http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jZjEYu9BbW0
4 rows of screws lengthwise on a cyclinder, rotating in attraction to 4 magnets outside the cylinder.
Short video but interesting.
I am new to the board, and just wanted to say that it is videos such as this that give me hope!
Thanks for posting the link.
I had to watch this one several times. He moves the magnets around quite a bit by hand so it is hard to tell if it is truly self-running. This would be an easy enough design for any of us to build and test.
Does anyone know if this design been tried before?
HL
reminds me of... http://youtube.com/watch?v=YvHb41KP7To
Quote from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jZjEYu9BbW0
?kossxf (4 hours ago): how long have you gotten it to spin?
xpenzif (2 hours ago): I've left this one going all night??
That?s awesome, if real! Unfortunately the current video does not prove it.
All is needed would be a 5+mins video of the device spinning. Then, I?ll definitely buy the concept.
Until that time, it may be inertia or other external effects. (Some devices I?ve tried as proof of concepts for magnetic motors oscillate for many hours before they stop.)
Have a nice day,
Tinu
Hello All,
Check this out!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jZjEYu9BbW0
It looks soo simple!
I don't have the software to do this but someone should make a backup copy of that video and save it here on the forum. Enjoy!
God Bless,
Jason O
Quote from: ken_nyus on October 15, 2007, 10:08:47 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jZjEYu9BbW0
4 rows of screws lengthwise on a cyclinder, rotating in attraction to 4 magnets outside the cylinder.
Short video but interesting.
This has to be reproduced right away. Unfortunately, I'm in Europe now and won't be able to do anything with it till the end of this month. The good researchers here such as @tao, @jdo300 etc. should be here to see this right away. Hope thay are around.
Thanks @ken_nyus for the great find.
I think I've read posts by @xpenzif before but was it here in this forum or somewhere else?
Thread on this started here:
http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,3482.0.html
This can be one of those device that are very difficult to replicate. You noticed perhaps that the cilinder is not straight mounted on the table (you see that when he flips the device). That means that perhaps gravity has a finger in it as well. The screws are not perfectly placed and that can give an imbalance.
This must be tested ofcourse but when a device with the perfect math is not working a less accurate device perhaps will. The angled mounting of the cilinder is a parameter for sure.
Hello All,
This thing could definitely be the real deal. I've played with magnets and screws before and the gating effect he mentions is true. I never tried to put it into a circle though like he did. I posted a comment on the youtube page asking if that plate the magnets are on is magnetic or not. It could be used as shielding to help the one-way gating effect. I wonder how he stuck the screws to the cylinder. This looks like it would be easy to replicate.
God Bless,
Jason O
Quote from: eavogels on October 16, 2007, 09:44:59 AM
This can be one of those device that are very difficult to replicate. You noticed perhaps that the cilinder is not straight mounted on the table (you see that when he flips the device). That means that perhaps gravity has a finger in it as well. The screws are not perfectly placed and that can give an imbalance.
This must be tested ofcourse but when a device with the perfect math is not working a less accurate device perhaps will. The angled mounting of the cilinder is a parameter for sure.
This is the best demonstration of continuous production of excess energy I've seen so far. Of course, violation of CoE has already been proven beyond any doubt and such device is expected to exist. So far, however, I haven't seen a demo of anything so close to a motor working at the expense of no energy input. This device has to be replicated right away by as many people as possible. I won't be surprised if this is the principle which Steorn's Orbo is based on. Great, however, that @xpenzif is sharing it with us unlike everybody else with similar claims hiding away as if ashamed from what they've done.
Quote from: Jdo300 on October 16, 2007, 10:16:29 AM
Hello All,
This thing could definitely be the real deal. I've played with magnets and screws before and the gating effect he mentions is true. I never tried to put it into a circle though like he did. I posted a comment on the youtube page asking if that plate the magnets are on is magnetic or not. It could be used as shielding to help the one-way gating effect. I wonder how he stuck the screws to the cylinder. This looks like it would be easy to replicate.
God Bless,
Jason O
I agree. Like I said, this should be replicated right away. So far this is the best experiment demonstrating experimentally perpetuum mobile.
P.S. Probably Stefan should consolidate the two threads.
Quote from: Jdo300 on October 16, 2007, 10:16:29 AM
Hello All,
This thing could definitely be the real deal. I've played with magnets and screws before and the gating effect he mentions is true. I never tried to put it into a circle though like he did. I posted a comment on the youtube page asking if that plate the magnets are on is magnetic or not. It could be used as shielding to help the one-way gating effect. I wonder how he stuck the screws to the cylinder. This looks like it would be easy to replicate.
God Bless,
Jason O
It looks like its aluminum, which I guess could cause some type of lag. Perhaps it could be the spiral shape of the screw giving the effect. Should be pretty cheap to replicate this, I will try it later.
Now THIS IS EXCELLENT!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Int5za7Eslo (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Int5za7Eslo)
I watched this video a while ago and it took me a while to re-locate it. Appears to be the same line of thinking. This one appears to use multiple posts around the rotor with magnets on them, or are they just steel/iron blocks?
Bill
Quote from: Omnibus on October 16, 2007, 10:31:11 AM
I agree. Like I said, this should be replicated right away. So far this is the best experiment demonstrating experimentally perpetuum mobile.
P.S. Probably Stefan should consolidate the two threads.
I have now merged the 2 threads and set this as the News item !
This is probably the breakthrough in permanent magnet motors we all have
been looking for.
Very well done !
Congratulations.
I hope there will be soon some replications by others.
Many thanks.
Regards,Stefan.
Quote from: Pirate88179 on October 16, 2007, 03:00:42 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Int5za7Eslo (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Int5za7Eslo)
I watched this video a while ago and it took me a while to re-locate it. Appears to be the same line of thinking. This one appears to use multiple posts around the rotor with magnets on them, or are they just steel/iron blocks?
Bill
In this other video this was faked, as the Perendev principle was use.
Magnets on magnets just does not work,
too many sticky points and these fields are too conservative.
But magnets and iron works in the right combination as this is a modified
SMOT principle. Here we can use the Barkhausen and hysteris effects
from Iron forming a right turning magnetocaloric heat cycle which
outputs energy.
If the screws become magnetized, will the effect quit or be strengthened? Guess we will have to build this to find out. Also, to me, it looks like the rotor is pvc with screws attached to it (with glue?).
Jason
Quote from: hartiberlin on October 16, 2007, 03:29:22 PM
Quote from: Pirate88179 on October 16, 2007, 03:00:42 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Int5za7Eslo (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Int5za7Eslo)
I watched this video a while ago and it took me a while to re-locate it. Appears to be the same line of thinking. This one appears to use multiple posts around the rotor with magnets on them, or are they just steel/iron blocks?
Bill
In this other video this was faked, as the Perendev principle was use.
Magnets on magnets just does not work,
too many sticky points and these fields are too conservative.
But magnets and iron works in the right combination as this is a modified
SMOT principle. Here we can use the Barkhausen and hysteris effects
from Iron forming a right turning magnetocaloric heat cycle which
outputs energy.
Hi Stefan,
This is absolutely fabulous and every one of us must immediately brace oneself up to replicate it. I'm not in the States right now, unfortunately, but as soon as I get back by the end of the month I will immediately try to replicate it. As some know I'm following a different thread and I got here today only by chance and couldn't believe my eyes. Good luck to you and to everyone who would try to reproduce this wonderful experiment. This looks like the breakthrough we've all been looking for.
@All,
This indeed is one of the best practical applications of the SMOT principle (aside from Finsrud's) and is very likely close to what Steorn's Orbo is based on. Hope many of us will be able to reproduce it promptly.
G'day all,
I will probably get shouted down for saying this, but I have severe doubts as to the authenticity of this device. Having studied the video very closely I noticed the behaviour of the bracket that holds the magnets is not as one would expect.
It apparently just sits on the board. The ease with which the operator moves it around suggests it is not fastened.
Now there are two ways in which the device might function, if the screws are magnetised repulsion can be used, if they are not only attraction will work.
There must be a force between the screws and the magnets that propels the device. This to me would seem to require that the bracket is rigidly fixed to the base, otherwise it will just get pushed away or attracted to the screws and stick. The weight of the bracket and the magnets is insufficient to hold it in place, especially on the smooth surface of the base board.
I am always weary when an old disk drive is used for a turntable, as it contains a small motor.
I hope I am wrong, but I don't think so.
Hans von Lieven
Hi Hans,
if you watch closely he has screwed the magnet holder stand onto his table
plate and can only move it right or left.
Quote from: hansvonlieven on October 16, 2007, 04:50:56 PM
G'day all,
I will probably get shouted down for saying this, but I have severe doubts as to the authenticity of this device. Having studied the video very closely I noticed the behaviour of the bracket that holds the magnets is not as one would expect.
It apparently just sits on the board. The ease with which the operator moves it around suggests it is not fastened.
Now there are two ways in which the device might function, if the screws are magnetised repulsion can be used, if they are not only attraction will work.
There must be a force between the screws and the magnets that propels the device. This to me would seem to require that the bracket is rigidly fixed to the base, otherwise it will just get pushed away or attracted to the screws and stick. The weight of the bracket and the magnets is insufficient to hold it in place, especially on the smooth surface of the base board.
I am always weary when an old disk drive is used for a turntable, as it contains a small motor.
I hope I am wrong, but I don't think so.
Hans von Lieven
There is nothing wrong with being a skeptic, I too have some unanswered questions.
When he lifts the board, the bracket with the magnets does not move at all. If it was fake you would expect it to slide backwards. At the very beginning there is a quick overhead shot where you can see what might be some magnets places inside the short end of the bracket were it contacts the board.
Of course this doesn't make sense because the board does not appear to be metal. I hope the creator will step forward to give us some of the technical details.
I have all the supplies in order to build a replica, I will try to report my results soon.
HL
Sorry Stefan,
There is indeed a screw there that holds it to the board, I missed this earlier, but it does not hold much, he moves the bracket with too much ease and does not fasten it after he moves it in place. My earlier comments still stand.
Hans von Lieven
Me too Han?s , the audio seems to be faked to me.
Notice the strong click sounds (one out of sync too I think?) when he touches the screw driver to the screws.
The sub titles seem strange too.
It could maybe be a can of compressed air spinning it with fake audio.
Quote from: hansvonlieven on October 16, 2007, 04:50:56 PM
G'day all,
I will probably get shouted down for saying this, but I have severe doubts as to the authenticity of this device. Having studied the video very closely I noticed the behaviour of the bracket that holds the magnets is not as one would expect.
It apparently just sits on the board. The ease with which the operator moves it around suggests it is not fastened.
Now there are two ways in which the device might function, if the screws are magnetised repulsion can be used, if they are not only attraction will work.
There must be a force between the screws and the magnets that propels the device. This to me would seem to require that the bracket is rigidly fixed to the base, otherwise it will just get pushed away or attracted to the screws and stick. The weight of the bracket and the magnets is insufficient to hold it in place, especially on the smooth surface of the base board.
I am always weary when an old disk drive is used for a turntable, as it contains a small motor.
I hope I am wrong, but I don't think so.
Hans von Lieven
somes from my link collection.
some ideas shown very atractive ....
G.Pese
-------------------------------------- <h2> Videos . Perpetuums </h2>
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qQAo3O2d8cU&mode=related&search= Overunity perpetual motion motor in Japan
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jy4yRrOw2Ww&mode=related&search= perpetual motion machine /water)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohap0KAo7kE&mode=related&search= perpetuum mobile
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4uLPMGrMohc&mode=related&search= Bessler ? Gravity Wheel Perpetual Motion Machine
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AsSTE1T4doc&mode=related&search= Scott F. Hall's Gravity Wheel Perpetual Motion Machine
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GhR-K10UjnY&mode=related&search= Perpetual Motion - Leonardo Da Vinci
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=20AmMEYVlKo&NR=1 Perpetual Motion Wheel
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8QD2Whs_LxA&mode=related&search= Chas Campbell - Free Power on TV Inverview
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v9Y8DBXJTt8&mode=related&search= Chas Campbell - Gravity Wheel
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=67n40cD7AFw&mode=related&search= Chas Campbell - Gravity Wheel - How It Works
The stator magnet looks odd. It looks as if its a bunch of tiny magnets mounted horizontally instead of just 4 magnets, but I can't tell. The screws seems to overlap 2 or half way. The aluminum mount seems tilted as well as the whole rotor mounted to the board. Looks like its gonna be a little harder than it looks.
Theres a user called xpenzif here on the forum, is this the same guy?
First off the cylinder with screws appears to be attached to a hard drive platter which would be coated with a magnetic material. This will effect the operation and may have to be taken into account. Hard drive size may add to the mix as the coating on the platter may have a thick or thin density. Hard to tell what the tube material is. Aluminum, steel, cardboard, PVC. Aluminum could have an effect. Cardboard or PVC not likely. Screw type appears to be typical steel type wood screws. I would guess a # 12 size about 3/4 inch long. It could be brass screws on a steel cylinder. The effect of the screws and the platter may end up being a magnetic vortex motion. In any event I suspect replication may not be as easy as it first appears. Perhaps the creator of the device can join us and add some more details before we all run off to replicate (or getting out of control figuring out ways it could be faked.) ;D.
Speaking of being faked.
Skeptic mode on.. :-\ The effect of shaky rotation could be done with a fan source (hair dryer ?) off to the side blowing on the screws. The shape of the screws will act as mini sails and move the cylinder in the same fashion. I am not saying this is faked but just pointing out how it could be faked. Also being a hard drive platter with possible motor attached adds to possibility of a alternate rotation source. A long term video (5 minutes) of it running without messing with it and a total walk around would help remove a fair amount of doubt. Skeptic mode off.
later,
Tom :)
I could replicate this, just by blowing air onto one side of it at the right time!
@hans
The aluminum bracket for the neo magnets is held on by one screw. Its fastened tightly enough not to swing into the screws, but loose enough for me to be able to rotate it by hand.
As for the hard drive spindle, I don't blame you at all for being skeptical. The spindle was the most convenient thing I had back then, but now I have several bearings I can use. I've been busy lately but I can a better video made soon(ie to give more angles of the device then even fully disassemble it if you want).
@argona
I noticed too that the audio throughout the video was off by a half second, I don't know why this is.
I am in skeptic mode too,..... but what if it IS real for once?
Quote from: xpenzif on October 16, 2007, 05:52:19 PM
@hans
The aluminum bracket for the neo magnets is held on by one screw. Its fastened tightly enough not to swing into the screws, but loose enough for me to be able to rotate it by hand.
As for the hard drive spindle, I don't blame you at all for being skeptical. The spindle was the most convenient thing I had back then, but now I have several bearings I can use. I've been busy lately but I can a better video made soon(ie to give more angles of the device then even fully disassemble it if you want).
@argona
I noticed too that the audio throughout the video was off by a half second, I don't know why this is.
Can you describe the magnets a little more. Is it just 4 magnets mounted to aluminum, or is it a bunch of tiny magnets? Maybe make a crude drawing showing the polarities. Seems like its tilted which would be a crucial factor. If this is real, good job and tell us more! Why didn't you post it here, as this forum above all would be most appreciative of something like this.
@xpenzif,
Could you give some more details for those of us who want to replicate it. First, Jason was curious what the cylinder is made of (its dimensions too). Seems to be plastic but is good to know from you. What exact type of screws are these and what is the exact angle of each row of screws with respect to the axis (the pencil lines seen on the outside surface)? The neo magnets--what are their dimensions and type? Please tell us anything else you'd consider necessary to make it easier for us to replicate it promptly. Thanks in advance.
Hey xpenzif,
What! your not offended by skeptics?
Thanks. That was unexpected. :)
So anyone got a bunch of screws, pvc pipe,
clear dvd blank, neo's, aluminum and old dead vcr laying around?
added:
(or maybe the hard drive with platter is important?)
Quote from: xpenzif on October 16, 2007, 05:52:19 PM
@hans
The aluminum bracket for the neo magnets is held on by one screw. Its fastened tightly enough not to swing into the screws, but loose enough for me to be able to rotate it by hand.
As for the hard drive spindle, I don't blame you at all for being skeptical. The spindle was the most convenient thing I had back then, but now I have several bearings I can use. I've been busy lately but I can a better video made soon(ie to give more angles of the device then even fully disassemble it if you want).
@argona
I noticed too that the audio throughout the video was off by a half second, I don't know why this is.
Hi xpenzif,
I wonder what is the longest rotation time so far you have managed to achieve with your best built setup? Hours? Days?
Thanks
Gyula
Quote from: xpenzif on October 16, 2007, 05:52:19 PM
@hans
The aluminum bracket for the neo magnets is held on by one screw. Its fastened tightly enough not to swing into the screws, but loose enough for me to be able to rotate it by hand.
As for the hard drive spindle, I don't blame you at all for being skeptical. The spindle was the most convenient thing I had back then, but now I have several bearings I can use. I've been busy lately but I can a better video made soon(ie to give more angles of the device then even fully disassemble it if you want).
@argona
I noticed too that the audio throughout the video was off by a half second, I don't know why this is.
xpenzif,
Wow.. Your response was most unexpected. Very refreshing.. That in itself adds a bit more believability to your work... I was expecting a bit more defensive posture if you were faking it.. I hope you share your information with the rest of us so we can replicate... This is starting to look worthy of a replication. Hope to see more video soon to help clarify a few things.
Tom :)
xpenzif,
I did notice that you stated that the screws were a pain as you had to flatten the heads on them. Perhaps an easier way to mass flatten the heads would be to screw a row of 12 screws into a strip of wood then use a belt sander or grinder to flatten several at a time.. If you had a mill then it would even be easier.. If you release a few details I am sure several people here would like to replicate this.
Tom :)
I WILL replicate this in short order, I have all the parts that are needed. I have an O chem test on Thursday that I must study for and a wedding to attend this weekend. But I'm sure I can find the time. The only thing I need to know is the 4 magnets. Are they vertically polarized or laterally polarized. I'm guessing vertically polarized, but I have both on hand.
Jason
Good boy xpenzif,
you have come out and you are prepared to talk about what you have done. This is very much to your credit and I applaud you for it. Not only that, but you seem to be also prepared to share your design with others. Whatever the eventual outcome, win, draw or lose you have gained in me a supporter, this kind of attitude is what is needed in the world.
Good luck, I hope it works out for you alright.
Hans von Lieven
Quote from: Omnibus on October 17, 2007, 01:45:46 AM
Quote from: hansvonlieven on October 16, 2007, 11:19:47 PM
Good boy xpenzif,
you have come out and you are prepared to talk about what you have done. This is very much to your credit and I applaud you for it. Not only that, but you seem to be also prepared to share your design with others. Whatever the eventual outcome, win, draw or lose you have gained in me a supporter, this kind of attitude is what is needed in the world.
Good luck, I hope it works out for you alright.
Hans von Lieven
Bravo. Finally. A good boy appeared who is turning you into a good man. Hope he succeeds.
lol :D
The motor in the video was made out of a piece of pvc, the magnets are(I think) Nd45, definitely with poles on the smaller ends.
