to cry or chuckle....
Why does God demand faith? He says that without it, it is impossible for man to please Him well. Look at how fast man's "mightiest" works have fallen as soon as the people stop believing. In the powers that be. In one another....losing "Faith". Faith IS balance. Faith is the only currency by which one may afford to buy time itself. I've witnessed the simplest acts of resolute faith, change lives. Change nations. Even the direction of the planet for a time. Yet we remain so fickle. So judgmental....for faith without accurate knowledge is most corrosive. Emotive faith, guided by one's simplistic heart, can be treacherous indeed. Faith guided by reason and motivated by love is at the very core of the science of sentience.
I find it sadly, ironically hypocritical that men are so quick to judge God. Decrying His requirement of "faith". When those same men demand faith from their marriage partners, their children, friends, strangers, even the family dog.
How far does an army travel without faith? Not very. The chains of command the world over demand deaf dumb and blind obedience daily.
Their blood sacrifices of themselves and their victims no matter the shifting quick sands of relativistic "moral high ground" of the moment.....produce what? And yet many of these cannot, or will not, see the value of the blood sacrifice of Christ Himself.
"No greater love can a man have, but to lay down his life for a friend" - Jesus Christ
And He proved it.
Anyone. Anyone at all can give up his life blood for another. It is done all the time. It is remarkably easy to give up life, or take it, in the heat of the moment.
The real sacrifice is in LIVING one's life for others. As it requires MUCH more dedication and faith. And this Christ did as well. Teaching those who remain teachable, the ONLY way into the Kingdom that Lasts.
Mankind's science, even at it's best, is merely the deconstruction, or rather, the reverse engineering of....
F A I T H
For all is belief. All that we experience is based upon belief. Beliefs change, grow, or whither every day, based upon new knowledge. And still, despite all that he has squandered, sacrificing the many to satisfy the few....Godless mankind doesn't really have a clue as to what he's made of. Or what, or Who, made Him.
"It is the glory of God to conceal a matter; to search out a matter is the glory of kings." Proverbs 25:2
"For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse." - Romans 1:20
They could see quite well, the hand of God at work in nature, millennia ago. We who now have the foretold abilities to see much deeper and further into His works should be able to see the forest for the trees at least as well....but what blinds us today? Why do we repeat the same fatal mistakes as our ancestors?
Who dares call Him a Tyrant Who achieved a Masterfully balanced kingdom, and has held it? Is it a tyrant who built this once cosmic Island Paradise to be shared and enjoyed by many? Man even now seeks to copy His creator by creating a "man" in our own image. One with sentience. Self awareness. Is it a coincidence that man started out creating robotic bugs and onward and upward, adjusting his focus toward duplicating himself in lower form.....just as God said He did?
I'll tell you this, no bigger a fool is found than the one that, should he attain the mastery....creates sentient beings like himself and then allows them to proliferate in his own domain, untested.
No. Before allowing such, the wise "scientist" would have them tested thoroughly in a lower realm before admitting them into His Kingdom.
Tell me, what are the correct latitudes of balance? Balance maintained, balance lost and balance restored?
http://www.kingdombiblestudies.org/2hands/2hands1.htm
"It does not belong to man who is walking, even to direct his step".
What happens then, when a man sincerely asks his Maker to direct His steps?
TS
Quote from: tinman on November 02, 2013, 01:56:13 AM
New discoveries made every day. Although the video is 3 years,it go's to prove that we are still learning about magnetic fields,and all is not yet know.
If all is yet not known,then to make a claim that a device powered only by magnet's can never happen-is faulse.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l5xSjCePgEQ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l5xSjCePgEQ)
Have you started your swim yet?
"If all is yet not known,then to make a claim that a device powered only by magnet's can never happen-is faulse."
Your logic is faulty. It is a classic "argument from ignorance."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
@TechStuff:
If God tells me he has a SMOT that self loops and runs continuously (if a bit noisily) .... I am still going to want to see it before I buy it.
Don't you remember Archer Quinn? He spoke of God, too. He even called his non-working wheel the Sword of God. But in the final end, even when people sent him cigarette money and bought him more and more magnets to put on it... it didn't work. Yet, at the beginning, just like elecar, he claimed it did, and that he would teach others how to build it. Just like elecar.
That's where my "tinselkoala" handle comes from, by the way. When I first encountered this forum, someone from Italy had forged my credentials, impersonated my usual handle, even stole my avatar photograph of me illuminating a CFL bulb wirelessly next to a Tesla Coil, and was posting lies in my name. So I couldn't register under my usual handle... so I scrambled the letters again and chose TinselKoala from the results. (It sounded a bit more dignified than "Ali Snotleak" and I wasn't about to be a "silent" koala) ... and it was indeed a poke at the Australian Archer Quinn. He got it, too. Yes, tinsel is flashy, cheap stuff that people hang on Christmas trees, and koalas are nasty buggers with a vile disposition... and Archer Quinn was a fraud, and finally went away, trailing bits of tinsel and suffering from some nasty koala-claw scratches. Where is his "working" Sword of God now? The same place as elecar's self-looping SMOT: in his dreams.
"What happens when a man sincerely asks God to direct His steps?"
The sound of crickets, chirping.
Quote from: TinselKoala on November 02, 2013, 02:31:59 AM
Have you started your swim yet?
"If all is yet not known,then to make a claim that a device powered only by magnet's can never happen-is faulse."
Your logic is faulty. It is a classic "argument from ignorance."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
My logic is sound thank you TK.It is yours that is faulty.
How can you say you wont get a flat tyre on your trip,befor you have reached your destination?-maybe you have the power to see into the future?
You missed my point about the God post. My point is ,people choose to believe some things without having hard evidence,and yet need hard evidence to believe in other possabilities.
Quote: and koalas are nasty buggers with a vile disposition...
And where did that conclusion come from?Youtube?
Koalas are quite the opposite,but like all other animal's,will defend them self if threatened.
So what do you believe?,what you have seen on youtube,or what the guy that has been amongst them tells you?.
This is exactly how a wild koala is,unless provoked.But like all animal's,you will get one or two with a bad attitude-and yes,it's on youtube lol,but a correct interpretation non the less.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Irrr4ISn5ps
So that being known,we can see your knickname now represent's a flashy,cudly little critter.
Anyway,back to topic.
The thing i was refering to in my question of the overlooked action takeing place in the smot(of inclined ramp type),is the transfer of weight on the ramp as the ball rolls along it. As the ramp is fixed,that transfer is simply sent to ground. But who said the ramp had to be fixed?This is where i was looking at a different design-a tilting ramp. So what would a tilting ramp do?,well it would remove most of the angle at the exit point. So we would go from a 90* angle,down to about a 3-4* angle on the exit ramp.This would allow the ball to retain much of it's kinetic energy.
So i will post a pic below,so as you can have a look at it,and see if you see any advantages an disadvantages in it over the fixed ramp.]
Where would be the gain's,and Where would be the losses?
When the ball gets to point C,the ramp will tilt. The ramp will ofcourse return back to it's starting position under it's own steam-another point of work being done.
Quote"What happens when a man sincerely asks God to direct His steps?"
The sound of crickets, chirping.
Careful, TK, it's too easy to become what one hates.
At least, by some amazing engineering, (either the blind dumb kind or the keenly sighted kind) you can hear the crickets chirping.
Perhaps you could learn a thing or two from these men, on the meaning of "Sincerely Asks"....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G3KU-fvd6lc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fED-Ky4VEMc
One of the most powerful sentences I've ever read by any Author, is the simple phrase:
"You have not because you ask not".
And to those who ask, either in mock sincerity or for selfish reasons....consider:
"When you ask, you do not receive, because you ask with wrong motives, that you may spend what you get on your pleasures." - James 4:3
Don't end up like the man who bargained with life for a penny. Because no matter how one lands, on it's head or it's tail....
The one who flips it is always on edge.
TS
Anal Ole Skit :-) nikola tesla
Quote from: murmel on November 02, 2013, 06:08:06 AM
Anal Ole Skit :-) nikola tesla
Actually it's an anagram of my mother's maiden name: Kate Allison.
So go figure.
@tinman @TechStuf
Science and God do not go well together, Darwin proved how mankind evolved, nobody has been able to prove the existence of any God, and there are many who claim their God is the real one.
People who believe in science are never going to win an argument with a true believer in God (whichever one they follow), we may as well argue the existence of Santa Claus or that magicians actually perform real magic.
This is supposed to be a science forum, an alternative one maybe but the foundation of proving your claim is based in science not religion.
May your God be with you and bring you much happiness but please let's stick to scientific verification on this forum, I'm sure there are many religious forums you can join if you want to talk about Gods.
Quote from: tinman on November 02, 2013, 04:14:02 AM
My logic is sound thank you TK.It is yours that is faulty.
Come on, give me a reference that supports your point. I gave you one that explains just why and how your statement is a classic logical fallacy. Did you read it?
According to your "logic", we don't know everything, therefore you can't say it's not possible for you to swim nude to Tasmania dragging a 200 pound block of concrete. In three hours. Who knows, you might suddenly sprout water wings and discover that Foster's makes your belly swell up to make a float. Impossible I say? Nonsense, we don't know everything. Just find the right can of Foster's, shake it up and swill it down, and when your belly begins to swell, it'll be time to set off to the beach. And the concrete block will of course lose weight when it's submerged, due to buoyancy. All you have to worry about is the clock.... right? So just swim faster.
Quote
How can you say you wont get a flat tyre on your trip,befor you have reached your destination?-maybe you have the power to see into the future?
No... I'm walking, so there is no possibility of a flat tyre.
Of course I could step on a nail and go blind....
There is no sound physical principle that _prevents_ getting a flat tire if I travel by a vehicle with tires (air filled tires of rubber.....) but there are sound physical principles that make SMOT self-looping impossible.
Now you are resorting to another logical fallacy, the false analogy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies)
(I'll bet you didn't know that the road to logical thinking was so full of potholes and stray roofing nails. Better carry a patch kit so you don't get halted by a flat tyre.)
Quote
You missed my point about the God post. My point is ,people choose to believe some things without having hard evidence,and yet need hard evidence to believe in other possabilities.
No, I didn't miss your point at all. Perhaps you missed mine. I see no hard evidence for a personal God of the Christian variety... in fact I see many things in the world that indicate that such a "merciful, loving, all-knowing and all powerful" God does NOT exist, or at least not locally, having abandoned us to our own evil devices. So no, I don't "believe" in that God. I was baptized and raised a Catholic, by the way, and educated by nuns in elementary school (Mass and communion three times a week), by Jesuits and Christian Brothers through high school .... and you know what they say: Jesuits make the best atheists. It's true.
A rabbi, an imam, and a Jesuit priest are crossing a raging river in a boat, which springs a leak. The rabbi starts muttering, rocking back and forth and pulling his beard. The imam says "it is the will of Allah the great, the merciful, that we drown." The priest knocks off the rabbi's hat and starts bailing out the boat with it, and says "thank God for silly hats."
Quote
Quote: and koalas are nasty buggers with a vile disposition...
And where did that conclusion come from?Youtube?
No, from Zoos. We don't have a lot of koalas running wild in Texas. I'm glad to hear that you find them cuddly and aren't worried about those claws.
Maybe I was thinking of Drop Bears, I understand you have to watch out for those "down under". But they don't fit into my anagrams.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-WD_Nh_rboQ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-WD_Nh_rboQ)
Quote
Koalas are quite the opposite,but like all other animal's,will defend them self if threatened.
So what do you believe?,what you have seen on youtube,or what the guy that has been amongst them tells you?.
This is exactly how a wild koala is,unless provoked.But like all animal's,you will get one or two with a bad attitude-and yes,it's on youtube lol,but a correct interpretation non the less.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Irrr4ISn5ps (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Irrr4ISn5ps)
So that being known,we can see your knickname now represent's a flashy,cudly little critter.
Often our avatars represent what we would like to be, rather than what we really are, don't you think? In reality I am very drab, not cute at all, and I hate to be touched, I'm not a bit cuddly. And many people have commented that my claws ...er.... my fingernails are dirty when I demonstrate remarkable things on YT. Working hands do get that way, as you know.
Quote
Anyway,back to topic.
The thing i was refering to in my question of the overlooked action takeing place in the smot(of inclined ramp type),is the transfer of weight on the ramp as the ball rolls along it. As the ramp is fixed,that transfer is simply sent to ground. But who said the ramp had to be fixed?This is where i was looking at a different design-a tilting ramp. So what would a tilting ramp do?,well it would remove most of the angle at the exit point. So we would go from a 90* angle,down to about a 3-4* angle on the exit ramp.This would allow the ball to retain much of it's kinetic energy.
So i will post a pic below,so as you can have a look at it,and see if you see any advantages an disadvantages in it over the fixed ramp.]
Where would be the gain's,and Where would be the losses?
When the ball gets to point C,the ramp will tilt. The ramp will ofcourse return back to it's starting position under it's own steam-another point of work being done.
So now a teeter-totter is somehow a gain mechanism? It's not, of course. The ball climbs the ramp, trading KE for GPE on the way up, and this same stored GPE is returned on the way down, even with the SMOT up there. (Good luck balancing). No net work from the teeter-totter. Why don't you place a scale under the fulcrum and see what it reads as the ball travels.
It seems that where people are often tripping up is that they aren't considering a _full cycle_: the system, in order to self-loop, must return to the initial state, and do it without any external input of work from Mister Hand, electromagnets, etc. You probably think it's the mousetrap's spring that provides energy to kill the mouse... when in reality it is your effort to set the trap, that is stored in the spring, that kills the mouse. This is where Webby's magnet-drop fails, because it has to be somehow reset in order to make the next full cycle: it needs to be raised up against gravity, and this takes energy from somewhere, and stores it in the GPE of the raised up magnet end. If this energy is to come from the KE of the rolling ball -- then that KE is reduced by the same amount (plus losses). But where else could it come from? Nobody yet has shown, or described, or explained any gain mechanism in a SMOT, there are only losses. You can reduce the losses and make them arbitrarily small if you like ... but without some _gain_ even a zero-loss SMOT will stop as soon as you put any drag at all on it.
@TK
Yes i realize there is no gain by tilting the ramp,other than my thought of reducing the exit angle.Do you not agree that if the 90* exit ramp angle is reduced,then the ball will retain more of it's kinetic energy. So the whole system may be a loss,but im looking at ways to make it as efficient as i can. Then if after all that the ball still return's back to the magnetic ramp after it's exit,we pack up our bat and ball,and go home.
If by that extreemly slight chance that the ball continues to roll out of the magnetic field of the ramp,then we look at makeing the loop.
Hi,
thank God I'm an atheist!
John.
Quote from: webby1 on November 02, 2013, 10:29:41 AM
Nice to see you are getting closer to my question about my possible solution at reducing the escape costs.
If the magnet falls that stored GPE is converted into KE and that KE can be stored and returned to lift the magnet,, This is why I would like to know if there *is* a cost to the magnet falling when the steel ball is next to the pivot for that magnet.
Certainly. If the steel ball is in a region where the flux through it changes over time, as when the magnet drops, there will be eddy currents induced in the ball. These will be of a polarity that acts against the polarity of the flux, retarding the "drop" of the magnet, and will dissipate power as heat in the ball. (a tiny bit of heat of course but still a loss.) If your ramp is conductive material, like the aluminum channels many people use, then the moving magnet will also induce wasteful eddys in the channel. Remember the demonstrations of eddycurrent braking? Moving a magnet near a conductive material always induces a current in the conductive material, and if it has any ohmic resistance the power is dissipated as heat and adds a braking effect to the moving magnet. Clever people have figured out how to use this fact usefully, in devices called "transformers".
Quote from: tinman on November 02, 2013, 09:25:09 AM
@TK
Yes i realize there is no gain by tilting the ramp,other than my thought of reducing the exit angle.Do you not agree that if the 90* exit ramp angle is reduced,then the ball will retain more of it's kinetic energy. So the whole system may be a loss,but im looking at ways to make it as efficient as i can. Then if after all that the ball still return's back to the magnetic ramp after it's exit,we pack up our bat and ball,and go home.
If by that extreemly slight chance that the ball continues to roll out of the magnetic field of the ramp,then we look at makeing the loop.
Yes, I agree with all of that.
Quote from: minnie on November 02, 2013, 09:32:42 AM
Hi,
thank God I'm an atheist!
John.
I forgot the part of the joke where the jesuit priest pushes the imam overboard, since it's Allah's will that he drown, in order to reduce excess weight in the leaky boat.
;)
Hi,
just out of curiosity I'd like to know what would happen if good number of thin
bar magnets were arranged in the formation of a seeded dandelion with all the
like poles at the centre. I sort of think they wouldn't like it very much!
thanks John.
Oh, the irony and hypocrisy of it all....
Belief in overunity IS religion. Faith in "higher power" at it's very essence.
Those who don't "believe" had best be the ones to go somewhere else to avoid advocation for God. Perhaps to conventional "science" forums?
The net is replete with them.
The evidence that "we" are not alone, and are in fact the "new comers" to the region of space that we inhabit is only avoided by the willfully ignorant. It behooves then, those capable of recognizing this fact, to try and find out Just Who is Really Who.....and why it matters.
http://www.rense.com/general81/myst11.htm (http://www.rense.com/general81/myst11.htm)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tRBkF6YsvuM (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tRBkF6YsvuM)
When you are standing before your maker, it's too late to ask the cowardly question.... "Why did you take such pains to hide yourself?"
You won't like His answer, as there are many able and willing to see the forest for the trees by which to judge the ones who squandered their apportioned earthly time dodging the bigger questions, and ducking their head to avoid observing the evidence that provokes them.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tRBkF6YsvuM (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tRBkF6YsvuM)
http://www.kingdombiblestudies.org/2hands/2hands1.htm (http://www.kingdombiblestudies.org/2hands/2hands1.htm)
TS
I would like to thank all involved for the respectful discussion!
Sincerely,
M.
Quote from: TechStuf on November 02, 2013, 08:53:32 PM
(snip)
The evidence that "we" are not alone, and are in fact the "new comers" to the region of space that we inhabit is only avoided by the willfully ignorant.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tRBkF6YsvuM (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tRBkF6YsvuM)
(snip)
TS
TK:
Makes me think of the classic movie, "Harvey Attack Bunnies from Alpha Centauri."
Tinman and TK:
That ramp idea seems nonsensical to me. Obviously the ramp needs two jolts of energy, one to lift up its center of gravity and the second to impart some rotational inertia. That energy has to come from the ball.
Am I missing something here?
MileHigh
this thread should be placed under the appropriate section '2nd law violations'.all smot experimenters should try balls made of metals other than iron e.g. gadolinium,nickel,nichrome,cobalt,alnico,rare earth alloys,ferrous alloys etc. for possibly more advantageous thermodynamic heat exchange with the environment during the magnetic cycle.a full smot cycle may be possible this way.
Classic sophomoric rabbiting responses to even a small sampling of the mountain of compelling data that exists.
Small minds lead small lives.
Pathetic really. The traditional science forums wouldn't endure your kind so because of Hartmann's sponsorship, you hang out here, desperately straddling those ever narrowing picket fences of yours.
Got more off putting news for you....
The world needs the wood, and as you're desperate to keep straddling, you'll soon have to acclimate to barbed wire variety for the remainder of your blindfolded ride.
TS
@tech stuff.ok but let the experimenters try it.
