Here's some pretty good SMOT explanations to read.
http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/museum/smot.htm
Here's J Naudins SMOT experiments and crappy videos.
http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/smot1.htm
http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/s102jln.htm
I did many tests with SMOT's years ago. It was Naudin's website and SMOT that made me interested in doing experiments.
I managed to stack well build SMOTs. I had 6 SMOT's behind each other. The adjustment was very difficult since the ball had to fall down very straight at the end of the track, just to be smootly catched into the next track. There was no difference in 4, 5 or 6 SMOT's in a row: the ball kept rolling from one track to the other.
But I never managed to make a turn, not even a very small curve woked for me. Because when the tracks were not 100% in-line, the ball jump to the side. That made me loose my interest because a straight track over the planet was not my goal.
Eric.
Quote from: Honk on September 28, 2007, 04:51:52 PM
Here's some pretty good SMOT explanations to read.
http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/museum/smot.htm
This is an incorrect explanation which must be ignored. The analysis of whether or not SMOT violates CoE must be done for a steel ball traveling along a closed loop.
As I have shown rigorously, for instance, here: http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,2733.30.html#msg40090 for a ball traveling along a closed A-B-C-A loop (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2383887636280790847) SMOT produces excess energy (energy from nothing). This is a definitive finding based on scientific principles which proves unequivocally that CoE can be violated. In the case shown. production of excess energy (energy from nothing) occurs discontinuously which although can find practical application is less convenient than continuous production of excess energy. Until now continuous production of excess energy hasn't been demonstrated convincingly which by no means puts into doubt the above conclusive finding that SMOT can violate the principle of conservation of energy.(CoE).
You will stop ignoring the above conclusive findings or else this thread will have the fate of the thread @hartiberlin just closed.
Quote from: eavogels on September 28, 2007, 05:05:59 PM
I did many tests with SMOT's years ago. It was Naudin's website and SMOT that made me interested in doing experiments.
I managed to stack well build SMOTs. I had 6 SMOT's behind each other. The adjustment was very difficult since the ball had to fall down very straight at the end of the track, just to be smootly catched into the next track. There was no difference in 4, 5 or 6 SMOT's in a row: the ball kept rolling from one track to the other.
But I never managed to make a turn, not even a very small curve woked for me. Because when the tracks were not 100% in-line, the ball jump to the side. That made me loose my interest because a straight track over the planet was not my goal.
Eric.
Although personal experience such as yours may or may not be interesting in such discussions becaus it is only a demonstration of your personal skills, such experience by no means can serve as any proof concerning the possibility to build a self-sustaining SMOT.
More importantly, it has already been proven conclusively through rigorous scientific aralysis that SMOT does violate the principle of conservation of energy (CoE) which means that constructing a self-sustaining SMOT is nothing more than a mere engineering problem.
Quote from: Omnibus on September 28, 2007, 11:13:14 PM
You will stop ignoring the above conclusive findings or else this thread will have the fate of the thread @hartiberlin just closed.
How bizarre!
Hans von Lieven
[/quote]
. In the case shown. production of excess energy (energy from nothing) occurs discontinuously.
[/quote]
What??? energy from nothing is not probable. Not saying the smot can't work, but it is getting its energy from somewhere. Try studying some string theory sometime and understand that we (humans) are coexisting in many more dimensions then we perceive. Don't perpetuate the myth that energy comes from nowhere just because you and I don't know where it comes from exactly.
Jason
From what I have read, and experienced, I think this SMOT business is just another "I built it and it worked but I can't prove it because it does not work now" type of thing. If the damn thing works, publish the specs, the video, etc. If it does not, then move on to something that might. Sorry, but I have read a lot of posts on here that all seem to have been written by the same "guy" or at least, the same type of guy.
Bill
Hey bill,
come check out this thread http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,3318.0/topicseen.html we are at least making headway.
Jason
Nastrand:
Thank you. This is very interesting stuff.
Bill
Good Pirate,
I just had to poke some fun at Omnibus, he loves the smot sooo. @ Omnibus, no hard feelings, just to jab ya a little. :P
Jason
Omnibus is fun to mess with, its almost too easy.
Quote from: hansvonlieven on September 28, 2007, 11:23:09 PM
Quote from: Omnibus on September 28, 2007, 11:13:14 PM
You will stop ignoring the above conclusive findings or else this thread will have the fate of the thread @hartiberlin just closed.