Screws aren't really necessary, you can build one by cutting washers in half and grinding one side down. Here's a picture of part of a tiny spindle for a desktop toy using the washer design:
(https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg139.imageshack.us%2Fimg139%2F5113%2Fbrokenspindlelt3.jpg&hash=62b9efd26bd6918cdca501ff9c41c481b4f3c816)
This design makes it easy to adjust the angles the washers relative to each other; less change in angle=more torque, more change in angle=more speed, less torque(this can also be accomplished to a degree by changing the magnet arm angle).
The above design uses a lot more magnets. I recommend a shaft made from a non-ferromagnetic bolt.
Man.. interesting stuff. I see the spiral taking shape in your designs. I wanted to know more about your magnet set up. Can you explain exactly where the north and south poles are? Is each magnet in the same orientation, or does it alternate? Anyways thanks for sharing.
Quote from: hansvonlieven on October 17, 2007, 04:10:39 AM
I am what I am omnibus,
You are just a prize arsehole!
Hans von Lieven
I think Stefan should delete this.
Quote from: xpenzif on October 17, 2007, 04:00:24 AM
The motor in the video was made out of a piece of pvc, the magnets are(I think) Nd45, definitely with poles on the smaller ends.
Screws aren't really necessary, you can build one by cutting washers in half and grinding one side down. Here's a picture of part of a tiny spindle for a desktop toy using the washer design:
(https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg139.imageshack.us%2Fimg139%2F5113%2Fbrokenspindlelt3.jpg&hash=62b9efd26bd6918cdca501ff9c41c481b4f3c816)
This design makes it easy to adjust the angles the washers relative to each other; less change in angle=more torque, more change in angle=more speed, less torque(this can also be accomplished to a degree by changing the magnet arm angle).
The above design uses a lot more magnets. I recommend a shaft made from a non-ferromagnetic bolt.
Thanks for the details. While I'd like to replicate the experiment exactly as you have shown it in the video, I'm curious if you have a video of this last design in motion. Also, what are the exact dimensions of the magnets and the angle at which the rows of screws are slanted with respect to the cylinder generator line? Hope many people can reproduce the device as shown and then go further with the improvements. All the best.
I like your design,
Just one question, did the washers or screws become magnetised after time and did it change the performance? If this was the case would a set of identical magnets with oppersite poles placed in the sytem help?
Kind Regards
Mark
Quote from: xpenzif on October 17, 2007, 04:00:24 AM
The motor in the video was made out of a piece of pvc, the magnets are(I think) Nd45, definitely with poles on the smaller ends.
Screws aren't really necessary, you can build one by cutting washers in half and grinding one side down. Here's a picture of part of a tiny spindle for a desktop toy using the washer design:
(https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg139.imageshack.us%2Fimg139%2F5113%2Fbrokenspindlelt3.jpg&hash=62b9efd26bd6918cdca501ff9c41c481b4f3c816)
This design makes it easy to adjust the angles the washers relative to each other; less change in angle=more torque, more change in angle=more speed, less torque(this can also be accomplished to a degree by changing the magnet arm angle).
The above design uses a lot more magnets. I recommend a shaft made from a non-ferromagnetic bolt.
Hi xpenzif,
Thank you very much for sharing your new design with us. This one looks even simpler than the first! Now, just to make sure that I understand how you have it setup, I drew a quick drawing of the setup based on your description. Do I have the orientation of the magnets correct? Also what size washers and screw did you use for that model? From looking at the photo, I'm guessing you used 1" washers with a 0.25" bolt?
God Bless,
Jason O
Quote from: xpenzif on October 17, 2007, 04:00:24 AM
The motor in the video was made out of a piece of pvc, the magnets are(I think) Nd45, definitely with poles on the smaller ends.
Screws aren't really necessary, you can build one by cutting washers in half and grinding one side down. Here's a picture of part of a tiny spindle for a desktop toy using the washer design:
(https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg139.imageshack.us%2Fimg139%2F5113%2Fbrokenspindlelt3.jpg&hash=62b9efd26bd6918cdca501ff9c41c481b4f3c816)
This design makes it easy to adjust the angles the washers relative to each other; less change in angle=more torque, more change in angle=more speed, less torque(this can also be accomplished to a degree by changing the magnet arm angle).
The above design uses a lot more magnets. I recommend a shaft made from a non-ferromagnetic bolt.
Hi xpenzif
Thanks for sharing and beeing here.
You make one time more,this Forum become a special Place.
helmut
Quote
Hi xpenzif,
Thank you very much for sharing your new design with us. This one looks even simpler than the first! Now, just to make sure that I understand how you have it setup, I drew a quick drawing of the setup based on your description. Do I have the orientation of the magnets correct? Also what size washers and screw did you use for that model? From looking at the photo, I'm guessing you used 1" washers with a 0.25" bolt?
God Bless,
Jason O
I think you are missing two details...
The spiral offset of the washers, and the thinning of the material of the washers.
Xpenzif,
I am skeptical that this new design is going to work. At least with the other design with the large diameter cylinder you had a chance of keeping the screws from getting magnetized in one direction by having another magnet set row opposite of the existing one but with opposite poles. Not only would that setup add more pulling power it would have kept the screws from getting a magnetic memory. The two magnet rows would be far enough apart because of the large diameter cylinder to keep from interfering with each other. With this new smaller design there is no room for adding more magnets so we could not get more power or faster rotation. In fact the magnetic field of the magnets may just swamp the whole setup unless you use really tiny 1/8 square magnets. The only solution would be to have huge washers then you are basically back to a large cylinder. Even then the whole washer will contain a magnetic field. The individual screw limits magnetic field interaction with other screws which I think is part of the reason it was working. Why are you giving up on the first design ? It looked promising and you stated that it ran a whole night. Why did it stop ? Please show us a video of the first design running for 10 minutes. Maybe we can help get it running longer than a whole night.
Later,
Tom :)
Quote from: ken_nyus on October 17, 2007, 10:34:10 AM
Quote
Hi xpenzif,
Thank you very much for sharing your new design with us. This one looks even simpler than the first! Now, just to make sure that I understand how you have it setup, I drew a quick drawing of the setup based on your description. Do I have the orientation of the magnets correct? Also what size washers and screw did you use for that model? From looking at the photo, I'm guessing you used 1" washers with a 0.25" bolt?
God Bless,
Jason O
I think you are missing two details...
The spiral offset of the washers, and the thinning of the material of the washers.
Hi ken_nyus,
Thanks for the tip, I did forget to show the thinned out part of the washers, but as for the spiral offset, I didn't draw that in detail because I was mainly trying to show the position of the magnets.
@Tom,
Assuming that I have the positioning of the magnets right in my picture, maybe we could simply add another set of magnets on the opposite side of the rotor with their south poles facing the washers, that way the washers are constantly changing their magnetic orientation rather than getting saturated. in one direction.
God Bless,
Jason O
Oops, duplicate post :)
Hi xpenzif,
You have some interesting designs with this split washer device,
Maybe at some point too even get some static electricity in there somewhere. :)
But can we go back to the original design for replication of the
original effect. And a longer video. I wonder if the ?effect?
Is just the magnetization of the screws.
One step at a time please.
Thanks.
Quote from: xpenzif on October 17, 2007, 04:00:24 AM
The motor in the video was made out of a piece of pvc, the magnets are(I think) Nd45, definitely with poles on the smaller ends.
Screws aren't really necessary, you can build one by cutting washers in half and grinding one side down. Here's a picture of part of a tiny spindle for a desktop toy using the washer design:
This design makes it easy to adjust the angles the washers relative to each other; less change in angle=more torque, more change in angle=more speed, less torque(this can also be accomplished to a degree by changing the magnet arm angle).
The above design uses a lot more magnets. I recommend a shaft made from a non-ferromagnetic bolt.
Good stuff Xpenzif
If you used Cardboard Pipe, instead of the PVC you could bury the screw heads instead of having to flatten them.
I have used HD bearings also on test rigs and although they are loose, they are not loose enough for small interactions. Some mini RC bearings top and bottom with a lathed down shaft inbetween, will give a really loose Rotor and these interactions shown in your video should speed it up very easly.
Look forward to more details and more videos, and will defo be up for quickly replicating this.
Cheers
Sean.
Sean,
Great idea. Better still. If you want to use PVC just drill a large (head size) holes where the screw head would go. No grinding screws and the placement would be more exact. Just lay the screw in place with the head inside the hole and add a bit of PVC glue. This is getting my building juices going. Waiting for more video and more info of the original before deciding to start. Need details such has how many rows of screws, size of pipe, size and type of screws, size and type of magnets, etc. Got PVC, PVC end caps, stainless steel rod, roller skate bearings, hardware store down the street for screws, and tons of different magnets (from previously failed prototypes). Just need details and a better proof video.
Later,
Tom :)
Quote from: hydrocontrol on October 17, 2007, 02:53:16 PM
Better still. If you want to use PVC just drill a large (head size) holes where the screw head would go. No grinding screws and the placement would be more exact. Just lay the screw in place with the head inside the hole and add a bit of PVC glue.
Hi Tom
Yep, if this is for real and no trickery has been used, then very interesting indeed. I wish the video had been shot with atleast a bit of voice over to rule out any of that sort of stuff must admit.
I think even drilling the pipe for each head would be a long job, seems there is probably about 40-50 screws used there. If PVC pipe is the only option, then another method could be to mark your PVC pipe with lines and then heat the screws up, so as they are placed, they melt into place as such.
Easier option would be to get angled shafts of metal and simply stick them on, but trying to think what would be suitable.
Cheers
Sean.
Be careful heating PVC up, I understand the fumes can be dangerous. I try to use hand tools only with PVC.
Wow Ken.. I was just going to write back with that. yep. Melting PVC fumes are really bad... Drilling 50 or so holes not that bad. Just a bit of time but could help the placement of screws a bunch and keep your health ::).
If this really works I got some more ideas for improvement. My biggest concern is that the hard drive platter is adding a major part in this. Time will tell..
Later,
Tom :)
very interesting concept, and i i'm up for replicating it. As people have said , the only reserations i have are the lack of good sound, and the hard drive bearing. In good faith i assume that the hd bearing has been gutted of the motor contents. But if it does work with just a gutted hd bearing which after much experimentation is not the best bearing in the world it should work with practically any bearing.
It occurs to me that the screws could be replaced with triangles of steel, or the sprial rotor . Still trying to understand where the sticky spot has gone tho..lol
I cut a small elongated triangle from laminate steel and manually testing with a small nd40. Pull from large side is at least 5 times the pull from pointed side (just a rough guess). There should be no sticky point going from the 4th triangle to the 5th. Can easily slide to middle of triangle, so maybe the attraction of the next triangles large side will be enough. Can anyone Simm?
Quote from: CLaNZeR on October 17, 2007, 03:10:40 PM
Quote from: hydrocontrol on October 17, 2007, 02:53:16 PM
Better still. If you want to use PVC just drill a large (head size) holes where the screw head would go. No grinding screws and the placement would be more exact. Just lay the screw in place with the head inside the hole and add a bit of PVC glue.
Hi Tom
Yep, if this is for real and no trickery has been used, then very interesting indeed. I wish the video had been shot with atleast a bit of voice over to rule out any of that sort of stuff must admit.
I think even drilling the pipe for each head would be a long job, seems there is probably about 40-50 screws used there. If PVC pipe is the only option, then another method could be to mark your PVC pipe with lines and then heat the screws up, so as they are placed, they melt into place as such.
Easier option would be to get angled shafts of metal and simply stick them on,but trying to think what would be suitable.
Cheers
Sean.
Try horseshoe nails, they are flat and just the right shape if trimmed. They are also the right kind of material.
(https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.australiannails.com%2Fimages%2Fhome_mainpic.jpg&hash=69e74f3212ea05435a9c1cc597fbcd306cb3ab4a)
Hans von Lieven
I was brainstorming this and what about using cement nails instead of screws? They are tapered and should be able to be bent to conform to the cylinder. I have no time to try this now, but thought I would pass on the idea.
Quote from: LarryC on October 17, 2007, 05:21:31 PM
I cut a small elongated triangle from laminate steel and manually testing with a small nd40. Pull from large side is at least 5 times the pull from pointed side (just a rough guess). There should be no sticky point going from the 4th triangle to the 5th. Can easily slide to middle of triangle, so maybe the attraction of the next triangles large side will be enough. Can anyone Simm?
I kinda had the same idea. I think cutting triangular pieces of a metal sheet might work in place. I tried screws around a cylinder and couldn't get it to work. I used regular 1" drywall screws and hot-glued them to a roll of tape. I noticed in the video that the screws are not consistent, with the placement being off a bit. I don't know if that what causing the problem. I'm not sure if grinding down the edge of the screw will help. I think the spacing and strength of the magnets will be a crucial factor.
@ xpenzif, outstanding thought process! congrats!
To those who are brainstorming a reproduction, please remember it's all about timing & sequencing.
Start slow, with one attractor and magnet to determine how much "pull" you are getting, because each of your materials will react differently with "your" magnet.
I am building a base test bed with only one attractor to learn how this attraction model is working. After that I will adding additional atttractors 1 at a time to test the related pull vs counter pull.
Thanks for the fun xpenzif
Quote from: bastonia on October 17, 2007, 08:51:10 PM
To those who are brainstorming a reproduction, ...
I'm collecting parts that are most alike the original design as possible. I want to replicate BEFORE I add all modifications since those modifications are always the reason that a so called replication is not working (see other replications on this board).
I just have a question about that HD motor bearing. I feel a slight resistance, probably since that bearing is a little motor. Can I use that bearing as is or did @xpenzif do something to reduce that resistance?
Thanks.
Eric.
I sure hope I am wrong here but something about this whole device does not seem right to me. Why is it that a verticle column of magnets being attracted to a collection of metal attached to a pvc tube can now suddenly spin. What happed to the stickey spot? It seems to have disappeared.
It was stated that the device ran all night. Would sure love to see it run continously for at least 1-2 minmutes (or more).
I am always an optimist but this one bothers me. I am probably wrong and it does in deed run as stated, but....
Bill
As far as I can see, this engine has much more to do with Steorn's ideas than what looks on the surface.
I doubt that there's gonna be much succes in replication, at least a quick success, unless the materials and magnets used are extra common and widely available. I wonder if Xpensif himself has had luck replicating or scaling it up or down.
I have no reason to not believe Xpensif achieved a reasonable continuous motion device, but I think that if one does not really understand the subjacent mechanism to allow it working, the success in replication is not granted.
Anyway, my congratulations to Xpensif for finding a working configuration. The video proof that many wanted, and many will also deny as fake, has finally been produced.
Please don't dismantle your original setup. If it works, leave it as that. Replication and enhancement are not granted.
I really hope you guys successfully replicates this motor. Very interesting.
The only speculation I have is whether the motor can supply efficient torque in a larger scale.
As you all know, torque times speed equals horsepower.
Ones built and tested you can go for the best configuration aiming great torque and speed.
Good luck.
Assuming this thing works as advertised, there are many other configurations that would possibly help the construction and balancing of the rotor. Drilling 50 odd holes in a rotor is a sure fire way to at least get one or 2 off center. Turning the device inside out , i.e having those 4 magnets on the rotor with counter wieght (or second array) and a a tube that has the screws or triangles afixed to the inside.
On the same note, having a road made of screws or whatever and the 4 magnets set in the bottom of a toy car would give you a linear motor....
Would like a bit more info, the video for all i know was made with a desk fan nearby, also the poor centering of the rotor add other questions., may i suggest he puts a fish bowl over it in the next video so we know its not windy in this garage..LOL...
I like that idea.. Fish bowl... :D
I am not sure that grinding x number of screws exactly is any worse that drilling x number of holes exactly. I will have to look at the machine shop here. I think we got a 6 inch horizontal mountable rotary table for the Bridgeport mill so I could stick in a chunk of PVC pipe and exactly drill the holes. Still before I sign up for machine shop time I want to see a better video and some more details. Machine shop time cost $$..
Later,
Tom :)
@All,
This should be replicated as soon as possible by as many people as possible. Try to reproduce the device exactly as shown in this video. Developments later. It should be clear that independent verification of this experiment will have importance not less than that of the original demonstration..
Quote from: Omnibus on October 18, 2007, 11:41:01 AM
Try to reproduce the device exactly as shown in this video. Developments later.
I agree, and I'm on it.
Do we have a real list with facts? For instance: Are the screws flattened before gluing? I read that in another group but I don't know where it came from.
Eric
p.s. (After I made my replication I will place another row magnets at 180 degrees from the first row, pointing the other pole to the screws. Perhaps that will avoid magnetizing of the screws)
Hey Eric,
Glad to see you working on this one. I would build it but all of my magnet motor supplies are packed away (I'm currently geared up to work on TPUs). But if you guys can get this thing rockin' and rollin', i'll be happy to jump on the bandwagon.
God Bless,
Jason O
@eavogels,
Flattening of the heads of the screws is seen when carefuly observing the close shots in the video. Also, it was mentioned in the youtube discussion. It isn't quite clear what the dimenisons of the neos are, though, the only thing menioned about them being that they are N45. The exact type of the screws should matter too, I guess, and their ordering such that every consecutive "station" repeats exactly what occurred at the previous one. Each station (each screw) is a tiny SMOT of sorts working one after another. Passing on the baton, the timing, seems to be crucial as in any other of the discussed devices and therefore, obviously, efforts should be exerted for fine-tuning. Not an easy job. Recall, it has taken Finsrud whole 11 years to fine-tune his device. This one seems easier but still ...
QuoteDo we have a real list with facts?
Eric,
Details are what we are lacking so a good replication is going to be lacking.. Somewhere he stated he thought the screws are 3/4 inch long. Still no details of the screw size like #8, #10, #12, etc.. No details of how many screws going around the outside of the PVC pipe. No details of both horizontal and vertical spacing of screws. He did make a brief mention of the magnets being grade 45 or so he thought. For a grade 45 they are awfully weak for pulling the screwdriver in the video. If they were grade 45 I think he would have had to pry the screwdriver away. I am hoping he comes back with more information and a better video.
If not we can still use the video supplied to try to replicate but that will be more hit and miss. Just from looking at the video I would say they are #12 wood screws with spacing about 1/4 inch horizontal and vertical mounted on a 4 inch PVC pipe. It maybe a 3 1/2 inch PVC pipe. Screw heads appear to ground off on one side up to the shaft then glued to the PVC. Still too much missing information.
I am kinda bothered that he stated that this PVC pipe ran for a night but instead of presenting the PVC design he is now presenting a steel washer design. Why change ? Seems strange to abandon a working design so early in the game if it ran for a night.
Maybe after this weekend we will have more video and more details..
Later,
Tom :).
Hi resourceful OverUnity dot com builders,
Just my 2 cents.
I have uploaded (without permission) the Xpenzif vid. on:
http://freenrg.info/MagMotors/ (http://freenrg.info/MagMotors/)
My 'Skeptic Mode' is off' (hydrocontrol's very expression).