Quote from: MileHigh on November 03, 2013, 01:17:14 AM
Tinman and TK:
That ramp idea seems nonsensical to me. Obviously the ramp needs two jolts of energy, one to lift up its center of gravity and the second to impart some rotational inertia. That energy has to come from the ball.
Am I missing something here?
MileHigh
This is what i was refering to when i asked if anyone could see a way of gaining energy from the system.
This is how i looked at the system.
First i see the standard ramp-ball rolls up the ramp(via the pull of the magnet's),gains so much hight,then drop's out of the ramp.The ball takes a 90* turn,and looses some of it kinetic energy.
So then i looked at how to eliminate the loss at the 90* turn,and to do that,we just get rid of the 90* turn. But this brings us to then have a flat level horizontal ramp-thats been done,and would add no energy to the system,other than to remove the 90* turn on the exit track.
So the next thought was to have an inverted V ramp,so as the ball would go up hill for half the ramp,and down hill for the last half. But once again,things would still come out even.
This is when i thought about leaving the ramp straight,but have the ball follow the inverted path.So this is why i chose a tilt ramp.
So now the ramp tilts,which means more work is being done in the system-but where dose the loss come from?
If the ramp was a fixed inverted V shape,then no losses would result. So why would there be a loss if the ramp tilts?-the ball is still takeing the same path ,in the same magnetic field,over the same distance it would if we used the fixed inverted V ramp.
So we loose half our hight with the ball-thats a potential loss. But now as the ball is going down hill(once the ramp tilts)gravity and the magnetic field are working together on the ball,so we get greater speed on a down hill run.This gain is ofcourse the equal and opposite to the lost potential in the lost hight of the ball.
So the two gains i was talking about ,was the unballanced ramp is now more work being done in the system,as it rotates in one direction,then back to its starting point,and we have reduced the 90* turn to around 3-4*-depending on ramp angle ofcourse.
I see the fixed ramp as a resistor across your power supply befor the load-the fixed ramp is a short to ground.
But MH,i would like you to have a good look at the tilt ramp,and see if you can find where the energy loss would be to tilt the ramp?.
The quest to use permanent magnets to drive motion has a long history.
In circa 1997, JL Naudin spent some time on it and a decade later we have Robert Calloway and ClaNZer working on V-gate motors.
Fast forward to April 2013, Yildiz attempted an ill-fated demonstration of the Yildiz motor in Europe.
Here is a video with a very short historical look:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=zqG-TL0WnjE (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=zqG-TL0WnjE)
Nothing proved, but this vid has nearly three million views since January 2012... so many are evidently interested in this topic.
Quote from: elecar on October 21, 2013, 07:53:57 AM
Hi Bill, apologies, I did not forget, I tried to load the 7 1/2 minute video here and it took some 15 minutes or so, at the end of which I got a message saying that the upload had failed because of the file size exceeded 6000KB. I then answered 6 or 7 of the masses of PMs I had then went to bed as it was after midnight. I will get you that video up today, it is worth watching.
Hi Elecar,
This was your last post. Hope all is well. I also noticed you took down your orginal video.
Bill
JS
This Vid Is a compilation of "takes" from several different peoples you tube vids, His evolution ends in What I believe to be the Roberto33 V gate Motor [determined a scam by those here] I spoke with Roberto [not his name] at that time and he was talking about adding a magnetic array to the inside as well.... so as to assist in getting better results ??
In the clip you posted In my Opinion the most intriguing moments are from the young fellows at the 20 second mark upto the 30 second mark if they could keep that going it would seem a lift of great potential could easily be achieved[with a ramp]
Your Vid here
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=zqG-TL0WnjE (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=zqG-TL0WnjE)
Thx
Chet
Tinman:
I am assuming that you are referring to Michael's setup when you talk about the drop and the right angle turn. I agree that a lot of energy is lost in that process as I have posted before. I agree that some kind of a v-ramp will not be of any use.
QuoteSo this is why i chose a tilt ramp. So now the ramp tilts,which means more work is being done in the system-but where dose the loss come from?
Based on what I saw in your diagram, a tilt ramp only takes energy away from the moving ball and turns it into heat. The tilting ramp will go through a movement cycle and all of the energy to lift it and turn it will go nowhere, which means that it will turn into heat.
QuoteSo why would there be a loss if the ramp tilts?
Because it takes work to lift up the center of gravity of the ramp and it takes work to accelerate it to a certain angular veloicity. None of that work is returned to the system, it becomes heat.
QuoteBut now as the ball is going down hill(once the ramp tilts)gravity and the magnetic field are working together on the ball,so we get greater speed on a down hill run.This gain is ofcourse the equal and opposite to the lost potential in the lost hight of the ball.
I know you are aware of it but it's worth it to mention it again because your statemet above is not true. The gain is not equal. That's because some of the GPE is used to pull the ball out of the MPE well. The ball will speed up, but less than "expected" because of the MPE well.
QuoteSo the two gains i was talking about ,was the unballanced ramp is now more work being done in the system,as it rotates in one direction,then back to its starting point,and we have reduced the 90* turn to around 3-4*-depending on ramp angle ofcourse.
Well I disagree with both of your points. The tilting ramp is just interfering with the moveemnt of the ball and it absorbs energy and turns it into heat. For "reducing the turn" you have made many statedments like that. If the ball makes a tun in some sort of well-designed track then there is a negliggible loss in energy.
I imagine a track that the ball follows between the two ramps that is something akin to this kid's toy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CrCRtPfE240 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CrCRtPfE240)
So the ball exits one ramp and then follows a track that goes downwards and also makes a 90 degree turn. It's like a mini bobsled run for the ball, what could be simpler?
QuoteSo the two gains i was talking about
You have an ongoing challenge when it comes to terminology. We have never been talking about "gains" here. We are talking about mechanisms to reduce losses. We know that people discuss energy on the forum where they incorrectly make referecne to "energy gains" when what they really are is "reduction in energy losses." This is a critical issue were there is no allowance for leeway in the proper way to express what is going on.
The classic example for this problem is Thane Heins, where he has probably read similar comments about his setups hundreds of times and he still intentionally ignores them. To stay on my soapbox a bit longer you have Daniel Nunez going to the BEM conference and demonstrating the same mistakes in measurement that he also has read hundreds of times from his YouTube channel and on this forum and I am sure other places. Those two people are arguably free energy zombies repeating the same bad behaviours over and over because they are looking for a payday. It's simply not right.
A few days ago I posted about a flat square track with machined right angle turns at the four corners to change the direction of the ball with as minimal an energy loss as possioble. A simple flat track like that is in my mind the way to have the least losses as possible. The damn thing still won't work and common sense should tell anybody that the thing won't work.
Meanwhile the two people promoting this idea have fallen mute. I don't know if this thread has anywhere else to go. Don't anybody for a second believe the first guy's story about it running for three hours but he had to stop it because it was noisy. In my opinion there are only two explanations fot that, 1) it's a con to try to get money, or 2) there are psychological issues at play.
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on November 03, 2013, 05:02:38 PM
Tinman:
I am assuming that you are referring to Michael's setup when you talk about the drop and the right angle turn. I agree that a lot of energy is lost in that process as I have posted before. I agree that some kind of a v-ramp will not be of any use.
Based on what I saw in your diagram, a tilt ramp only takes energy away from the moving ball and turns it into heat. The tilting ramp will go through a movement cycle and all of the energy to lift it and turn it will go nowhere, which means that it will turn into heat.
Because it takes work to lift up the center of gravity of the ramp and it takes work to accelerate it to a certain angular veloicity. None of that work is returned to the system, it becomes heat.
I know you are aware of it but it's worth it to mention it again because your statemet above is not true. The gain is not equal. That's because some of the GPE is used to pull the ball out of the MPE well. The ball will speed up, but less than "expected" because of the MPE well.
Well I disagree with both of your points. The tilting ramp is just interfering with the moveemnt of the ball and it absorbs energy and turns it into heat. For "reducing the turn" you have made many statedments like that. If the ball makes a tun in some sort of well-designed track then there is a negliggible loss in energy.
I imagine a track that the ball follows between the two ramps that is something akin to this kid's toy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CrCRtPfE240 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CrCRtPfE240)
So the ball exits one ramp and then follows a track that goes downwards and also makes a 90 degree turn. It's like a mini bobsled run for the ball, what could be simpler?
You have an ongoing challenge when it comes to terminology. We have never been talking about "gains" here. We are talking about mechanisms to reduce losses. We know that people discuss energy on the forum where they incorrectly make referecne to "energy gains" when what they really are is "reduction in energy losses." This is a critical issue were there is no allowance for leeway in the proper way to express what is going on.
The classic example for this problem is Thane Heins, where he has probably read similar comments about his setups hundreds of times and he still intentionally ignores them. To stay on my soapbox a bit longer you have Daniel Nunez going to the BEM conference and demonstrating the same mistakes in measurement that he also has read hundreds of times from his YouTube channel and on this forum and I am sure other places. Those two people are arguably free energy zombies repeating the same bad behaviours over and over because they are looking for a payday. It's simply not right.
A few days ago I posted about a flat square track with machined right angle turns at the four corners to change the direction of the ball with as minimal an energy loss as possioble. A simple flat track like that is in my mind the way to have the least losses as possible. The damn thing still won't work and common sense should tell anybody that the thing won't work.
Meanwhile the two people promoting this idea have fallen mute. I don't know if this thread has anywhere else to go. Don't anybody for a second believe the first guy's story about it running for three hours but he had to stop it because it was noisy. In my opinion there are only two explanations fot that, 1) it's a con to try to get money, or 2) there are psychological issues at play.
MileHigh
Your right,i should say an increase in efficiency-not a gain. Just thinking the wrong way,in that if we reduce the loss,that is a gain for us-but it should be an increase in efficiency insted.
Daniel Nunez-now there we have no disagreement.
I will indeavor to use correct terms in my statements.
A V-Gate is no different than placing a magnet within the sphere of attraction to another magnet and releasing it. Same forces, arranged slightly differently.
Hi webby1,
I guess even if you use ping pong balls it'll still qualify as as SMOT.
One thing I am sure of is that you'll be world famous if you manage to get
a proven working device!
John
so lets examine if a 2nd law violation is possible on paper first before we set up a smot.so lets put a gadolinium ball on the ramp at its curie point 19celcius and let it fling.friction heating and sudden exiting from the magnetic field at the top of the ramp should cause it to raise in temperature to slightly above its curie point and let it fling far.very far.definitely further than on entry.a smot using a gadolinium ball on a 19degree celcius summer day looks highly favourable.
lets make it simpler and lower a magnet toward a stationary gadolinium ball on a sunny 19celcius day.the ball jumps up,collides with the magnet raising its temperature to slightly above its curie point,releasing its grip momentarily and we get a small 2nd jump.2 jumps with one stone,the 2nd jump is overunity gain.
Quote from: profitis on November 05, 2013, 01:12:16 PM
lets make it simpler and lower a magnet toward a stationary gadolinium ball on a sunny 19celcius day.the ball jumps up,collides with the magnet raising its temperature to slightly above its curie point,releasing its grip momentarily and we get a small 2nd jump.2 jumps with one stone,the 2nd jump is overunity gain.
Make a pendulum with the gado ball, with a magnet attracting the ball somewhere up from bottom dead center. Have the ball come into the focus of a lens or mirror at the point of magnetic attraction. Then the system will swing "perpetually" as the ball heats and cools around the Curie point. Tesla didn't use gadolinium or solar power, he used nickel and conventional heat, but a thermomagnetic motor is a thermomagnetic motor, and Tesla patented many different designs, all of which would work with gadolinium and solar power. #396,121 IIRC.
@ tinselkoala perhaps no need for a mirror when we use gadolinium in that pendulum on a fine 19celcius day.
Quote from: profitis on November 05, 2013, 02:04:42 PM
@ tinselkoala perhaps no need for a mirror when we use gadolinium in that pendulum on a fine 19celcius day.
The ball needs to cool and heat again for the cycle to continue. So moving from shade to sun may be enough. As soon as you send me a gadolinium ball I'll test it for you.
@tinselkoala every collision with the magnet is a heat and cool cycle in and of itself.so you still havent shifted from your couch to the local varsity storeroom i see,tsk tsk.cmon,how difficult can it be to bribe the storekeeper a 20bux man.
Quote from: gyulasun on October 28, 2013, 05:30:42 PM
Hi elecar,
You seem to be silent I hope you are still around? With your silence you only feed negative opinions.
About 10 days ago you mentioned retaking a video and upload it, please continue and show it. Afterall, you wrote in Reply #193:
"Hi powercat, I really do not mind the skeptics taking part in the thread, I do take exception to being called a scam, fraud, liar when those skeptics have not even given me enough opportunity to show the effect working.
I have never asked anyone here for anything, I have already said it, but not now and not in the future. There is nothing here for sale."
And on your own setup you wrote in Reply #194:
"Hi happyfunball, I am not a scientist, I barely understand the concept of CoE or 2LOT, I played with magnets trying to get a conventional SMOT to work, I was inspired by Bills videos. During the course of trying it out I noticed strange (to me) behaviour when one side of the magnet array was removed. I toyed with it until I got the ball to rise to the top of the ramp and then roll back out of the ramp whilst still in the magnetic field.
I do not know what it is classed as, I tried to find out by posing a question on another thread which disintegrated in pretty much the same way as this one.
Here is my take as best as I can describe and my own understanding. The magnets can "pull" the ball up a ramp.
The ball is able to reverse and escape the field of that ramp from a height greater than it started. So in this case magnets = up - gravity = down.
All the threads I ever read said pretty much the same thing, "a smot can not be looped because the ball always leaves the ramp at a height equal to or lower than the point it started."
That was not what I was experiencing when using the effect instead of the conventional smot ramp with 2 arrays.
One thing I can tell you is that when making any application you must steer clear of OU or perpetual because it will not even be entertained. And that is why I have never and still do not claim either."
This is clear enough, your setup is not the usual SMOT, so please do continue your work here. Your statement from above: "I noticed strange (to me) behaviour when one side of the magnet array was removed. I toyed with it until I got the ball to rise to the top of the ramp and then roll back out of the ramp whilst still in the magnetic field." sounds significant and especially the second half of your sentence is perhaps the most crucial point in your setup.
Surely there are some members and other readers here who still give you the benefit of doubt. However, with your silence the number of those people will gradually run out and your setup remains a daydream.
rgds, Gyula
Hi Gyula, yes I am still around, I have a life outside of this forum that sometimes requires more attention than exchanges with those like your good self.
On the 18th of November I am due to sign paper work, if and when that results in a cheque in my hand I will as promised post here.
I tried on several occasions to load the video on here, the upload seems to go ahead and then I get a message saying the file exceeds 6000KB and it fails to load after waiting in excess of 20 minutes at a time.
I am suprised you might think that I gave a rats ass about what others think of me. You really think know it alls like TK and his minions concern me enough to care ?
I have shared everything I am able to up to now. I will continue to take part in the thread. What I will not do is bow to TK, his minions or anyone else who thinks that by name calling and accusations, they will get what they want any quicker.
Bill & Gyula
Quote from one of TKs Minions
QuoteMeanwhile the two people promoting this idea have fallen mute. I don't know if this thread has anywhere else to go. Don't anybody for a second believe the first guy's story about it running for three hours but he had to stop it because it was noisy. In my opinion there are only two explanations fot that, 1) it's a con to try to get money, or 2) there are psychological issues at play.
MileHigh
Like I have stated Dr Know it all, I have a life outside of this forum. I can not always be here to keep you happy.
I do not give a rats ass about what you believe, but is it really what you believe or your conceived perception of what you believe TK expects you to believe ?
I live in a studio apartment and you can take it to the bank that a steel ball running on metal rails and switching from one rail to another gets tiresome, its loud enough to get on your nerves in a short amount of time.
There is no con or scam here I have stated on record THERE IS NOTHING HERE FOR SALE not now not in the future, not ever to anyone on this forum now or future members. What part dont you understand Dr Know it all ?
There are no " psychological issues at play." so I retract calling you Dr Know it all, because you are obviously not a doctor. Just one of TKs foot soldiers, so you can be Pt 1st class Know it all.
Quote from: maw2432 on November 03, 2013, 12:10:49 PM
Hi Elecar,
This was your last post. Hope all is well. I also noticed you took down your orginal video.
Bill
Hi Bill yes I am still around, I have posted the retake video for you and Gyula. I hope it shows clearly that I did not push the ball which lets face it was the general accusation.
None of the videos have been taken down Bill. Which do you require a link to ?
Quote from: Newton II on November 01, 2013, 09:50:16 PM
Where is elecar? Busy in writing book on SMOT - Elecarian Smotics? (or Cosmetics)
Unlike the real Newton, you are moron. And I shall treat you as such from now on since like so many of the other morons you lost respect by not giving it.
QUOTE MEGGARMAN
Quote@All
I may need to admit defeat with this project.
After completing my test track this evening, the best I could manage was 2 circuits of the ball by starting about 50mm up the ramp from the cross over point.
This is running the ball clockwise so that it enters the magnet array in the center.
After the first circuit it moves up the ramp about 25mm from the cross over.
After the second circuit, it only just manages to make it over the cross over, then finishes about 60mm before the cross over owing to a lack of ball momentum.
The 50mm point is perhaps a height difference from the cross over of about 1.5mm
I probably should post a picture of my test track + video.
Meggerman
Hi Meggerman, Amazing that you should consider admitting defeat after a couple of weeks. It took me many months of disappointment.
People honestly make me laugh, you have said in your quote above
"the best I could manage was 2 circuits of the ball"Now think about that for a second. I will repeat what I have said previously. There is not 1 person on this forum, nor a video anywhere on the net of anyone ever completing a SINGLE CIRCUIT, and you are ready to quit ?
Ask them, "the know it alls" that is to show you one example of a smot that completes even one circuit. It has never been done to the best of my knowledge except by me and now by you.
You completed 2 circuits in a couple of weeks of experiments and now you are going to quit ?
I do not like using personal exchanges to prop my own arguments, so I hope you will forgive me for taking this quote from a PM you sent me. I feel it important since you failed to mention it in the above quoted post you made.
And please feel free to correct me if this is not the exact quote.
Quote"I can get it to loop twice in the anti-clockwise direction and without the magnet in place it will not even loop once with the ball at the same start point. If it could do 3 loops then I think I would be very close.!
Thats right no magnets no loops.
So adding the magnets you get loops ? Now go back and read what the Know it all have stated. "It will run worse with magnets than without"
I love it.
Quote from: elecar on November 06, 2013, 09:24:49 AM
Unlike the real Newton, you are moron. And I shall treat you as such from now on since like so many of the other morons you lost respect by not giving it.
@elecar
What is so great in that video? (Reply #525). You are bringing the ball against attractive force of the magnet and keeping it forcibly on the track storing energy in it. Ball releases its energy by making limited oscillations on the track. Where is your track which runs the ball for continuously for three hours? If your intention is to post that 3 hour video after striking deal why did you start this thread with half information?
I don't mind you calling me a moron because except God all are morons. Nobody is totally knowledgible. Even great Newton's theories were rectified / disproved by Einstein.
If I have caused any irritation to you please forgive me. You have also caused lot of irritation for all by giving half information.
Anyway can we consider Nov 18 as the greatest day in history of science?
Quote from: Newton II on November 06, 2013, 10:16:26 AM
@elecar
What is so great in that video? (Reply #525). You are bringing the ball against attractive force of the magnet and keeping it forcibly on the track storing energy in it. Ball releases its energy by making limited oscillations on the track. Where is your track which runs the ball for continuously for three hours? If your intention is to post that 3 hour video after striking deal why did you start this thread with half information?
