Overunity.com Archives

I came across Patrick Harris many years ago, he is the one that brought for his theories and tests on the Theory of Magnetic Instability, aka TOMI.

He stated at that time, many years ago, that he had what he called a FLAPPER, and that it CONTINUOUSLY ROTATED. I have his actual words on all of this somewhere.

Needless to say, I am all but sure he is already dead now. He was dying at the time, and in very bad health. He was already frustrated with all the bashing that went on in regard to his TOMI experiments and how people wouldn't even try his experiments and merely armchair-bash him.


Anyway, for all of you who have wanted to link SMOTs up in a circle or know that there is FE involved in the SMOT but don't know quite how to tap it to make a self-runner, I give you this: The Flapper of Patrick Harris.

Maybe this is old news to you all, if so, great, just look at the video and say how nice the graphics are. For those of you that have been looking for a way to make the SMOT continuously moving, this might just be your way, after all, Harris said it worked for him!

The video below shows how the rotating piece would basically move, the supports and all that are not shown. The idea is that once the ball from the SMOT gets to the end of the ramp and moves a bit from the magnets, the weight is great enough that the ramp breaks free, like a pendulum and EASILY brings the SMOT ball back to its original position, where the ramp would have to lock back into place via a simple mechanical one-way locking/holding mechanism. The SMOT ramp would have to have a greater incline than is shown in the video, but you get the point! Harris was able to achieve a greater than 25% incline easily, so he never had issues.

I will not be attempting this anytime soon, but I felt that you all might want to have the idea regardless, considering many/most people have never heard of Harris's FLAPPER, or that he claimed it continuously rotated!

Enjoy...

Thank you, Tao. I so often enjoy your informative posts here on the forum; and that was nice clear animation you did there. Ingenious idea.

I was nor aware one could accomplish a 25% rise with a smot; and this seems the first construction hurdle to reach that would deliver the needed energy to accomplish the pendulum swing.

j

Quote from: JamesThomas on August 08, 2007, 04:36:07 PM
Thank you, Tao. I so often enjoy your informative posts here on the forum; and that was nice clear animation you did there. Ingenious idea.

I was nor aware one could accomplish a 25% rise with a smot; and this seems the first construction hurdle to reach that would deliver the needed energy to accomplish the pendulum swing.

j

Harris achieved a greater than 25% slope with his TOMI principle, it is MUCH different than the SMOT principle.

But, instead of increasing the SMOT's slope, you could always just use a longer ramp. A longer ramp on a SMOT would allow the ball to reach a higher height, and then the ramp as a PENDULUM should be able to get back to the starting point.

Unrecognized codec.

Edited: nevermind, sorry.

I also can not view the video on this computer. Could someone upload it to youtube?

Thanks in advance,
~Dingus Mungus

What is the difference between this idea and just letting the ball roll back along a fixed track?

Quote from: ken_nyus on August 09, 2007, 07:35:50 AM
What is the difference between this idea and just letting the ball roll back along a fixed track?

The first difference is that the ball doesn't have to travel out from the ramp and around the SMOT magnets and enter back into the SMOT ramp in a normal parallel fashion. In this FLAPPER setup, the ball arrives at the ramp perpendicular to the SMOT magnets. Envision what I mean. The FLAPPER setup is like you are placing the ball onto the SMOT from ABOVE/BELOW (perpendicular) to the SMOT ramp and magnets, whereas the track method of returning the ball can only return the ball parallel to the SMOT ramp and magnets, like if you pushed the ball into a normal SMOT ramp instead of placing the ball from above.

The other difference is that instead of having the ball roll around on the track, the whole time experiencing loss due to friction, all be it little, whereas in the FLAPPER setup the friction is only for a shorter period of time and it is the friction the rotor's axis experiences.

But the ball can follow a track that takes the exact same path that the pendulum does.

I do see the point about the rolling friction, but is this really more friction than the bearing that the pendulum would rotate on?

My understanding is that rolling friction is extremely small.

I think this could work... It takes less force to pull the ball up or down than to pull it forward out of the track. Gravity might be just enough to pull it out.. I'll give this one a try and see...




The only way to Validate is to Replicate!

@tao,

Thanks a lot for the beautiful rendition. If this works SMOT will have a direct practical application not just an undeniable demo for the reality of overunity. To make it work, though, it would need a lot of tuning up. The problem, as I see it, is that not only the excess energy is probably comparable to the losses but it isn't obtained in the form it can be used--for instance, the ball exits the ramp almost horizontally bumping into the frame in a direction which doesn't favor the rotation of the frame. I hope, however, it would be within reach of a skillful experimenter. Once again, that is a really interesting construction. Too bad no records have been left of its realization by the inventor.