BTW: I have this mode (too?) often off.
I guess I will try to replicate this device.
I'm only short of screws. ;D
If I do not succeed I will -at first- only blame myself .
Fortune, hazard, serendipity seem to be the keys of 'OU'?
Is it not?
------------------------------------
Else : an information (hope it is new):
A (very well tools's equipped and skillful (IMHO)) French Guy has been trying to
replicate the Perendev motor :
http://quanthomme.free.fr/qhsuite/dupreprotoperendev.htm (http://quanthomme.free.fr/qhsuite/dupreprotoperendev.htm)
(In french , but not the pictures :)).
For the moment(???) it does not work.
Does it absolutely mean that the Perendev motor is a fake?
Not necessarily. It also could mean that 'Perendev' itself is not able to replicate his own motor (or anything else).
So in these issues of magnets motors we have no theory. Actually the 'official' theory is : it is impossible (conservative force and so on). Period.
Best
Quote from: hydrocontrol on October 18, 2007, 01:44:39 PM
QuoteDo we have a real list with facts?
Eric,
Details are what we are lacking so a good replication is going to be lacking.. Somewhere he stated he thought the screws are 3/4 inch long. Still no details of the screw size like #8, #10, #12, etc.. No details of how many screws going around the outside of the PVC pipe. No details of both horizontal and vertical spacing of screws. He did make a brief mention of the magnets being grade 45 or so he thought. For a grade 45 they are awfully weak for pulling the screwdriver in the video. If they were grade 45 I think he would have had to pry the screwdriver away. I am hoping he comes back with more information and a better video.
If not we can still use the video supplied to try to replicate but that will be more hit and miss. Just from looking at the video I would say they are #12 wood screws with spacing about 1/4 inch horizontal and vertical mounted on a 4 inch PVC pipe. It maybe a 3 1/2 inch PVC pipe. Screw heads appear to ground off on one side up to the shaft then glued to the PVC. Still too much missing information.
I am kinda bothered that he stated that this PVC pipe ran for a night but instead of presenting the PVC design he is now presenting a steel washer design. Why change ? Seems strange to abandon a working design so early in the game if it ran for a night.
Maybe after this weekend we will have more video and more details..
Later,
Tom :).
I agree. @xpenzif should be more forthcoming if his creation is to see the light of day. Otherwise it will sink as many other seemingly working devices sank when their creators were approached for details only to disappear. Also, I' m seeing that various people are giving him advice which doesn't belong to this stage of the development of the idea. I think @xpenzif should learn to be himself and not listen to anything which would distract him from the main goal--establishing of his experiment as legitimate by having independent parties replicate it. I'm saying this in principle. Of course, I don't know what his exact attitude is regarding these matters. Maybe, for instance, he's too busy now and doesn't have the time to chat in this and the youtube forums. Anyway, I think you're quite right, it has to be impressed upon him that he shouldn't abandon a working model and get into a chaotic, unsystematic activity to improve something that hasn't yet been established. It will be very detrimental to the development of this important idea.
Off to make the bracket to mount 4 magnets on, but so far as below and mounted on a HD bearing for now.
(https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.overunity.org.uk%2FSM1.jpg&hash=02bc463091bf60ef27ebc8ed425a6bbbe1af6f4f)
(https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.overunity.org.uk%2FSM2.jpg&hash=2de6404acbdb5ea0bbdd8d762e38582d02362537)
Damm Glue gun burns ya fingers nicely :)
Back in a bit.
Quote from: hydrocontrol on October 18, 2007, 11:29:40 AM
Still before I sign up for machine shop time I want to see a better video and some more details. Machine shop time cost $$..
Later,
Tom :)
I wish I got into this stuff back in school.. I had a cnc, mill, vaccum former, table saws, band saws, sanding chambers, and every tool all at my finger tips. I wonder if the inconsistencies in the screw gap distances cause a acceleration and deceleration which is the mechanism which allows for the effect, just a thought.
Quote from: CLaNZeR on October 18, 2007, 02:30:43 PM
Off to make the bracket to mount 4 magnets on, but so far as below and mounted on a HD bearing for now.
Damm Glue gun burns ya fingers nicely :)
Back in a bit.
Nice as always. ;) Just a suggestion to make sure and glue those screws on well, as the magnets will pull them off if its too close.
I'm wondering if one could use the magnet sheets that they sell at home depot etc. to cut out these triangular shapes. This would take care of the problem of the screws eventually becoming magnetized.
Quote from: CLaNZeR on October 18, 2007, 02:30:43 PM
Off to make the bracket to mount 4 magnets on, but so far as below and mounted on a HD bearing for now.
(https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.overunity.org.uk%2FSM1.jpg&hash=02bc463091bf60ef27ebc8ed425a6bbbe1af6f4f)
(https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.overunity.org.uk%2FSM2.jpg&hash=2de6404acbdb5ea0bbdd8d762e38582d02362537)
Damm Glue gun burns ya fingers nicely :)
Back in a bit.
Good luck. Just to mention, did you notice that in the original the heads of the screws are flattened, as we discussed above? Perhaps this won't matter. Let's see. Also, is it me but it seems that the PVC base isn't exactly a cylinder. Also, the magnets aren't aligned quite perfectly. Look at the third from the top. The top magnet seems closer to the screws than the bottom, etc. It's amazing that even such an apparently crude construction turns as nothing else so far does. Torbay's wasn't perfect either but we never saw it in action (except for that propaganda clip where details were smeared, nothing like here).
Quote from: erickdt on October 18, 2007, 02:43:04 PM
I'm wondering if one could use the magnet sheets that they sell at home depot etc. to cut out these triangular shapes. This would take care of the problem of the screws eventually becoming magnetized.
I think screws getting magnetized should be the least of your worries at this point. Show a replica making full turns, as many as in the video, possibly a little more, and then we'll worry about magnetization of the screws (no worry at all).
Quote from: Omnibus on October 18, 2007, 01:39:55 PM
Flattening of the heads of the screws is seen when carefuly observing the close shots in the video. Also, it was mentioned in the youtube discussion.
I found it. He wrote:
Honestly screws were a bad idea and took a lot of work flattening, you can probably find something better than screws.
When looking very close; the whole screw was grinded in the shape of the PVC.
Eric
Quote from: Omnibus on October 18, 2007, 02:50:01 PM
Quote from: erickdt on October 18, 2007, 02:43:04 PM
I'm wondering if one could use the magnet sheets that they sell at home depot etc. to cut out these triangular shapes. This would take care of the problem of the screws eventually becoming magnetized.
I think screws getting magnetized should be the least of your worries at this point. Show a replica making full turns, as many as in the video, possibly a little more, and then we'll worry about magnetization of the screws (no worry at all).
Well I was also thinking it would make it easier to build as the magnetic sheets I'm talking about have adhesive already on their backs.
Quote from: eavogels on October 18, 2007, 02:51:35 PM
Quote from: Omnibus on October 18, 2007, 01:39:55 PM
Flattening of the heads of the screws is seen when carefuly observing the close shots in the video. Also, it was mentioned in the youtube discussion.
I found it. He wrote:
Honestly screws were a bad idea and took a lot of work flattening, you can probably find something better than screws.
When looking very close; the whole screw was grinded in the shape of the PVC.
Eric
That's a mistake to abandon the working model and push everyone elsewhere into untried territories. This absolutely shouldn't be done. Reproduce this exactly as is and then further it.
As for the screw ground into the shape of the PVC, I don't seem to see it. It appears to me that both the front of the head and the back are filed so that the screw can lay flat on the surface to a certain extent while the outer surface goes flush with the stem of the screw. What is relied upon is the fact that the thicker part of the (already flat) screw is attracted more than the thinner one. This is what @xpenzif also says in the video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Int5za7Eslo (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Int5za7Eslo)
What about the design in the above link that I posted earlier? I am working on a similar design but it is very related to the video discussed in this thread. Does anyone think this video is faked? Or maybe he is using pulsed electromagnets? I will try to post some pics of my device. Thanks.
Bill
Well, if your device works, that is, turns without any input energy as in the discussed device here that would be fabulous. Waiting to see it.
@xpenzif's device seems as simple as can be, though.
Quote from: Omnibus on October 18, 2007, 01:39:55 PM
As for the screw ground into the shape of the PVC, I don't seem to see it. It appears to me that both the front of the head and the back are filed so that the screw can lay flat on the surface to a certain extent while the outer surface goes flush with the stem of the screw. What is relied upon is the fact that the thicker part of the (already flat) screw is attracted more than the thinner one. This is what @xpenzif also says in the video.
Okay, I grinded a screw. I held one against my grinding wheel and I grinded a bit of the whole side of the screw, not only the head. Now the part of the screw that is left, fits very well on the round PVC. I tried to make a photo but I cannot zoom in so I made this drawing to show what I mean.
Eric
Hi Ommibus and everybody!
I agree with you about trying to replicate the initial model as accurate as possible.
BTW1: I also think that the "the whole screw was grinded in the shape of the PVC". (Eavogels).
BTW2 : have you noticed that in the Steorn forum 'they' (this load of spektic trolls) seem not to be interrested in this device and seem to prefer discussing about useless topics? Are they not?
Best
@Omnibus:
Yes, it is very simple, which is usually best right? Someone mentioned the fact that the screws were not all in a precise allignement. I also believe it is possible that it is this non-precision that possibly eliminates or greatly reduces the sticky spots.
I am not using screws on my device and I don't consider it a replication. I have magnets around a drum mounted on my good old hard drive spindle motor in a helix pattern, similar to the screw layout. I am now constructing the stationary post, or posts which house the repulsion magnets that line up with the ones on the drum. Thus far, I have to say that I still feel sticky spots when experimenting by holding posts in my hand. It runs for a 1/4 turn before finding equilibrium. I am going to mount the posts and experiment with polarity and angle changes to see what happens. I'll try to post some pics tonight.
Bill
Wow Eric.. One screw done.. How many more to go ? Hope your fingers hold out. ;D I suggested before screwing several into a piece of wood then grinding them all at once. Maybe you are doing that.. Great to see a lot of replications already going on. Hope it is not too much a waste of time.
Later,
Tom :)
Quote from: eavogels on October 18, 2007, 03:24:53 PM
Quote from: Omnibus on October 18, 2007, 01:39:55 PM
As for the screw ground into the shape of the PVC, I don't seem to see it. It appears to me that both the front of the head and the back are filed so that the screw can lay flat on the surface to a certain extent while the outer surface goes flush with the stem of the screw. What is relied upon is the fact that the thicker part of the (already flat) screw is attracted more than the thinner one. This is what @xpenzif also says in the video.
Okay, I grinded a screw. I held one against my grinding wheel and I grinded a bit of the whole side of the screw, not only the head. Now the part of the screw that is left, fits very well on the round PVC. I tried to make a photo but I cannot zoom in so I made this drawing to show what I mean.
Eric
Now, Eric, that side may be so. Couldn't tell. It seems, though, you should file the left side too and make it flush with the stem of the screw.
Quote from: Pirate88179 on October 18, 2007, 03:33:09 PM
I am now constructing the stationary post, or posts which house the repulsion magnets that line up with the ones on the drum.
I think that using repulsion of the magnets will not work out. The ammount of resistance to the wheel moving forward will always be the same as the ammount of push you are recieing on the other end. The result is a null effect. Attraction on the other hand is a different thing all together. IMO
Quote from: Pirate88179 on October 18, 2007, 03:33:09 PM
@Omnibus:
Yes, it is very simple, which is usually best right? Someone mentioned the fact that the screws were not all in a precise allignement. I also believe it is possible that it is this non-precision that possibly eliminates or greatly reduces the sticky spots.
I am not using screws on my device and I don't consider it a replication. I have magnets around a drum mounted on my good old hard drive spindle motor in a helix pattern, similar to the screw layout. I am now constructing the stationary post, or posts which house the repulsion magnets that line up with the ones on the drum. Thus far, I have to say that I still feel sticky spots when experimenting by holding posts in my hand. It runs for a 1/4 turn before finding equilibrium. I am going to mount the posts and experiment with polarity and angle changes to see what happens. I'll try to post some pics tonight.
Bill
As I said, I'm not in favor of trying modifications but let's see what will come out of your experiment. Crossing fingers.
Quote from: Pirate88179 on October 18, 2007, 03:33:09 PM
@Omnibus:
Yes, it is very simple, which is usually best right? Someone mentioned the fact that the screws were not all in a precise allignement. I also believe it is possible that it is this non-precision that possibly eliminates or greatly reduces the sticky spots.
I am not using screws on my device and I don't consider it a replication. I have magnets around a drum mounted on my good old hard drive spindle motor in a helix pattern, similar to the screw layout. I am now constructing the stationary post, or posts which house the repulsion magnets that line up with the ones on the drum. Thus far, I have to say that I still feel sticky spots when experimenting by holding posts in my hand. It runs for a 1/4 turn before finding equilibrium. I am going to mount the posts and experiment with polarity and angle changes to see what happens. I'll try to post some pics tonight.
Bill
I've left them for a while. If this turns out to be real not only Steorn will be gonners.
Quote from: hydrocontrol on October 18, 2007, 03:35:48 PM
Wow Eric.. One screw done.. How many more to go ? Hope your fingers hold out.
I had the screw in a tool and it only takes 30 seconds or so. I think that the hardest part is to get them all the same.
Eric
Well nothing exciting to report so far :(
Will try bury each head into the cardboard pipe to make them follow the curve a bit more, but cannot be assed to spend that much time grinding them all down, unless given more specifics from the original artist as such :)
Must admit even without the heads ground down I would of expect atleast a little movement, and if that had occurred then fine tuning such as grinding the heads would of been the next step.
All good fun though.
The pictures show N38 5mm*3mm magnets , 3 stacked on each level.
HD bearing stripped of its coil winding to clear any lag and oiled with fine oil. You can blow on it and make it move it is so loose.
Cheers
Sean.
(https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.overunity.org.uk%2FSM3.jpg&hash=5fa83ce4a2d712914a44d3c753cc286098b383af)
(https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.overunity.org.uk%2FSM4.jpg&hash=303f01b1f4fda9889b9001fb4b2195f2484bd911)
Quote from: Omnibus
Good luck. Just to mention, did you notice that in the original the heads of the screws are flattened, as we discussed above? Perhaps this won't matter. Let's see.
Yep agree, lets try the easy route first.
Quote from: Omnibus
Also, is it me but it seems that the PVC base isn't exactly a cylinder. Also, the magnets aren't aligned quite perfectly. Look at the third from the top. The top magnet seems closer to the screws than the bottom, etc. It's amazing that even such an apparently crude construction turns as nothing else so far does. Torbay's wasn't perfect either but we never saw it in action (except for that propaganda clip where details were smeared, nothing like here).
There is no magnets in my first pictures?
Cheers
Sean.
Hi Sean,
well quickly done.
Maybe your magnets are a little too small.
I think it really depends also on the exact sizes
you use.
Good luck.
Quote from: CLaNZeR on October 18, 2007, 04:11:46 PM
Quote from: Omnibus
Good luck. Just to mention, did you notice that in the original the heads of the screws are flattened, as we discussed above? Perhaps this won't matter. Let's see.
Yep agree, lets try the easy route first.
Quote from: Omnibus
Also, is it me but it seems that the PVC base isn't exactly a cylinder. Also, the magnets aren't aligned quite perfectly. Look at the third from the top. The top magnet seems closer to the screws than the bottom, etc. It's amazing that even such an apparently crude construction turns as nothing else so far does. Torbay's wasn't perfect either but we never saw it in action (except for that propaganda clip where details were smeared, nothing like here).
There is no magnets in my first pictures?
Cheers
Sean.
Sorry, I wasn't clear. I was commenting on @xpenzif's video.
Hi Sean,
I guess with these small diameter magnets your screw head just sticks too much..
You probably need to grind them off or use bigger diameter magnets, so the flux
will reach out also to the end of the screw and also attract this.
Can you post a video and show exactly where it still sticks ?
Quote from: hartiberlin on October 18, 2007, 04:12:10 PM
Hi Sean,
well quickly done.
Maybe your magnets are a little too small.
I think it really depends also on the exact sizes
you use.
Good luck.
Hi Hart
Looking at the original video again, I would say he is using close to 5mm rod magnets.
If I bring the arm within say 5mm of the screws and spin the Rotor by hand, I can certainly feel the vibration and interaction from the magnets acting on the screws. Also they ripped a couple of screws off that had to be re-fitted LOL
I tried some 10mm rods but way too strong and also some 6mm cube magnets, but trying to keep it a little bit close to the original LOL
Would love some feedback by the original artist, so lets hope he pops back in.
Cheers
Sean.
Quote from: Omnibus on October 18, 2007, 04:14:27 PM
Sorry, I wasn't clear. I was commenting on @xpenzif's video.
Ah sorry mate, confusion again LOL
Cheers
Sean.
Quote from: hartiberlin on October 18, 2007, 04:21:27 PM
Hi Sean,
I guess with these small diameter magnets your screw head just sticks too much..
You probably need to grind them off or use bigger diameter magnets, so the flux
will reach out also to the end of the screw and also attract this.
Can you post a video and show exactly where it still sticks ?
Let me do a quick shoot
BRB
Hi Sean,
I had another closer look in fullscreen modeof the original
video of user xpenzif
and I can see now, that the screws are really all very well
grinded off and that there sticks no "hill" out at the head,
so this makes a huge difference to your unit, as
the distance from the magnet to the screws does not
change much in xpenzif?s video, but just the thickness
of his iron mass of the screw.
In your replication, as there is the "hill" of the screw hat
you have much bigger attraction forces to overcome
due to the nearer distance which goes into a square factor !
in the attraction formulars
and thus it is far more sticky.
I hope you still can change your screws by grinding off the heads
enough.
Just as another user said, screw a few of them into wood and use
a grinding tool to braze the head "hill" off at one side or (both sides ?)
Good luck !
Regards, Stefan.
Quote from: CLaNZeR on October 18, 2007, 04:01:54 PM
HD bearing stripped of its coil winding to clear any lag and oiled with fine oil. You can blow on it and make it move it is so loose.
Cheers
Sean.
Does anyone know how to get one of these bearings apart to remove the magnets and windings? I have already ruined one by trying to pry it apart.
I have made one complete attempt so far with a stock HD bearing.
As for the screw heads go, I have been mashing them down flat with a hammer. It looks alot like what is in the video.
I have been able to achieve only small part of a turn so far, basically from the tails to the heads of one column of screws, I could not achieve even this until I tilted the drum slightly as in the video. I feel great potential for success here!
HL
When I ponder about this, I think it is best to
to grind off both sides of the screw heads...
This way, there is not too much iron at the front
versus the rear end.
One has to really find the right relationship of iron mass
versus x-coordinate way to go.
With magnet motors every MilliMeter of false placement
is very important and can kill the effects.
The same goes with the iron mass having the right shape
and distance !
If the fields are not right, then it just willnot work!
Regards, Stefan.