How bizarre!
Hans von Lieven
Stop spamming the thread.
Quote from: Nastrand2000 on September 28, 2007, 11:58:21 PM
. In the case shown. production of excess energy (energy from nothing) occurs discontinuously.
[/quote]
What??? energy from nothing is not probable. Not saying the smot can't work, but it is getting its energy from somewhere. Try studying some string theory sometime and understand that we (humans) are coexisting in many more dimensions then we perceive. Don't perpetuate the myth that energy comes from nowhere just because you and I don't know where it comes from exactly.
Jason
[/quote]
Pleas don't post when you don't understand the issue at hand.
Production of energy from nothing is not only probable but is a fact, as is conclusively proven in the case of SMOT.
SMOT does work and it violates the principle of conservation of energy. This is proven by a rigorous scientific analysis..
The incoherent blabber about string theory is just ridiculous.
Restrain from posting nonsense.
I wondered how long it would take, your game is still good omni.
Quote from: Nastrand2000 on September 29, 2007, 02:42:50 AM
Good Pirate,
I just had to poke some fun at Omnibus, he loves the smot sooo. @ Omnibus, no hard feelings, just to jab ya a little. :P
Jason
Don't try to poke fun in this thread. This is not an entertainment rag and is not a place for comedians, especially when they are not funny at all. Don't clutter the thread with nonsense.
Quote from: Nastrand2000 on September 29, 2007, 02:44:34 AM
Omnibus is fun to mess with, its almost too easy.
Hey, retard, don't mess with me.
Quote from: Nastrand2000 on September 29, 2007, 03:08:35 AM
I wondered how long it would take, your game is still good omni.
Stop cluttering the thread with nonsense, you moron.
proven?? .... ok now your just nuts. Energy doesn't just show up and say here I am. You must ply it from somewhere else. So don't give me your bull about learn something here or there, if you want to talk about MO or AO theory I would be happy to discuss it with you in person. but try to berate me because I don't follow your cause.
Jason
I see you like replying to small statements, is that all your brain can handle. one statement at a time.
Ok smotBOY, I cant fuck with you anymore tonight, its bedtime.
later, try not to lose sleep over the stirring of your own pot.
Jason
Quote from: Nastrand2000 on September 29, 2007, 03:14:53 AM
proven?? .... ok now your just nuts. Energy doesn't just show up and say here I am. You must ply it from somewhere else. So don't give me your bull about learn something here or there, if you want to talk about MO or AO theory I would be happy to discuss it with you in person. but try to berate me because I don't follow your cause.
Jason
Stop spamming the thread wit your impudent nonsense.
Quote from: Nastrand2000 on September 29, 2007, 03:19:55 AM
Ok smotBOY, I cant fuck with you anymore tonight, its bedtime.
later, try not to lose sleep over the stirring of your own pot.
Jason
Stop spamming the thread.
Okay omni.....how bout go fuck your self spam spam.... I'm sick of you bullshit about smot ..... go prove it or get off the pot
Either prove your held beliefs or stop preaching them. Math does nothing for this forum. And you claiming its an engineering problem doesn't help either. Either prove it or shut the hell up.
Jason
Quote from: Nastrand2000 on September 29, 2007, 03:33:54 AM
Okay omni.....how bout go fuck your self spam spam.... I'm sick of you bullshit about smot ..... go prove it or get off the pot
Go away. Your stupidities don't belong here.
Quote from: Nastrand2000 on September 29, 2007, 03:38:05 AM
Either prove your held beliefs or stop preaching them. Math does nothing for this forum. And you claiming its an engineering problem doesn't help either. Either prove it or shut the hell up.
Jason
Go away. You don't understand the problem at hand and are only cluttering the thread with stupid remarks.
you just tell me when your ready to to talk about mo theory or ao theory.
I've built many of the devices you claim to know about. There is energy gain, but not so much gain as to complete a circuit. If there was then you would see a loop process in order. speeding up.
Jason
I also like how you say "go away" if anyone does not back your beliefs. Open up there omni. I've been around as long as you, I just try not to give you much shit, but tonight is different.
Jason
Quote from: Nastrand2000 on September 29, 2007, 03:47:42 AM
you just tell me when your ready to to talk about mo theory or ao theory.
Don't spam the thread.
Quote from: Nastrand2000 on September 29, 2007, 03:50:17 AM
I've built many of the devices you claim to know about. There is energy gain, but not so much gain as to complete a circuit. If there was then you would see a loop process in order. speeding up.