I don't mind you calling me a moron because except God all are morons. Nobody is totally knowledgible. Even great Newton's theories were rectified / disproved by Einstein.
If I have caused any irritation to you please forgive me. You have also caused lot of irritation for all by giving half information.
Anyway can we consider Nov 18 as the greatest day in history of science?
There is nothing "great" about the video Newton, I was asked to re do the video because it was felt I had pushed the ball. So there is your answer, nothing "great" just fulfilling a promise I had made to a member.
My prototype is currently in the hands of those who I am dealing with. I have a meeting on the 18th of November, I have never stated it will be the "greatest day in the history of science"
I have also NEVER stated I will be showing any 3 hour videos of it running. You should track back and you will see it was TK that used the 3 hour quote to somehow have an expectation of me to take and disclose a 3 video. Well how disappointing for you that is never going to happen. Of course you could show me where I said that would be what I was going to do, then I would feel compelled to have to.
There is no half information on the thread Newton, there was sufficient information for replications. Of course most know it alls are too busy trying to debunk it than to bother trying.
Just as I predicted: the insults and special pleadings fly perpetually, but NO EVIDENCE supporting elecar's claims has been or will ever be presented.
Elecar's little video actually demolishes his case. Look at it carefully. You can see clearly that he places the ball ABOVE the entrance to the ramp arrangement, and that he flicks the ball to the right into the system with his fingers as he releases the ball. The ball enters the ramp with excess velocity, goes around one full turn, then stutters to a stop at the sticky point and NEVER regains the height of its initial release. There is no self-looping shown and the energy for what IS shown is clearly coming from elecar's hand.
And further, elecar is claiming that I have "minions". His paranoia is showing, in the most comical way possible. I don't have "minions", elecar, but what I do have, on this forum, is a lot of ENEMIES, people who can't stand to see me comment.... but who have never even once been able to refute anything I've said. This pisses them off and makes them insult me and anyone who appears to agree with me.... and frustrates them so much that they start stomping their feet and holding their breath. But what they cannot do is to provide evidence for their claims.
Quote from: elecar on November 06, 2013, 09:05:22 AM
Hi Bill yes I am still around, I have posted the retake video for you and Gyula. I hope it shows clearly that I did not push the ball which lets face it was the general accusation.
None of the videos have been taken down Bill. Which do you require a link to ?
You hope in vain, elecar, because the video clearly shows you placing the ball on the track, then PULLING IT BACK TO THE LEFT (pinball plunger spring), and then you FLICK IT TO THE RIGHT, and it never ever regains the initial height of your flicking release.
Quote from: elecar on October 08, 2013, 05:38:32 PM
Hi Gyula,
Yes I really do have a working prototype. It runs for as long as I am able to stand the noise. I tried running more than 1 ball but sometimes they catch up to each other and cause a complete stop.
Quote from: elecar on October 08, 2013, 05:38:32 PM
Hi Bill,
I have to be honest I have never timed the runs, I can tell you that I did leave one test running whilst we went shopping and returned over 3 hours later and it was still running.
Quote from: elecar on October 08, 2013, 05:38:32 PM
If you just want to see my model running you should visit the thread in the future when I will post a video, I promised on another thread I would do that and I will post that video in the near future.
If not a 3 hr video, can you atleast show the ball making 15 to 20 cycles without your hand touching it ?
(sound of crickets chirping)
Of course he cannot, NewtonII. He can't even show it going around TWICE, much less 10 or 15 times, even when he loads the "spring" by pulling the ball to the left against the pull of the magnets, and then actually pushes it into the track system with a quick finger flick as he does in the video.
Just in case he decides to remove the video evidence of his fail, here it is again:
Quote from: TinselKoala on November 06, 2013, 10:49:01 AM
Just as I predicted: the insults and special pleadings fly perpetually, but NO EVIDENCE supporting elecar's claims has been or will ever be presented.
Elecar's little video actually demolishes his case. Look at it carefully. You can see clearly that he places the ball ABOVE the entrance to the ramp arrangement, and that he flicks the ball to the right into the system with his fingers as he releases the ball. The ball enters the ramp with excess velocity, goes around one full turn, then stutters to a stop at the sticky point and NEVER regains the height of its initial release. There is no self-looping shown and the energy for what IS shown is clearly coming from elecar's hand.
And further, elecar is claiming that I have "minions". His paranoia is showing, in the most comical way possible. I don't have "minions", elecar, but what I do have, on this forum, is a lot of ENEMIES, people who can't stand to see me comment.... but who have never even once been able to refute anything I've said. This pisses them off and makes them insult me and anyone who appears to agree with me.... and frustrates them so much that they start stomping their feet and holding their breath. But what they cannot do is to provide evidence for their claims.
He labels his screen shots "elecarfake" and gets hurt that I call him a moron and many other things beside.
There are no "FLICKS" of the ball in the video, it was purely taken at the request of a member.
You are wrong TK people do not hate you for posting, it is the manner in which you post. You are entitled to your opinion but when you become disrespectful which is your standard MO you get people backs up.
THIS OFFER IS ONLY AVAILABLE TO TK, COME TO ENGLAND AND WATCH THE BALL SELF LOOP WITH YOUR OWN 2 EYES. YOU WILL BE FREE TO DISASSEMBLE THE SMOT TO ENSURE THERE ARE NO TRICKS, CONS OR SCAMS. IN FACT YOU CAN KEEP IT IN YOUR HOTEL ROOM YOUR WHOLE STAY.
IF THERE IS ANY TRICKERY OR DECEPTION I WILL REIMBURSE TKs AIR FARE AND HE CAN COME ON TO THE FORUM AND EXPOSE ME AS A CHEAT, LIAR, CON, SCAMMER. AND YOU RESUME YOUR PLACE AS KING OF THE FORUM KNOW IT ALLS.
HOWEVER IF AFTER HE HAS WATCHED THE SMOT LOOP FOR 3 HOURS AND BEEN ALLOWED TO TAKE IT APART TO LOOK FOR CHEATS HE COMES TO THE CONCLUSION IT WORKS AS I HAVE STATED.
THEN HE MUST COME ON THE FORUM JUST 1 FINAL TIME TO LET HIS FANS KNOW I WAS TELLING THE TRUTH AND HE MUST APOLOGIZE TO ME AND HE MUST ADMIT HE IS A BULLY AND A KNOW IT ALL.
HE MUST THEN NEVER COME ON THIS OR ANY OTHER FORUM THAT HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH OVER UNITY OR FREE ENERGY.
What do you say TK ? You coming ?
Quote from: TinselKoala on November 06, 2013, 11:41:24 AM
(sound of crickets chirping)
Of course he cannot, NewtonII. He can't even show it going around TWICE, much less 10 or 15 times, even when he loads the "spring" by pulling the ball to the left against the pull of the magnets, and then actually pushes it into the track system with a quick finger flick as he does in the video.
Just in case he decides to remove the video evidence of his fail, here it is again:
TK you expect not to be treated as a MORON but as I have previously stated when you did your last "PRESERVATION" post.
You can not remove the post or alter it, I also said that perhaps the admin on here bows to you and you may have special dispensation to edit and delete your posts but I dont.
Thats why I added the videos as attachments so they are "PRESERVED"
Are you really that retarded ? Or are you just trying to look good to your minions ?
Once again, you offer no refutation, no evidence, nothing that shows that my analysis of the video is wrong in any way. All you do is shout and insult.
Of course I am not coming to England and you know it. But you are welcome to come to Texas and I will take you to a laboratory that I know about and let you convince the scientists THERE that you have what you claim, or if you don't want to come to this barbarous backwater, I know another laboratory in Toronto that would be more than happy to allow you to demonstrate to your heart's content. I will not be involved other than to make the introductions.
Much simpler would be for you to just show HERE what you claim, and what you FAILED to show in the video.
Do you deny that you pulled the ball to the LEFT?
Do you deny that you flicked the ball into the track system using your fingers?
Do you deny that the ball never again reached the height of the "release"?
Do you deny that the ball only made a single loop after your release?
Do you deny that the ball came to rest in the "sticky spot" or magnetic potential well at the end of the clip?
Of course you cannot deny any of that, because your own video clearly shows all of the above things are true, as my frame captures clearly illustrate.
Again, you cannot refute any of my points, so you insult me, erect straw-man and paranoid arguments, and shout in entire paragraphs of footstomping whining. Wouldn't it be a lot easier just to SHOW YOUR EVIDENCE?
Of course it would be, but you don't have any to show.
And I don't have any "special dispensation" for anything in this forum. Stefan tolerates me for some reason, perhaps because I put my demonstrations and analyses up for anyone to criticise and duplicate or refute as they like, in stark contrast to people like YOU who insult without reason, make claims without evidence, and take people on wild goose chases like you are doing now.
Present your evidence for your claims and refute me. You cannot.
Quote from: TinselKoala on November 06, 2013, 12:04:18 PM
Once again, you offer no refutation, no evidence, nothing that shows that my analysis of the video is wrong in any way. All you do is shout and insult.
Of course I am not coming to England and you know it. But you are welcome to come to Texas and I will take you to a laboratory that I know about and let you convince the scientists THERE that you have what you claim, or if you don't want to come to this barbarous backwater, I know another laboratory in Toronto that would be more than happy to allow you to demonstrate to your heart's content.
Much simpler would be for you to just show HERE what you claim, and what you FAILED to show in the video.
Do you deny that you pulled the ball to the LEFT?
Do you deny that you flicked the ball into the track system using your fingers?
Do you deny that the ball never again reached the height of the "release"?
Do you deny that the ball only made a single loop after your release?
Do you deny that the ball came to rest in the "sticky spot" or magnetic potential well at the end of the clip?
Of course you cannot deny any of that, because your own video clearly shows all of the above things are true, as my frame captures clearly illustrate.
Again, you cannot refute any of my points, so you insult me, erect straw-man and paranoid arguments, and shout in entire paragraphs of footstomping whining. Wouldn't it be a lot easier just to SHOW YOUR EVIDENCE?
Of course it would be, but you don't have any to show.
No TK it would not be "easier" to show my evidence, I have signed a NDA which does not allow for me to show my unit yet.
I have however offered you the opportunity to come and watch it for yourself, to take it apart and inspect it in every detail. Which you are declining ?
I am unable to fly at the moment as I am recovering from a stroke, so I will not be doing an Atlantic crossing as yet. What is your reason exactly ?
And I repeat I did not flick any ball, the ball has to be released onto the track. what you are calling a flick is the ball being pulled toward the magnets.
Elecar
There are some very trusted fellows that live in the UK and could View your demonstration?
Or We could take up a donation here to ship The koala to you.....?{I pledge 50.00 US}
Not sure about a round trip ticket tho.............
Sent a PM to you.
thx
Chet
Quote from: elecar on November 06, 2013, 11:43:04 AM
He labels his screen shots "elecarfake" and gets hurt that I call him a moron and many other things beside.
There are no "FLICKS" of the ball in the video, it was purely taken at the request of a member.
You are wrong TK people do not hate you for posting, it is the manner in which you post. You are entitled to your opinion but when you become disrespectful which is your standard MO you get people backs up.
THIS OFFER IS ONLY AVAILABLE TO TK, COME TO ENGLAND AND WATCH THE BALL SELF LOOP WITH YOUR OWN 2 EYES. YOU WILL BE FREE TO DISASSEMBLE THE SMOT TO ENSURE THERE ARE NO TRICKS, CONS OR SCAMS. IN FACT YOU CAN KEEP IT IN YOUR HOTEL ROOM YOUR WHOLE STAY.
IF THERE IS ANY TRICKERY OR DECEPTION I WILL REIMBURSE TKs AIR FARE AND HE CAN COME ON TO THE FORUM AND EXPOSE ME AS A CHEAT, LIAR, CON, SCAMMER. AND YOU RESUME YOUR PLACE AS KING OF THE FORUM KNOW IT ALLS.
HOWEVER IF AFTER HE HAS WATCHED THE SMOT LOOP FOR 3 HOURS AND BEEN ALLOWED TO TAKE IT APART TO LOOK FOR CHEATS HE COMES TO THE CONCLUSION IT WORKS AS I HAVE STATED.
THEN HE MUST COME ON THE FORUM JUST 1 FINAL TIME TO LET HIS FANS KNOW I WAS TELLING THE TRUTH AND HE MUST APOLOGIZE TO ME AND HE MUST ADMIT HE IS A BULLY AND A KNOW IT ALL.
HE MUST THEN NEVER COME ON THIS OR ANY OTHER FORUM THAT HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH OVER UNITY OR FREE ENERGY.
What do you say TK ? You coming ?
You seem more interested in having a conflict with TK then getting your device verified, does your offer extend to the likes of Sterling Alan or Mark Dansie, who are more likely to take your offer seriously ?
The offer only stands for TK and on the condition that he does as I requested. Which he wont because he could not live without being able to bully and harass people on here.
I have signed a NDA, I was willing to take the gamble of allowing TK to come and try and pull my work apart. Simply because I have that much hate for him. He is a bully, especially with elderly ladies. Thats why I am happy for him to be on here even though he detracts from the subject. It means someone else is spared his venom.
I actually thought he would jump at the chance but alas he is nothing more than a keyboard warrior.
Hi Ramset, I will get to answering your PM. I have been away for a little while and as you might guess I have a ridiculous amount of PMs.
The offer was made to TK because I would have loved to watch his smug know it all face when he watched the smot looping and even I would have got even more pleasure as he took it apart and saw it was as I described.
Since he really has no real interest, everyone will have to wait until I can post "a video"
Quote from: powercat on November 06, 2013, 12:18:21 PM
You seem more interested in having a conflict with TK then getting your device verified, does your offer extend to the likes of Sterling Alan or Mark Dansie, who are more likely to take your offer seriously ?
You make me laugh powercat, "You seem more interested in having a conflict with TK then getting your device verified" no I am not interested in a conflict with TK. I called him out and refused the offer, ask yourself why ?
Also take a look at post 538 and 539 you will see that TK who finds it his place to copy my posts and videos (which by the way I have never removed or altered) under the guise of "PRESERVATION"
He has altered that post he made, he does it all the time I have seen him do it several times, but I had already quoted his post and now it has been adjusted.
Do you agree it would be better to clearly state that you have altered a post even if it simply reads EDIT: ?
So he saves my posts for "preservation" in case I should alter or remove them (which I have stated clearly I can not do). And there he is altering posts. What a joke, this really does show that his accusations are based on his own actions rather than those of anyone else.
The truth is that Stefan has fairly recently restricted the ability of _anyone_ to edit posts to a certain time limit after the initial posting, since Rosemary Ainslie was well-known for going back days and weeks later and altering the meanings of her posts.
I may add information or correct typos, but you cannot show that I have ever altered the meanings of any of my posts.
Certainly there are people in England who can examine elecar's claims. But he knows, from examining previous posts of mine, that I will not travel at the whim of claimants who cannot provide evidence beforehand, so his "offer" is made with perfect security in the knowledge that I will not accept.
Yes, both Sterling Allen and Mark Dansie have been known to travel all over the world to see the devices from various claimants. I'll gladly accept their reports.
The still frames from the video clearly show what I have stated: the ball is pulled back to the left, storing energy in the system, and it is released with a flick of the fingers to the right, adding even more energy into the system. The evidence for my "claims" is right there in the video and the still frames I have extracted. You can see the position of the fingers very clearly in the still frames and if you play the video in slow motion anyone can see for themselves that what I say is the truth.
Like I said TK and you have just admitted you alter posts, why can you not clearly state that with the word EDIT ?
I can not show where you have edited your posts because I do not make it a habit of stalking people or copying their posts, but I do note when they have been altered and I have seen you do it many times. Both adding and taking away comments. You have pretty much admitted that anyway.
And so now you claim that you know the admin restricted peoples ability to adjust, edit, modify, remove posts.
So for the record or at least so I might understand, why do you find it necessary to repost my posts and videos given that you are aware that I can do nothing with them ? I say it has nothing to do with "preservation" it is merely for your own gratification and to detract from the subject.
Prove me wrong by giving a plausible explanation as to why you do it ?
Quote from: elecar on November 06, 2013, 12:29:31 PM
The offer only stands for TK and on the condition that he does as I requested. Which he wont because he could not live without being able to bully and harass people on here.
I have signed a NDA, I was willing to take the gamble of allowing TK to come and try and pull my work apart. Simply because I have that much hate for him.
Both Sterling Allan and Mark Dansie have signed NDA's in the past to make an inventor feel secure, all they would be doing is verifying that what you have said about your device is true or not.
It's ridiculous that in the name of hate you would allow someone to look at your device, but no logical reason why you wouldn't allow verification by somebody that understands and believes in these kind of devices, it would seem you're only prepared to invite people that you know won't come.
Welcome back, Elecar, and thanks for the vid. I look forward to seeing more after Nov 18th. It's nice to see someone getting to this level EXPERIMENTALLY.
Fellas, I vote for more experiments and less hot air...
Quote from: powercat on November 06, 2013, 02:27:58 PM
Both Sterling Allan and Mark Dansie have signed NDA's in the past to make an inventor feel secure, all they would be doing is verifying that what you have said about your device is true or not.
It's ridiculous that in the name of hate you would allow someone to look at your device, but no logical reason why you wouldn't allow verification by somebody that understands and believes in these kind of devices, it would seem you're only prepared to invite people that you know won't come.
I take it the Mark Dansie you talk of is the same one who joined TK in his attacks on the elderly lady ? And I would give him a scoop for his website ? Yeah ok step away from the crack pipe powercat.
no no @elecar.markdansie didnt attak ainslie,in fact he gave her airtime on his website.gave her plenty space to show her stuff too.i would strongly suggest you giv hm a shout if you want a solid stamp of varification.if your smotball can make at least 3 circles then youve made history mate.
I note that nobody has chosen to dispute my analysis of the video with a contrary analysis of their own.
Here, let me help. Just fill in the blanks:
"TK, you are wrong about your frame-by-frame analysis because ________________________________ and here's the proof of that."
"TK, the frame that shows elecar's fingers well to the RIGHT of the release point doesn't actually show him "flicking" the ball along because ____________________________, and here's the proof of that."
"TK, you are a moron, because __________________________, and here's the proof that you fit the definition of that term."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moron_%28psychology%29
or even,
"TK, you are wrong about Ainslie because _______________________________ and here's the proof of that."
How about
"OK, TK, here's another video showing the ball coming back up to the exact release height, looping around more than once, and see how the initial release is done by a mechanical gate that moves strictly up and down and cannot impart any extra momentum to the ball."
You see, elecar, REASONABLE PEOPLE with real claims and real evidence would do something like those things. But of course you will not, because you cannot.
Quote from: JouleSeeker on November 06, 2013, 02:53:30 PM
Welcome back, Elecar, and thanks for the vid. I look forward to seeing more after Nov 18th. It's nice to see someone getting to this level EXPERIMENTALLY.
Fellas, I vote for more experiments and less hot air...
And I vote that you in particular should tell me why and how my analysis of elecar's video is not valid and true.
Quote from: ramset on November 06, 2013, 12:16:12 PM
Elecar
There are some very trusted fellows that live in the UK and could View your demonstration?
Or We could take up a donation here to ship The koala to you.....?{I pledge 50.00 US}
Not sure about a round trip ticket tho.............
Sent a PM to you.
thx
Chet
Chet, why don't YOU go over and take a look? I'll gladly accept your report as factual.