Quote from: Omnibus on August 10, 2007, 09:38:28 AM
@tao,

Thanks a lot for the beautiful rendition. If this works SMOT will have a direct practical application not just an undeniable demo for the reality of overunity. To make it work, though, it would need a lot of tuning up. The problem, as I see it, is that not only the excess energy is probably comparable to the losses but it isn't obtained in the form it can be used--for instance, the ball exits the ramp almost horizontally bumping into the frame in a direction which doesn't favor the rotation of the frame. I hope, however, it would be within reach of a skillful experimenter. Once again, that is a really interesting construction. Too bad no records have been left of its realization by the inventor.

I do have the descriptions from Patrick Harris himself, concerning his TOMI FLAPPER.

Please note that my animation is just that, an animation showing the basic principle. The ramp would have to have a decent incline angle (the reason I have the ramp almost horizontal is because it was easier to animate) to it and be a good length. It would then be possible via the pendulum to get the ball back to the starting point. There are a lot of variables, for sure.

Quote from: tao on August 10, 2007, 09:46:00 AM
I do have the descriptions from Patrick Harris himself, concerning his TOMI FLAPPER.

Won't you be interested in replicating it? Seems like a very interesting project.

Quote from: Omnibus on August 10, 2007, 11:05:59 AM

Quote from: tao on August 10, 2007, 09:46:00 AM
I do have the descriptions from Patrick Harris himself, concerning his TOMI FLAPPER.

Won't you be interested in replicating it? Seems like a very interesting project.

I have been interested in replicating it since I saw Harris's information on it all, leading me to believe almost without a doubt that he did have a continuously running FLAPPER. His of course used the TOMI technology though. The initial drawbacks for me at the time, some years back now, were money and time and mechanical construction skill.

Do you have the exact blueprints and would you be willing to share them?

Quote from: Omnibus on August 10, 2007, 01:40:34 PM
Do you have the exact blueprints and would you be willing to share them?

I would be willing to share them if I had them, but I do have enough information as to recreate the device, and I do have a nice 3d model (which I made) and everything.

I am going on a bit of a vacation this weekend starting after work, so I won't have time to get home and post it all. So, I will post what I have, it isn't mounds of information, but it is what I have accumulated, researched. This will happen probably Sunday or soon enough after...

Here is a picture of my 3D model, it appears I did have a copy outside of my home computer.

I also made a fly-around DIVX animation for all you to see how this 'flapper' is setup...

I still need to get all the actual information, that is still gonna take some days for that stuff.

Sorry for an off topic question but what program did you use to make that graphic? Also I didn't know a TOMI track was ever proven to work?

Tim

I'm not able to see any of the avi's but I'm very interested. Missing codec.
/Eric

You need to download and install DivX 4 (OpenDivX).
http://www.divx-digest.com/software/divxcodec4.html

G'day all,

Bishop John Wilkins ( 1614 - 1672 ) would be absolutely delighted to see these pages on the internet.

In case you have never heard of him, here is a little history lesson that I can assure you is on the subject under discussion.


Bishop John Wilkins is probably best known as a founder and first secretary to the British Royal Society (founded in 1660 and received the Royal Charter in 1662). He compiled several books during a period in history when the "magical arts" were being overtaken by "scientific and mechanical arts", and people began to realize that many things once thought magical could be understood by science.

In 1648 he published a book called: "Mathematical Magick or the wonders that may be performed by mechanical geometry".

In this book Wilkins discusses the 'difficulty' of achieving perpetual motion, and considers in detail a device attributed by Schott (in his 1659 "Thaumaturgus Physicus, sive Magiae Universalis Naturae et Artis") to Johannes Taisnierus [Dircks, 1870, p. 93]. It consists of two tilted ramps, an iron ball, and a magnetic lodestone fastened at the top. [This was a "clad" lodestone, a natural chunk of magnetic ore encased in an iron ball, such as used in Gilbert's experiments.] The lodestone at the top (A) pulled the ball (F) up the straight ramp, where it fell through the hole (B) to the lower ramp, rolled down, and through another hole (F) to the straight ramp where it was pulled up again.

After a detailed discussion of practical difficulties, Wilkins finally gets to the bottom line, noting that "the bullet would not fall down through the hole, but ascend to the stone." But he still has some hope that such a device might be made to work.



See anything familiar?