Jason
The fact that you've built many devices proves nothing regarding violation of CoE. The mose it proves is that you're not skillful enough to build a self-sustaining SMOT. This isn't much of an accomplishment.
Also, it isn't true that because you weren't able to complete a cirrcuit there isn't enough energy to do that. You haven't found a way to use the excess energy to make SMOT self-sustaining. So, blame it on you and your lack of skills let alone your lack of understanding the problem at hand.
just reply then....I dont want to spam the thread. You tell me how smot breaks the CoE barrier. You Know it doesn't, or at least not by much.
Quote from: Nastrand2000 on September 29, 2007, 03:57:17 AM
I also like how you say "go away" if anyone does not back your beliefs. Open up there omni. I've been around as long as you, I just try not to give you much shit, but tonight is different.
Jason
Mine are not beliefs but is a solid, rigorous scientific proof. So, if you don't get it, and you obviously don't, go away, don't clutter the thread with nonsense.
Wow, Your like a grumpy old man with SMOT. I find it funny. I can take a small stick and stir the pot, and out of that pot rises a monster ready to defend the flap world theory.
I understand more about the SMOT then you have any Idea. Would you like to talk about triganal hetrodydomics of linear planes, or planar triganal reference points of magnetic fields. I'm open to any discussion you want to have. But I assume you will say "GO AWAY" because you are unable to have these upfront conversations.
Jason
Quote from: Nastrand2000 on September 29, 2007, 04:07:49 AM
Wow, Your like a grumpy old man with SMOT. I find it funny. I can take a small stick and stir the pot, and out of that pot rises a monster ready to defend the flap world theory.
You find funny things which are actually serious. Why? Because you have no clue. Don't post here because your posts are nothing else but clutter.
Quote from: Nastrand2000 on September 29, 2007, 04:14:01 AM
I understand more about the SMOT then you have any Idea. Would you like to talk about triganal hetrodydomics of linear planes, or planar triganal reference points of magnetic fields. I'm open to any discussion you want to have. But I assume you will say "GO AWAY" because you are unable to have these upfront conversations.
Jason
You think you understand but you actually don't. The blabber above is another proof. Just go away and don't bother cluttering the thread with nonsense.
Yet you still refuse to put a logical argument in the case for smot
you claim it is an engineering problem.... but no numbers are put forth for an engineer to work with.
omni your full of it....either build it or move on. like so many of us have done...you can look up me on youtube. atleast I build. but you, you just bitch and complain about unproven theories.
Jason
Quote from: Nastrand2000 on September 29, 2007, 04:28:44 AM
Yet you still refuse to put a logical argument in the case for smot
That's crap.
Quote from: Nastrand2000 on September 29, 2007, 04:30:46 AM
you claim it is an engineering problem.... but no numbers are put forth for an engineer to work with.
Never mind. You're not qualified to discuss this.
Quote from: Nastrand2000 on September 29, 2007, 04:33:27 AM
omni your full of it....either build it or move on. like so many of us have done...you can look up me on youtube. atleast I build. but you, you just bitch and complain about unproven theories.
Jason
That's crap. Posting on youtube.com doesn't make you qualified to discuss this. Restrain from posting and cluttering the thread with your nonsense.
Hey Omnibus:
Can you perform a full termodinamic review of the SMOT, or at least define a schematic view of how it could be done?
The only way to prove a CoE break is doing so. I know Steorn has done it for their orbo, and that's why they claim the breaking of CoE, because they have looked at all known forms of energy into their system and somehow they seem to be creating energy "ex nihilo". But they convinced themselves before even start thinking on the idea of teling anyone else.
I know, as you might because you were a frequent poster on Steorn forum, that Steorn people laugh about the idea of the SMOT being a proof of Over Unity. That fact itself does not prove that the SMOT is not OU, but I take it as a good indication that a full termodynamical analysis of the SMOT might cast some light on the issue.
It makes sense that the ball gains potential energy at C, and kinetic energy back at A, but how is this useful?
If the ball can not on its own make its way back up to B, then there would be no overall gain in energy, unless it was so small that what little is gained, is lost in air resistance and friction with the ramp. Has this been tried by extending the curved ramp back up to B?
Seems easy enough. If it could go back up to B on its own, I am certain that folks like EAVogels (and many others) would have done it and demonstrated it by now.