Quote from: profitis on November 06, 2013, 03:38:14 PM
no no @elecar.markdansie didnt attak ainslie,in fact he gave her airtime on his website.gave her plenty space to show her stuff too.i would strongly suggest you giv hm a shout if you want a solid stamp of varification.if your smotball can make at least 3 circles then youve made history mate.
Hi profitis, you will note that immediately you made this post TK sprang to life posting several times. Let me try and get you to understand why he did that.
He knows that he was the one who started the bad feeling, it was actually on that RA thread which by the way was moved from where it was originally so I had to track it down.
Now please take a look at the thread here http://www.overunity.com/13538/rosemary-ainslie-circuit-demonstration-june-1-2013/135/#.UnqqVdisrDc
After you have read it come back and at least do me the courtesy of saying that your post was made in error.
Are these not Mark Dansies own words ?
QuoteThe best thing you can do with Rosemary is ignore her.
QuoteIf its any comfort I have upset her and she is not very happy with me.
QuoteIn reality telling Rosemary's story allowed many others to express their view like Magnetic man etc outside of of forum. I really struggled as I feel people like this should perhaps not be given publicity, but there again the stage is set for a demonstration. i just want a conclusion.
Have you ever heard the term give them enough rope
QuoteTk you do not have to convince me, I clearly stated that her claims were against my belief system, I agree with you, Mark E , Milehigh etc. However there has been an event where its going to be tested, and that should be the end of it.
I and many others have been banned from expressing our views on sites like Free Energy News, which really sucs, and I believe people should have the right to express their view (politely).
Politely, haha joke of the day ?
Then take a look at the posts numbered
481
483
489
Note how respectful I was when replying to someone on the thread.
Then note how TK was rude and disrespectful for no reason at all, also note that his minions over there are the same ones over here with their noses browned from having them stuck up his ass. Note also how they waited for him to come and start his crap on this thread before they grew the testicles to chime in with their own disrespect.
So you see Profitis I stick by my stance that Dansie was one of TKs sidekick minions being disrespectful to an elderly lady.
Now you are free to believe what you want but I have furnished you with the evidence. (Better hurry and check it out before TK edits it)
TK is a rude moron, the evidence he asked for in one of his previous posts can be found at the link I have provided.
Quote from: elecar on November 06, 2013, 03:27:58 PM
I take it the Mark Dansie you talk of is the same one who joined TK in his attacks on the elderly lady ? And I would give him a scoop for his website ? Yeah ok step away from the crack pipe powercat.
You seem to be determined to find excuses about providing proof and now verification, your latest one makes me laugh in over 10 years that "Rosemary the little fragile whiter than white elderly lady" that you talk about has been claiming over unity, no one has successfully replicated her claim nor has she had it verified by anyone credible, she has been shown to be a liar and not just by TK, are you implying that elderly people are incapable of deception ? or are you suggesting we should just take people at their word without evidence for verification ?
And before you answer by saying TK was bullying and harassing, that was definitely a two way street and Rosemary is well known for attacking anyone that disagreed with her claims, you only have to read the numerous threads to know that.
Your comment about me and a crack pipe is just the sort of thing that Rosemary would say if you questioned her, it would appear you're taking the same approach, let's hope yours is not a fraudulent claim like hers was.
I have just seen your above post Reply 555 and you are taking things out of context and twisting reality, the Rosemary saga was over 10 years and you have to read lots of threads to understand how deceitful she is and that she was the one attacking people first if they had any doubts about her capabilities.
Rosemary will not be making any comment in this thread as she is banned from this forum, she is also banned from other forms as she is the one that causes all the trouble not TK.
Quote from: webby1 on November 06, 2013, 04:28:30 PM
Elecar,
I thought that the magnet was supposed to come up from the right side of your video,, like the last motion it makes,, and it looks like if the tube were not in the way it would at least of made it back to the gate area.
I understood your design to have the ramp in the middle be the exit ramp but in your video you release the ball down the other ramp.
Hi Webby, if you have followed the thread and read it you will know that the track in the tests was the one Norman designed. I have explained that Normans design did not allow for the ball to climb and then roll back and exit as he made the track "teardrop" meet at a point with no extension of the ramp side track as in my design.
I made it clear I would not be showing mine yet but was happy to help others if I was able. And thats how I came to be working a track presented by another forum member. I believe the effect can be used with several different track designs. I have managed to get Normans track to loop 23 times, I did not get that on video but I have video of Normans track looping a dozen or so times.
I am now working on a design that uses an acrylic track. I shall post details of that here in the coming days/weeks as and when I have time.
Quote powercat
Quoteare you implying that elderly people are incapable of deception ?
No I am not implying that, in fact to be clear I know TK is a master of electronics, I had very little doubt he was correct. But that does not mean RA was being deceptive (intentionally)
Quoteor are you suggesting we should just take people at their word without evidence for verification ?
No you should not take anyones word, you should expect evidence. But it does not have to be on your time table and it does not have to be asked for in a disrespectful manner does it ?
Look at my own opening post I explained in the clearest way possible that I would not be showing my unit yet and if that is all you wanted to see to come back later.
But look at the responses, liar, con artist, scam. fraud. And I suppose I should just take that ? like I have said before I am always respectful to people, try and find one person I have been rude to who never started out by being rude or disrespectful to me.
I am not weak like TKs minions I do what I want and I think for myself.
There I answered your questions now I have some for you, what do you think of TKs rudeness and disrespect he showed me in that thread ? Was I ever rude or disrespectful to him ? Should I just sit back and take his rudeness ?
Ainslie lied many times, as I and others have documented over and over. Not only that, she actually FALSIFIED DATA and placed it into manuscripts that she tried to get published. Not only that, even after her falsifications were soundly exposed in her own attempts at demonstrations, she still has not withdrawn the copies of the "papers" that contain the falsifications. Her statement of "retraction" is really no such thing; she still makes her false claims without providing any real experimental support.
I don't care one whit what her gender is, how old she is or how "white" she is. She is a proven, many times over liar, and she has committed the cardinal sin of deliberately falsifying data and has even attempted to get that false data published.
Here you can see for yourself the falsified data, in her "official publication" still up on Rossi's vanity blog: (Specifically the Figure 3 scopeshot)
http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/files/Experimental%20Evidence%20of%20a%20Breach%20of%20Unity.pdf
And her admission that the data is falsified:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1s9z620SFbA
And here is a clip showing that she even gets other people to lie for her:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cLqM7FRMeZ4
But none of that has anything to do with my analysis of elecar's videos, does it?
How and why is my analysis of elecar's video not correct? How does elecar's video show anything new or different that SMOT builders have not already seen many times? How does elecar's video support his claims?
Elecar has now had many opportunities to deal with these issues, but it is so much easier to insult and denigrate me. I don't think there is anyone on this forum who has been more insulted than I have been, by various claimants (none of whom could prove their claims either) so elecar's little droppings don't disturb me at all. Let him prove his claims! He cannot.
My first post in this thread:
http://www.overunity.com/13879/building-a-self-looping-smot/msg373109/#msg373109 (http://www.overunity.com/13879/building-a-self-looping-smot/msg373109/#msg373109)
Elecar's immediate response:
http://www.overunity.com/13879/building-a-self-looping-smot/msg373114/#msg373114 (http://www.overunity.com/13879/building-a-self-looping-smot/msg373114/#msg373114)
QED. I simply asked for a demonstration of the claims and indicated that without proof there is no reason to believe. "Screenshot or it didn't happen" is not an insult nor is it disrespectful, it is in fact a well-known internet meme.
"Whats up ? No elderly ladies to stalk and harass ? Nothing to prove to you TK you know it all already."
Disrepectful or not? Dealing with the topic, the issues --- or not?
Quote the proven moron
QuoteBut none of that has anything to do with my analysis of elecar's videos, does it?
How and why is my analysis of elecar's video not correct? How does elecar's video show anything new or different that SMOT builders have not already seen many times? How does elecar's video support his claims?
Elecar has now had many opportunities to deal with these issues, but it is so much easier to insult and denigrate me. I don't think there is anyone on this forum who has been more insulted than I have been, by various claimants (none of whom could prove their claims either) so elecar's little droppings don't disturb me at all. Let him prove his claims! He cannot.
OK Moron what do you want to know ?
How does my video show anything different ? Show me a video of a smot that loops even one time TK ? you can not because this is the first time you have seen it.
What you want is what I said right from the start I would not be showing yet, so outside of anything I have already stated what is it you want to know ?
Quote from: TinselKoala on November 06, 2013, 05:10:47 PM
My first post in this thread:
http://www.overunity.com/13879/building-a-self-looping-smot/msg373109/#msg373109 (http://www.overunity.com/13879/building-a-self-looping-smot/msg373109/#msg373109)
Elecar's immediate response:
http://www.overunity.com/13879/building-a-self-looping-smot/msg373114/#msg373114 (http://www.overunity.com/13879/building-a-self-looping-smot/msg373114/#msg373114)
QED. I simply asked for a demonstration of the claims and indicated that without proof there is no reason to believe. "Screenshot or it didn't happen" is not an insult nor is it disrespectful, it is in fact a well-known internet meme.
"Whats up ? No elderly ladies to stalk and harass ? Nothing to prove to you TK you know it all already."
Disrepectful or not? Dealing with the topic, the issues --- or not?
Nice try Douche bag but how about explaining to readers why I would talk to you like that in the first place.
My respectful reply to Pirate
QuotePirate, you are absolutely right, that guy Darren was extremely respectful and its a shame everyone else can not be.
Lots of complaining about video quality etc, when all I could see was people trying to do the best they could with the resources at hand.
It appears the fig3 scope shot was not replicated so those who claimed that would be the case have had their ego's stroked and been proven correct.
Still I doubt many of them can now return to being gentlemen.
Whether or not the ladies circuit works or not is beyond my basic education, but I for one give her credit for her willingness to do a demo.
Those fancy educations may have cost many £s, $s, Yen etc but manners are free.
Now go visit the RA thread and see how Douche decided to talk to me after that.
Quote from: elecar on November 06, 2013, 04:48:39 PM
I have managed to get Normans track to loop 23 times, I did not get that on video but I have video of Normans track looping a dozen or so times.
In my opinion that is an outright lie.
If you'd actually self looped anything at all (one that shows an actual energy gain rather than the losses shown so far) then you'd have posted it as proof. If you had such evidence it would be worthy of a Nobel prize.
Quote from: TinselKoala on November 06, 2013, 05:10:47 PM
My first post in this thread:
http://www.overunity.com/13879/building-a-self-looping-smot/msg373109/#msg373109 (http://www.overunity.com/13879/building-a-self-looping-smot/msg373109/#msg373109)
Elecar's immediate response:
http://www.overunity.com/13879/building-a-self-looping-smot/msg373114/#msg373114 (http://www.overunity.com/13879/building-a-self-looping-smot/msg373114/#msg373114)
QED. I simply asked for a demonstration of the claims and indicated that without proof there is no reason to believe. "Screenshot or it didn't happen" is not an insult nor is it disrespectful, it is in fact a well-known internet meme.
"Whats up ? No elderly ladies to stalk and harass ? Nothing to prove to you TK you know it all already."
Disrepectful or not? Dealing with the topic, the issues --- or not?
Yes Douche that is your post, I read it and responded to you, is it not true that you like to stalk and harass old ladies ? Is it not true that you know it all already ?
Now here ya go Douche here is my first post, its real easy to find, but being as you are a moron I have taken the snippet from the first post on the first page. This is the second paragraph.
QuoteMy design (Patent Pending) approaches the problem in a different and unique way, which I hope some of you replicate independently.
I will start by saying I will not be showing my finished design for a while and if that is what you want to see please come back to this thread in the future when I will post a video of my unit.
Now Douche help me out here what part did you not understand ?
Quote from: elecar on November 06, 2013, 05:17:41 PM
Quote the proven moron
OK Moron what do you want to know ?
How does my video show anything different ? Show me a video of a smot that loops even one time TK ? you can not because this is the first time you have seen it.
The only reason your ball goes as far as it does is because you provided TWO sources of energy to it: first you moved the ball to the left, storing MPE, and second you pushed it into the ramps with your fingers, as everyone but you can see very clearly in your own video. Certainly there are many SMOTs and smot type devices that will make a loop, or more than one, when they are PUSHED and when they use the stored energy that is put in when Mr. Hand positions the ball initially. But most of the researchers you find here are honest enough to avoid doing those obvious cheats, so none of theirs loop successfully. Yours didn't either... or it would have kept going. It went as far as it did because of your hands, no other reason.
Quote
What you want is what I said right from the start I would not be showing yet, so outside of anything I have already stated what is it you want to know ?
You are making claims, and I want you to support them with evidence. But it is now clear to me and to everyone else that you will not, and it is clear to me and to some others that you cannot.
Quote from: elecar on November 06, 2013, 05:33:24 PM
Yes Douche that is your post, I read it and responded to you, is it not true that you like to stalk and harass old ladies ? Is it not true that you know it all already ?
That's right, it is not true that I like to "stalk and harass old ladies" and it is not true that I "know it all already". You can provide no evidence for either of those claims of yours concerning me.
Quote
Now here ya go Douche here is my first post, its real easy to find, but being as you are a moron I have taken the snippet from the first post on the first page. This is the second paragraph.
Now Douche help me out here what part did you not understand ?
There is nothing I don't understand about you and your false claims, that is for sure.
Quote from: LibreEnergia on November 06, 2013, 05:25:48 PM
In my opinion that is an outright lie.
If you'd actually self looped anything at all (one that shows an actual energy gain rather than the losses shown so far) then you'd have posted it as proof. If you had such evidence it would be worthy of a Nobel prize.
PM me your email address and I will send you the video that will not load on this forum as it is to large. All I want you to do in return is come back and say you have received the video you have watched it and that you apologize for the statement above. Deal ?
Quote from: elecar on Today at 11:03:52 PM
QuoteNo you should not take anyones word, you should expect evidence. But it does not have to be on your time table and it does not have to be asked for in a disrespectful manner does it ?
My timetable ? Where have I suggested such a thing to you ? Disrespectful you're the one associating me with a crack pipe ?
QuoteBut look at the responses, liar, con artist, scam. fraud. And I suppose I should just take that ? like I have said before I am always respectful to people, try and find one person I have been rude to who never started out by being rude or disrespectful to me. I am not weak like TKs minions I do what I want and I think for myself.
Claiming any kind of successful self looping device is what most of us are here for, but unfortunately not just on this forum but in history, it has been shown to be impossible (so far) you can hardly be surprised given that history that people will question what you claim.
QuoteThere I answered your questions now I have some for you, what do you think of TKs rudeness and disrespect he showed me in that thread ? Was I ever rude or disrespectful to him ? Should I just sit back and take his rudeness ?
I have seen nothing outrageous from TK and I feel your attitude towards him is down to your feelings you had before,on his treatment of Rosemary.
In my early post I made a reasonable suggestion on the subject of verification, this was based on your willingness to invite TK to examine your device, and I thought it was a reasonable suggestion that somebody else from the free energy community could take this opportunity, but for my suggestion you compare me to a crack addict.
Quote from: elecar on November 06, 2013, 05:25:18 PM
Nice try Douche bag but how about explaining to readers why I would talk to you like that in the first place.
Because you are a lying asshole, that's why.
See, I can do it too. You are a false claimant, you will not provide evidence for your claims, and when you choose to insult me instead.... I resist the temptation to strike back, but I can indeed be goaded into the same kind of stupid insults that you seem to prefer.
Quote
My respectful reply to Pirate
Now go visit the RA thread and see how Douche decided to talk to me after that.
Quote from: TinselKoala on November 06, 2013, 05:39:38 PM
Because you are a lying asshole, that's why.
See, I can do it too. You are a false claimant, you will not provide evidence for your claims, and when you choose to insult me instead.... I resist the temptation to strike back, but I can indeed be goaded into the same kind of stupid insults that you seem to prefer.
:-*
Quote from: elecar on November 06, 2013, 05:37:38 PM
PM me your email address and I will send you the video that will not load on this forum as it is to large. All I want you to do in return is come back and say you have received the video you have watched it and that you apologize for the statement above. Deal ?
If you send it I shall certainly watch it. Whether or not I would apologize would depend entirely on the content of the video.
If it shows what you claim, then forget negotiating with your current toy manufacturer, I would offer a far more lucrative proposition.
Hi Elecar,
Could I come to see your working SMOT in place of TK, I would be quite happy to do that as I live in the UK?
I can get mine to loop twice, but that's as good as it gets so far.
Meggerman
Quote from: elecar on November 06, 2013, 09:05:22 AM
Hi Bill yes I am still around, I have posted the retake video for you and Gyula. I hope it shows clearly that I did not push the ball which lets face it was the general accusation.
None of the videos have been taken down Bill. Which do you require a link to ?
The video that I was referring to is the one you posted on page 2 of this topic.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=--3rugO_RMg&feature=youtu.be (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=--3rugO_RMg&feature=youtu.be)Thanks for the new video.. can you please explain what you think is happening as the ball goes around the loops back?.Bill
Quote from: maw2432 on November 06, 2013, 07:07:48 PM
The video that I was referring to is the one you posted on page 2 of this topic.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=--3rugO_RMg&feature=youtu.be (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=--3rugO_RMg&feature=youtu.be)Thanks for the new video.. can you please explain what you think is happening as the ball goes around the loops back?.Bill
Hi Bill
Test video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vSXhQOrE6dc&feature=youtu.be
Normans track video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fHXTFfnon6g&feature=youtu.be
I do not understand the question ? I put a video up and was asked to redo it, that's what I did. The ball travels down the ramp round the bend and into the center of the magnet array even though my previous videos have shown I did not "FLICK" the ball that is the new accusation. I could care less whether I am believed or not but I did not flick the ball the ball was pulled to the side of the ramp where the magnets are.
Quote from: MeggerMan on November 06, 2013, 06:38:27 PM
Hi Elecar,
Could I come to see your working SMOT in place of TK, I would be quite happy to do that as I live in the UK?
I can get mine to loop twice, but that's as good as it gets so far.
Meggerman
Hi meggerman, I know the thread has gone off track but please read posts 542 & 529.
Quote from: elecar on November 06, 2013, 07:16:44 PM
Hi Bill
Test video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vSXhQOrE6dc&feature=youtu.be (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vSXhQOrE6dc&feature=youtu.be)
Normans track video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fHXTFfnon6g&feature=youtu.be (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fHXTFfnon6g&feature=youtu.be)
I do not understand the question ? I put a video up and was asked to redo it, that's what I did. The ball travels down the ramp round the bend and into the center of the magnet array even though my previous videos have shown I did not "FLICK" the ball that is the new accusation. I could care less whether I am believed or not but I did not flick the ball the ball was pulled to the side of the ramp where the magnets are.
Hi Elecar,
Thank you for the video. Sorry, I am just confused as to where you should start the ball rolling to make sure it is working as you would expect.
Bill
Quote from: maw2432 on November 06, 2013, 07:29:27 PM
Hi Elecar,
Thank you for the video. Sorry, I am just confused as to where you should start the ball rolling to make sure it is working as you would expect.
Bill
Bill it has got confusing because the thread is bogged down with nonsense, thats not your fault. In the video of Normans track the ball is released at the top of the ramp on the magnet side, that is because the way Norman designed his track.