@CLaNZeR
Thanks for your nice work.
Bad news.
Just a silly question, anyway: Is the angle between the screw(s) and the magnet(s) the same as in the initial device? Is is not something like that (right angle?).
Or I'm I missing something?
(https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffreenrg.info%2FImg%2FScrew_and_Magnet_angle.GIF&hash=d90d066dcd2b93928a4738062066713d1c9b9fd9)
Else, the 'support' for the magnets (in the initial device) is made of aluminium. Is it not?
Best
@CLaNZeR
Your cylinder tilted as the original one seems to be ?
Video attached. Excuse the music, was the last track I had loaded in Windows Movie Maker LOL :)
Tried attaching movie to this post but timed out twice now, so have uploaded to my server:
http://www.overunity.org.uk/CLaNZeRSScrewMotorEffort1.wmv
Cheers
Sean.
Quote from: hartiberlin on October 18, 2007, 04:30:28 PM
I hope you still can change your screws by grinding off the heads
enough.
I think you are right, it is sod all to do with the screws but more to do with using metal that has a slight slant.
What we maybe need is to replace the screws with slanted pieces of metal as suggested by others, but also thaty fit the curve.
Something like chopping up a piston ring and grinding down the angle, but alot of work :(
Will see if the chap comes back with more info I reckon.
Hi CLaNZeR,
Your screws seem to have a small point at the end a strait bit in the Midol and a flat end at a right angle to the stem.
Were as the originals have a more tapered shape and stem and attached to that a tapered head, giving a much smoother transition.
Where the originals flattened with a hammer?
This would give a work hardening affect and would make them slightly denser from being squashed and have a harder composition at one end.
The plastic type material my hold sum electrostatic vortex type reaction/property /effect/buildup. It was insulated by the wooden board to.
Maybe the spiral of the screw its self helps with the cogging effect as you may get a similar effect as in this video?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=me5Zzm2TXh4
Think it need to be a carbon copy ; )
Extremely good effort though, just making observations.
Good luck to you,
Regards Paul.
Just looked at the new clip of the replication, think you might be pushing it the wrong way round.
Quote from: paulshroom on October 18, 2007, 05:41:27 PM
Just looked at the new clip of the replication, think you might be pushing it the wrong way round.
CCW the same as the original
Quote from: CLaNZeR on October 18, 2007, 05:15:59 PM
Video attached. Excuse the music, was the last track I had loaded in Windows Movie Maker LOL :)
Tried attaching movie to this post but timed out twice now, so have uploaded to my server:
http://www.overunity.org.uk/CLaNZeRSScrewMotorEffort1.wmv
Cheers
Sean.
Thanks @CLaNZeR for sharing this with us. I think next step should be to flatten the heads of the screws both ways (front and back). Another thing, the screws don't seem to be the type @xpenzif uses. The heads of his screws are conical which affects the distribution of the field when flattened. The screws in your device even when their heads are flattened will have a too sudden transition from high attraction to low attraction. Seems like a small detail but, who knows, in view of the importance of the shape of the fields this may have some importance. Good job otherwise.
Extremely sorry my mistake.
I have seen all different type shapes of screws you may want to consider.
This may be worth pondering?
http://images.google.co.uk/images?hl=en&q=screw&oe=UTF-8&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wi
well, he had to flatten the screws so that the Neos would get closer to the screws.
Looks like your version is a little too far for the attraction forces to grab hold.
Also, it almost looked like the stator was at an angle to the rotary disc -
thus the top magnets were further away from the rotor than the bottom
magnets. Maybe it was a perspective trick tho, Not sure.
Take a look at my replication
www.youtube.com/watch?v=DQAWmUm6fEs
I can get about a 1/4 turn at this point. Screw placement is very critical. I noticed that the area where the 1/4 turn (about 2 1/2 screw lengths) is slightly different in configuration than the rest of the arrangement so I will attempt to replicate that throughout the whole surface of the coil.
I am using a 3 in. pvc with 1" screws
Bill
Ok, I think I see problems with both replica's...
(besides the grinding)
The VERTICAL distance between your screw placements are way too far apart.
When you look at the original, the screws flattened Ends (large end) are not
even spaced a millimeter vertically from the next screw below it. The reason
it doesnt touch, is because the screw below is placed a bit to the side of it.
Very easily, just run the video clip, and pause it when he flips the thing up
showing the underside, and enlarge to full screen. Get the right correct spacing,
(and angles) as that seems to be very important.
Remember also, you have to think in 3d. If the screw head is not
flattened... the magnets will be trying to pull only the outside lip...
and cant get a good grip on the thing.
The flattened head allows the magnet a much greater surface area
to grip onto. And because its flattened, you can place the magnets
even closer to the screws, giving them even more pulling power.
Bill, this is very promising. Aside from the grinding and @zero's remark, it appears that the distance between the consecutive "stations" isn't the same. See in your rendition, the distances horizontally between the first, second, third and fourth heads of screws starting from the top and compare it with that distance between the fourth (bottom) and the fifth (next top). Not the same, isn't it? This changes the pattern of interaction which must be exactly the same at each "station" in order for the device to go on moving.
a closer pic.
Notice the various distances. Very close tolerances.
The Red and Green Diag. line show how close the spacing is
from Tip to head.
The Red horizontal lines show that the Heads are on the same
lines. (overlapping the line)
The blue lines show that the endpoint are very close to the heads that
are Below that point.
These tolerances may play a big part in how the magnetic attraction
is flowing.
Another issue is all the odd angles seen here. Making it perfect might mess up
the flows. Hard to say really.
That's strange, indeed. Could it be that this is such a rugged design that works despite all these imperfections?
Roughly about 1 head apart horizontal diff.
Actually, Its quite Brilliant :)
The shape of the Heads go from very wide, to narrow quickly. And since the
distance is the same as from one stator magnet to the other...
One the first stator (bottom) grabs a screw, the 2nd stator is already starting to
pull (and maybe even a less powerful pull from the 3rd). Then, as the 2nd is
pulling - the bottom screw thins out, reducing its grab. Thus the 2nd stators
able to pull the 2nd screw into place. Then it continues up the chain.
The only sticky spot is very small - to just get it started from the 1st
point to the 2nd. Once its got enough momentum, it seems there is
no problem keeping the cycle going.
Well, that is, if the system were designed a little more accurately.
Quote from: zero on October 19, 2007, 12:03:46 AM
Roughly about 1 head apart horizontal diff.
Correct. Tha pattern has to be repeated throughout, each "station" outstanding the same distance from the previous. This is what I think Bill has to improve in his setup.
I've posted a feuture page about this here:
http://peswiki.com/index.php/OS:Screw-Magnet_Motor (http://peswiki.com/index.php/OS:Screw-Magnet_Motor)
Feel free to post notice of your repolications there as you build them, whatever the results.
Feel free to help beef up the instructions, materials list, etc.
Overunity.com is a great place for chronological dialogue. PESWiki is a good place for an organized presentation of the material. It is a publicly editable site.
Sterling
It appears that the exactness of this particular distance is the crucial factor despite all the other imperfections.
What I wanted to do was to actually build the device so that I could first hand study the actual dynamics. When you have a physical unit in front of you then you can feel the "tug' of the magnets over the screws. It is so much better than trying to guess or figure what should or is happening from diagrams and pictures.
With the device I have built I can turn the pvc about 25%. Again I will examine closely that range of screws and see how it compares with the rest of the configuration and replicate that one set of screws at a time on the surface of the pvc.
Maybe I'm wrong here but I don't believe that all this grinding is necessary. I think if this device can work ( and that's still up in the air)
then I need to replicate what is working on my device (that 25%) and replicate it.
I am going to be in Seattle, Wa. for the weekend so I won't be able to do anything with this until Monday.
Well, all the measurements play a role here.
For example, if your screws were too long, it would cause too much a delay in
the attractions to make enough pull force to keep it spinning fast enough from
one screw to the next.
If the screws are too far apart vertically, it may not provide that magic
magnetic feild battle between each stator properly.
If the distance from the screws point is too far from the next heads, then
again, it may cause issues with continuity.
The fields battles are based on precise distance and timings.
-- edit ---
and if the magnets are too far away from the screws, the pull fields will
be too weak to properly interact.
The grinding is very important.
The only way around it would be to use much more powerful stators. BUT, the
problem with that is then the fields would probably overpower each other,
and have too much pull. Meaning, they would be pulling upon too many
surrounding screws at one time - thus causing drag.
The magnets have to be just strong enough to grab the one screw,
and pass it on... which means it needs to be very close to the screw.
Could not agree more. That's why we have to try different configurations to see what and what does not work. Again I seem to have something that works for 25% of the surface of the pvc. Why does it work? That is what I will attempt to find out. Are the screws to long?
I don't know , The spacing of the screws in my opinion is the most critical factor. Again I will start from this 25% and add layers of screws one at a time and see if I can push my way through this.
Quote from: billmehess on October 19, 2007, 12:13:25 AM
What I wanted to do was to actually build the device so that I could first hand study the actual dynamics. When you have a physical unit in front of you then you can feel the "tug' of the magnets over the screws. It is so much better than trying to guess or figure what should or is happening from diagrams and pictures.
With the device I have built I can turn the pvc about 25%. Again I will examine closely that range of screws and see how it compares with the rest of the configuration and replicate that one set of screws at a time on the surface of the pvc.
Maybe I'm wrong here but I don't believe that all this grinding is necessary. I think if this device can work ( and that's still up in the air)
then I need to replicate what is working on my device (that 25%) and replicate it.
I am going to be in Seattle, Wa. for the weekend so I won't be able to do anything with this until Monday.
You may be right about the grinding. This has to be demonstrated, though. It seems, however, pretty obvious that the repetition of the same patterns is crucial for the continuity. Therefore, the horizontal distance between the heads has to be the same and it seems this is something to be improved in your construction.
Zero,
Thanks.. That was some of the details I was trying to find but did not have video expertise to dig it out of the video. Great job. It shows a lot of the information we really need to know.
All others,
Observation. The bracket that holds the magnets may hold a vital key. I know he stated the bracket as aluminum here but on the youtube video I think he stated the magnets were stuck on the bracket. Not glued on. Normally magnets do not stick on to aluminum. If the bracket is not aluminum but some sort of magnetic blocking material like a mild steel then the bracket itself in the position that he has it will block the magnets magnetic field after the screw head has passed the magnet. This will have the effect of a sharp magnetic field edge. People that are already building a replication may want to attach the bracket as he did then add a plate of steel on the back side of the bracket to see if it alters or helps the spin results.
Later,
Tom :)
Excellent Input from everyone here and great close up pictures of the video that make more sense.
Will knock up a new Cylynder this weekend using the same screws and grind them down. Also will alter the pattern a little after seeing the Close ups.
Well done Bill on your replication so far.
Cheers
Sean.
Oops, I forgot one thing.
I read that he not only flattened the head, but also ground down one side
of the screw so that it was more curved, and would better fit on
the round surface of the wheel.
Well, this is the more convincing video I have ever seen about magnetic motors but...pardon me, I'm still skeptic: it's clash against all I have learned (by theory and personal experiences) about magnets. If you want torque, if you want movement you have to create an unbalanced situation of some sort. Universe is very lazy: you have "to convince" the magnets that their actual position is less "attractive" than the new one. So, I'm a magnet in a real quiet situation, I'm playin' with my brave piece of iron and all is quite and nice; for what damned reason I have to move to another position spending my precious energy?? Or, reversely: for what damned reason I have to work (just now?? ohh..shit..) to move that stupid screw so far from me? You must have a very good reason to do this. Moreover, the attractive power of a magnet is very limited in space and decreases really fast, so the attraction with a small piece of iron just in front of it is A LOT more strong than with a bigger piece of metal but more distant. The result is what we have seen in the replica: magnets stand in their more quiet position and without external impulse remain there.
A last reflection: you CAN'T have more iron mass WHITOUT a hill, and if you push the screw's head in the pvc..well, the only result is that magnets will feel less iron 'cause it'll be more distant. At the same time, if you cut or plane the screw's head you have less mass....
Ok, that's what I think about it, maybe I'm wrong and someone will replicate successfully the screw motor. In this case I apologize for my error.
Good luck
Quote from: pultimo on October 19, 2007, 05:24:56 AM
Well, this is the more convincing video I have ever seen about magnetic motors but...pardon me, I'm still skeptic: it's clash against all I have learned (by theory and personal experiences) about magnets. If you want torque, if you want movement you have to create an unbalanced situation of some sort. Universe is very lazy: you have "to convince" the magnets that their actual position is less "attractive" than the new one. So, I'm a magnet in a real quiet situation, I'm playin' with my brave piece of iron and all is quite and nice; for what damned reason I have to move to another position spending my precious energy?? Or, reversely: for what damned reason I have to work (just now?? ohh..shit..) to move that stupid screw so far from me? You must have a very good reason to do this. Moreover, the attractive power of a magnet is very limited in space and decreases really fast, so the attraction with a small piece of iron just in front of it is A LOT more strong than with a bigger piece of metal but more distant. The result is what we have seen in the replica: magnets stand in their more quiet position and without external impulse remain there.
A last reflection: you CAN'T have more iron mass WHITOUT a hill, and if you push the screw's head in the pvc..well, the only result is that magnets will feel less iron 'cause it'll be more distant. At the same time, if you cut or plane the screw's head you have less mass....
Ok, that's what I think about it, maybe I'm wrong and someone will replicate successfully the screw motor. In this case I apologize for my error.
Good luck
Rõcall that part of the excess energy (energy out of nothing) produced in SMOT is kinetic energy. Each one of these screws or "stations" is a small SMOT which generates said excess energy which allows the wheel to turn and get into the next "station" where next portion excess energy is produced and so on. The trick here is to work out the timing and other technical issues so that the baton can be passed properly from one "station" to the next. @xpenzif has probably found a simple solution to that problem and the only thing we need now is to have it reproduced by independent parties.
Nice analysis of the the video , and helpfull pictures. I also suspected that just plonking screws around a rotor would be hit and miss, as to regard the angle from one screw to another. The authour of the video has said that for more torque the screws were closer ( Angle shallower i suspect) and for more speed a bigger angle.
With this in mind i have started my replication buy cutting 4 perspex disks which sit on a brass threaded rod m6, 2 brass nutt separation between rotors, this produces a rotor that is of the same size as the roll of tape, 50mm high and 90mm diameter, but with the difference that once the magnetic material , screw etc has been stuck on to the edge of each rotor one can alther the angle with a spanner rather than burning your fingers with the glue gun again. The gap between rotors can also be reduced or increased as desired.
Will post a pic when i am not at work lol...
Why don't some of you find out where the guy with the youtube motor lives and pay him a visit.
Then you could examine the "real" motor and come to a conclusion faster.
His youtube profile puts him in the States, age 22....Clicking on his handle gives his my space info,anyone near \ Mt. Shasta, California
Estados Unidos ?
its the same challenge as with a steorn setup: The masses, distances, shape, diameters have to be choosen very carefully, better calculated, if possible (difficult). There is only one setup which works (parametric window). Others stick or waste power, when not driven in the hot-spot.
When expz.'s one realy work, i am sure he had do modify it many times and then stumpled over the hot-spot by accident, i think.
@bill: you should use much smaller AND thinner magnets. yours definetely too strong and too wide compared to the screws-head (maybe have a head). AND you should use bar-magnets with a square or rectangular surface. think this is a must-have-criteria. screw-material much iron.
somebody wrote about perendev: maybe its not a fake, but i heard, they still have problems to get enough power out. they promised kiloWatts and cann't deliver. They moved outside germany to escape the lawyers. don't know much more.
As it can seen by perendevs-video and here and read about steorns-toy, its turning with a specific speed and isn't self accelerating much, which is a major limitation of such and similar designs. lot to do. maybe OU is only 130% or so. but it would be a impressive step forward here in this forum, thats for sure. I think they work.
Hi All,
Got this idea that could really help all the people that want to replicate this make exact copies. If someone can make a paper PDF printout of a screw layout that has exact spacing of the all the screws on one sheet of paper than all a replicator has to do is print out the PDF, use a art knife to cut out the screw outline, wrap the paper with the screw cutouts around a PVC tube, tape the paper to the tube, put a dab of glue where each screw cutout is located then attached the screws. Let dry then peel off paper when done. This would make it very exact and reproducible every time instead of hit and miss.
Later,
Tom :)
Quote from: Craigy on October 19, 2007, 07:26:50 AM
His youtube profile puts him in the States, age 22....
Try to contact him through Youtube. That should be easy.
Just leave him a Youtube message or email him personally on his adress.
Quote from: Honk on October 19, 2007, 07:09:38 AM
Why don't some of you find out where the guy with the youtube motor lives and pay him a visit.
Then you could examine the "real" motor and come to a conclusion faster.
That's a very good suggestion. I actually did that two days ago through youtube pm. I asked him where he lives and whether I can visit him. Unfortunately, he hasn't replied yet.
Another possible problem. I do not see it mentioned anywhere how the magnets on the bracket are arraigned. Yes I know the poles are at the end but is it NNNN or NSNS or SNNS or NSSN ??? This can make a big difference as if they are the same then the pull power will be different if the fields are alternating. Magnetic field interactions will play a significant part here.
Tom :)
Hey folks,
Pretty exciting stuff. While i'd agree that replication should probably start with actual 'replication', copying exactly what we see (pending further info from xpendif). However, it occurred to me that you could make very neat wedges of steel using a hand notching tool and some galvanized steel duct. Wiss makes one, model HN1V, that creates neatly curved wedges of material. It would be rather thin, but the shape would be very 'neat' and it could be made very compliant with the outer surface of the rotor, improving tolerances.
Google Wiss HN1V, most HVAC pros will have one, and might even let you gnaw away at some scrap duct for a few bucks.
this has puzzled me since yesterday, have a look at the attached femm picture. when the sharp end of the half washer or the screw (to a lesser extent) gets to the magnet the magnet flux strength drops to nearly half, even though the flux strength is high in the washer or screw, the magnets in the stack above or below would be at near normal strength, would some sort of 'wave' motion be set up as the thing is spinning ? going from one magnet to the next up and down the stack. or is it femm acting up somehow ?
Still not 100% convinced, hope the chap pops in again soon. I run this up quickly in the lathe last night, i don't want to start drilling into these until i know what is required , but for the time being will hot glue screws and things to the rotors..
sorry if im butting in, i havent really been a part of this thread, but something that might have influence on the origional, if the inventor used a grinder to flatten part of the screw head, this can cause a magnetization of the screw. Something to think about
If you made the rotor a disk instead of a cylinder, and mounted the screws on it in the same diagonal pattern, it would look a bit like Perndev's motor. Wouldn't it?
The level of residual magnetisim in the screws is a valid point, and if weak again points towards Steorn. Although i would have thought that a crossfield configuration would work better , if at all. As the screw is attracted in under attraction, there will be a point of null flux the kinetic energy gained on the way in would help to overshoot, if the sv lag in the screw is high enough, the screw will not have time to aline the poles on the otherside back to attraction, it will approach in attraction cross the null and then leave in repulsion....but knowing the sv lag time of your screws might be the make or break of getting it to work
There is another concept to consider...