One other aspect of this setup that may be getting overlooked, is the fact that magnetic fields are conservative.
The SMOT magnets do impart energy to the ball by raising it against gravity, but in an equal and opposite fashion, they will take back that energy (due to attraction) upon the release of the ball at point C.
This reminds me of the seinfeld soup-nazi episode.
Omnibus = SMOT-nazi
No OU for you!!!!
Quote from: z_p_e on September 29, 2007, 10:58:45 AM
One other aspect of this setup that may be getting overlooked, is the fact that magnetic fields are conservative.
The SMOT magnets do impart energy to the ball by raising it against gravity, but in an equal and opposite fashion, they will take back that energy (due to attraction) upon the release of the ball at point C.
Permanent magnet magnetic fields are conservative, but since the magnetization of the ball is not constant, your conclusion doesn't follow from that.
Cheers,
Mr. Entropy
Quote from: z_p_e on September 29, 2007, 10:58:45 AM
One other aspect of this setup that may be getting overlooked, is the fact that magnetic fields are conservative.
The SMOT magnets do impart energy to the ball by raising it against gravity, but in an equal and opposite fashion, they will take back that energy (due to attraction) upon the release of the ball at point C.
I have a differing opinion on the matter of energy to and from a magnet.
It appears to me by observation, that not only does the magnet impart a magnetic field of energy in attracting the ball; but that the magnet also exerts even more energy (magnetic force) to prevent the escape of the ball once within the attraction field of the magnet. The magnet does not appear to 'take back' energy from the ball to the magnet, because the magnet has no apparent ability to store energy from external devices.
A magnetic force in a magnet is the result of aligned magnetic particles, as I understand it. It is apparently a function of the magnetic material itself to maintain it's own magnetic particle strength via the electron at the atomic level. When a magnet is demagnetized, it is simply returned to a state of random disorder of magnetic particles, where the internal magnetic particles favor the nearest flux flow toward each other, causing a cancellation of the external magnetic field in a closed magnetic loop with each other.
I agree that the magnetic field from a magnet
tends to be conservative, normally.
Just my opinion though, but I believe it has merit.
In saying the permanent magnets "take back" the energy imparted to the ball in the first place, the reference was not in terms of losing or gaining magnetic flux, but to energy imparted to the ball; first as potential energy, then as kinetic energy.
In the video it may appear that the SMOT magnets have no affect on the ball as it leaves the ramp, but I assure you it does. There will be an attraction to the ball as it is released, and is set free from the ramp only due to inertia and gravity. There will be a small amount of loss in the process, and the amount should be equivalent to the amount gained by the ascension to point C.
So in summary, it would not matter how high or how long the ramp is (there are functional limits), the net kinetic gain from point C to point A is the same if the ball is dropped from point C minus the height of the ramp, to point A without the presence of the ramp.
Minato's wheel is a good example and analogous to the effect the SMOT magnets have on the ball. He uses slanted magnets tapering in on half of the perimeter of a wheel. An external magnet is used to cause rotation. The wheel quickly accelerates out of the "gate", but when the first magnet comes back around, the "gate" is closed and the wheel is quickly opposed, so rotation stops.
In this case, the energy gained is not enough to overcome the opposing energy required to push through the starting gate. To make Minato's wheel work, the external (hand-held) magnet must be "skewed" in position to allow re-entry into the accelerating line of magnets. The process repeats.
Think about this. Say you have one smot going across the atlantic ocean towards europe. And you have one smot going from europe to america. The only energy you used was to get on. There was energy involved making it, but that is a differen't period in time. The smot jets you across the atlantic ocean with the use of barely any energy. Say you want to go back. A guy pulls a lever and in comes this open square shield box. The transport is pulled out on a motor and set next to the other smot that will take the man back. The man has his fun in europe and comes back to the smot. The motor bumps the metal transport back into the euro -> america smot. He jets back to america and the process repeats at the other side. Now ask yourself this. How much energy would that take versus how much you put in?
Whatever it is, sounds a lot less in the long run than normal transportation. ;D
The problem with the thought process is that in the last 2/3rds of yous SMOT there is a is a weak field. Something like the bloch wall but not as strong. This will stop forward movement.
Jason
I've always known the sticky point, but i have never observered that effect. Could you please describe why?
look at the earth, a common misconception is that the magnetic field goes from north pole to south pole. But the fact is, that at the equator holds the most magnetic fulx differential. Our world looks like a figure 8 with the magnetic field and not a dipole.