On my prototype the ball is released on the down ramp, it does not matter where it is released on the down ramp as it always rolls into the magnet array as demonstrated in the video here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vSXhQOrE6dc&feature=youtu.be
And that's exactly where it stops... except of course those times when, in spite of your post, it doesn't even make it that far.
Keep posting more of these videos... each one just shows you can't produce proof of your claims.
Anyone can clearly see from my still frame captures and from the video itself that they are taken from that you have 1) moved the ball to the LEFT from where you first put it down, storing energy just as if you pulled back on a spring, and 2) that the release position is HIGHER than the ball ever gets again, and 3) that your fingers flick the ball to the RIGHT as you "release" it. Yet the ball only goes one time around the loop. IOW, the video is proof of the fact that you are willing to cheat to get your point across, and/or you don't understand the energy storage in MPE, and/or you don't have motor control of your fingers any more.
Your whining claim that you didn't flick the ball is contradicted by the video itself.
Quote from: elecar on November 06, 2013, 05:37:38 PM
PM me your email address and I will send you the video that will not load on this forum as it is to large. All I want you to do in return is come back and say you have received the video you have watched it and that you apologize for the statement above. Deal ?
I have examined the video carefully and I cannot discount fraud on your part. There are certain video compression artefacts that re-occur in exactly the same way as the ball loops. This makes me suspect it is a shot of a single loop repeatedly spliced.
I could be wrong, perhaps the repeated motion is creating exactly the same effect at the same time, but I am unconvinced as yet.
If you could provide a video that has an unambiguous forward timeline included then I would perhaps be convinced and prepared to congratulate you on your achievement.
If it is genuine I still don't think it shows over-unity (it stops), However, the apparent losses in the system are much smaller than I would have expected. Although you do not appear to push the ball at the starting point it does have an excess of GPE (due to the release point being higher than the gate.) That could cause it to complete at least one rotation if friction was low.
Quote from: LibreEnergia on November 06, 2013, 08:26:01 PM
I have examined the video carefully and I cannot discount fraud on your part. There are certain video compression artefacts that re-occur in exactly the same way as the ball loops. This makes me suspect it is a shot of a single loop repeatedly spliced.
I could be wrong, perhaps the repeated motion is creating exactly the same effect at the same time, but I am unconvinced as yet.
If you could provide a video that has an unambiguous forward timeline included then I would perhaps be convinced and prepared to congratulate you on your achievement.
If it is genuine I still don't think it shows over-unity (it stops), However, the apparent losses in the system are much smaller than I would have expected. Although you do not appear to push the ball at the starting point it does have an excess of GPE (due to the release point being higher than the gate.) That could cause it to complete at least one rotation if friction was low.
So now the video is a fraud also ?
What are video compression artifacts ? What is an unambiguous forward time line ?
Yes it stops the track is very poor the ball sometimes contacts the pins, it is uneven and the friction does not help. You have the video you can check it frame by frame, there is no trick no splice no fraud.
I have a cheap Sanyo VPC3600 snap shot camera that has a video feature, no matter what I do, what evidence I supply there is always gonna be someone who will try to discredit it. I will set up the track again and take another video for you, although I think I am wasting my time banging my head against a wall.
How about uploading the video to a freebie file sharing website? Slice it into .rar's if you have to.
Hopefully the good thing about the thread is that people understand the dynamics at play. The ball has MPE, GPE and KE all the time. You are conscious of this and watch the way they interchange with each other through time. You are conscious of the fact that friction is always draining away the KE.
So if this was to self-loop, then there must be a "magic" injection of MPE, GPE or KE from "somewhere."
MPE - where you are with respect to the magnetic potential well. You are either falling into the well and gaining KE or you are trying to get out of the well and losing KE.
GPE - how high or low you are. Fall down -> gain KE. Rise up -> lose KE.
KE - how fast you are going (and some KE is stored in the spinning of the ball itself)
So knowing that Mother Nature has dealt you this set of cards, the game always plays out the same way. When the ball rolls friction eats away at the energy in the ball and turns it into heat.
So, something like a video would be a good first step.
We can always "cash bomb" Sterling to the UK, plus a detour, and he will set forth.... But I personally don't trust him! Foiled!
Quote from: elecar on November 06, 2013, 09:14:31 PM
So now the video is a fraud also ?
What are video compression artifacts ? What is an unambiguous forward time line ?
Yes it stops the track is very poor the ball sometimes contacts the pins, it is uneven and the friction does not help. You have the video you can check it frame by frame, there is no trick no splice no fraud.
I have a cheap Sanyo VPC3600 snap shot camera that has a video feature, no matter what I do, what evidence I supply there is always gonna be someone who will try to discredit it. I will set up the track again and take another video for you, although I think I am wasting my time banging my head against a wall.
The fact it was shot on a cheap camera is of no consequence. What is of consequence is that the exact distortion and pixilation that comes from the camera compressing the video repeats exactly during the middle part of the video (assessed by eye only at this stage.)
I shall be checking it frame by frame by extracting out the raw frame and comparing the binary data.
An unambiguous forward time line could be as simple as a clock or timer in the frame that counts forward to make a simple splice more difficult to do.
LibreEnergia:
The trick is to make the video full screen and then look at it and almost let your eyes go out of focus and go into a kind of trance. You feel the rhythm of the video and as you start to feel it you notice at one particular time in the cycle there is a "tick," a subtle sense of a discontinuity. Now that you suspect where it is your focus your trance towards that instant and then the discontinuity becomes more pronounced and you can feel it more clearly.
The next step now that you have located the time instant of the discontinuity is to look elsewhere in the frame for more evidence. Now you just look at one spot and watch what it does at the instant of the discontinuity. You may have to look at several spots until you see a definite signature that indicates the discontinuity.
Before you even start doing that you can look at the video and look for the most logical place (or possibly places) to do the loop. Perhaps when the ball slows down or stops is a good place to do the edit.
Often a different audio track is laid down on top of the looping video because our ears are much more acute in detecting the discontinuity. There you could possibly look for slight offsets between the audio track and the video track.
MileHigh
It's too bad there aren't more women posting. Then we could have "filly minions".
Meanwhile... Two loops are better than one.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q21CjmPV8fg
QuoteI shall be checking it frame by frame by extracting out the raw frame and comparing the binary data.
Wow! That would be cool! It would be incontrovertible evidence of looping if you find a repeating digital pattern because there is always random sensor noise, even in a digital video stream, such that no two frames will ever be the same.
TK:
May the Cheese be with you.
Quote from: MileHigh on November 06, 2013, 11:24:50 PM
(snip)
TK:
May the Cheese be with you.
Thanks.
The little black thing near the ramp is a magnet, glued to the baseboard. So you will note several things. Yes, the ball starts out from a slightly elevated position, but it is IN a magnetic potential _well_ at that point due to its attraction to the magnet. There is no "pulling to stretch a spring" when I put the ball down. And my release system makes it IMPOSSIBLE for me to add any extra flick or push to the ball. There is a slight hump in the track just where the ramp joins it, and the track itself is pretty darn level, as shown by the sensitive bubble level in the center. The ball goes down the ramp, over the hump, around the track, where it is accelerated by the magnet near the ramp... then it goes over the hump again and completely around the track _again_, making two full loops plus a bit.
It took me about an hour to build this, from scrap materials I have on hand. The track is made from drip-irrigation tubing, glued down with rubber cement. The magnet is a fairly strong ceramic disk magnet, the ball is unpolished (not smooth like a ball bearing) steel, and the baseboard is Luan mahogany plywood, with brass levelling screws at 3 locations. The bubble level cost about 2 dollars at the hardware store.
Anyone who likes can come and visit me to see that there is absolutely no trickery, and I'll even buy them a beer or two. The cheese makes a good snack, with beer and crackers.
Let the flames begin.
A chill-out interlude.... What a project!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UFd6WsObOu4
Quote from: TinselKoala on November 06, 2013, 11:16:17 PM
It's too bad there aren't more women posting. Then we could have "filly minions".
Meanwhile... Two loops are better than one.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q21CjmPV8fg (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q21CjmPV8fg)
A sharp cheddar would give more attraction while Limburger would give more repulsion.
Well done.
Bill
The offer has been made to TK.
Any other takers concidered elecar?
I wouldnt ask Sterling,as he is just in it for finacial gain now,and loves the !!all expences paid!! trips.
Quote from: elecar on October 16, 2013, 06:22:34 PM
Hi Norman, I changed the track a bit, I have run aluminum rod through the center, but have still not found a satisfactory way to space the rails. The friction needs to be much lower than I am able to get from the pipes, but I shall persevere with it until I have to admit defeat.
I managed to get it to loop which is an improvement on the 50mm I was short on the first replication. Not anything to get overly excited about ATM but I hope to improve it further still.
Well anyway, 2 rotations of the track is more than anyone here has ever produced or even seen.
I shall attempt to add the video here on this post so it is "PRESERVED" for the know it all.
Tinman, please check your PMs.
And why don't YOU go to England to see elecar's claimed device? He made his "offer" to me knowing full well that I would not accept it. It is nothing more than a poker bluff.
Quote from: TinselKoala on November 07, 2013, 12:57:32 AM
Tinman, please check your PMs.
And why don't YOU go to England to see elecar's claimed device? He made his "offer" to me knowing full well that I would not accept it. It is nothing more than a poker bluff.
Well im to shit scared to fly,but i could take the boat.
Quote from: TinselKoala on November 06, 2013, 11:16:17 PM
It's too bad there aren't more women posting. Then we could have "filly minions".
Meanwhile... Two loops are better than one.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q21CjmPV8fg
Instead of keeping just one magnet, if you keep several such magnets alround the circle at calculated distances, will not the motion of ball become perpetual?
@elecar if your smot circles more than 3times and markdansie physicly sees it i assure you he will do a unbiased report on it.on stage he will poke fun at us overunity guys but if you have a working smot device the game changes,dramaticaly.look at me @elecar,i have provided plans on the quenco thread that anybody can replicate,nobody can argue,nobody can disprove.how many cycles can your device do without touching it @elecar.personaly i believe smots are capable of overunity using the right materials.
Quote from: Newton II on November 07, 2013, 09:12:43 AM
Instead of keeping just one magnet, if you keep several such magnets alround the circle at calculated distances, will not the motion of ball become perpetual?
But.. but... the noise would keep me awake.
Quote from: profitis on November 07, 2013, 10:05:03 AM
i have provided plans on the quenco thread that anybody can replicate,nobody can argue,nobody can disprove.
ROFL.
A stick figure drawing isn't an argument or a claim. So it's unsurprising that nobody can "argue" it or disprove it. You could have drawn a happy face and made the same three claims.
You constantly refused (to the point of about a hundred or so messages) to either create an argument or support your claim (that textbooks say/predict/instruct on creating a battery that would last forever). You did neither.
Sigh...........
Ohh No! we now have complete overlapping Nasty!!
It doesn't happen often ,however in the past these Nasty anomalies
were dealt with in a Most Brutal fashion!! [The Quinn Wars]
Please try and keep your Nasties in their proper categories,the system is approaching a critical point!!
Very touchy stuff to play with [magnets and smots]
sometimes "Consentrated Evil " :o can get into the Mix
Thx
Chet
@sarkeizen a stickfigure that we,re still waiting for you to build and put to the test yes.we,ve been waiting over two months now and you still refuse point blank to build an simple stick-figured o2 concentration cell.stickfigures are easy to build.
Quote from: Enormouse Obstructionist Asshole on November 07, 2013, 04:10:56 PM
@sarkeizen a stickfigure that we,re still waiting for you to build and put to the test
@EOA - what test exactly demonstrates something running forever that doesn't take forever to run?
@collosalOA -sarkeizen just short-circuit the thing for 3 weeks man.if it bounces straightup to where twas before then bingo.what battery can withstand this kind of test?answer:none except this one.
the only thing perpetual about this "smot" is the wait... we will be perpetually waiting for it...
Quote from: ramset on November 07, 2013, 01:53:01 PM
Sigh...........
Ohh No! we now have complete overlapping Nasty!!
It doesn't happen often ,however in the past these Nasty anomalies
were dealt with in a Most Brutal fashion!! [The Quinn Wars]
Please try and keep your Nasties in their proper categories,the system is approaching a critical point!!
Very touchy stuff to play with [magnets and smots]
sometimes "Consentrated Evil " :o can get into the Mix
Thx
Chet
For some reason profitis won't simply start his own thread on quenco, oxygen batteries or whatever so that people who want to discuss those topics can do so there. He simply starts talking about irrelevant stuff in other threads, just like he's doing now.
Please note that my video SNOT is entirely serious. There is indeed a magnet there, the black thing near the ramp. The ball in the start position is slightly elevated but it is solidly in the "well" or point of maximum attraction to this magnet at the start position. When I lift the wooden "gate", there is no possibility that I am adding any impulse by pushing the ball either to the LEFT (storing MPE as elecar did in his video) or pushing it to the RIGHT (adding a flick of a KE impulse as elecar did in his video). The track itself has a slight hill around where the ramp joins it. When the ball is about to complete the first loop it is again attracted and very slightly sped up by this same magnet, then the ball goes over the slight hill and continues around the track for _another full turn_ plus a bit. SO you here have indeed seen a SMOT that makes over two full turns, by the _exact same principle_ as any other SMOT : it is running on the stored GPE that I put there when I placed the ball in the first place, and the MPE, which is small and "self-cancelling" doesn't really add anything _net_ to the KE of the ball.
If I add magnets in various places would I get more than the 2.2 (about) full loops that I'm getting already? If I manage three full loops will I get a big prize? If not, why not?
No, this is NOT an overunity demonstration. It is a :UNITY: demonstration: all the energy I get out, is all the energy I put in, minus losses.
How much energy is that?
The ball weighs about 13.5 grams. The height of the center of the ball at the release position is about 30.8 mm and the height of the center of the ball as it sits on the track is about 11.5 mm. (heights relative to the baseboard).
So, since GPE is just mgh, we have 0.0135 kg x (0.0308 - 0.0115) m x 9.81 m/s2 = 0.00256 Joule. This is all the energy it takes to run that rough ball more than twice around my poorly made track.
Please check my math. I weighed the ball on a Harbor Freight digital scale, but I could break out a much more accurate balance and get the weight to the milligram if anyone wants me to for some reason. I measured the heights of the center of the ball using a digital micrometer caliper that is precise to the hundredth of a millimeter but obviously I can't locate the ball center to that precision, so you only get three significant digits from my measurements (tenth of a mm on the height, half a gram on the weight).
Do you object to the fact that my starting ramp isn't part of the complete loops? Of course you should.
Are any of the other devices that we have been shown lately subject to the same objection? Of course... they are.
Tinsel
Quote
If I manage three full loops will I get a big prize? If not, why not?
---------------------------------
Where's the Vid ?[Things are going fast over here]
thx
Chet
Quote from: ramset on November 07, 2013, 06:07:10 PM
Tinsel
Quote
If I manage three full loops will I get a big prize? If not, why not?
---------------------------------
Where's the Vid ?[Things are going fast over here]
thx
Chet
Well, you have seen the video that shows over two full loops haven't you? It is linked above.
I have been dealing with other issues today, like YouTube's new and totally fouled up comment system. I can only reply to some comments, other attempts to reply to others tells me I'm "not allowed to reply"... and I can't even leave a comment on my OWN videos! I can of course edit the description and all of that, but this new thing, involving Google+ whatever that is, that just started today afaik, is completely screwed up. (It seems that Google wants to take over all social networking interactions and is making it so time consuming to deal with their garbage that nobody has time for anything else. I know I've spent over six hours just trying to make and reply to comments this morning.)
Personally, I think any "smot" or self-looping magnet-track-ball systems must include the start position in the full loops, so mine should not qualify, and neither should "those others" we've seen that don't even manage to make two full loops. What do you think?
Quote from: elecar on November 06, 2013, 09:14:31 PM
So now the video is a fraud also ?
What are video compression artifacts ? What is an unambiguous forward time line ?
Yes it stops the track is very poor the ball sometimes contacts the pins, it is uneven and the friction does not help. You have the video you can check it frame by frame, there is no trick no splice no fraud.
I have a cheap Sanyo VPC3600 snap shot camera that has a video feature, no matter what I do, what evidence I supply there is always gonna be someone who will try to discredit it. I will set up the track again and take another video for you, although I think I am wasting my time banging my head against a wall.
Yes, I believe it is fake. It is a video of a single loop repeatedly spliced together to produce twelve consecutive loops.
I base my opinion on the fact that for part of my job I write video display and editing software, and have 25 years software engineering experience. I have in-depth knowledge of the windows media format this file was provided in.
Here are the reasons.
1. The video is not a raw file from the camera. It has been edited in Windows Movie maker. This information is in the file header. In itself this is not proof of forgery, but it means it is not taken directly from the camera and window movie maker is capable enough to produce this kind of edit. Alternatively this application may have been used simply to the convert the file format.
2. The video is shot with a low quality video camera. The video contains significant video 'noise' caused by it the camera sensor. By nature video noise is random.
3. Analysing the video noise from the start of the video to position 11.90 seconds (when the ball is released) shows no two frames where the background video noise in each frame is the same.
4. From position 11.90 through to position 23.400 when the ball is shown looping twelve times it is apparent that IDENTICAL frames are present in the video, including the exact same video noise pattern. The likelihood of this occurring by chance are remote.
I won't post the video or the full evidence yet.
You are welcome to refute these facts and/or provide a video that I would consider genuine.
Tinsel
I think Elecar has done what he says.
I also think you are not on his Christmas Card list!
The Prizes Start at 5 Loops [secret decoder ring and a pack of Chewin gum]
I believe it won't be too long till you see a nice Vid .[perhaps with a cheap clock with a second hand in the Shot]
thx
Chet
Wow, so many self serving pointless attacks on a guy who doesn't claim to have shown OU. Everyone remember to applaud TK's sarcastic unnecessary cheese wheel. Why don't you at least wait until Nov 19th to unleash the attack dogs.
Quote from: happyfunball on November 07, 2013, 06:49:44 PM
Wow, so many self serving pointless attacks on a guy who doesn't claim to have shown OU. Everyone remember to applaud TK's sarcastic unnecessary cheese wheel. Why don't you at least wait until Nov 19th to unleash the attack dogs.
He claimed to have a self-looping SMOT or smot-like thing that ran for three hours without outside input of energy. That is definitely a claim of OU. He presented a video, definitely claiming to show OU, to LibreEnergia that might be fake. He presented a video here that shows two storages of energy provided by his hands, and yet doesn't manage to make a second loop.
You don't like my video? Why? I freely admit that the cheese doesn't do anything. Did you think it did? Can you provide any kind of rational analysis of my video that refutes anything I've said about it?
Yet my thing makes more than two complete loops, something elecar told us we had never seen before. My "cheese wheel" is neither sarcastic nor unnecessary: it refutes several claims of elecar's and shows how to avoid several questionable "errors" in his video (the one I analyzed; I haven't seen the one LibreEnergia analyzed.)
Can you discuss matters rationally or would you just like to continue insulting me? I think I already know the answer to that, but feel free to demonstrate that I am wrong ... about anything. Of course insulting me is a lot easier.
@LibreEnergia: Thank you for your hard work, however it turns out.
Just for the record: Are you my minion? Am I yours? Do you have any minions at all? Do we know each other, other than our contact on this forum? Do we exchange PMs in secret, chatting behind the backs of the other forum members, plotting how we will suppress Free Energy and serve the interests of Big Oil? Do you have a sponsor who pays you well to post here?