If 2 magnets are close together, their fields alter. The bar mags are fairly close
to each other, and so the way their fields interact and change may be very
unexpected. A sort of variable-Amplification based on relative attraction distances.
Craigy, I believe your rotor discs are too far apart vertically. May want to remove
one nut each section.
Yes , just wanted to give a bit of scope for experimentation, is 50mm long with 2 nuts as spacers, though i would start large and reduce.
The 4 magnets held together like that , all like poles facing out will have the effect of reducing the overall field, or will push the stator magnets to a point below retentivity. If they are arranged nsns or snsn or ssss i am not sure. Would like to see a better video tho..
I believe Parendev's motor was repel-based. Where this is attraction based.
I think that repel forces are less that attraction forces, which gives this an
advantage.
As for the people saying things about low torque being a problem...
I think that maybe its not a real issue in power generation.
I would think that using the shaft to drive a large disc of Rotating magnets
around a bunch of pickup coils, should be enough to output plenty of energy.
Obviously, the disc would have to be far enough away from the unit so that
the fields do not corrupt each other. Maybe a shield material placed in
between - such as thick plastic.
Prove it spins first, before worrying about power generation :)
This is starting to look like a bait and switch.
The ?screw device? being a non-working ?bait? to get you all excited.
and the washer device being the one he wants everyone to work on.
(as he thinks that one could work, and wants thousands of free man hours
of research put into it)
The only problem is that he claimed a working device, which did get everyone excited!
in his next post he tried to veer away from the screw device. (unsuccessfully).
So, now he?s just sitting in the woodwork.
The next post will probably be a ?working? (fake) washer device,
To more or less redirect away from the screw device.
(as its very easy to build and prove non-working which will blow
away his credibility).
His mistake was showing a too simple to build screw device.
clever builders here, prove me wrong.
burk,
I don't think anyone here can be fooled. The device in the video is to be reproduced exactly as shown. If not, forget it. On another note, that device looks pretty convincing and the failed attempts so far don't mitigate that feeling since they still aren't what is required considering the construction in the video.
I really hope your right Omni.
I really do hope its more than a tasteless,time wasting joke.
pointing out the way it looks to me, and a real possible scenario
to consider.
To be honest this does not inspire much confidence, The poor video of a wobbly , off centre rotor with suspect sound. It probably took longer to put the subtitles in than to video the whole demo and that suggests something being hidden. such as the air line just out of view of the camera... I would love to be proved wrong tho...
(//)
Here is what I have been working on which is kind of related to the screw device. I have since modified my device and am trying several configurations. This picture was taken a day or two ago. I am experimenting in both attraction and repulsion. The more I see and think about the screw device, the more I suspect we may have been dupped. If that were my WORKING device, I would make a video, several videos using different techniques to eliminate anyone saying it was faked,up to and including suggestions from forum members. (cover with a fish bowl, sound, etc.) I hope it is real because if not, a lot of time and effort have been wasted on the part of the forum members.
Bill
As usual, I'm a very slow builder, but so far I'm building as planned.
/Eric
Quote from: Pirate88179 on October 19, 2007, 02:22:04 PM
(//)
Here is what I have been working on which is kind of related to the screw device. I have since modified my device and am trying several configurations. This picture was taken a day or two ago. I am experimenting in both attraction and repulsion. The more I see and think about the screw device, the more I suspect we may have been dupped. If that were my WORKING device, I would make a video, several videos using different techniques to eliminate anyone saying it was faked,up to and including suggestions from forum members. (cover with a fish bowl, sound, etc.) I hope it is real because if not, a lot of time and effort have been wasted on the part of the forum members.
Bill
See, thing is, this is excruciatingly simple to replicate, it seems. Nothing like Torbay's and the like. Not to say that the principle goes exactly along the lines of already claimed devices. In addition, we already have the conclusive proof that CoE can be violated and therefore such devices must certainly exist. All these make this particular setup very tempting.
There are a lot of reasons to think that it's a fake:
1) the "thing" works. Well, why not to patent it? You have solved the millennium puzzle and the only thing you are capable of is to post a (poor) video on youtube? bah....
2) the video itself is poor with strange cuts and suspicious audio, as noted;
2.1) moreover, the author is unknown. We have the next Nobel prize and he's mute and unfaced, not a single word, of satisfaction at least, not a smile...nothing at all;
3) no "dirty tricks" are used in the device...and it's not a good thing. Magnets and their interactions are very well known. Pratically, I think that today virtually ALL possible combinations have been studied by official reserchers and passionate people and the scheme of the device is really simple and not new at all and none of them is working;
4) I repeat myself: that device cannot work: the magnet n?1 attracts the first screw and rotate the device until the screw is exactly in front of it. Now is the turn of the 2nd magnet which "feels" the 2nd screw and try to rotate the device BUT it needs to win the attraction force of the 1st magnet (now at maximum level) which has no intention to lose its screw...moreover, magnets are equal in force and it means that the attraction force of 2nd magnet is fewer than the 1st one 'cause its screw is more distant. Maybe you can cross the first screw via kinetic force but at every passage the residual force is fewer and fewer....up to stop the device. It's the same problem of smot, tomi track and others magnetic devices: the final energy at every stage is ever less than the previous and at last the device stops.
Well, that's all. Have a nice week-end
QuoteThere are a lot of reasons to think that it's a fake:
1) the "thing" works. Well, why not to patent it? You have solved the millennium puzzle and the only thing you are capable of is to post a (poor) video on youtube? bah....
Patenting it is the worst idea. Patenting of a device such as this is a useless pursuit. US Patent Office has granted numerous patents for perpetuum mobile?s. What?s the result? None. Why? Because no one has ever demonstrated them working. ?Demonstrated? that?s the ?open sesame?. What @xpenzif needs to do now, at that urgently, is to stay around here and instruct people how to replicate the device independently. Nothing else will be of any use to him. He soon may find he?s running out of time if he doesn?t do that.
?2) the video itself is poor with strange cuts and suspicious audio, as noted;?
That?s only in the eyes of the beholder. I find it OK. Would?ve been better if he?d allowed the device to run longer instead of touching it at the fourth or fifth revolution. Why he did that beats me. Of course, if I were him I?d pst more than one video of the running device.
Quote2.1) moreover, the author is unknown. We have the next Nobel prize and he's mute and unfaced, not a single word, of satisfaction at least, not a smile...nothing at all;
No word of satisfaction because the author knows the job is still unfinished. An independent verification of his device is crucial. No prizes yet/
Quote3) no "dirty tricks" are used in the device...and it's not a good thing. Magnets and their interactions are very well known. Pratically, I think that today virtually ALL possible combinations have been studied by official reserchers and passionate people and the scheme of the device is really simple and not new at all and none of them is working;
No, you can?t say that. At least this device is working. The video shows it.
Quote4) I repeat myself: that device cannot work: the magnet n?1 attracts the first screw and rotate the device until the screw is exactly in front of it. Now is the turn of the 2nd magnet which "feels" the 2nd screw and try to rotate the device BUT it needs to win the attraction force of the 1st magnet (now at maximum level) which has no intention to lose its screw...moreover, magnets are equal in force and it means that the attraction force of 2nd magnet is fewer than the 1st one 'cause its screw is more distant.
You repeat it but what you repeat isn?t true. Unlike what you have incorrectly understood, SMOT does produce excess energy (energy from nothing) and that has already been proven rigorously.
It wins it when properly fine-tuned. What?s the problem? If there were no 2nd magnet, attraction towards the 1st magnet would be greater, wouldn?t it?
QuoteMaybe you can cross the first screw via kinetic force but at every passage the residual force is fewer and fewer....up to stop the device. It's the same problem of smot, tomi track and others magnetic devices: the final energy at every stage is ever less than the previous and at last the device stops.
Not so. Whatever, you said about the crossing of first screw will apply to the second screw at the same measure. What happened at the first screw came about as a result of what happened at the zeroth screw (the screw before the first) and so on going backwards. Why would the ?residual force? as you put it be greater at the zeroth screw than at the 1st screw? Didn?t you say that the magnets ?are equal in force??
Hi Craigy
I like the idea of the single Disks stacked together as you can alter the offset and also the spacing to suit the Stator magnets.
Knocked up some CNC code below and tempted to mill out some wheels in the shape shown to make 4 disks or clear the center and make it into a cylinder using individual disks . Then maybe place a thin strip of metal over each angle as such.
The shape probably needs altering to fit the original, but gives an idea of what I mean.
(https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.overunity.org.uk%2FSMW1.jpg&hash=25677192a07ee05443c59b3cc7c8d985e84f1567)
(https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.overunity.org.uk%2FSMW2.jpg&hash=b4e35ea7936c6bd06b532100c42a9391e8983e96)
(https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.overunity.org.uk%2FSMW3.jpg&hash=0facc88e65b6823b2dddc3b588c4de4e96c5b83a)
Cheers
Sean.
You know, I really do hope its something real.
As far as cleverness goes, both designs are well, rather clever.
The hard drive platter is a interesting material as well.
Good luck builders, at least it looks like fun tinkering with..
Nice idea Sean, I was thinking along similar lines, the metal strips to me used could be cut into triangles as i mentioned a while back or as you have thought create a magnetic gradient ( tooth) instead of cutting the metal into a funny shapes which was putting me off as it would be rather teadious. Doing it your way would mean cutting and stickin a small rectangular section of steel on each tooth, a lot easier if you can cnc the wheel.
Have you thought about he metal used? i have contemplated everything from sections of hard disk drive shielding to baked bean cans
I found about 100 ferrite beads today,( tubular 4 by 4mm) and may well hot glue them to my rotors for a laugh, ( easier than cutting metal) I wonder what would happen with a crossfield array..Might be good to use some of he stuff we learned on the dark side ;)
Quote from: Craigy on October 19, 2007, 05:16:20 PM
Nice idea Sean, I was thinking along similar lines, the metal strips to me used could be cut into triangles as i mentioned a while back or as you have thought create a magnetic gradient ( tooth) instead of cutting the metal into a funny shapes which was putting me off as it would be rather teadious. Doing it your way would mean cutting and stickin a small rectangular section of steel on each tooth, a lot easier if you can cnc the wheel.
Have you thought about he metal used? i have contemplated everything from sections of hard disk drive shielding to baked bean cans
I found about 100 ferrite beads today,( tubular 4 by 4mm) and may well hot glue them to my rotors for a laugh, ( easier than cutting metal) I wonder what would happen with a crossfield array..Might be good to use some of he stuff we learned on the dark side ;)
I reckon any bits of thin Iron would be okay, as long as it is bendy enough to follow the angles.
Even popping an Iron bar in your lathe and doing some nice fat curly cuts of about 1mm shavings would do mate :)
They would follow the contour and could be stuck on easy enough.
As usual let me know if you want any disks cut. Be good to get a pattern and angles, along with the theory from the Artist first !
Reckon we been away too long on the Darkside sometimes hehehe ;D
Interesting video. I may attempt a replication of this over the weekend. It would be interesting to measure the effects of a magnet on a single flattened screw. I was wondering if the flux being drawn to a point like that may draw eddy currents along bunching up at the point. That could be dispersing the lines, helping it "slip" past. "Helical Flux Slip Motor" =)
btw this is my first post here after reading the forums for the past week....losing sleep I might add.
Hi Sean,
I don?t understand your CAD drawings.
Where do you want to mount your magnets to these wheels ?
The objective is to have no iron get closer to the magnets,
but have different thickness of iron in front of each magnet, so
one screw row pulls the other screw row forward.
I just had an idea, just first to do it in a linearfashion,
so tape for instance on a big platsic ruller 4 rows of iron
pieces, that are flat but look like a triangular and see, if you can
accelerate the ruler linearly into one direction by bringing the
4 stator magnets near it.
Then we can first optimize the shape of the needed iron
parts and then later put it onto a bigger diameter circle wheel.
I guees, the bigger the diameter ofthe wheel is, the better it will work.
It just reminds me a lot of the experiments Dave Squire had done
a few years back with the MFT ( magnetic flux turbine) on
the yahoogroups ou-builders list.
I will upload the files from there into a more easily accessable directory
over here at overunity.com now.
Regards, Stefan.
Okay, here are now the MFT files.
http://overunity.com/mft/
Study them all in very much detail !
Especially these 3 files are very important and I think Dave Squires
is one of the original pioneers who brought the easy overunity magnet flux switching
into this world.
(https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Foverunity.com%2Fmft%2Fimg002.gif&hash=3546dcd0f6e5bae0305cce09af0a7a2a58ff19d2)
The trick is to have an iron ring around the pole of a magnet so the flux
can be shorted out via this iron core ring back into the stator itsself,
when the rotor iron parts moves along.
This way you can achieve much easier leaving of the rotor part
and the flux is much more easily switched to the next incoming
rotor part and then this part is rather atttracted.
Here you can see, how the 2 piece-rotor part (red line encased) looks very simular to the screw:
(https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Foverunity.com%2Fmft%2FMFT-force-in-load-sp.gif&hash=f9c53b2d71531c01419549dfd8a46c5c94a0a989)
And here is a measurement chart from FEMM simulation to show the
forces over a complete cycle. You see that the force is much bigger
in the positive direction than the negative, so it does not cancel out,
but works as a permanent magnet motor.
(https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Foverunity.com%2Fmft%2FMFTFORCE.JPG&hash=f528bf72c89e59867d2c0bb46fb1fe8341222875)
So now back to this screw motor,
it would be very benificial, if you replication guys could
put 4 small iron core rings around the 4 stator magnets.
This way the flux is much more easily switched from one screw
to the next one.
Hope this helps.
Regards, Stefan.
Study this GIF animation in slow motion
and you will see, how an iron ring around the
stator magnets will improve the flux switching
from one rotor piece to the next one coming into the
flux gate tunel.
(https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Foverunity.com%2Fmft%2Fgrah2.gif&hash=6a8b9146e2701bb6119b53c6acd6cdbb93e18196)
Okay, with the screw motor we have no closed magnet pathes,
but with FEMM it is much easier to simulate these closed magnet pathes
and to make the screw motor more powerful , you could also built it by using
permanent magnet flux gates
like in this animation, so these would need to
go inside the ring and outside the ring, so the screws would be entering a real flux gate
like shown in the animation.
So you would also use the back poles of the 4 stator magnets
to attract the screws from the inside of the rotor plastic ring,
not just from the outside !
Quoteit would be very benificial, if you replication guys could
put 4 small iron core rings around the 4 stator magnets.
This way the flux is much more easily switched from one screw
to the next one.
That is exactly why I brought up the possibility in another post that the bracket was a magnetic material like iron instead of aluminum.
An iron or soft steel bracket should produce close to the same effect.
You would not even need iron core rings for the entire magnet.
Just another piece of flat steel across the front side of the magnets
(not the poles but opposite the bracket) should work.
Tom
You are absolutely right Tom ! ;)
If you compare it with a standard flux gate,
(no MFT type)
the force is much higher for the rotor-iron-piece to leave
as can be seen here in this picture from the mft directory.
All the flux still wants to hold the iron rotor piece,
so it is much more sticky:
(https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Foverunity.com%2Fmft%2FSFG-force-out-load.gif&hash=ca3f02cce4651589a60d040968c7803cb28e83aa)
I tried to desgin a few years back with it this magnetic train idea,
but haven?t had the time to check further into it,
You need the exact right dimensions for the stator iron "rail-pieces"
and the linearly moving "rotor-train".
Here are 2 simulation pictures from it.
(https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Foverunity.com%2Fmft%2Fpmtrain01.gif&hash=0021d1fde3fa5ac3f7262fdb1b03236adb5df68e)
(https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Foverunity.com%2Fmft%2Fpmtrain02.gif&hash=5a44a603609e904111e86d15d91ab15d23221371)
But it still must be some other way designed, so there is this caliper
ring directly around a magnet inside its core, so the magnet flux
can more easily switch between the last and the next iron stator
"railtrack" piece
P.S..
My second train version:
http://overunity.com/mft/pmtrain02.gif
could probably work,
if the rail iron pieces would have some kind of triangular
shape , simular to the screws which
user xpenzif has used in his magnet screw motor.
But you could not see it in the
http://overunity.com/mft/pmtrain02.gif
picture, cause this is a side view !
sorry to say everyone
i just finished building this exactly like the film. i grinded the heads perfectly, i used the same exact screws, i used the same exact magnets, i drew a cad template and lined everything up perfectly. it just doesent work. its like every other false bullsh i t claim that has come through this site. no offence to anyone on this site but how many other people went out and spent 50 bucks on magnets, screws, gluegun, pipe and whatever else only to find you have built another non working magnet motor, throw it on the pile with the other non working contraptions you have built over the years
build yourself a wind turbine or something that will actually make energy for free. there is no free lunch
@rice
can you post a picture ?
Maybe you did something wrong ?
How did you mount your 4 stator magnets ?
Onto an iron bar bracket holder ?
It should be probably iron, not aluminium.
With my recent research, I don't disagree. I don't think this works. And, I will go on record saying that. (I guess I just did) I don't know what was going on in the video but, there is something very wrong here.
Bill
Quote from: rice on October 20, 2007, 12:01:29 AM
sorry to say everyone
i just finished building this exactly like the film. i grinded the heads perfectly, i used the same exact screws, i used the same exact magnets, i drew a cad template and lined everything up perfectly. it just doesent work. its like every other false bullsh i t claim that has come through this site. no offence to anyone on this site but how many other people went out and spent 50 bucks on magnets, screws, gluegun, pipe and whatever else only to find you have built another non working magnet motor, throw it on the pile with the other non working contraptions you have built over the years
build yourself a wind turbine or something that will actually make energy for free. there is no free lunch
Show a video of your non-working device. Until then what your saying is sheer crap which I think Stefan shoul delete. And if you continue with this crap everyone here knows what you will hear from me.
Ah, and don't worry about me spending fifty bucks. It's my money.
@All,
In his youtube presentation @xpenzif says that he has already sold devices to people. It's not unreasonable to expect these people to come forth and at least post a comment on his youtube site or better yet post a video response showing the devices he has sold them spinning as his device does, preferably spinning longer.
Quote from: Pirate88179 on October 20, 2007, 12:37:42 AM
With my recent research, I don't disagree. I don't think this works. And, I will go on record saying that. (I guess I just did) I don't know what was going on in the video but, there is something very wrong here.
Bill
Empty words. Show a video of what you've done.
@Omnibus:
No, not empty words. I did not videotape nor write down all of my explorations on this. I am just putting this out there for others to benefit from, or not. As simple as you think this device might be to replicate, there are still many, many variables but, and I hope I am wrong and I will be the first to admit it if I am, I don't think this is viable. If you built this wonderful thing....would you react like this? (Honest question) I am working in other areas currently so I am not going to argue about this. Let's just see what the replicators come up with...ok? I said what I think so now we see what is right, and what is wrong.