Jaosn
Quote from: Omnibus on September 28, 2007, 11:13:14 PM
You will stop ignoring the above conclusive findings or else this thread will have the fate of the thread @hartiberlin just closed.
Yes xpenzif,
But they say Omnibus is a Professor of Physics and as such HE, and ONLY HE determines what can be said and what cannot.
Wake up xpenzif, even you must bow to authority eventually.
Hans von Lieven
Professor of Physics
Leads Out anyone who does not follow the
Party Line
What I'd like to know is what "Elite member" means? Omnibus seems to have this status along with 20 or so other users. I suspect they are paying a monthly fee to be rid of adds etc. But it also seems to allow them to break the rules one agrees to when registering on this forum. The fact that Omnibus is paying a monthly fee would explain the administrator's reticence in calming this user down. It is inexplicable that Humbugger was banned and not this character, but then again, Humbugger wasn't an "elite member".
Whats more, any merit the smot may have is certainly being damaged by the pedantic fanatical postings of Omnibus.
The main fact that Omnidork chooses to disregard, is that the SMOT have
been around for a long time and been tested rigorously by lots of people, both
technicians and scientists and they have all found it not to be OU.
It's only the many times fanatic free energy community that continues to
accentuate the SMOT as the final proof of OU being possible.
Yup, definite proof that Omnibot is the God of physics, damn pity I don't believe in Gods ;D
Quote from: xpenzif on September 30, 2007, 12:36:23 AM
Quote from: Omnibus on September 29, 2007, 03:04:51 AM
Stop spamming the thread.
Quote from: Omnibus on September 29, 2007, 03:11:43 AM
Don't try to poke fun in this thread. This is not an entertainment rag and is not a place for comedians, especially when they are not funny at all. Don't clutter the thread with nonsense.
Quote from: Omnibus on September 29, 2007, 03:12:28 AM
Hey, retard, don't mess with me.
Quote from: Omnibus on September 29, 2007, 03:13:20 AM
Stop cluttering the thread with nonsense, you moron.
Quote from: Omnibus on September 29, 2007, 03:24:02 AM
Stop spamming the thread wit your impudent nonsense.
Quote from: Omnibus on September 29, 2007, 03:24:46 AM
Stop spamming the thread.
Quote from: Omnibus on September 29, 2007, 03:42:12 AM
Go away. Your stupidities don't belong here.
Quote from: Omnibus on September 29, 2007, 03:43:13 AM
Go away. You don't understand the problem at hand and are only cluttering the thread with stupid remarks.
Quote from: Omnibus on September 29, 2007, 03:59:53 AM
Don't spam the thread.
Quote from: Omnibus on September 29, 2007, 04:06:28 AM
Mine are not beliefs but is a solid, rigorous scientific proof. So, if you don't get it, and you obviously don't, go away, don't clutter the thread with nonsense.
Quote from: Omnibus on September 29, 2007, 04:18:05 AM
You find funny things which are actually serious. Why? Because you have no clue. Don't post here because your posts are nothing else but clutter.
Quote from: Omnibus on September 29, 2007, 04:19:35 AM
You think you understand but you actually don't. The blabber above is another proof. Just go away and don't bother cluttering the thread with nonsense.
Quote from: Omnibus on September 29, 2007, 05:08:13 AM
That's crap.
Quote from: Omnibus on September 29, 2007, 05:09:02 AM
Never mind. You're not qualified to discuss this.
Quote from: Omnibus on September 29, 2007, 05:10:25 AM
That's crap. Posting on youtube.com doesn't make you qualified to discuss this. Restrain from posting and cluttering the thread with your nonsense.
Stop spamming the thread.
G'day all,
I don't know if anyone noticed that the above quotes are all from the 29th September, in fact all 15 quotes were uttered in the space of two hours and six minutes. That is a lot of venom to spew in such a short time.
It is now the 1st October (at least here in Australia) and we haven't heard a word from him since.
Maybe he is being a good boy and is taking his medication.
Hans von Lieven
Quote from: Honk on September 30, 2007, 05:43:13 AM
The main fact that Omnidork chooses to disregard, is that the SMOT have
been around for a long time and been tested rigorously by lots of people, both
technicians and scientists and they have all found it not to be OU.