Hans von Lieven

What's the point of your little condescending blabbering trivialities? Yours is some useless  text of a well-known unsuccessful effort. @tao's is still to be studied and the fact that someone has been unsuccessful doesn't mean @tao will be. It's like telling us that because you don't have any talent everybody else doesn't have talent.

G'day Omnibus and all,

The point is that nothing has changed, By simply re-arranging a lot of magnets nothing changes in the actual forces at play.
No really new element has been introduced into the setup.

The SMOT idea works in EXACTLY the same way as that historical device with EXACTLY the same outcome.

Hans von Lieven

@tao

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

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

@omnibus 

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

Quote from: hansvonlieven on August 30, 2007, 05:23:37 PM
G'day Omnibus and all,

The point is that nothing has changed, By simply re-arranging a lot of magnets nothing changes in the actual forces at play.
No really new element has been introduced into the setup.

The SMOT idea works in EXACTLY the same way as that historical device with EXACTLY the same outcome.

Hans von Lieven

No, it doesn't. It doesnt work in exactly the same way. Absolutely not. Q working model should be a result of fine-tuning which hasn't been applied to the medieval trial. A broken watch looks exactly the same as a working one but they in fact differ, the non-working watch doesn't work while the working ticks.

Quote from: Humbugger on August 30, 2007, 08:02:02 PM
@tao

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

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

@omnibus 

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

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

Quote from: Humbugger on August 30, 2007, 08:02:02 PM
@tao

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Humbugger

Quote from: Humbugger on August 31, 2007, 02:45:29 AM
The second model obviously cannot rotate as drawn (the vertical supports are too short), nor is it symmetrical about the pivot point, top and bottom or end to end (as drawn), so I assumed, given those very strong visual clues, that it rocked like a seesaw.  I guess that's the source of my confusion.  Beautiful rendering but not effective at communicating the mode of operation, in my opinion. 

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

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

Humbugger

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

:D

~Dingus Mungus

Quote from: Dingus Mungus on August 31, 2007, 04:59:51 PM

Quote from: Humbugger on August 31, 2007, 02:45:29 AM
The second model obviously cannot rotate as drawn (the vertical supports are too short), nor is it symmetrical about the pivot point, top and bottom or end to end (as drawn), so I assumed, given those very strong visual clues, that it rocked like a seesaw.  I guess that's the source of my confusion.  Beautiful rendering but not effective at communicating the mode of operation, in my opinion. 

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

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

Humbugger

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

:D

~Dingus Mungus

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

Quote from: Omnibus on August 31, 2007, 11:46:03 PM
This is impudent nonsense which you continue to spew shamelessly. This should stop. It has been proven conclusively that SMOT violates CoE.

Believe it or not, I really hope that your correct and this device could work.
The supporting evidence simply has not impressed or convinced me yet.
I wish you luck in your experiments, but I still see no evidence of OU.

~Dingus Mungus

P.S. Can you post a link for all naysayers to the "conclusive" proof?
I hope this is much more conclusive then previous demos I've seen.

Quote from: Dingus Mungus on September 01, 2007, 12:55:14 AM

Quote from: Omnibus on August 31, 2007, 11:46:03 PM
This is impudent nonsense which you continue to spew shamelessly. This should stop. It has been proven conclusively that SMOT violates CoE.

Believe it or not, I really hope that your correct and this device could work.
The supporting evidence simply has not impressed or convinced me yet.
I wish you luck in your experiments, but I still see no evidence of OU.

~Dingus Mungus

P.S. Can you post a link for all naysayers to the "conclusive" proof?
I hope this is much more conclusive then previous demos I've seen.

You're incompetent and whether or not you're convinced doesn't matter one bit. It would be prudent if you become more humble and be less categorical in your opinions. While this is a free forum and anyone can post anything, even nonsense, those concerned with the integrity of the field must also feel the freedom to make notes when incompetents such as you are trying to overwhelm the discussions.

Can I still get that link?

Gravitational potential energy is measured as pe=GMh there for any loss in hieght is a conversion of potential energy. This is not nonsense... If there is an OU SMOT then it would return its ball to the original starting hieght or position, and either of those would be adiquate enough to prove your point.

Again good luck on your experiments.
~Dingus Mungus

Quote from: Dingus Mungus on September 01, 2007, 03:24:49 AM
Can I still get that link?

Gravitational potential energy is measured as pe=GMh there for any loss in hieght is a conversion of potential energy. This is not nonsense... If there is an OU SMOT then it would return its ball to the original starting hieght or position, and either of those would be adiquate enough to prove your point.

Again good luck on your experiments.
~Dingus Mungus

That's crap.