Respectfully,
Bill
Quote from: Pirate88179 on October 20, 2007, 01:12:46 AM
@Omnibus:
No, not empty words. I did not videotape nor write down all of my explorations on this. I am just putting this out there for others to benefit from, or not. As simple as you think this device might be to replicate, there are still many, many variables but, and I hope I am wrong and I will be the first to admit it if I am, I don't think this is viable. If you built this wonderful thing....would you react like this? (Honest question) I am working in other areas currently so I am not going to argue about this. Let's just see what the replicators come up with...ok? I said what I think so now we see what is right, and what is wrong.
Respectfully,
Bill
What you've said is completely useless for the purposes of this discussion and you should restrain from posting such useless comments. God knows what you've done. The world is full of people lacking talent and yet pushing themselves to discourage the talented.
Hey Omnibus. Do the words kiss my ass mean anything to you? I was replying in good faith and you jump on me like I was yet another homeless person in NY that you walk by every day. I stand by what I said and if you don't like it, or agree, that is your option. There is no need to get so testy. Life is too short my friend. Also, like my Momma used to say..."Useless is as useless does."
This time, not so respectfully,
Bill
Quote from: Pirate88179 on October 20, 2007, 01:36:03 AM
Hey Omnibus. Do the words kiss my ass mean anything to you? I was replying in good faith and you jump on me like I was yet another homeless person in NY that you walk by every day. I stand by what I said and if you don't like it, or agree, that is your option. There is no need to get so testy. Life is too short my friend. Also, like my Momma used to say..."Useless is as useless does."
This time, not so respectfully,
Bill
Hey, moron, behave yourself. Who do you think you are, you talentless nothing. Don't spew your crap here. This is a serious discussion and no one needs your nonsense splashed here and cluttering the conversation.
@ Omnibus:
Yes I can tell it's a real serious discussion since you are involved in it. Give me a break! I will go back to work and let your small mind wrap around this thought for a moment...or, take as much time as you require. Hans and the others were right about you. I thought I would give you the benefit of the doubt, but you have proved them all correct. Nice typing to you.
With absolutely no respect what so ever,
Bill
There is no reason to believe someone saying it doesnt work - without any proof
of pics or video. Furthermore, Ive yet to see anyone properly replicate the
device. All have Glaring issues with improper spacings in X and Y.
Also, there is no reason to believe it does work. Anything can be faked.
HOWEVER... there is no reason to cry like a baby if you took the plunge and
failed. There is also no reason to shout "fake fake fake" or to spread negative
speculations... as that does absolutely Nothing.
The choice is individual, weather we choose to believe something works... and
or if we believe we should try to replicate.
I believe what I saw in the clips was pretty realistic. Though, I am also skeptical.
But, if I had the money, Id build it myself just to try it out.
One thing that people say here that is quite funny is "its a simple replication"
When in reality, its not so simple. Sure, it does not require complex mathmatics
or 5000 ft of wire, specialized circuitry...etc.. But, for it to work, there are many
factors that are critical to success or failure. And I say most will fail because of
these factors.
Its a high tolerance situation. If the magnets strength is just a hair too strong or
too weak... that will fail it. If the screws arnt close enough it will fail. If the screw
alignments are off, it will fail. Its a delicate balance that will be tricky to get right.
edit:
Furthermore, I tend to think that people who do expend massive energies saying
"fake fake fake", badmouthing, and spreading negativity - are people who have
vested interest in people giving up free energy. There are plenty of Disinformationist
around. Esp in a place like this.
If anything, its a waste of your time arguing with such people. You waste your precious
time on that - instead of coming to a solution much sooner.
On another note. @xpenzif should also be pressed to come forth. We've seen enough fakers appearing to propose something viable only to disappear later without a trace. Recall what happened recently with that Mike claiming to have Bedini's device working. How many people fell in that trap. There should be some standards established on both sides of the issue. The claimant should be pressed to abide by some criteria of verification otherwise the most prudent thing is to ignore him. Same applies to the skeptic or the critic. These should also not be allowed to spew crap unattended.
In this case we don't even know who this guy is, where he is from. I'm repeating the concern of others here. Furthermore, he now got himself into a bigger quandary. He now claims he has already sold devices to people. Who are these people? Why wouldn't they come forth and testify, if there really are such people? This would almost amount to an independent verification. Well, the fake "inventors" and the fake "skeptics" are to be spotted sooner and be given what they deserve, I think.
Quote from: Pirate88179 on October 20, 2007, 01:47:23 AM
@ Omnibus:
Yes I can tell it's a real serious discussion since you are involved in it. Give me a break! I will go back to work and let your small mind wrap around this thought for a moment...or, take as much time as you require. Hans and the others were right about you. I thought I would give you the benefit of the doubt, but you have proved them all correct. Nice typing to you.
With absolutely no respect what so ever,
Bill
I've never said Hans is the only moron here. You prove there are others too. Stop discouraging people with your crap, you little nothing. Either post serious arguments or go away. As I said, no one needs your incoherent rantings here.
Zero:
I agree with your assessments. I too said it is not so simple to replicate and I did not attempt to do so. I am working on a parallel project and from what I have learned, and all of the evidence presented, I stated my opinion. So I, unlike some other dedicated forum members, did not take the plunge and therefore am not crying. I await further evidence to form any conclusions but, as I have said, I just don't think this is viable. I do think something is viable or I would not be working on it. I applaud any effort to do so. I ask you if you created something that appeared to work as this does, would you not make sure it was presented in a way that could not be challenged? I know I would. But, I don't expect everyone to be like me. I think I would hate the world if everyone were like me.
I can even see a situation where someone does something and even they can't replicate it. If it is real, we can all learn from that and maybe even help to find out what happened. This is a tough thing we are all trying to do. If it were easy, it would have been done 400 years ago.
Respectfully,
Bill
I should also add, arrogant politeness a la @hansvonlieven (I'm mentioning him in response to someone who just said his name) is also out of place in a serious discussion such as this.
Quote from: Pirate88179 on October 20, 2007, 02:02:35 AM
Zero:
I agree with your assessments. I too said it is not so simple to replicate and I did not attempt to do so. I am working on a parallel project and from what I have learned, and all of the evidence presented, I stated my opinion. So I, unlike some other dedicated forum members, did not take the plunge and therefore am not crying. I await further evidence to form any conclusions but, as I have said, I just don't think this is viable. I do think something is viable or I would not be working on it. I applaud any effort to do so. I ask you if you created something that appeared to work as this does, would you not make sure it was presented in a way that could not be challenged? I know I would. But, I don't expect everyone to be like me. I think I would hate the world if everyone were like me.
I can even see a situation where someone does something and even they can't replicate it. If it is real, we can all learn from that and maybe even help to find out what happened. This is a tough thing we are all trying to do. If it were easy, it would have been done 400 years ago.
Respectfully,
Bill
How do you know it hasn't been done 400 years ago? You don't know. Stop repeating that crap. This is no argument whatsoever.
Also, you have done nothig on that project as you yourself admit. Therefore, it is arrogant to express opinions one way or another and to discourage people based on your non-involvement. If you're interested and indeed want to see what the truth is watch quietly. Don't spew your completely unsubstantiated opinions no one needs.
As for @xpenzif, it is indeed strange that he won't come out more openly. That he's busy is no excuse at all. What more important should he be busy with, other than verifying the viability of his creation. Still the more he's offering it for sale already. Can you believe it? Why should anybody buy it, before it's clear it works? Take a chance? We've seen too many sellers of that kind. Wake up @xpenzif.
Well Omni,
Personally, its not a good idea to come out of the closet. Once
you do, you become an instant target! You really think people in the
industry are going to let you live long? You Might get lucky and
get the option of shutting your mouth (or misleading others with
false info).. but many are not so lucky.
I have more confidence in an anonymous contributer actually.
And, I do believe people have found OU in the past.. but surely they have
been silenced, bought out, or put in the grave earlier than expected.
I second what @zero says. No one here has yet presented a correct replication of the device as shown in the video. This is exactly what is required now, not completely unsubstantiated opinions of some trying to push themselves and discourage others.
@zero,
You may have a point as it regards the anonymity. However, once one has come out with a claim like that one should do anything possible to have it verified independently. There's nothing else he should be busy with. Obviously, @xpenzif is inexperienced and thinks he has to construct who knows what, missing the fact that it is exactly the independent verification that is the Gordian knot.
As for whether such devices have existed in the past, I'm pretty sure they have but have been suppressed. Look what happens with the rigorous, conclusive proof that CoE can be violated. This should be in the textbooks already but, instead, it remains something for the dogs and incompetents to chew. That's a glaring example of obvious suppression.
There is another thing Bill,
That no matter how well someone tires to prove their device is
true... Someone will think its BS.
There could be 1000 ways that someone could make a fake.
And there could be a 1000 ways to try to prove against it.
But are you willing to try to spend weeks and weeks responding
to request for the 1000 test, the asked personal visits to your house,
and the repeated and countless attacks and insults from others?
While I personally would have loved to see it spin for a longer duration,
I wont take that as the final verditct - nor let it chance my mind on the
possibility. To each their own :)
In the end, it will always come down to faith ... until there is massive
replications, and the hardened disbelievers are finally swayed.
Omni,
The Device is not perfect, and not easy for anyone to build and verify.
And who will verify his machine? The person with a gun in his
pocket. Or some nobody who everyone things is his best
friend pulling a prank. Or maybe someone that many know...
yet secretly, they are with gun too.
There is no easy way for anyone to get verification.
Quote from: zero on October 20, 2007, 02:46:42 AM
Omni,
The Device is not perfect, and not easy for anyone to build and verify.
And who will verify his machine? The person with a gun in his
pocket. Or some nobody who everyone things is his best
friend pulling a prank. Or maybe someone that many know...
yet secretly, they are with gun too.
There is no easy way for anyone to get verification.
I disagree. Instruct me to make a device which will make full turns as @xpenzif's device does, perhaps a couple of more minutes, and you're there. I have already conclusively proven that CoE can be violated so the possibility for existence of such devices won't be news to me. The new thing, if I see it spinning for a couple of minutes, will be the convenient engineering, practical application of that violation (the device I've proved to violate CoE can also find practical application but isn't that convenient).
Omnibus,please calm down.
It would be good, if people who replicated it
and don?t get it to work would post a video too, so
one can learn from them, how not to do it.
The magnet motors are very very difficult to set up
and very small details matters, so the fields must
be 100 % right, otherwise it will not work.
Have a look again at the MFT design files,
especially this one:
http://overunity.com/mft/OU_Generator_proposal.htm
Regards, Stefan.
Quote from: hartiberlin on October 20, 2007, 09:46:47 AM
Omnibus,please calm down.
It would be good, if people who replicated it
and don?t get it to work would post a video too, so
one can learn from them, how not to do it.
The magnet motors are very very difficult to set up
and very small details matters, so the fields must
be 100 % right, otherwise it will not work.
Have a look again at the MFT design files,
especially this one:
http://overunity.com/mft/OU_Generator_proposal.htm
Regards, Stefan.
Can't agree more. Let everyone who tries to replicate it post a video, working or not (spare the discussion of useless, unsubstantiated posts, however, which only clutter the discussion).
Also, do you remember this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m0KHZ53g678&mode=related&search=. One may say, a very efficient redistribution of initially imparted energy. Seems, however, there's more to it. This, as well as this http://youtube.com/watch?v=YvHb41KP7To seem like the precursors of the experiment we're discussing.
Now my replication is done.
And it does not work.
Every screw is a litle sticky spot.
Eric.
Well this is mine and just a close up. I got it a pass a few spots, but not a good attraction from screw to screw, used #8 and grinded both sides, makes a good outside V shape, going to try #12 next and have closer together, we see! And why does his ends look black or strange color, maybe heat Temp!! Keep trying guys
Wayne
Ok Folks step back .... I may not believe in a all knowing god, but theres this little feeling inside me saying these guys bickering isnt going to help and you both have valid points... just drop it and move along maybe make a quarter wager on paypal if the machine will work, lets not argue between ourselves besides i can't think clearly when im mad... i have to go play guitar for an hr to calm down.. so find your peace and lets keep the wagon moving
I feel like ive seen this motor somewhere and were only building half of it ... Just throwing this out there to anyone that has more than one demo so far im still making my first, try connecting your center points so to have what looks to be a sideways a frame and mabey double the magnets at the gate. I swear ive seen this somewhere.
Quote from: hartiberlin on October 19, 2007, 10:33:53 PM
Hi Sean,
I don?t understand your CAD drawings.
Where do you want to mount your magnets to these wheels ?
Hi Stefan
The drawings are of Individual Rotors, just like Craigy had done with his Rig, but instead of being rounds, they have the slants cut out out them. So the next stage would be to place a small bit of metal around the edge and follow the shape.
Below is the rotor again with the grey bits representing the metal. Now simply stack 4 of these together to get the same pattern as your screws.
(https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.overunity.org.uk%2Fmetalstrips.jpg&hash=5fc3a6c4e86f350aa5bc3ebc9f2b4cecd285e5c9)
Cheers
Sean.
QuoteAlso, do you remember this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m0KHZ53g678&mode=related&search=. One may say, a very efficient redistribution of initially imparted energy. Seems, however, there's more to it. This, as well as this http://youtube.com/watch?v=YvHb41KP7To seem like the precursors of the experiment we're discussing
Both of this video are Faked looped video. Don't get fooled by them!
@All
First Iââ,¬â,,¢ll be clear so no one is offended. I am not currently attempting a replication of this device. However, what I see in his video is the most promising I have ever seen. What I see is unique and I WILL replicate it after I complete my current commitment.
The uniqueness is the shapes of both the magnets and the screws. My view is these shapes do two things.
1. The distance between the magnets and screws is maintained while changing the mass attracted to the magnet as the drum rotates. We all know field lines donââ,¬â,,¢t change in quantity when travelling along a taper ââ,¬â€œ they only concentrate as the presented mass decreases.
2. The same thing looks to be going on radially from the drum axis. I.e. The screwââ,¬â,,¢s thickness decreases as it passes the magnet. This without changing the distance of the screwââ,¬â,,¢s surface to the magnet.
I suspect when these field lines concentrate they do the same thing as increasing the magnetic attraction as the screw passes under the magnet. When the screw passes to the point where the tip is nearing the point of being directly under the magnet the head of the next screw is close enough to start exerting more pull since it is presenting more mass that the tip of the previous screw.
The use of aluminum on the stator may also be a very important feature. No one can tell me exactly what the effect of aluminum has on this because aluminum in magnetic fields never fails to amaze me.
I havenââ,¬â,,¢t thought of a way to create much torque with this, yet. BUT, I do believe it could work. So my earlier statement stands. I still think this is incredible! I wouldnââ,¬â,,¢t have thrown it out for replication myself. That only breeds volumes of ââ,¬Ëœimprovementsââ,¬â,,¢ and non-working variations and then negative comments.
I am grateful he posted this video. He has more guts than I.
I have never dreamed of using what I see here and I donââ,¬â,,¢t recall seeing any other design using the methods I see on this device. When I do build it. The first thing Iââ,¬â,,¢ll check is ââ,¬Ëœdoes it look identical?ââ,¬â,,¢
Dear Omni,
i find it amusing how you bully people around on both here and youtube. you push your values and opinions onto everyone else..who made you CEO of this project.
I appreciate and admire the replication efforts....well done. The truth is a simple video of the original running a little longer may help because at this stage I can see no evidence. How many times have we seen video's of working devices that come of nothing or even worse faked?.
Until someone is able to replicate it or the original creator comes back with some more evidence all your bullying wont help. Take a happy pill and stop bullying people around.
Mark
Hi fast builders!
OK. At least 3 replications that do not work.
Anyway, mine is slowly going on. I have all the stuff now (even the screws :)).
May I attract your attention on the Xpenzif's screws disposition.
(This is my interpretation).
(https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffreenrg.info%2FMagMotors%2FInterpretatiion_Of_Xpenzif_Screw_arrangement.jpg&hash=d71e6a14faa4d7f44ecadb4ac7d377e2ba579da7)
And also on the fact that the rotor seems not to be 'horizontal':
(https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffreenrg.info%2FMagMotors%2FXPenzif_Mag_Mot_Under_side.jpg&hash=c5129796a05e60e1a866ce2eafc6907c4109d14f)
Best
Good job NerzhDishual,
Not only is it not horizontal, but it is off centered from the base. This appears to have been purposely built "out of balance". This would also fit Tseungs "lead out" theory, and explain why it actually works.
What appears to be "easy" to replicate may indeed have more to it than what "immediatly" met the eye! ;)
Those replicating should do so in a way that would allow them to test it off centered and slightly raised. Something that "minor" could be the difference between success and failure.
Also, all replication attempts should be as accurate as possible in every detail. One replicator did not even file his screw heads, I noticed, and he declared that it "did not work". Every detail should be measured and figured as NerzhDishual has started. Figure out the offset degree. Figure out the horizontal varience as closely as possible, and then replicate exactly. I too have "other" commitment in TPU land, but that is my advice to all.
Even the magnets appear to be "slightly" elevated higher than each screw row, also. Another huge factor, which needs to be measured.
Cheers,
Bruce
Let me post this from another one of the guys from the Darkside.
I have followed the comments below while watching the video and it makes a lot of sense to me.
*************************************
(BR)
I think I have this one sorted.
I was impressed the first time I saw it, it seems to go around for several revolutions, and possibly even accelerate.
BUT
then I noticed the writing (or some marks) inside the white cylinder, and watched that as a reference position.
There are two sticky spots. The worst sticky spot seems to be when the writing on the inside of the rotor is to the left of the picture - this represents 'bottom of the hill', so when the writing is not visible to the left, then the rotor is in an 'uphill' position. There is another weaker 'downhill' sticky spot position where the writing is towards the front of the camera view, but you can't see the writing in that position. Having several sticky spots is expected, as trying to get all those screws perfectly aligned is next to impossible, and one screw out of place will create a sticky spot.
It is easy to get the rotor to go downhill, even approaching with the stator will turn the rotor to the downhill position.
At about 1:00 mins in to the film the rotor looks like it starts to move. But this is simply going in to the 'front' downhill position. Then he gives it a flick with his finger, and the rotor goes past the worst sticky spot. As he has pushed it over the top of the hill, it can go downhill for another revolution and look like it is accelerating. At two revolutions it is visibly slowing down. On the third revolution he moves the stator away a tiny bit, and notice the writing is to the left - this is the downhill position and by moving the stator away a little bit he has just made the following uphill section less! The rotor makes it over the top of the hill one more time, and accelerates downhill again. Again when it gets to the bottom, he moves the stator away which removes the following uphill section completely, and then the rotor slows to a stop.
At 1:40, he pushes the rotor past the sticky spot again, and it goes around exactly one revolution before stopping at the sticky spot again.
So I am happy that this video does not show OU.
If he produces another video, then wake me up again, but his comment 'If you want to buy one: I have sold all of my unneeded devices, please wait until my website opens then you can get one.' really gets my BS alert going!