It's only the many times fanatic free energy community that continues to
accentuate the SMOT as the final proof of OU being possible.
@Honk,
please stop to post this nonsense !
Last warning !
Of course the SMOT is overunity.
You don?t seem to understand it.
Quote from: z_p_e on September 29, 2007, 10:58:45 AM
One other aspect of this setup that may be getting overlooked, is the fact that magnetic fields are conservative.
The SMOT magnets do impart energy to the ball by raising it against gravity, but in an equal and opposite fashion, they will take back that energy (due to attraction) upon the release of the ball at point C.
This is incorrect. Read my analysis and stop posting nonsense which clutters the thread.
I think it's ok to delete harassment posts Stefan. Just make it so that I can read about the SMOT in the smot topic. That would be cool. They do appear to think it's fun to scream and whine at someone the year round. But if you leave such filth up others will feel encouraged to join in. I specifically mean the post not the poster ok. ;D
I did read up on the SMOT documentation
http://magnetmotor.go-here.nl/smot
SMOT - magnetmotor
I think the best thing to work towards is to make it much more efficient and more obvious so that everyone can agree it works. This should not be so complicated.
This ground shaking scientific research is most interesting.
QuoteOn thinking about it later, I realized that it would stop after the fourth ramp no matter where it was started and that maybe there was just a problem with the fourth ramp. Unfortunately I thought of that too late and (how many times have we heard this :-)) I've since dissassembled it to reuse the magnets.
http://rimstar.org/sdenergy/smot/smotmk1/smotmk1.htm
SMOT Mark 1 Experiments
As the closed loop SMOT's that I know of where the result of at least months worth of tuning it's obvious there is something wrong with his "4th ramp". But he is doing science with clay, one just has to respect that.
A SMOT works much like the testatica device, the charge builds up so the ball enters the field slowly building up flux and it exits with it's flux still inducted into it. This makes it harder to configure it to climb the next ramp. Finstrud used a spring in stead of gravity.
A hollow ball should put the magnet force vectors under better angles. Either filling it with gas or ballast should also make a difference. The arrays of magnets may start slightly above the center of the ball and end slightly below it.
I'm convinced that additional arrays may be constructed to end half way the ramp. The balls will "drop" out of those in favor of the primary array.
I had already re-designed this idea.
http://gabydewilde.googlepages.com/chainreactor
The balls enter and leave the field. It's already a big improvement over just getting stuck onto the magnet. For me the SMOT is a half baked treasure. It may be hard to improve, that should present a challenge IMHO. :) Everyone else should feel free to give up today.
I'm still looking for the website where you explain your smot analysis Omnibus.
The video is great but it doesn't cover the story.
I would like to see a website further explaining Omnibus' finding also. The equation I came up with was actually the same one Sm0ky2 posted(although his post "disappeared"). When new equations are offered, they are answered "You don't understand/ Read it again/ Of course its OU." Rather than "Here's exactly where your equation fails..." I'm trying to learn about smot, help me better understand it. Tell me why exactly sm0ky2 was wrong.
Hi, some 10 years ago I buy plans of a generator like the Steorn Company and it works very good, now days I reduce my electrical energy bill just to zero
This devices really works and do a too easy life
Bye
Quote from: Tesla_2006 on October 03, 2007, 03:39:23 AM
Hi, some 10 years ago I buy plans of a generator like the Steorn Company and it works very good, now days I reduce my electrical energy bill just to zero
This devices really works and do a too easy life
do you have some pic or video of this generator ?
C'mon. He's just pulling your leg.
Quote from: xpenzif on October 01, 2007, 01:27:32 PM
I would like to see a website further explaining Omnibus' finding also. The equation I came up with was actually the same one Sm0ky2 posted(although his post "disappeared"). When new equations are offered, they are answered "You don't understand/ Read it again/ Of course its OU." Rather than "Here's exactly where your equation fails..." I'm trying to learn about smot, help me better understand it. Tell me why exactly sm0ky2 was wrong.
Go back to the beginning of this thread or in one of the neighboring threads and you'll find the explanations you're asking for. Stop cluttering the thread with useless postings. Do your homework before posting here.
think smot will work. you just have to be very precise in mm measurements. ball can't be too light/heavy, magnetic field cant be too weak/strong, etc.
if the smot alone won't work then you can always add electromagnetic at the sticky spot.
when a wheel like smot rotates to the point where the sticky spot is, it turns a flywheel that has magnets all around and passes by copper coils that excites the electromagnetic overcoming the sticky spot :)
just my 2 cents.
peace
Three problems with this Free Energy
1. The ball turning the fly wheel as it passes will not generate enough energy from an electromagnet to propel
the ball past the sticky spot.