Quote from: ramset on November 07, 2013, 06:47:18 PM
Tinsel
I think Elecar has done what he says.
I also think you are not on his Christmas Card list!
The Prizes Start at 5 Loops [secret decoder ring and a pack of Chewin gum]
I believe it won't be too long till you see a nice Vid .[perhaps with a cheap clock with a second hand in the Shot]
thx
Chet
Ah. First it was only two loops that would show a miracle. Then when I showed two loops, it became three that was needed. Then when I pointed out that only a tiny additional bit of energy would cause my thing to loop three times, it becomes 5 loops.
(By the way, I can get three loops but not with 100 percent consistency.... yet.)
This is technically called "moving the goalposts", but since I'm not playing a silly game or asking for any prizes really, I'm not impressed or distressed. I do think that everybody should be held to the same standard, though.
Why don't you go to England and see elecar's device? I'll gladly accept your report as factual.
Quote from: TinselKoala on November 07, 2013, 07:52:22 PM
@LibreEnergia: Thank you for your hard work, however it turns out.
Just for the record: Are you my minion? Am I yours? Do you have any minions at all? Do we know each other, other than our contact on this forum? Do we exchange PMs in secret, chatting behind the backs of the other forum members, plotting how we will suppress Free Energy and serve the interests of Big Oil? Do you have a sponsor who pays you well to post here?
And for the record: No, we don't know each other, have even corresponded directly before or have anything resembling minions.
I'm not in the business of supressing free energy and don't serve the interests of Big Oil, or anyone but myself for that matter.
I'd dearly like to see free energy succeed but I know enough about physics and engineering to be reasonably certain that attempts to use gravity and magnetism in the way suggested by the author of this thread or many other posters on this forum is futile.
I don't have any sponsors who pay me to post here, although I occasionally do it on work time and using my employers bandwidth. (I'm employed as a software consultant by a company with no interests in energy production)
Quote from: TinselKoala on November 07, 2013, 07:52:22 PM
He claimed to have a self-looping SMOT or smot-like thing that ran for three hours without outside input of energy. That is definitely a claim of OU. He presented a video, definitely claiming to show OU, to LibreEnergia that might be fake. He presented a video here that shows two storages of energy provided by his hands, and yet doesn't manage to make a second loop.
You don't like my video? Why? I freely admit that the cheese doesn't do anything. Did you think it did? Can you provide any kind of rational analysis of my video that refutes anything I've said about it?
Yet my thing makes more than two complete loops, something elecar told us we had never seen before. My "cheese wheel" is neither sarcastic nor unnecessary: it refutes several claims of elecar's and shows how to avoid several questionable "errors" in his video (the one I analyzed; I haven't seen the one LibreEnergia analyzed.)
Can you discuss matters rationally or would you just like to continue insulting me? I think I already know the answer to that, but feel free to demonstrate that I am wrong ... about anything. Of course insulting me is a lot easier.
@LibreEnergia: Thank you for your hard work, however it turns out.
Just for the record: Are you my minion? Am I yours? Do you have any minions at all? Do we know each other, other than our contact on this forum? Do we exchange PMs in secret, chatting behind the backs of the other forum members, plotting how we will suppress Free Energy and serve the interests of Big Oil? Do you have a sponsor who pays you well to post here?
Pretty funny, you conveniently ignore the fact that he doesn't claim to show OU in the video he posted, yet you in your infinite megalomania felt the need to replicate it to prove he didn't show what he said himself he didn't show.
Quote from: happyfunball on November 07, 2013, 08:31:50 PM
Pretty funny, you conveniently ignore the fact that he doesn't claim to show OU in the video he posted, yet you in your infinite megalomania felt the need to replicate it to prove he didn't show what he said himself he didn't show.
If the ball is started without an excess of either gravitational potential or kinetic energy, it returns to the same starting energy state each loop and it can loop even once then it is "over-unity". He doesn't need to claim it , just describing something that could do that is over-unity by definition.
Quote from: Enormous Obstructionist Asshole on November 07, 2013, 04:42:40 PM
just short-circuit the thing for 3 weeks man.
@EOA Does that demonstrate it will last forever? Nope. So again, what test demonstrates running forever?
Quote from: happyfunball on November 07, 2013, 08:31:50 PM
Pretty funny, you conveniently ignore the fact that he doesn't claim to show OU in the video he posted, yet you in your infinite megalomania felt the need to replicate it to prove he didn't show what he said himself he didn't show.
Thank you for proving my point so succinctly. You cannot find anything wrong with my video or my analysis of his video, and you cannot discuss rationally the real issues, so you choose to insult me instead.
Quote from: LibreEnergia on November 07, 2013, 08:39:16 PM
If the ball is started without an excess of either gravitational potential or kinetic energy, it returns to the same starting energy state each loop and it can loop even once then it is "over-unity". He doesn't need to claim it , just describing something that could do that is over-unity by definition.
Thanks for the response to my "for the record" question.
You also have hit the nail right on the head. The claim was made in the very first post, and in the title of the thread. Elecar claims to be able to teach us to make a self-looping SMOT like he has got, but without revealing the one he claims to have, or even demonstrating that he actually knows how to do it.
Is there anyone here except happyfunball who doesn't think elecar was making a claim of overunity performance, I wonder?
I wonder if any smot builders will notice that I have shown, in my worthless cheesy video, one easy way to minimize losses around a full loop: You make a circular, level track with minimal contact area to the ball.
Quote from: TinselKoala on November 07, 2013, 08:42:31 PM
Thank you for proving my point so succinctly. You cannot find anything wrong with my video or my analysis of his video, and you cannot discuss rationally the real issues, so you choose to insult me instead.
I certainly do find something wrong with making a sarcastic attack video with cutesy insulting pieces of cheese to 'prove' something does not do what the claimant never claimed it does. You are the insulting one, why don't you work it out with a shrink and let elecar do his thing.
Quote from: happyfunball on November 07, 2013, 09:28:25 PM
I certainly do find something wrong with making a sarcastic attack video with cutesy insulting pieces of cheese to 'prove' something does not do what the claimant never claimed it does. You are the insulting one, why don't you work it out with a shrink and let elecar do his thing.
So now you are accusing me of somehow preventing elecar from "doing his thing!" That is indeed astounding, when all I have EVER done is to ask, more and more pointedly, for him to DO JUST THAT. Prove his claims with supporting evidence.
But it certainly appears that you and some others are really really trying to prevent me from "doing my thing".
Quote from: TinselKoala on November 07, 2013, 10:40:35 PM
So now you are accusing me of somehow preventing elecar from "doing his thing!" That is indeed astounding, when all I have EVER done is to ask, more and more pointedly, for him to DO JUST THAT. Prove his claims with supporting evidence.
But it certainly appears that you and some others are really really trying to prevent me from "doing my thing".
Figured you'd resort to a straw man argument when pressed. I requested you let eclair do his thing, rather than distracting from the topic with immature bullying. He didn't claim to show OU yet. Is that too much for the mighty TK to grasp? Mendacious seems to be one of your favorite words when applied to others, I do believe you should buy a mirror.
LibreEnergia:
Quote4. From position 11.90 through to position 23.400 when the ball is shown looping twelve times it is apparent that IDENTICAL frames are present in the video, including the exact same video noise pattern. The likelihood of this occurring by chance are remote.
That was a slam-dunk. My impression is that the creator or creators of the video had no idea that this issue was in play.
The likelihood is indeed remote. Way less than one in a Google. And you know they say that there are 10^80 protons in the universe.
MileHigh
Quote from: happyfunball on November 07, 2013, 11:46:51 PM
Figured you'd resort to a straw man argument when pressed. I requested you let eclair do his thing, rather than distracting from the topic with immature bullying. He didn't claim to show OU yet. Is that too much for the mighty TK to grasp? Mendacious seems to be one of your favorite words when applied to others, I do believe you should buy a mirror.
You have some kind of problem with comprehension. I don't think anyone -- except you -- would say, from reading this thread, that elecar did NOT claim to have a SMOT that was OU, that he was trying to patent it and that he was trying to sell it to a toy company. Further, he pretended to be able to teach us how to make an OU smot ourselves. Just as LibreEnergia and others have pointed out: any SMOT that self-loops is OU. What is the title of this thread?
What he "claimed to SHOW" is different from what he claimed to have.
What he DID show is the video I analyzed, which clearly shows just what I said it does, and I provided evidence for all to examine in the still frames from that video: energy storage in the system, that is all the energy returned, and no evidence of any progress towards a real self looping SMOT.
He also arrogantly claimed other things that aren't true, especially that nobody has ever seen a smot making two full turns. (We will ignore his paranoid accusations that I have "minions" who do my bidding and are interested in suppressing real Overunity... a claim that has been made before, but never with any shred of evidence in support.) Well, now you have seen the evidence that that last statement of his isn't true, and isn't even very difficult to do if one has a bit of skill in building and knowledge of just where losses come from. Most especially, it is easy if the input ramp isn't part of the "looping".
You complain about the cheese? Fine, you don't have to eat it. It's really not very good cheese anyway, a fake "light" mozzarella with basil.
But you DO have to look at the evidence: My apparatus uses a ramp that is not part of the loop; so does the device in elecar's video. My apparatus does NOT provide any extra energy by "cocking the magnetic spring" or "flicking the ball" into the track; elecar's does. My video clearly shows, with no hint of fakery, the ball making more than two full turns around the track... twice; elecar's does not.
Further, we now have a statement from someone who seems to know his business, that another video, clearly presented to LibreEnergia as _proof_ that elecar had what he CLAIMED TO HAVE, which is an OU SMOT self-looping ...... almost certainly has been faked. I haven't seen that video myself... and I don't know LibreEnergia, but his statements are a lot more credible on the face of it than elecar's are.
These are not straw man arguments, there, mister Happyfunball.
Quite the contrary, they are examinations of evidence that elecar himself provided in support of his claims of OU, and which clearly fail to do so. As I said in my analysis, even before LE began his, it appears that elecar may be willing to cheat to get his point across. Such things have happened before, even down to the insults and campaigns against the skeptics like me. Do you not recall Mylow?
In my analysis, supported by frame extracts from the video elecar posted, it can be clearly seen that he places the ball down on the track within the influence of the magnets, then pulls the ball back to the left, storing energy in the magnetic "spring", then flicks the ball to the right, giving it an additional KE boost into the track system. Elecar protests that he did not flick the ball... but the video clearly shows him doing so and the still frames clearly show the position of his fingers when the ball is being released: well to the right of the initial placement of the ball. Nobody but elecar has yet disputed my analysis.
Furthermore.... we have LibreEnergia's analysis of the other video which nobody else has seen yet, which arguably took more work than mine, and which seems to reveal much more willingness to cheat on elecar's part. Where does any of this fit into the definition of a "straw man" argument? In fact, happyfunball, it is you who are engaging in various fallacious arguments, including the straw man, but more than that, you are attacking ME personally rather than confronting the issues. You have no credibility, and with every insult, every instance of avoiding the issues, you are just proving that point more and more. Where is your work refuting my analysis, refuting LibreEnergia's analysis? Nowhere. Where is your work supporting elecar's claims, which most certainly include claims of OU performance from an apparatus he claims to possess? Nowhere. Instead, you choose, just as I predicted, to carry on your personal attacks against me, and you can't even provide proof or evidence for those. You especially can't provide any evidence of "mendacity" on my part.
Keep it up, you are only proving my points.
Quote from: MileHigh on November 07, 2013, 11:47:49 PM
LibreEnergia:
That was a slam-dunk. My impression is that the creator or creators of the video had no idea that this issue was in play.
The likelihood is indeed remote. Way less than one in a Google. And you know they say that there are 10^80 protons in the universe.
MileHigh
I'm hoping that LibreEnergia's analysis could be confirmed by someone else as well, although I'm willing to take his word as it stands. If it does turn out that the video shows fakery... I think that would be pretty damning. But of course this should be confirmed. I doubt if anyone else here has the skillset and knowledge and experience that LibreEnergia has, though; I certainly don't.
Libre. I have no idea what half of the terms you are using mean. I took the video on the sanyo camera that I mentioned earlier, it is the only one I own. In order to be able to upload it anywhere it has to be loaded from my camera to my computer and it has to be changed to a file type that will upload. If I do not do that I can load it nowhere. I removed over 20 minutes of me trying to capture the longest amount of loops. I had managed 20+ which I did not capture on the camera and every attempt after that only managed between 2 and 12.
You give me far more credit than I am capable of because I would not have a clue how to "splice" a video. In fact if you look at my earlier videos loaded you will see exactly how good my camera and myself are at the simplest of edits.
I do not have a clock with seconds on it so this weekend I will try and get to a shop and get one with a second hand and attempt the video again. I can not promise that I will catch as many loops as that video represents two days of messing around with the track and magnets.
I suspect though no matter what I supply you with you will continue to find fault.
I suppose the one thing I should say thank you for is you have stated the ball was not flicked ?
TK again you show that you are a moron an idiot of epic proportion, your so called attempt at replication is nothing but mockery.
You release a ball from a ramp onto a track that is flat and level. the ball never has to climb. Your ball will travel further if you just have a flat straight level track.
But your ball will not even make one loop if you raise one side of your track by 12mm, with or without the cheese in place.
Of course it was never your intention to try a replication it was again for your own gratification and to keep your minions amused.
Your thinly veiled attempt at interest in anything to do with SMOTs is purely for your own justification.
@ elecar
Can you please post the video on YouTube so everyone can see it or allow it to be posted by a third party ?
This would seem to be a reasonable request, and no justification for you to start making any derogatory remarks about me again.
I will as promised supply Libre with another video as soon as I am able that meets his criteria.
I will also post a video of my own prototype as soon as I am free to do so as promised in the first post of this thread.
Other than that I am done on this forum and I am moving to another I have been invited to. You can in large part attribute my decision to TK. But he is a moron and can not help himself so I am left with the thought that the so called Admin here must be either in TKs pocket or just lacks the balls to do anything about him.
What is also disturbing to me is how many people here bend and bow to him, encourage his behavior, like the attacks on the elderly lady that so many of them joined in. And so few stand up to him with the same gusto that he puts into putting people down and attacking anything anyone may say that goes against his own belief.
Why the prick can not even read properly, simple statements made in the opening post of this thread are a great example. I made it clear what I can and can not do as yet. And every single one of his posts expects what I clearly stated right at the start I would not be doing.
They should just rename this whole forum the TK forum since he basically has free range to do as he pleases, that includes editing posts which he has admitted himself.
Quote from: elecar on November 08, 2013, 07:17:27 AM
I removed over 20 minutes of me trying to capture the longest amount of loops. I had managed 20+ which I did not capture on the camera and every attempt after that only managed between 2 and 12.
Now we are back to a sensible discussion:
2 to 12 rounds, exceptionally 20 rounds, that seems to be possible.I hope we all stay at this level of statements.
And we will not proceed to anything useful unless elcar gives more details. If he is not willing to do so, all further discussion will again deteriorate into personal attacks.
I am not saying that elcar has to give details. I only claim that there is no meaningful discussion without technical details. "I believe that and I do not believe this" is not worth the time spent.
Greetings, Conrad
Quote from: elecar on November 08, 2013, 07:44:55 AM
I will as promised supply Libre with another video as soon as I am able that meets his criteria.
It is the video you sent Libre that I was referring to, I'm sure we would all like to see it so that it can be judged by more than one person, this would seem in your interest as you claim that the video was genuine.
Quote from: powercat on November 08, 2013, 07:34:38 AM
@ elecar
Can you please post the video on YouTube so everyone can see it or allow it to be posted by a third party ?
This would seem to be a reasonable request, and no justification for you to start making any derogatory remarks about me again.
Please dont play the victim powercat, I assure you I never talk down to or insult people without cause. You seem to be able to write ? And I assume that means you can read ? Now given that you can do that can you explain why after I made clear in the very first post of this thread what I would and would not be doing you continued to ask for what I said I would not be showing yet ?
Even you must agree that is ignorant at the very least ?
I was never here to pander to people like your self or TK and it remains that way. I have made clear above what I will do, and that will be it.
You are among those who ignore TK and his antics you refuse to speak up even when he is in the wrong. You join in his mockery and piss taking and then expect me to comply with your requests ?
Please take the time to go read back at our exchanges, you will note I always treat everyone with respect until they do not do me the same courtesy. That includes you.
Quote from: elecar on November 08, 2013, 07:44:55 AM
Other than that I am done on this forum and I am moving to another I have been invited to.
You can in large part attribute my decision to TK. But he is a moron and can not help himself so I am left with the thought that the so called Admin here must be either in TKs pocket or just lacks the balls to do anything about him.
What is also disturbing to me is how many people here bend and bow to him, encourage his behavior, like the attacks on the elderly lady that so many of them joined in. And so few stand up to him with the same gusto that he puts into putting people down and attacking anything anyone may say that goes against his own belief.
Come on elcar! You made a preposterous claim and now you play the raped virgin. If you can not stand questions, what will you do in an other forum? Eventually you have to provide proof! And eventually you will have to answer inquisitive questions. Nobody will give you money without substantial proof.
TinselKoala makes many experiments and he wants to find out the truth behind strange claims. He never made any unbelievable claims himself.
Why do all OU-claimers hate good questions and deny proven facts? Why do all OU-claimers attack people who ask good questions? That should tell you something!
ELCAR WAKE UP! Extraordinary claims need extraordinary proof!
Greetings, Conrad
Quote from: elecar on November 08, 2013, 07:56:05 AM
Please dont play the victim powercat, I assure you I never talk down to or insult people without cause. You seem to be able to write ? And I assume that means you can read ? Now given that you can do that can you explain why after I made clear in the very first post of this thread what I would and would not be doing you continued to ask for what I said I would not be showing yet ?
Even you must agree that is ignorant at the very least ?
You are the one being completely ignorant why don't you read your own post where you associate me with a crack pipe, this was your response to me for suggesting other people might be able to visit you to verify the device, it was your suggestion not mine that a visit could be made.Your attitude towards anyone making reasonable suggestions stinks.
@sarkeizen-COA ok short-circuit it for 6weeks then check if it bounces straight up to its original power.ok short-circuit it for 12weeks and check if it reboots.ok short-circuit it for 24weeks and check if it reboots .ok short-circuit it for 48 weeks and check if it reboots.ok short-circuit it for 96 weeks and check if it reboots.you cant flatten it.you simply can-not even reduce it,what are you going to do to kill its power @ maniaco-sarkeizen.what are YOU going to do stop it from powering YOUR calculator by YOUR rules.lets hear,right here,right now...
Quote from: conradelektro on November 08, 2013, 07:59:44 AM
Come on elcar! You made a preposterous claim and now you play the raped virgin. If you can not stand questions, what will you do in an other forum? Eventually you have to provide proof! And eventually you will have to answer inquisitive questions. Nobody will give you money without substantial proof.
TinselKoala makes many experiments and he wants to find out the truth behind strange claims. He never made any unbelievable claims himself.
Why do all OU-claimers hate good questions and deny proven facts? Why do all OU-claimers attack people who ask good questions? That should tell you something!
ELCAR WAKE UP! Extraordinary claims need extraordinary proof!
Greetings, Conrad
No problem with being asked questions, please read back, I do have a problem with being repeatedly asked to show what I had stated clearly I would not be showing until I was able. I believe I will at least get that much respect from a different forum.
Money ? Who has ever asked for money ?