Do not buy one!!!
p.s. no bad jokes about multiple sticky spots either, please!
***********************************************************************
Cheers
Sean
Quote from: btentzer on October 20, 2007, 05:57:25 PM
Good job NerzhDishual,
Not only is it not horizontal, but it is off centered from the base. This appears to have been purposely built "out of balance". This would also fit Tseungs "lead out" theory, and explain why it actually works.
What appears to be "easy" to replicate may indeed have more to it than what "immediatly" met the eye! ;)
Those replicating should do so in a way that would allow them to test it off centered and slightly raised. Something that "minor" could be the difference between success and failure.
Also, all replication attempts should be as accurate as possible in every detail. One replicator did not even file his screw heads, I noticed, and he declared that it "did not work". Every detail should be measured and figured as NerzhDishual has started. Figure out the offset degree. Figure out the horizontal varience as closely as possible, and then replicate exactly. I too have "other" commitment in TPU land, but that is my advice to all.
Even the magnets appear to be "slightly" elevated higher than each screw row, also. Another huge factor, which needs to be measured.
Cheers,
Bruce
I am on my second build and have studied the original in much greater detail. Hopefully this will be much closer to the original design. However, I think it is a mistake to assume that xpenzif's build was a precision engineered project. Take a look at the still from the video, and you can see just how different the alignment of the heads are on the top and bottom rows, yet still the device works (or is claimed to).
My original post on YouTube was to Omnibus101, and I do say in the vid that it was a hasty build. ill post results from second build soon - and I guarantee it isn't exact, because no one knows the exact specifications, but from what I've seen so far, the breaking effect is all that I expect to see. I don't see how there is enough force from any other magnets to move a screw that is directly under a stator magnet. This is why the device breaks, and my preliminary results with ground screws, correctly spaced are still showing this. All good fun
Magna, you didnt grind your screws close enough on the outside.
The screws need to be completely flush. Meaning, the head needs to be level the
the diameter of the start of the tail.
The other replication was even worse in alignments and had no grinding at all.
Actually, I think he did say that he hid the head with a hammer - which may have
caused the screws some magnetic fields. Hard to say really.
Edit:
Sorry Clanzer, but Ive watched the Vid full screen from a saved file. There are 4 revolutions.
Ive counted about 10 times now to make sure.
I used two points as references. The inside wall of the tube has some word written on it.
The other times I watched the inside of the hard drive bearings... following one of them
carefully.
Sry for the bad quality, its from my phone. I know I don't have the spacing correct, which very well could be the problem, but I'm not getting much pull in any direction from the screw. It tends to want to stick at the point and head, but that doesn't do much. I gonna try and find some premade triangular pieces of metal, if I can.
(https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg86.imageshack.us%2Fimg86%2F3995%2Fscrewedtd5.jpg&hash=b9810fe415f4736abade0636f021a9eb6ed5e14f)
Freezer, theres No way your gona get any pull with the screw heads so
far apart from each other.
Also, while you have ground them down well on the outside,
your tube diameter is so small - and the screws may be too long... that they
protrude too far from the base at the points.
If the tails stick out too far - or are too long, the fields wont fade...
thus it will get stuck on the one screw and wont change places
with the next screws head.
Also, I notice your platform is thick and heavy looking. I doubt
you will move that with those magnets strength.
Almost done. I went to my shop today and spent about 3 hours grinding those screws (and a bit of my fingernails). I Just finished mounting them on the cylinder and it looks really close to the video. I left my cylinder longer as I may try putting another row or two on later. The screw size is #8 x 3/4 and I believe I have them ground the same way as the vid. My cylinder is the center of an old plastic wire spool that is exactly 3.5" in diameter. Looks very close. I just have to get some magnets now =(.
Quote from: zero on October 20, 2007, 10:29:39 PM
Freezer, theres No way your gona get any pull with the screw heads so
far apart from each other.
Also, while you have ground them down well on the outside,
your tube diameter is so small - and the screws may be too long... that they
protrude too far from the base at the points.
If the tails stick out too far - or are too long, the fields wont fade...
thus it will get stuck on the one screw and wont change places
with the next screws head.
Also, I notice your platform is thick and heavy looking. I doubt
you will move that with those magnets strength.
I already know it doesn't work. I'm gonna try and find another approach. However I don't think its the distance, its the shape and size of the screw, which I think makes the difference, but feel free to try. The bearings in it are real good and the slightest force moves it. I also have a variety of n42 and n50 magnets and they have plenty of pull. I just posted to show my failed attempt as some requested.
Great observations Sean, you have a keen eye. Perhaps the creator may show it spinning for say 3 mins...after all he did claim it had run alnight.
Once again well done everyone doing replications...I decided not to this time as i was not convinced there was anything there.
Mark
Quote from: markdansie on October 21, 2007, 01:58:46 AM
Great observations Sean, you have a keen eye. Perhaps the creator may show it spinning for say 3 mins...after all he did claim it had run alnight.
Once again well done everyone doing replications...I decided not to this time as i was not convinced there was anything there.
Mark
I don't think we can discount it yet, I don't think anyone here knows just how it works. I tried bending wire into triangular shapes to feel the pull.
The sticky point seems to move to the rear more with that shape, so I will try and come up with a more refined scale and shape of metal.
(https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg134.imageshack.us%2Fimg134%2F3967%2Fcbsxj8.jpg&hash=19944423fbc168a014847da98674abaeada35909)
Quote from: markdansie on October 20, 2007, 03:11:08 PM
Dear Omni,
i find it amusing how you bully people around on both here and youtube. you push your values and opinions onto everyone else..who made you CEO of this project.
I appreciate and admire the replication efforts....well done. The truth is a simple video of the original running a little longer may help because at this stage I can see no evidence. How many times have we seen video's of working devices that come of nothing or even worse faked?.
Until someone is able to replicate it or the original creator comes back with some more evidence all your bullying wont help. Take a happy pill and stop bullying people around.
Mark
I should explain this because you haven't gotten it yet. I have stakes in this project because I have made a rigorous analysis proving that CoE can be violated beyond any doubt. This is the first scientifically sound analysis for the violation of CoE ever made. In my analysis I have shown definitively that excess energy (energy from nothing) can be produced discontinuously. This has not only far-reaching scientific consequences but can also be utilized for practical purposes. Even better would be if this excess energy can be produced continuously which is done by devices such as the one we're discussing now. The reality of such devices is beyond doubt, confirmed by my analysis I mentioned above. What is needed now is a skillful engineering to realize such devices in flesh and blood. While there are many proposals, patents and claims for such devices, this one is the first practical one actually demonstrated (except for Finsrud's which I have seen personally but which is of a more or less theoretical importance).
Hope the above explains why I take this (and similar) project very seriously and require that from others as well. In addition I should tell you something that I've said many times. I don't have friends other than the truth. Truth is my only friend and anyone who tries to play with this will hear from me not very pleasant, although deserved, things.
Quote from: klicUK on October 20, 2007, 08:57:23 PM
Quote from: btentzer on October 20, 2007, 05:57:25 PM
Good job NerzhDishual,
Not only is it not horizontal, but it is off centered from the base. This appears to have been purposely built "out of balance". This would also fit Tseungs "lead out" theory, and explain why it actually works.
What appears to be "easy" to replicate may indeed have more to it than what "immediatly" met the eye! ;)
Those replicating should do so in a way that would allow them to test it off centered and slightly raised. Something that "minor" could be the difference between success and failure.
Also, all replication attempts should be as accurate as possible in every detail. One replicator did not even file his screw heads, I noticed, and he declared that it "did not work". Every detail should be measured and figured as NerzhDishual has started. Figure out the offset degree. Figure out the horizontal varience as closely as possible, and then replicate exactly. I too have "other" commitment in TPU land, but that is my advice to all.
Even the magnets appear to be "slightly" elevated higher than each screw row, also. Another huge factor, which needs to be measured.
Cheers,
Bruce
I am on my second build and have studied the original in much greater detail. Hopefully this will be much closer to the original design. However, I think it is a mistake to assume that xpenzif's build was a precision engineered project. Take a look at the still from the video, and you can see just how different the alignment of the heads are on the top and bottom rows, yet still the device works (or is claimed to).
My original post on YouTube was to Omnibus101, and I do say in the vid that it was a hasty build. ill post results from second build soon - and I guarantee it isn't exact, because no one knows the exact specifications, but from what I've seen so far, the breaking effect is all that I expect to see. I don't see how there is enough force from any other magnets to move a screw that is directly under a stator magnet. This is why the device breaks, and my preliminary results with ground screws, correctly spaced are still showing this. All good fun
Thanks @klicUK. Will follow your efforts very closely. Wish you a lot of success.
The keyword, it seems, is "fine-tuning". Setting this in motion meets with the general problems such devices have. This one seems technically somewhat easier to replicate. Think about Torbay's, let alone Finrsud's. Stefan and others remember the times when Torbay came to NYC with his device and wasn't able to demonstrate it. He was in NYC for about a week, desperately trying to restore it in a working condition the way he 's had it in Argentina. He couldn't, unfortunately. Why? Now I kind of understand it. There are these tiny adjustments which may slip from the grasp even of the constructor of the device. The device worked in Argentina, it was disjointed while traveling to NYC where under pressure the constructor wasn't able to restore it. Look at the video we discuss here. A tiny adjustment of the stator magnets got it going. The second effort, however, wasn't successful. Even the third try made the rotor turn halfheartedly. This a tricky thing to reproduce as are all the important scientific discoveries. Therefore, one has to approach the solving of this problem as a scientist, systematically and painstakingly studying and reproducing first the conditions under which the working device exhibited the effect. Those of the participants here who have made PhD's in and experimental discipline (Physics, Chemistry etc.) know exactly what I mean. Sometimes it takes years to reproduce an effect even after spending years sometimes to assemble the experimental setup. Garage inventor, of course, has it's place but not always.
Hi guys,
Really thanks for all contributions. Here is mine first version. I also did not had succes with it. As somebody already said every screw head under magnet forms sticking point and I should say a strong one. If I gather enough further research energy I'll continue with sec. version. Mine prototype is differed from video that it has longer screws (more turns) this could be problem. I placed them as in the NerzhDishual picture. Also each screw head should be leveled to the body of the screw it should not stick out I think.
Oh man if only the guy said what are the dimensions of screws and how precisely are they placed around tube...
good luck,
MT
Quote from: Omnibus on October 21, 2007, 03:00:30 AM
Thanks @klicUK. Will follow your efforts very closely. Wish you a lot of success.
The keyword, it seems, is "fine-tuning". Setting this in motion meets with the general problems such devices have. This one seems technically somewhat easier to replicate. Think about Torbay's, let alone Finrsud's. Stefan and others remember the times when Torbay came to NYC with his device and wasn't able to demonstrate it. He was in NYC for about a week, desperately trying to restore it in a working condition the way he 's had it in Argentina. He couldn't, unfortunately. Why? Now I kind of understand it. There are these tiny adjustments which may slip from the grasp even of the constructor of the device. The device worked in Argentina, it was disjointed while traveling to NYC where under pressure the constructor wasn't able to restore it. Look at the video we discuss here. A tiny adjustment of the stator magnets got it going. The second effort, however, wasn't successful. Even the third try made the rotor turn halfheartedly. This a tricky thing to reproduce as are all the important scientific discoveries. Therefore, one has to approach the solving of this problem as a scientist, systematically and painstakingly studying and reproducing first the conditions under which the working device exhibited the effect. Those of the participants here who have made PhD's in and experimental discipline (Physics, Chemistry etc.) know exactly what I mean. Sometimes it takes years to reproduce an effect even after spending years sometimes to assemble the experimental setup. Garage inventor, of course, has it's place but not always.
Omnibus:
I've playing with magnets long enough to know that it certainly is true that the slightest adjustment can be the difference in success and failure. I'm getting some interesting results with the second build, hopefully finished later today - when other chores are out of the way. The thing is, xpezif's original doesn't seem to be built at all precisely, and he claims to have builtseveral replications. I'm trying hard to replicate this device, but honestly - my feeling is that it is actually a frictionless breaking system.
Quote from: Freezer on October 21, 2007, 02:17:37 AM
Quote from: markdansie on October 21, 2007, 01:58:46 AM
Great observations Sean, you have a keen eye. Perhaps the creator may show it spinning for say 3 mins...after all he did claim it had run alnight.
Once again well done everyone doing replications...I decided not to this time as i was not convinced there was anything there.
Mark
I don't think we can discount it yet, I don't think anyone here knows just how it works. I tried bending wire into triangular shapes to feel the pull.
The sticky point seems to move to the rear more with that shape, so I will try and come up with a more refined scale and shape of metal.
(https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg134.imageshack.us%2Fimg134%2F3967%2Fcbsxj8.jpg&hash=19944423fbc168a014847da98674abaeada35909)
This drawing reminds me of the Calloway V Gate:
Paul.
http://www.fdp.nu/triangle/default.asp
Quote from: NerzhDishual on October 20, 2007, 04:49:53 PM
Hi fast builders!
OK. At least 3 replications that do not work.
Anyway, mine is slowly going on. I have all the stuff now (even the screws :)).
May I attract your attention on the Xpenzif's screws disposition.
(This is my interpretation).
And also on the fact that the rotor seems not to be 'horizontal':
(https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffreenrg.info%2FMagMotors%2FXPenzif_Mag_Mot_Under_side.jpg&hash=c5129796a05e60e1a866ce2eafc6907c4109d14f)
Is he deliberately using two opposing force fields, the magnetic field
and the gravity field?
Paul.
@ Paul
Looking at that photo, not only is it "tilted" towards the magnets, but with the "off center", there would also be more "weight" moving down the tilt. Add to that "heavier, downhill slope" is the pull/attraction of the magnets.
So again I would say a definite "yes", he is using gravity both through the tilt and weight to achieve full rotation. In my mind this lends "credibility" to the design, as it uses the "lead out theory".
Any replication without the above mentioned "gravity" effecting builds, will not be successful. It must be off centered and also tilted.
Cheers,
Bruce
Quote from: btentzer on October 21, 2007, 08:40:43 AM
@ Paul
Looking at that photo, not only is it "tilted" towards the magnets, but with the "off center", there would also be more "weight" moving down the tilt. Add to that "heavier, downhill slope" is the pull/attraction of the magnets.
So again I would say a definite "yes", he is using gravity both through the tilt and weight to achieve full rotation. In my mind this lends "credibility" to the design, as it uses the "lead out theory".
Any replication without the above mentioned "gravity" effecting builds, will not be successful. It must be off centered and also tilted.
Cheers,
Bruce
@btentzer: don't know what you mean. Although the rotor (hard drive platter) is mounted off the center of a block, it will still spin in a circle. Any gains made from more weight on the down slope is exactly counter balanced when the same weight travels on the upslope. net gain is exactly zero. As far as I can see, If there is an effect on this device, it can only come from the magnets.
I've created a sub-page for this project listing the replications that have been attempted thus far. Feel free to post yours, or to elaborate on the description given for yours at http://peswiki.com/index.php/OS:Screw-Magnet_Motor:Replications (http://peswiki.com/index.php/OS:Screw-Magnet_Motor:Replications)
Of particular note, not mentioned at this forum yet, that I can see, is:
Bossnik -- Enough Joy
Submitted on Oct. 20, 2007
"I have had marginal success replicating this device. I have flattened all screws and positioned them perfectly. I have gotten over 360 degrees of rotation(which I feel is very significant!) I am using an old stepper motor for a mount, but a smoother bearing might do the trick, UNLESS xpenzif's design incorporates the small bits of attraction and repulsion that you notice in a stepper motor when you try to spin it manually. Maybe he staggered the screws to line up somehow with that effect. I PM'd him asking about this and I'll post his response, this could be a key piece of the puzzle."
Oops, major construction error in my replication. I forgot to flatten the outside heads. Good thing with hot glue: hot air to remove the screws again. Back to the work shop.
Eric
@klicUK,
Good luck in your replication. As for frictionless breaking system you mention, this has been a concern with Finsrud's machine too The supposition is that Finsrud's device is just a very efficient redistributor of the initially imparted energy. There are some very simple experiments which can exclude that possibility. Unfortunately, Finsrud hasn't been forthcoming in clarifying that issue. Here in this case, we would have grater possibility to conclusively answer this question after it becomes easily reproducible (this is a much simpler device anyway). Even at this point one may see that such a possibility (the device being just an efficient redistributor of initially imparted energy) is to be excluded--observe, for instance, the slowing down and then accelerating of the rotor etc. However, let's see the reproduction first and then discuss this issue.
Now I flattened the screws and I mounted them back on the PVC. Sorry to say that I still meet a sticky spot when any screw head is passing a magnet. My replication is still not working.
(I also have to rest the index finger of my left hand after hot glueing the screws a second time.)
Eric.
Possible modification for this device....
Instead of gluing the screws on. Why not screw them in. The process I am thinking about is screwing them all in to the head and then twist each other screw out a little bit more then the previous. This would also help in testing out a couple of other setups without having to rebuild a new device. Different configurations to test. Lowest set screw to highest set screw around the full circumference and also trying lowest to highest that would occur 2, 3 or 4 times around the same circumference
QuoteThe supposition is that Finsrud's device is just a very efficient redistributor of the initially imparted energy.
That is exactly what I think is going on here. If you look at the pictures of my device posted earlier, in preliminary tests(read testing before properly completed) I can get 5-7 rotatiions. I am holding the stationary magnets in my hand and as I approach the cylinder it begins to spin on it's own and if I stop moving my hand closer, the rotation slows and finds equilibrium. All I am doing is imparting a pulse by moving my hand as in the rotating magnet experiment video I posted some time ago. At that time, Omnibus said that if I held the magnet ring in a fixed position there would be no rotation, and he was correct. This was just a low friction device reacting to the impulses of the moving hand.
I am afraid that is what is possibly happening here as well. Otherwise, why did he not mark the spot where the magnets (stationary) cause rotation and bolt, glue, fix, his magnets there to that spot as opposed to moving it with his hand. The bearings on a hard drive set up like that, especially if he removed the windings, is very, very low friction.
I too will eagerly await the results of the replicators before deciding one way or the other, but I am leaning in this direction more and more.
Bill
Dear Sterling,
"I have had marginal success replicating this device. I have flattened all screws and positioned them perfectly. I have gotten over 360 degrees of rotation(which I feel is very significant!) I am using an old stepper motor for a mount, but a smoother bearing might do the trick"
I could show a device that self starts and runs for at least 15 minutes...it appears to be a magnetic motor but isnt.. Sadly this new device would have to run for at least an hour to convince me anything was there as the action of bringing in the stator to the rotor can actually be the driving force itself.
I might also suggest old heads from a vcr make excellent bearings...they can spin for several minutes with the slightest touch.
Mark
Quote from: Pirate88179 on October 21, 2007, 03:32:07 PM
QuoteThe supposition is that Finsrud's device is just a very efficient redistributor of the initially imparted energy.