2. The ball would have to be a magnet itself, which is kinda hard to do. There are of course round magnets but useless in this application
as the ball would be switching polarity as it spun.
3. Last the now magnetized ball? would have to spin the flywheel before it reaches the sticky spot not at the sticky spot where there
is no movement. Thus when it reaches the sticky spot the electromagnet has already pulsed.
Again this concept of generating enough energy in one spin to propel pastthe sticky point is the essence of Paul Sprains motor .
Isn't this stuff fun?
Bill
Quote from: Omnibus on October 03, 2007, 07:18:44 AM
Quote from: xpenzif on October 01, 2007, 01:27:32 PM
I would like to see a website further explaining Omnibus' finding also. The equation I came up with was actually the same one Sm0ky2 posted(although his post "disappeared"). When new equations are offered, they are answered "You don't understand/ Read it again/ Of course its OU." Rather than "Here's exactly where your equation fails..." I'm trying to learn about smot, help me better understand it. Tell me why exactly sm0ky2 was wrong.
Go back to the beginning of this thread or in one of the neighboring threads and you'll find the explanations you're asking for. Stop cluttering the thread with useless postings. Do your homework before posting here.
I said FURTHER EXPLAINING. Anyways this is exactly what I was talking about; the "you don't understand/ read it again" argument. Quit cluttering the thread with your useless postings.
Quote from: xpenzif on October 03, 2007, 03:07:55 PM
Quote from: Omnibus on October 03, 2007, 07:18:44 AM
Quote from: xpenzif on October 01, 2007, 01:27:32 PM
I would like to see a website further explaining Omnibus' finding also. The equation I came up with was actually the same one Sm0ky2 posted(although his post "disappeared"). When new equations are offered, they are answered "You don't understand/ Read it again/ Of course its OU." Rather than "Here's exactly where your equation fails..." I'm trying to learn about smot, help me better understand it. Tell me why exactly sm0ky2 was wrong.
Go back to the beginning of this thread or in one of the neighboring threads and you'll find the explanations you're asking for. Stop cluttering the thread with useless postings. Do your homework before posting here.
I said FURTHER EXPLAINING. Anyways this is exactly what I was talking about; the "you don't understand/ read it again" argument. Quit cluttering the thread with your useless postings.
Stop cluttering the thread. Noone here needs to be informed how confused you are.
stop cluttering the thread.
Quote from: Omnibus on October 04, 2007, 09:51:39 AMStop cluttering the thread. Noone here needs to be informed how confused you are.
This is the full thing?
Quote from: Omnibus on July 15, 2007, 10:45:20 AM
Here is my analysis from which you should somehow try to understand that I am ignoring nothing.
The analysis of a ball going around a closed loop as in http://data.image.zabim.com/o-wa51V9glc9.jpg reveals the following:
Since the ball doesn?t return along B->A the ball does not lose only the energy portion, imparted to it by the researcher, (+mgh1 ?(Ma ? Mb)) from the energy (+mgh1 +Mb) it has at B, that is, it?s not true that the ball returns at A with the energy
(+mgh1 +Mb) - (+mgh1 ?(Ma ? Mb)) = +Ma (CoE obeyed)
As experiment shows, the ball returns along C->A, therefore, the ball loses in addition to (+mgh1 ?(Ma ? Mb)) also the energy portion (+Mb ? 0) = mgh2 + [kinetic + ...] which the ball had stored at B but was realized at C. Therefore, the ball returns at A with the energy
(+mgh1 +Mb) - (+mgh1 ?(Ma ? Mb) - Mb) = +Ma + Mb = +Ma +mgh2 + [kinetic ...+]
As a result, in SMOT, the initial +Ma is restored and in addition an excess of +mgh2 + [kinetic ...+] is produced which is in clear violation of CoE.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2383887636280790847
You can post images using [ img] tags. Highlight the url and click button 2 on row 2.
(https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fdata.image.zabim.com%2Fo-wa51V9glc9.jpg&hash=102ba13e8cece007a0c3080dfe05c321fd2c23d8)
In the construction drawing here there is steel backing, you don't use this?
http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/s102jlnp.htm