And please do not pretend to not know what TK is all about, tell me conrad what does TKs latest replication video bring to the discussion ? Answer: Nothing at all it nothing but an attempt at mockery, it does nothing extraordinary except prove as I stated he is a moron, an idiot, a prick.
Quote from: powercat on November 08, 2013, 08:06:51 AM
You are the one being completely ignorant why don't you read your own post where you associate me with a crack pipe, this was your response to me for suggesting other people might be able to visit you to verify the device, it was your suggestion not mine that a visit could be made.
Your attitude towards anyone making reasonable suggestions stinks.
So is it your claim that the crack pipe remark is where my attitude to you changed ?
You must read further back. I do give you some credit though you did at least admit that the balls performance was better with the magnets than without them. I did have to pry that from you because it meant you would have to show a difference of opinion to TK.
Even so I thank you for your honesty on that occasion.
@sarkeizen-COA..im waiting,where are you goddam you.i want YOU(nobody else)to slightly,just ever so slightly,reduce the power coming out of an common O2 concentration cell here in public.im challenging you.
Quote from: profitis on November 08, 2013, 08:20:57 AM
@sarkeizen-COA..im waiting,where are you goddam you.i want YOU(nobody else)to slightly,just ever so slightly,reduce the power coming out of an common O2 concentration cell here in public.im challenging you.
Profitis
What is an O2 concentration cell?.-im all ears
Quote from: elecar on November 08, 2013, 08:13:41 AM
So is it your claim that the crack pipe remark is where my attitude to you changed ?
You must read further back. I do give you some credit though you did at least admit that the balls performance was better with the magnets than without them. I did have to pry that from you because it meant you would have to show a difference of opinion to TK.
Even so I thank you for your honesty on that occasion.
Anyone reading your response to my suggestion will see that the remark about the crack pipe is aimed at my suggestion as well as me. It would appear you're only form of deference when you don't like suggestions or questions is to be rude and derogatory towards people.
Here we are again I make a reasonable suggestion about the video and rather than answer that question you decide arguing with me about what you said is more important than proving your honesty.
So I will repeat the question again.
Can you please post the video you sent Libre on YouTube so everyone can see it or can a third party post it ?You state that video is genuine but Libre says it is not, I'm sure most of us would like to get the truth and avoiding the issue just makes you look guilty.
Bill did a great attempted smot a few years ago, i met the inventor of the first one, he lives in Australia. its a fun challenge to try and beat and good luck with that. Ultimately you have to overcome some laws of nature, never say never..but unlikely.
Best of Luck
PS TK is respected because of his logic and brilliance
Kind Regards
Mark
Quote from: elecar on November 08, 2013, 08:08:57 AM
And please do not pretend to not know what TK is all about, tell me conrad what does TKs latest replication video bring to the discussion ? Answer: Nothing at all it nothing but an attempt at mockery, it does nothing extraordinary except prove as I stated he is a moron, an idiot, a prick.
Well, TinselKoala might be sarcastic, but why not? The claims we hear in this OverUnity forum ask for more than sarcasm. In the last few years I never followed a discussion in this forum where TinselKoala was a moron or an idiot. None of his arguments has ever been proven wrong. And all the OU claims (about 3 or 4 per year) never materialised. And I have to admit, I like sarcasm more than unproven claims.
Now lets consider the following scenario:
Conrad meets Elcar and says: "Hi Elcar, I have this self looping set up which runs for hours. Nobody has ever achieved that, but I have after many trials and much work."
Elcar replies: "Oh, interesting, how does it work?"
Conrad answers: "Sorry, I can not tell you, it has to remain a secret till I have secured the idea. But you have to believe me, it is true, it really works."
Elcar says: "Well, I never believe anything which is not proven, sorry."
Conrad starts to be pissed: "I do not have to tell you anything. The only thing I can tell you now is that it really works and that you will have to wait for details till I am ready to give them to you."
Elcar is also heating up: "There is nothing to discuss till you provide details. Conventional science says it can not work. Come back to me when you are ready. For me the discussion is over."
Conrad cries out: "I need respect here. You insulted me by your insinuations. I am leaving now and will never talk to you again. You dare doubt my statements, prove that my machine can not work."
Elcar leaves an thinks that Conrad is an idiot. Conrad leaves and thinks that Elcar is an idiot.
Greetings, Conrad
@tinman..it is an oxygen concentration cell.2 same oxygen electrodes with different concentrations of oxygen upon them in a single electrolyte.
IMO
One of these days, someone is going to successfully tie into a previously UNTAPPED SOURCE OF ENERGY and share his result freely with others. And someone will successfully replicate.
This will not violate any "laws of physics," but rather, will represent a breakthrough energy source.
IMO.
@elecar:
So is the bottom line here that nothing "real" or "productive" will be shown until at least Nov. 19th??
Don't take me wrong, I really would like to see a working design, but after so many have proved out wrong, we get cynical. :(
truesearch
Quote from: markdansie on November 08, 2013, 08:33:43 AM
Bill did a great attempted smot a few years ago, i met the inventor of the first one, he lives in Australia. its a fun challenge to try and beat and good luck with that. Ultimately you have to overcome some laws of nature, never say never..but unlikely.
Best of Luck
PS TK is respected because of his logic and brilliance
Kind Regards
Mark
"TK is respected because of his logic and brilliance"
There would be more respect and brilliance if he would come up with his own over-unity device by making it public here, rather than trying to forcefully uncover "how other devices fail", or by trying to disprove devices from other individuals. If the device doesn't work, it will be obvious all by itself, when it is time for it to perform, or when it is explained by the individual.
Regards
Hilarious!
Sure, if I come up with a real overunity device, this is the very first place I'll be telling anyone about it. Right.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h6itJ1GkTqI
Let me drop a few names into your black hole funnel:
Archer Quinn.
Mylow.
Wayne Travis.
Rosemary Ainslie.
Fakers, liars and frauds each one, and each one had multiple threads here, wasting people's time and money with their false claims.
Quinn took money from people, never produced what he claimed, and vanished into the outback.
Mylow.... took money from people, got his brother to lie outrageously for him live on camera, invited Sterling to a site visit to see his apparatus, made many videos ... and was soundly proven to be a faker, by video analysis.
Wayne Travis could not produce credible evidence of his claims, had TWO site visits from Mark Dansie... and is now being sued by early investors for failure to deliver on his claims, and still cannot produce any evidence.
Rosemary Ainslie..... after years of insulting behaviour and false claims, being banned from this forum multiple times and other forums as well, even abandoned by her former supporters, also got other people to lie for her; tried to publish falsified data and was finally humiliated in public when she and her crew tried to reproduce their data AND COULD NOT DO IT in more-or-less public demonstrations that I had nothing at all to do with-- and was forced to issue retractions, even though she still dishonestly allows her "papers" with the fabricated data to exist on the internet.
Call me a moron and a prick all you like, it doesn't bother me. Mylows, Quinns, Travises, Ainslies, and the rest are much more creative in their insults. Each and every one of them levied many stronger insults against me, Ainslie even threatened me multiple times. The more I am insulted by claimants, the more certain I am that they cannot produce what they claim, and there is a LOT of history supporting that position. When the claimant even descends into insulting our host as elecar has begun to do, and even, like Ainslie, threatens HIM... then I know for certain that the claimant cannot produce credible evidence.
Quote from: webby1 on November 08, 2013, 10:00:22 AM
I find amusement in the fact that TK's snot video supports Elecars claim.
TK took the SMOT concept and boiled it down into a very simple setup, magnet in and out, gravity in and out and friction just out.
This is, with some artistic license,, the usual setup, and so if one were to work, then it must be a unique setup,, which is what Elecar claimed,, a unique method.
As a small side note,, TK might of provided a solution to the SMOT problem without realizing it,, to me is also funny :)
You think the video supports elecar's claim... but it doesn't seem like elecar agrees with you!
I told you before I posted the video that I could show you how to minimize losses in your track. I fully realize what I've shown and demonstrated. Let me say it again: Any "self looping smot" must incorporate the start position/ramp, whatever, into the looping. Mine does not, and neither do any of the videos from elecar that I have seen. Elecar CLAIMED a unique method but what he SHOWED is the same old, same old tired SMOT that doesn't work and doesn't ever bring the ball back up to the starting elevation. If he's got something else, he is perfectly free to show it off. If he actually has a patent application on the books, that right there is legal protection of his IP, retroactive to the date of his application.... IF the patent is actually granted.
You may note from several of elecar's recent posts that he can't figure out how to do what he has claimed he can do. Look at the trouble he _says_ he had making the video of several completed loops for LibreEnergia!
Quote from: Enormous Obstructionist Asshole on November 08, 2013, 08:07:41 AM
ok short-circuit it for 6weeks then check if it bounces straight up to its original power.ok short-circuit it for 12weeks and check if it reboots.ok short-circuit it for 24weeks and check if it reboots .ok short-circuit it for 48 weeks and check if it reboots.ok short-circuit it for 96 weeks and check if it reboots.you cant flatten it.you simply can-not even reduce it
So according to you anything that works for 96 weeks must work forever?
Quote from: TinselKoala on November 08, 2013, 05:12:40 AM
You have some kind of problem with comprehension. I don't think anyone -- except you -- would say, from reading this thread, that elecar did NOT claim to have a SMOT that was OU, that he was trying to patent it and that he was trying to sell it to a toy company. Further, he pretended to be able to teach us how to make an OU smot ourselves. Just as LibreEnergia and others have pointed out: any SMOT that self-loops is OU. What is the title of this thread?
What he "claimed to SHOW" is different from what he claimed to have.
What he DID show is the video I analyzed, which clearly shows just what I said it does, and I provided evidence for all to examine in the still frames from that video: energy storage in the system, that is all the energy returned, and no evidence of any progress towards a real self looping SMOT.
He also arrogantly claimed other things that aren't true, especially that nobody has ever seen a smot making two full turns. (We will ignore his paranoid accusations that I have "minions" who do my bidding and are interested in suppressing real Overunity... a claim that has been made before, but never with any shred of evidence in support.) Well, now you have seen the evidence that that last statement of his isn't true, and isn't even very difficult to do if one has a bit of skill in building and knowledge of just where losses come from. Most especially, it is easy if the input ramp isn't part of the "looping".
You complain about the cheese? Fine, you don't have to eat it. It's really not very good cheese anyway, a fake "light" mozzarella with basil.
But you DO have to look at the evidence: My apparatus uses a ramp that is not part of the loop; so does the device in elecar's video. My apparatus does NOT provide any extra energy by "cocking the magnetic spring" or "flicking the ball" into the track; elecar's does. My video clearly shows, with no hint of fakery, the ball making more than two full turns around the track... twice; elecar's does not.
Further, we now have a statement from someone who seems to know his business, that another video, clearly presented to LibreEnergia as _proof_ that elecar had what he CLAIMED TO HAVE, which is an OU SMOT self-looping ...... almost certainly has been faked. I haven't seen that video myself... and I don't know LibreEnergia, but his statements are a lot more credible on the face of it than elecar's are.
These are not straw man arguments, there, mister Happyfunball.
Quite the contrary, they are examinations of evidence that elecar himself provided in support of his claims of OU, and which clearly fail to do so. As I said in my analysis, even before LE began his, it appears that elecar may be willing to cheat to get his point across. Such things have happened before, even down to the insults and campaigns against the skeptics like me. Do you not recall Mylow?
In my analysis, supported by frame extracts from the video elecar posted, it can be clearly seen that he places the ball down on the track within the influence of the magnets, then pulls the ball back to the left, storing energy in the magnetic "spring", then flicks the ball to the right, giving it an additional KE boost into the track system. Elecar protests that he did not flick the ball... but the video clearly shows him doing so and the still frames clearly show the position of his fingers when the ball is being released: well to the right of the initial placement of the ball. Nobody but elecar has yet disputed my analysis.
Furthermore.... we have LibreEnergia's analysis of the other video which nobody else has seen yet, which arguably took more work than mine, and which seems to reveal much more willingness to cheat on elecar's part. Where does any of this fit into the definition of a "straw man" argument? In fact, happyfunball, it is you who are engaging in various fallacious arguments, including the straw man, but more than that, you are attacking ME personally rather than confronting the issues. You have no credibility, and with every insult, every instance of avoiding the issues, you are just proving that point more and more. Where is your work refuting my analysis, refuting LibreEnergia's analysis? Nowhere. Where is your work supporting elecar's claims, which most certainly include claims of OU performance from an apparatus he claims to possess? Nowhere. Instead, you choose, just as I predicted, to carry on your personal attacks against me, and you can't even provide proof or evidence for those. You especially can't provide any evidence of "mendacity" on my part.
Keep it up, you are only proving my points.
Eclair didn't claim that the setup HE SHOWED is OU. TK the attack dog felt the need to 'prove' it does not do what no one ever claimed it does. You complaining about being insulted is amazing. It seems what you considered insulting was being referred to as a megalomaniac. Surely there is no doubt about that being factual.
@sarkeizen aye,yes.any buttoncell that can be shorted for 96 weeks and reboot completely will last forever(except nuclear buttoncells)
Quote from: Enormous Obstructionist Asshole on November 08, 2013, 12:04:37 PM
@sarkeizen aye,yes.any buttoncell that can be shorted for 96 weeks and reboot completely will last forever(except nuclear buttoncells)
What? Now all of a sudden there's like five poorly defined qualifiers on your statement. Dishonest as usual EOA,
@Elecar
In the remake of the video for LibreEnergia could I suggest that you mark the ball bearing with a permanent marker pen, some dots or stripes.
I found this useful in finding out how the bearing spins slightly on its axis when passing the magnet array.
It is unfortunate that you will be leaving the forum here - can you PM me to let me know where you are going.
It would be great news if LibreEnergia can confirm to us that he has a genuine video that shows the ball completing around 20 loops.
So I look forward to seeing a post from him confirming this.
If you are local to me I could lend you a Sony HD camcorder + tripod to take a better video.
Meggerman
@sarkeizen..5 qualifiers?only one buttoncell can withstand this test.
Quote from: JouleSeeker on November 08, 2013, 09:21:47 AM
IMO
One of these days, someone is going to successfully tie into a previously UNTAPPED SOURCE OF ENERGY and share his result freely with others. And someone will successfully replicate.
This will not violate any "laws of physics," but rather, will represent a breakthrough energy source.
IMO.
So very true JS.
Then what will happen is the skeptics will say-oh yea,i didnt think about that.
Step by step we find answers in our(and others) experiments. Well two days ago,i found one answer to that puzzle-after many failed attemps. Through a combination of another fellows video,and some of my own changes,we now have a transformer that has 0 lenz effect when we draw of the secondary-even the tank coil outputs more power when we draw from the secondary-with 0 reflection on the power input-all thanks to the permanent magnet.
Hi,
over the years about the only thing that appears to gain from the use of permanent
magnets has been the Flynn's parallel path.
Has the tinman or Koala or other thinker looked into this and does it work as it seems?
Thanks. John.
""Magnets a source of energy""
Here is something interesting ,I wonder if this is what S Hartman was advertising [""Please vote for Chava and their new tech funding""]
Chava Energy Device works via Mechanical vibration and remote sensing??
*Chava has two U.S. Patents patents aimed at commercialization under the trademark of MagGen™. Patents #7,830,065 and #8,093,869 cover solid-state (no moving parts) magnetic generators. An early prototype produced an output, at a very low power level, of more than 100 times the input.
From here.
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/4864-donald-smith-devices-too-good-true-344.html#post242918 (http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/4864-donald-smith-devices-too-good-true-344.html#post242918)
Here is the Chava link mentioned in the above post
http://www.chavaenergy.com/how/maggen/ (http://www.chavaenergy.com/how/maggen/)
and the patent
https://www.google.com/patents/US7830065?pg=PA1&dq=2006/0163971&hl=en&sa=X&ei=LXF7UujZF7GvigKL1YHYBQ&ved=0CDkQ6AEwAA (https://www.google.com/patents/US7830065?pg=PA1&dq=2006/0163971&hl=en&sa=X&ei=LXF7UujZF7GvigKL1YHYBQ&ved=0CDkQ6AEwAA)
Graham Gunderson Patent a Florida company will sell It?
--------------------------------------------------------
@TinMan
Quote
Through a combination of another fellows video,and some of my own changes,we now have a transformer that has 0 lenz effect when we draw of the secondary-even the tank coil outputs more power when we draw from the secondary-with 0 reflection on the power input-all thanks to the permanent magnet.
seems You have a nice discovery there with the help of the Humble Powerless magnet?
Thx
Chet
When maagnet is source of energy, gravity should also be a source of energy because both are fields so also electric field.
Can somebody make a "Simple Gravity Overunity Toy" ? (SGOT)
Can somebody make a "Simple ElectroStatic Overunity Toy"? (SESOT)
Quote from: tinman on November 08, 2013, 10:55:24 PM
So very true JS.
Then what will happen is the skeptics will say-oh yea,i didnt think about that.
Step by step we find answers in our(and others) experiments. Well two days ago,i found one answer to that puzzle-after many failed attemps. Through a combination of another fellows video,and some of my own changes,we now have a transformer that has 0 lenz effect when we draw of the secondary-even the tank coil outputs more power when we draw from the secondary-with 0 reflection on the power input-all thanks to the permanent magnet.
OK, I like experimental results as you know. I sure would like to know how you do this trick! "we now have a transformer that has 0 lenz effect when we draw of the secondary-even the tank coil outputs more power when we draw from the secondary-with 0 reflection on the power input-all thanks to the permanent magnet."
Perhaps on another thread (since your transformer is not a SMOT)..
Please let me know if you decide to disclose further info -- where you would put this information (perhaps by PM?)
Quote from: Enormous Obstructionist Asshole on November 08, 2013, 06:01:59 PM
@sarkeizen..5 qualifiers?
You added a whole bunch of poorly defined terms to an argument that was close to clearly defined. This is your usual dishonesty I take it.
Quote from: JouleSeeker on November 09, 2013, 09:55:10 AM
OK, I like experimental results as you know. I sure would like to know how you do this trick! "we now have a transformer that has 0 lenz effect when we draw of the secondary-even the tank coil outputs more power when we draw from the secondary-with 0 reflection on the power input-all thanks to the permanent magnet."
Perhaps on another thread (since your transformer is not a SMOT)..
Please let me know if you decide to disclose further info -- where you would put this information (perhaps by PM?)
Hi JS
I have just started the thread on my forum,and setup rundown video is up on YT and also on the thread.
http://iaec.forumco.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=1367
@sarkeizen like i said man,we refund if yo baddery drops yo ass ina middle of a calculation namsayn.re-fund man.re...fund namsayn
Quote from: TinselKoala on November 08, 2013, 10:08:57 AM
Hilarious!
Sure, if I come up with a real overunity device, this is the very first place I'll be telling anyone about it. Right.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h6itJ1GkTqI (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h6itJ1GkTqI)
Let me drop a few names into your black hole funnel:
Archer Quinn.
Mylow.
Wayne Travis.
Rosemary Ainslie.
Fakers, liars and frauds each one, and each one had multiple threads here, wasting people's time and money with their false claims.
Quinn took money from people, never produced what he claimed, and vanished into the outback.
Mylow.... took money from people, got his brother to lie outrageously for him live on camera, invited Sterling to a site visit to see his apparatus, made many videos ... and was soundly proven to be a faker, by video analysis.
Wayne Travis could not produce credible evidence of his claims, had TWO site visits from Mark Dansie... and is now being sued by early investors for failure to deliver on his claims, and still cannot produce any evidence.