 :D

If the ball gets closer to the ground it loses some gravitational potential energy.
That how hydroelectric works. It collects energy from velocity added to mass as it falls.
If the water could be put back to the same hieght it could fall again... Forever... Free...
With out returning to the same height you're just converting gravitational potential.

Sorry if this sounds like crap to you, but denying this simple fact weakens your case.

I still want to see the absolute proof you spoke of,
~Dingus Mungus

Quote from: Dingus Mungus on September 03, 2007, 01:02:00 AM
:D

If the ball gets closer to the ground it loses some gravitational potential energy.
That how hydroelectric works. It collects energy from velocity added to mass as it falls.
If the water could be put back to the same hieght it could fall again... Forever... Free...
With out returning to the same height you're just converting gravitational potential.

Sorry if this sounds like crap to you, but denying this simple fact weakens your case.

I still want to see the absolute proof you spoke of,
~Dingus Mungus

You see, if perpetual motion or free energy is possible, or even if the laws of thermodynamics are right but other things such as magnetism are just poorly understood, that means the current understanding of physics is still wrong. There is nothing bad about that, science is supposed to be about finding new theories and throwing away the obsolete ones.

If you believe perpetual motion is possible, then you probably believe that some laws of physics are wrong. So that means it is a total waste of time stating the current laws.

What I mean is, it is silly to use the current laws of physics to pursue something which needs those laws to be wrong in order to be existent.

And if you do not believe it is possible, then fine...we'll see if it is

@Dingus Mungus,

Never mind. Don't bother.

Quote from: psychopath on September 03, 2007, 02:22:41 AM
If you believe perpetual motion is possible, then you probably believe that some laws of physics are wrong. So that means it is a total waste of time stating the current laws.

What I mean is, it is silly to use the current laws of physics to pursue something which needs those laws to be wrong in order to be existent.

I think you are overgeneralizing, and while stating the law of CoE would be nonsensical, other laws of physics would be part of any necessary explanation of a perpetual motion device. 

But really, proving a violation of CoE, like Omnibus has tried to do numerous times, via equations only is not really going to convince anyone except the choir.  A working demonstration of a perpetual motion device is what is needed.  Otherwise, it is too easy to believe that you have overunity with a simple "engineering problem" keeping you from closing the loop, when what you really have is a 99.5% (if that) efficient device, and the remaining 1% is the "engineering problem" that you will spend your lifetime solving, but never will.

99% efficient... Maybe in you know who's dreams...

Look at the loss of PE in the device. If the ball doesn't fall it gets caught in the magnetic sticky spot...
Esentially translates in to massive losses in PE even after lifting the ball slightly with the track.
JLN labs example of the SMOT lifts the ball 5mm, but then it has to drop the ball 35mm to escape.

Once again... This is not complicated if you approach it while considering ALL input energy including PE.

~Dingus Mungus

EDIT:
We must define practical and incompetent diferently...
Practical would mean you could show some sort of physical evidence.

@Dinus Mungus,

Please restrain from cluttering the discussions with your nonsense. You are incompetent and therefore you should keep you opinions only to yourself.

Quote from: Omnibus on September 12, 2007, 10:15:27 AM
@Dinus Mungus,

Please restrain from cluttering the discussions with your nonsense. You are incompetent and therefore you should keep you opinions only to yourself.

When you can practically demonstrate how energy can be extracted from a SMOT, then you will have the right to call opposing views nonsense.  So far, real world experiments contradict your views.  I guess nature is not convinced by your flawless arguments and equations.

Don't talk nonsense. I have practically demonstrated how to produce excess energy (energy out of nothing) discontinuously.

When where and how have you ever "practically" demonstrated the collection of energy from a SMOT.

This I've got to see. If you can show a SMOT conclusively providing power in a practical way, then I'll renounce gravitational potential as blaspheme and declare you ruler of the world and kiss your feet. So all you have to do now is show me this "practical" example. Other members here understand the basics of physics and can help judge if this example is indeed OU or if it is using PE to achieve the effect.

~Dingus "at least he's not calling me incontinent" Mungus

(lol)

No, I don't have to do that. What I've done is enough to demonstrate violation of CoE.

If anyone is willing to accept my advice, ignore the "Omnibus bot" that is how he is known to another forum, his arguments are constant babble.

There are real people doing real experiments and replications, the Omnibot shows nothing of value.

Example of a guy I respect for his replication work...

John Aaron (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F3T29w3pvU4&mode=user&search=)

Hey, impudent moron, go away. Don't clutter the thread with your spam.

.