Rosemary Ainslie..... after years of insulting behaviour and false claims, being banned from this forum multiple times and other forums as well, even abandoned by her former supporters, also got other people to lie for her; tried to publish falsified data and was finally humiliated in public when she and her crew tried to reproduce their data AND COULD NOT DO IT in more-or-less public demonstrations that I had nothing at all to do with-- and was forced to issue retractions, even though she still dishonestly allows her "papers" with the fabricated data to exist on the internet.
Call me a moron and a prick all you like, it doesn't bother me. Mylows, Quinns, Travises, Ainslies, and the rest are much more creative in their insults. Each and every one of them levied many stronger insults against me, Ainslie even threatened me multiple times. The more I am insulted by claimants, the more certain I am that they cannot produce what they claim, and there is a LOT of history supporting that position. When the claimant even descends into insulting our host as elecar has begun to do, and even, like Ainslie, threatens HIM... then I know for certain that the claimant cannot produce credible evidence.
For what its worth, I think you are the most reasonable, level headed and smartest person on this forum. I admire your persistence with these people (I gather in hope to one day actually see free energy?, well, thats my reason for sticking around any ways).
I hope you stay here and continue to tell it how it is!
You fight your battles with logic, reason and evidence... I can hardly say the same for your opponents.
Keep up the good work :)
Poit
Quote from: JouleSeeker on November 09, 2013, 03:55:10 PM (http://www.overunity.com/13879/building-a-self-looping-smot/msg376484/#msg376484)
OK, I like experimental results as you know. I sure would like to know how you do this trick!
TinMan
Quote
"we now have a transformer that has 0 lenz effect when we draw of the secondary-even the tank coil outputs more power when we draw from the secondary-with 0 reflection on the power input-all thanks to the permanent magnet."
Perhaps on another thread (since your transformer is not a SMOT)..
Please let me know if you decide to disclose further info -- where you would put this information (perhaps by PM?)
TinMan
Quote
Hi JS
I have just started the thread on my forum,and setup rundown video is up on YT and also on the thread.
http://iaec.forumco.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=1367 (http://iaec.forumco.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=1367)
------------------------------------------------------------
@TinMan Can the thread be seen with out Membership? I just get a Front page sign in ?
thx
Chet
Quote from: ramset on November 10, 2013, 08:14:55 AM
Quote from: JouleSeeker on November 09, 2013, 03:55:10 PM (http://www.overunity.com/13879/building-a-self-looping-smot/msg376484/#msg376484)
OK, I like experimental results as you know. I sure would like to know how you do this trick!
TinMan
Quote
"we now have a transformer that has 0 lenz effect when we draw of the secondary-even the tank coil outputs more power when we draw from the secondary-with 0 reflection on the power input-all thanks to the permanent magnet."
Perhaps on another thread (since your transformer is not a SMOT)..
Please let me know if you decide to disclose further info -- where you would put this information (perhaps by PM?)
TinMan
Quote
Hi JS
I have just started the thread on my forum,and setup rundown video is up on YT and also on the thread.
http://iaec.forumco.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=1367 (http://iaec.forumco.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=1367)
------------------------------------------------------------
@TinMan Can the thread be seen with out Membership? I just get a Front page sign in ?
thx
Chet
Chet-you are already a mamber lol-you forget?
I will open a thread here,so as all here can view without joining my forum.
TinMan
I understand that,some folks don't like joining just to View??
I see you started that thread Here
http://www.overunity.com/13993/the-magneformer-lenzless-transformer/msg376591/#new (http://www.overunity.com/13993/the-magneformer-lenzless-transformer/msg376591/#new)
thank you for sharing
Chet
Quote from: Michael Q Shaw on October 30, 2013, 07:54:16 PM
Sorry to hear that Meggerman, I will still not give up on my Propulsion track, I have seen it work, I know it works, I just need to connect them at the transition, just one inch between wining or loosing, just one inch between living and dying will make all the difference.
Long time Lurker.............................but I was active on the discovery channel forums 3 years back.
Remember back then Michael ?
You claimed that senior officers at your military base saw a complete working full cycle SMOT.
Just curious what happened to that one ?
I thought you would be a household name by now.
Good to know at least that "big Oil" did not dispatch you.
Hi,
just wondering if anyone has made progress.
Is there any way something like a ferrofluid
could be of use of?
John.
Today is Nov 19th and I remember Elecar promised more after the 18th.
Is my memory correct?
Norman
"After the 18th" covers a lot of territory.
But think about it. How many times has someone on this forum promised to show you something "after" some date... and then never does? How many times has someone promised to "teach" you how to build some kind of overunity device... then fails to do so?
Quote from: TinselKoala on November 19, 2013, 09:38:48 AM
"After the 18th" covers a lot of territory.
But think about it. How many times has someone on this forum promised to show you something "after" some date... and then never does? How many times has someone promised to "teach" you how to build some kind of overunity device... then fails to do so?
Lots ;D
And this will be one more for the list.
@webbly,
What do you have there? a v-gate with a Halbach Array??
Can you share what you found?
Quotefigured it out
truesearch
@webbly1:
Hey, thanks for your constructive description. I appreciate seeing that round here :)
Another question: is that a "metal" surface under your AHLE array? It looks similar to light gauge steel (ie roof flashing)?
Also, what orientation are your magnet poles facing?
truesearch
@webbly1:
Thanks again for all the info you are sharing on this area. I hope you keep posting your research.
Unfortunately, I don't have ANYWHERE NEAR enough of the same size/shape of magnets to try this :(
truesearch
Self looping SMOT!!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EBPPc_JAm6g
When magnets are kept below the track, the ball will be attracted to the magnet with tremendous force increasing the friction several folds between ball and track. Will the ball move so freely as shown in the video?
Quote from: Newton II on November 21, 2013, 07:46:00 AM
Self looping SMOT!!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EBPPc_JAm6g (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EBPPc_JAm6g)
When magnets are kept below the track, the ball will be attracted to the magnet with tremendous force increasing the friction several folds between ball and track. Will the ball move so freely as shown in the video?
Since that was published back in 2010 my red flag raises. Why nothing done or heard of since then?
Where is Elecar?
Norman
Quote from: Newton II on November 21, 2013, 07:46:00 AM
Self looping SMOT!!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EBPPc_JAm6g (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EBPPc_JAm6g)
When magnets are kept below the track, the ball will be attracted to the magnet with tremendous force increasing the friction several folds between ball and track. Will the ball move so freely as shown in the video?
The only self looping going on here is the video, look closely when the ball reaches the 9.00 o' clock position, I am no video expert but that looks like a looping video ? and since elecar has not come back to defend himself over the same issue it now looks like he was making a false claim all along.
It is definitely a fake video.
When ball moves on a track, if its motion is underunity then it slows down its motion and stops at some point on the track after making few oscillations. If its motion is overunity then its speed should go up after the completion of every cycle. So after some times it cannot stay on the track. It will simply fly off tangent out of the track at some point.
People who make faulty claims and fake videos should atleast have some common sense.
Quote from: Newton II on November 21, 2013, 10:20:55 AM
It is definitely a fake video.
When ball moves on a track, if its motion is underunity then it slows down its motion and stops at some point on the track after making few oscillations. If its motion is overunity then its speed should go up after the completion of every cycle. So after some times it cannot stay on the track. It will simply fly off tangent out of the track at some point.
People who make faulty claims and fake videos should atleast have some common sense.
True that last part, but the first part is not entirely correct.
It is conceivable (in dreams) that the "free energy" coming in could equal the system's losses at some speed before the ball flies off the track, and then the ball will maintain a constant speed, or at least a constant loop time, around the track. You can check my latest video for an illustration of this. I'm putting in just the same amount of energy that is being dissipated in losses, so the ball reaches and maintains a constant loop time.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3CKf5dUBmIU (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3CKf5dUBmIU)
This apparatus, with some extra smoothing and levelling, now maintains a consistent loop time of under 2 seconds. I've seen loops of under 1.7 seconds and haven't yet had the ball fly off the track.
And in answer to "where's elecar"... he's posting garbled links in another thread to Yet Another Battery-Powered Free Energy Device. Not quite what he promised, is it?
ETA: The Tornzee video on the train track, _ad supported_ and comments disabled, is definitely fake, you can even see the splice point as the ball passes thru the 9 o'clock position. Forget the ball and watch the color of the purplish blot at top left.
The flash gun that goes off at 9:00 is nearly blinding.
Oh please.
Why be so obtuse? Please tell us what you really mean... In clear, concise, King's English.
Cheers,
M.
Mondrasek:
My comments were related to something I posted before. If you look at the clip and kind of let yourself go into a trance, you feel the "rhythm" of the clip. You can even let your eyes go out of focus a touch. Then you sense the rhythm, which is the repeated looping in the clip. The intensity change in the white background at the discontinuity becomes more pronounced, and then you can psych yourself up to amplify the intensity jump in your mind, and that is the "flash." Once you are aware of it you can't miss it.
In fact this is a very easy one to spot, most people will see it. A quick glance at the YouTube comments showed that many also didn't see it. It's when people do a really good job of making a near-seamless video loop is when it's possible to fool the majority of people. That's when you have to really do the trance thing in order to spot it.
Then you can also look at the binary data in the video file itself and compare frames which came as a surprise to the gentleman with the marble-track style !SMOT.
MileHigh
Quote from: mondrasek on November 23, 2013, 04:38:56 PM
Oh please.
Why be so obtuse? Please tell us what you really mean... In clear, concise, King's English.
Cheers,
M.
I believe MH is referring to the ad-enabled, comment disabled, video of the ball on the railroad track:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EBPPc_JAm6g
As the ball passes through the 9-o'clock position, or thereabouts, you can see the splice point due to the color shift. MH calls this the "blinding flash" in the overall illumination and white balance; I notice it more by looking at the purplish blob on the top left of the frame area. It is very obvious once you stop looking at the "red herring" of the ball's motion.
Then he makes the point that a frame-by-frame analysis of the actual digital data, looking at the numbers instead of the image built from them, will reveal the looping due to exact repetition of strings of bits, just as LibreEnergia found for elecar's presumed spliced looping. (I still haven't seen that particular video myself.) A cleverer faker might take ten or twelve copies of the same loop, transcode them each into a different format, each with slightly different parameters, then smoothly join them with a non-linear video editor. This would probably alter the individual bit strings from loop to loop enough to stymie a simple digital analysis.
Even better would be to fake the ball looping itself, for example by making the track into a "railgun" (providing a tiny invisible gap so that it didn't really make a full closed circle) and letting the ball be the "projectile" accelerated by the current in the rails. Or tiny jets of compressed air beneath the track, etc. etc. A simple single EM system like my SNOT testbed would be revealed by a careful analysis of the ball's speed, as it slows everywhere but actually at the electromagnet where it accelerates abruptly. Or the camera could be rigidly mounted, fixed to the track platform itself, and the whole platform/camera system could be gently rocked back and forth by a tilted plate or lever arrangement on a slow motor. Or about a dozen other ways I can think of.
When confronted with videos like that, it's hard to do anything other than mock them.
Quote from: TinselKoala on November 21, 2013, 02:53:32 PM
True that last part, but the first part is not entirely correct.
It is conceivable (in dreams) that the "free energy" coming in could equal the system's losses at some speed before the ball flies off the track, and then the ball will maintain a constant speed, or at least a constant loop time, around the track. You can check my latest video for an illustration of this. I'm putting in just the same amount of energy that is being dissipated in losses, so the ball reaches and maintains a constant loop time.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3CKf5dUBmIU (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3CKf5dUBmIU)
This apparatus, with some extra smoothing and levelling, now maintains a consistent loop time of under 2 seconds. I've seen loops of under 1.7 seconds and haven't yet had the ball fly off the track.
And in answer to "where's elecar"... he's posting garbled links in another thread to Yet Another Battery-Powered Free Energy Device. Not quite what he promised, is it?
ETA: The Tornzee video on the train track, _ad supported_ and comments disabled, is definitely fake, you can even see the splice point as the ball passes thru the 9 o'clock position. Forget the ball and watch the color of the purplish blot at top left.
WRT your interesting SNOT, as I have been banned from comment these last few years, Ill stick one here if its not too OT;
Deslomeslager of a week ago was the first thing that springs to mind; in anything except a straight parallel track, there will not only be rolling friction, but the bearing will be dragging / slipping on one side or the other and effectively rotating in a plane parallel to the board. Its attempting to travel a different distance on each side after all, about 6cm difference for rails of radius 19cm and 20cm for instance.
As the magnet lifts the ball slightly out of the track, the friction / dragging will be reduced on the opposite side for a period.
I think that also suggests an easy way to test; if you try the same experiment with a track of much smaller / much larger radius, the difference in distance on either side will change, and the relative effect of the magnet will be increased / reduced as the tendency to twist changes.
There would come a point where the magnet will actually scrub more energy off the ball as it will induce a twist with corresponding increased drag where there would have been none (and eddy currents as already mentioned). I think.
Since Elecar never got back to me with a video I would consider genuine I have posted the faked video here http://youtu.be/SIL_MiuFmHE on you tube. You don't even need to analyse it to the extent that I did. Evidence of the splice is visible simply by viewing it.
Quote from: LibreEnergia on December 09, 2013, 07:39:03 AM
Since Elecar never got back to me with a video I would consider genuine I have posted the faked video here http://youtu.be/SIL_MiuFmHE (http://youtu.be/SIL_MiuFmHE) on you tube. You don't even need to analyse it to the extent that I did. Evidence of the splice is visible simply by viewing it.
I looked at the video again and I can see the identical sequences.
It is a shame, Elecar did interesting research but his will to do the impossible overtook him and he got a bit carried away.
He tried to back paddle by saying he never said that it is a true self looping SMOT, just many rounds. He talked of about 12 to 20 rounds, which was again over confident.
So be it, may be he comes back and shows what he realy has. It might be good, if not OU.
I wish people were a bit more realistic. Many interesting things are presented, but it is very bad how fast people jump to irreal conclusions.
Greetings, Conrad
What "I" found interesting about this approach was the use of the "back" energy that elecar refered to in his posts. I hope he comes back and shows us a working smot.
Bill
Quote from: conradelektro on December 09, 2013, 03:36:10 PM
I looked at the video again and I can see the identical sequences.
It is a shame, Elecar did interesting research but his will to do the impossible overtook him and he got a bit carried away.
He tried to back paddle by saying he never said that it is a true self looping SMOT, just many rounds. He talked of about 12 to 20 rounds, which was again over confident.
So be it, may be he comes back and shows what he realy has. It might be good, if not OU.
I wish people were a bit more realistic. Many interesting things are presented, but it is very bad how fast people jump to irreal conclusions.
Greetings, Conrad
Conrad:
I really admire your attitude. You appear to be a really good guy. I agree with your observations of this saga. Sometimes folks feel they are so close to getting it that they fudge a bit. I forgive this much easier than someone who wants to sell something that does not work to other unsuspecting persons. It is still sad but, I agree with what you posted.
Bill
Sorry for delay, for those who wrote earlier been very busy.
Hi Maw2432, Truesearch, Lumen.
Thanks.
Hi All,
These are just some observations from my simple experiments.
- A ball going up an inclined ramp and falling off due to a break or end will lose energy because it is being pulled back by the magnet. It's too close to the field.
- A ball going up a the ramp but has an incline to one side, the ball starts to arc away. This adds a spin to the ball which you can see when the ball hits a stationary object. The best track length to observe this effect 3/4 straight track and the end 1/4 the incline. For a 6" track = 4.5", last 1.5" incline.
- A 2cm diameter steel sphere placed on the track at an incline will push a 4cm diameter glass marble up the slope. When the sphere stops at the end the marble will continue for a while depending on magnets and slope. With a 6" ferrite bar magnet. I tried to get the 2cm sphere to push a 8cm diameter marble garden sphere but it didn't budge. :)
- I've tried to get two ramps parallel with no luck. The cross fields for the smaller track have been interfering with each other and the fields each have their own non consistent falloff which means one design that works fine for one set of magnets won't work fine for the next set.
- Using a magnetic field detector when you place the steel ball next to a north facing magnet the outside of the sphere will read N and the inside S. As you pull the ball further away from the magnetic field at a certain distance you can no longer measure the north on the furthest side of the sphere but you can measure just the south on the side pointing towards the magnet. This is the breakaway distance.
- I find ferrite magnets are very loose in the field, more of smooth pull than a sharp pull like neos.
- Ferrites have one issue which makes them very hard to work with. The same sized magnets field strengths are inconsistent. This can be tested with the effect above by slowly pulling the sphere away from the magnet and measuring the distance when you start to lose the north field. At around 1.5-2cm with a +/-5mm error was observed from supposedly the same 1"x2"x1/4" block magnets. This may not seem like a lot but when you want to arc away it becomes important, one set will work fine and then next you would have to completely re-measure for the next set.
- Kind of off this topic but I placed the steel sphere at the gate of the MMD track and it pulled the sphere in to the end and stopped. This opens an idea of front loading the MMD rotor with a steel wedge to get it to pull just enough in the gate to get the stronger repelling fields to push it out. It's an untested idea.
Found this patent which is something similar, using steel spheres to give a forward attraction event through the gates once past the gate the repulsion from the magnets takes over to next gate.
WO2011015693: LINEAR TRANSPORT SYSTEM BY MEANS OF PERMANENT MAGNETIC FIELDS
http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?CC=WO&NR=2011015693A2&KC=A2&FT=D
Hopefully some of these observations can inspire a new idea. Right now I don't see it as generating the kind of power to lower the utility bill which is my overall goal.
Sometimes you have to build a problem to see the problem. Happy holidays. :)
I had a theory that if you placed SMOTS ( or v-gates, or railguns, etc ) all in a single file, right around a perfectly flat planet, that it could possibly be a perpetual-motion device.
So, could that be an experiment for space, to put a perfectly round structure in space, and then put a single file of SMOTS ( or v-gates, or railguns, etc ), and see if it would function .
But, maybe it could actually be done on earth.
- You could put the SMOTS ( or v-gates, or railguns, etc ) on their sides, all in a single file, in a large circle, and, maybe the metal-ball could be placed into a magnetic-sled that would glide-above the stators .
You could possibly adapt the magnetic-sled I posted on http://overunity.com/16295/all-permanent-magnet-complete-levitation/msg469597/#msg469597
Quote from: elecar on October 08, 2013, 03:34:35 PM
To date no one has looped a SMOT,...
Have you tried SMOT without magnets? I have some examples of a proven experiment at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IzbuVeHXDrA (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IzbuVeHXDrA)
Worth a try.
Quote from: NathanCoppedge on April 04, 2016, 04:56:30 PM
Have you tried SMOT without magnets? I have some examples of a proven experiment at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IzbuVeHXDrA (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IzbuVeHXDrA)
Worth a try.
A SMOT without magnets would be a SOT.
Bill
Quote from: NathanCoppedge on April 04, 2016, 04:56:30 PM
Have you tried SMOT without magnets? I have some examples of a proven experiment at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IzbuVeHXDrA (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IzbuVeHXDrA)
Worth a try.
No, you don't.
SMOT, not another useless idea ? this has a sort of Doc Cox thing about it ;) Self Magnet Over T, what does that mean ? Self-winking Magnetic over unity T ?.
hA, hA, hA, ;)
Self Looping Magnetic over unity T, t what ? ;))))) still ain't Smot !
Oh I know how about dumping the hidden battery and having a swing generator, anyone thought of that ? it's resonance oh but not a self-starter oh well back to the drawing board! ;)