That is exactly what I think is going on here. If you look at the pictures of my device posted earlier, in preliminary tests(read testing before properly completed) I can get 5-7 rotatiions. I am holding the stationary magnets in my hand and as I approach the cylinder it begins to spin on it's own and if I stop moving my hand closer, the rotation slows and finds equilibrium. All I am doing is imparting a pulse by moving my hand as in the rotating magnet experiment video I posted some time ago. At that time, Omnibus said that if I held the magnet ring in a fixed position there would be no rotation, and he was correct. This was just a low friction device reacting to the impulses of the moving hand.
I am afraid that is what is possibly happening here as well. Otherwise, why did he not mark the spot where the magnets (stationary) cause rotation and bolt, glue, fix, his magnets there to that spot as opposed to moving it with his hand. The bearings on a hard drive set up like that, especially if he removed the windings, is very, very low friction.
I too will eagerly await the results of the replicators before deciding one way or the other, but I am leaning in this direction more and more.
Bill
It doesn't seem so, though, in this case. That's why @xpenzif's device provoked such interest. He should have left it running for a couple of more minutes, however. Hope those who'll reproduce it will show it running longer with that initial adjustment move of the rotor (not push, actually) @xpenzif makes at the beginning.
@bill
your observations are spot on. I have seen this many times on different devices.
I do appreciate all the replications and ideas put forward here. I remain open minded that something may come of this but at this stage I agree with you unless further evidence is provided. There has been a long history of devices that have failed to be replicated.
the next hurdle if one did run is to see if the magnets loose their power....
Kind Regards
mark
Quote from: markdansie on October 21, 2007, 03:35:58 PM
Dear Sterling,
"I have had marginal success replicating this device. I have flattened all screws and positioned them perfectly. I have gotten over 360 degrees of rotation(which I feel is very significant!) I am using an old stepper motor for a mount, but a smoother bearing might do the trick"
I could show a device that self starts and runs for at least 15 minutes...it appears to be a magnetic motor but isnt.. Sadly this new device would have to run for at least an hour to convince me anything was there as the action of bringing in the stator to the rotor can actually be the driving force itself.
I might also suggest old heads from a vcr make excellent bearings...they can spin for several minutes with the slightest touch.
Mark
Mark, show it running for 15 minutes while self-starting (and don't run away after that as @xpenzif and all the rest did). That'll do. This is a perpetuum mobile.
Quote from: markdansie on October 21, 2007, 03:46:15 PM
@bill
your observations are spot on. I have seen this many times on different devices.
I do appreciate all the replications and ideas put forward here. I remain open minded that something may come of this but at this stage I agree with you unless further evidence is provided. There has been a long history of devices that have failed to be replicated.
the next hurdle if one did run is to see if the magnets loose their power....
Kind Regards
mark
Not so. Magnets losing their power is of no concern at all. Show it running after it self-starts. That's enough for it to be a perpetuum mobile.
Quote from: desimoni67 on October 21, 2007, 02:16:12 PM
Instead of gluing the screws on..... without having to rebuild a new device
Nothing faster and easier then hot glue. Removing does not even leave holes!!
I've posted another replication attempt on YouTube
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rA3pGixr5rc
still no luck I'm affraid.
@klickUK:
Nice replication there...good work. The "working" model had a slight angle of the platter but other than that, I don't see anything different in your attempt. The magnet attracts the largest mass which in this case is the head of the screw. I would not expect anything different based upon my own experiments.
Hey, here is an idea. If this guy is selling these "working" devices on the internet, why does someone from here not buy one and report on it? Hopefully, the charge won't be too high, but probably less than some of you have spent on replication attempts. Then, when someone from here has their hands on one, it can be fully evaluated in a scientific, verifiable manner. Then we will know for sure. Just a thought.
Bill
Quote from: Pirate88179 on October 21, 2007, 07:24:57 PM
@klickUK:
Nice replication there...good work. The "working" model had a slight angle of the platter but other than that, I don't see anything different in your attempt. The magnet attracts the largest mass which in this case is the head of the screw. I would not expect anything different based upon my own experiments.
Hey, here is an idea. If this guy is selling these "working" devices on the internet, why does someone from here not buy one and report on it? Hopefully, the charge won't be too high, but probably less than some of you have spent on replication attempts. Then, when someone from here has their hands on one, it can be fully evaluated in a scientific, verifiable manner. Then we will know for sure. Just a thought.
Bill
@ Pirate88179
To be honest after the first replication I did - which I admit was a rush job and a pretty dismal attempt - it was obviouse that this would not work. As you say, the strongest attractive force is to a screw head directly beneath a magnet. Why would the other screws (that pull equally in both directions) have enough attraction to 'their' stator magnets, to dislodge the screw directly below a magnet. The result is exactly what I would expect. I will however, in the interest of science and fairness, continue to play with the device a little longer. More on the stator configuration I think.
KLiC
Hi
I am new here and I joined up specifically because this thread. I have a firm belief that a magnetic motor is possible, but I don't think it will be easy to make. Imagine trying to make a lawnmower engine from scratch in your basement!
My observations about the motor are that this is closing the loop on a SMOT. So if it needs a little kick-start, thats OK (?). Also, isn't the idea that the machine needs to build a little momentum to get past the sticky point. It seems that the mount for the magnets provides some shielding? It looks like it is two pieces of material.
I know some of these points have been made already.
Peter
Quote from: klicUK on October 21, 2007, 07:09:51 PM
I've posted another replication attempt on YouTube
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rA3pGixr5rc
still no luck I'm affraid.
@ klicUK
A good attempt on the replication. ;) But, it still appears perfectly horizontal and is neither tilted nor off center on the base (this would act to increase the tilt.) Please compare your picture again to that of the original. Without gravity assist, this stands no chance of working.
It is the "unbalanced wheel" of the lead out theory that makes this possible. Please reattempt, putting the cylinder at a "slight" tilt, with the magnets at the "bottom" of that tilt.
If you look at the photo of the original, you will also notice that it is "off set" from the center of the base. This would add additional tilt to the unit. A little geomotry off of the original photo, and you should get pretty close.
Until someone has replicated "exactly" they can not say that it does not work. It simply does not work the way they have built it.
Keep pluggin' away, your doing a good job, :)
Bruce
Quote from: Heynow on October 21, 2007, 08:18:34 PM
Hi
I am new here and I joined up specifically because this thread. I have a firm belief that a magnetic motor is possible, but I don't think it will be easy to make. Imagine trying to make a lawnmower engine from scratch in your basement!
My observations about the motor are that this is closing the loop on a SMOT. So if it needs a little kick-start, thats OK (?). Also, isn't the idea that the machine needs to build a little momentum to get past the sticky point. It seems that the mount for the magnets provides some shielding? It looks like it is two pieces of material.
I know some of these points have been made already.
Peter
Firstly, I still fail to see why people think this works like a smot. It doesn't. It doesn't drop out of a sticky point with the help of gravity.
Secondly, I believe overunity will come out of someone's garage. The first lawnmower engines were probably very simple. Also, since mainstream science acts a little like close minded religious fanatics, it is unlikely they will come up with anything.
Most importantly, the most universal, significant things in nature are usually very simple. Take Einstein for example, he came up with E=mc^2. Now how difficult is E=mc^2 to understand? It's simple! How hard is it to build a betatron? Not hard at all! You could use the parts from your television to make it. Did you know that MIchio Kaku made his betatron before he left high school?
So if overunity is possible, then an inventor could build one if it's an efficient design, with all the extras removed. Of course if overunity needs extreme amounts of power then it would be hard, but still, it would be SIMPLE.
PS By the way, the momentum gained from magnetic tracks such as v tracks, is not enough to get it past the sticky spot. If you have a steel ball which is attracted to a magnet, and rolls towards it on a track with the magnet beside the track, the ball doesn't come to a dead stop when it reaches the magnet. It keeps going, for a bit. I believe this is how the smot works, since the moment it goes past the magnet, it is in the air, and drops.
PPS Couldn't this have been very easily faked? Since he is using a hard disk, hard disks have motors! This reminds me of that video where the kid put his device on a computer fan, very oviously powered by the fan.
Quote
PPS Couldn't this have been very easily faked? Since he is using a hard disk, hard disks have motors! This reminds me of that video where the kid put his device on a computer fan, very oviously powered by the fan.
After taking apart several hard drives myself, I have been thinking that this would have been easy to fake by running some hair thin magnet wire from the HD controller board, which you would hide out of sight, to a switch and then into the base of the motor. Magnet wire would never show up in a grainy video. Also you only really see one hand in the frame of the demo. The other hand cold be pulsing the switch to simulate the movement.
I want to be clear that this is just my theory of how it could be faked, I am in no way saying that Xpenzif faked this in any way. For now I am a believer and I am working hard on my own replication.
HL
Quote from: klicUK on October 21, 2007, 07:09:51 PM
I've posted another replication attempt on YouTube
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rA3pGixr5rc
still no luck I'm affraid.
@klicUK,
This is the direction to go when attempting to replicate the device. Good job and presentation. However, in addition to what @btentzer says I?d add that the screws you use do not seem to be of the same kind @xpenzif has used. Also, from @xpenzif?s video is seen that he doesn?t push the rotor to spin as you do but is slightly moving it to allow it to self-start. As seen from @zpenzif?s video the motor doesn?t work by just approaching the magnets to the rotor--motor spins properly only in one of the basically three attempts with some particular disposition of the magnets with respect to the drum. There?s more to it than just the physical appearance and shapes of the motor parts. Don?t forget that it?s the interaction with magnetic fields that is at play here, fields which are not seen with a naked eye. It?s this interaction of the fields that has to be reproduced, not just the shapes of the given parts of the machine.
@psychopath,
It?s still not clear that gravity doesn?t play a role here?see what @btentzer says. However, even if there?s no gravity at play here what makes this device similar to a SMOT is the superposition, proper at that, of conservative fields?magnetic fields. Although you may say there?s one only magnetic field we have multiple pieces which close loops in this one field. Closing of each loop is assisted by closing the neighboring loop and this makes it similar to the SMOT.
I should also mention this, although it?s off-topic. It isn?t true that Einstein has come up with E = mc^2. Mass-energy relationship has been known well before Einstein from the works of Lorentz, Hasenohrl and others. It is present classically in the Poynting vector. In addition, Einstein?s theory of relativity cannot ever derive this relationship despite the vigorous propaganda that it does.
Omnibus:
Yes this is off topic but, and we can start a new thread if need be, and, I don't want to start a fight or a flame war, I might agree that Einstein did not come up with e=mc squared but, he did prove that correct? All of our great minds have stood upon those that have come before. What is your information on this as I am very interested in learning all that I can. If you think this needs another thread, we can do that. I just feel that this was a very interesting statement that you made and I would like to know more about it. I do know that not all of the history we were taught stands up to reality.
Bill
Quote from: Pirate88179 on October 22, 2007, 12:55:00 AM
Omnibus:
Yes this is off topic but, and we can start a new thread if need be, and, I don't want to start a fight or a flame war, I might agree that Einstein did not come up with e=mc squared but, he did prove that correct? All of our great minds have stood upon those that have come before. What is your information on this as I am very interested in learning all that I can. If you think this needs another thread, we can do that. I just feel that this was a very interesting statement that you made and I would like to know more about it. I do know that not all of the history we were taught stands up to reality.
Bill
I repeat, Einstein's theory of relativity cannot derive the mass-energy relationship E = mc^2. It is only propaganda that it does. The "theory" of relativity is only a compilation of elementary, childish errors, full of internal contradictions. Said theory has never had nor can it have experimental confirmations because the "conclusions" from it which the propaganda pushes on the world, don't even follow from it. The "theory" of relativity must be abandoned in its entirety. Physics has no use for such falsities. Why this is so is off-topic and I don't want to discuss it here.
The permanent magnets can induce some magnetism to the nails. If so, it would just be magnet-to-magnet "pulsed rotation". The nails provide the uneven pulse. Such Pulses can Lead Out Electron Motion (magnetic energy).
Would any one like to compare with this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mCANbMBujjQ ?
Quote from: ltseung888 on October 22, 2007, 01:23:00 AM
Would any one like to compare with this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mCANbMBujjQ ?
That motor is Paul Sprains predecessor to his new 11.5KW output Wankel motor called E.M.I.L.I.E.
You can read about it in this thread.
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=2773.0
And here is an open source development of a similar motor.
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=3456.0
Quote from: btentzer on October 21, 2007, 08:46:35 PM
Quote from: klicUK on October 21, 2007, 07:09:51 PM
I've posted another replication attempt on YouTube
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rA3pGixr5rc
still no luck I'm affraid.
@ klicUK
A good attempt on the replication. ;) But, it still appears perfectly horizontal and is neither tilted nor off center on the base (this would act to increase the tilt.) Please compare your picture again to that of the original. Without gravity assist, this stands no chance of working.
It is the "unbalanced wheel" of the lead out theory that makes this possible. Please reattempt, putting the cylinder at a "slight" tilt, with the magnets at the "bottom" of that tilt.
If you look at the photo of the original, you will also notice that it is "off set" from the center of the base. This would add additional tilt to the unit. A little geomotry off of the original photo, and you should get pretty close.
Until someone has replicated "exactly" they can not say that it does not work. It simply does not work the way they have built it.
Keep pluggin' away, your doing a good job, :)
Bruce
@ btentzer: The device isn't perfectly horizontal. Thats why when I demonstrate the partial build and move the stator away the rotor spins in the opposite direction. Not sure what you mean by 'off center on the base'. As far I can see the device spins in a perfect circle - the distance between the rotor and the stator magnets remains pretty much constant. There is certainly no 'cam' effect. You also have to remember that even if the rotor is tilted (as mine is), any +ve effect by weight on the downhill will be counterbalanced exactly by the same weight when it moves around to the uphill.
@ Omnibus: I deliberately chose those screws because the dimensions are very close to those used in xpezifs post, count the threads. Also, I dont beleive that xpenzif took that much care over his build, it certainly isn't precision engineering, and these were probably the nearest screws he had to hand. Very serendipitous if he just happened to get the only screws that would work. I assure you there is no way this device will self start regardless of how the stator is presented to the rotor.
I believe the explanation given by xpenzif is fundamentally floored. Please consider this...
The screw underneath a magnet is in its 'Ground State'. In other words all kinetic energy has been used and the force from the magnet to that screw is at its maximum. The next screw on the drum/rotor that should move underneath a magnet must have a force acting on it that its greater than the force acting on the screw in the ground state. But the second screw is much further away, and thus the force is much weaker. There is absolutely no reason why movement should take place. Now consider further that screws that have already passed under a stator magnet are still being attracted to their stator - and this force is in direct opposition to the force of the magnet and screw that is supposed to be next under the magnet. So, the force that is required to overcome the screw in its ground state = force of magnet on next screw on the drum minus the force from magnets on screws that have just passed the stator.
My device does exactly what its supposed to do. It breaks and stops when a the force of the magnet on a screw in the ground state is greater than the force provided by my hand when I push start it.
@kilcUK,
I don?t accept your explanation because of the following. In http://data.image.zabim.com/o-wa51V9glc9.jpg the ball at point C is at its minimum of magnetic potential energy, the ?Ground State? as you put it. Start it form point C and you won?t have a closed A-B-C-A loop along which the excess energy (energy out of nothing) is produced. The device in the picture produces excess energy, however, if started properly. This is only an illustration of my point. In the discussed case, of course, we have superposition of one type of conservative fields unlike the case in the picture.
Quote from: Omnibus on October 22, 2007, 05:27:44 AM
@kilcUK,
I don?t accept your explanation because of the following. In http://data.image.zabim.com/o-wa51V9glc9.jpg the ball at point C is at its minimum of magnetic potential energy, the ?Ground State? as you put it. Start it form point C and you won?t have a closed A-B-C-A loop along which the excess energy (energy out of nothing) is produced. The device in the picture produces excess energy, however, if started properly. This is only an illustration of my point. In the discussed case, of course, we have superposition of one type of conservative fields unlike the case in the picture.
@Omnibus: thanks for response. I need more explanation as to what is going on in the diagram. Is this a diagram of a perpetuum mobile? Does it work?
@klicUK,
Please take a look at this http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,2733.30.html#msg40090, discussing the experiment here: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2383887636280790847.
Quote from: Omnibus on October 22, 2007, 05:56:05 AM
@klicUK,
Please take a look at this http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,2733.30.html#msg40090, discussing the experiment here: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2383887636280790847.
@Omnibus: Very interesting. The ball bearing at point 'C' finds potential energy from gravity. I think this device has way more scope for success than xpezifs build.I'm going to try it, with shielding around one side of the magnetic 'chute' and have the bearing roll back down a tube to the start. Not at all like xpenzifs design - once a screw is in the magnetic ground state it stays.
One more comment Omnibus, and please don't take this the wrong way, why aren't you trying to replicate xpenzifs design. It took an afternoon to make the second device. In fact most of that time was spent making the video. Once you make it you will see exactly what I'm talking about, and you can try tweaking a few parameters here and there if you want.
QuoteI repeat, Einstein's theory of relativity cannot derive the mass-energy relationship E = mc^2. It is only propaganda that it does. The "theory" of relativity is only a compilation of elementary, childish errors, full of internal contradictions. Said theory has never had nor can it have experimental confirmations because the "conclusions" from it which the propaganda pushes on the world, don't even follow from it. The "theory" of relativity must be abandoned in its entirety. Physics has no use for such falsities. Why this is so is off-topic and I don't want to discuss it here.
@Omnibus:
you are crazy, definitively crazy. Stay away from every serious forum. You are harmful.
@klicUK,
To tweak the SMOT to produce a self-sustaining device is not a simpler engineering task than to construct a working @zpenzif's motor. While I'm interesting in the scientific aspect only and the SMOT even in this state (non-self-sustaining) is enough for me in its scientific aspect. @xpenzif's device is directly conveniently practically applicable while the SMOT even self-sustaining isn't that convenient for the practice. Therefore, for all practical purposes it si very important to reproduce @xpenzif's device, the only magnet motor demonstrated openly to work.
Speaking of tweaking, notice, just putting the magnets at an angle as in the pictor will do no good. A lot of fine-tuning is needed to see what I've demonstrated in the video.
Quote from: klicUK on October 21, 2007, 07:09:51 PM
I've posted another replication attempt on YouTube
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rA3pGixr5rc
still no luck I'm affraid.
Assuming that the 4 magnets are all facing North or all facing South towards the screws?
Maybe the magnets are alternated facing North and South at the Xpenziv setup?
(So, from the top to bottom magnet : NSNS or SNSN instead of NNNN or SSSS)
Quote from: robbie47 on October 22, 2007, 10:02:40 AM
Quote from: klicUK on October 21, 2007, 07:09:51 PM
I've posted another replication attempt on YouTube
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rA3pGixr5rc
still no luck I'm affraid.
Assuming that the 4 magnets are all facing North or all facing South towards the screws?
Maybe the magnets are alternated facing North and South at the Xpenziv setup?
(So, from the top to bottom magnet : NSNS or SNSN instead of NNNN or SSSS)
Tried that.
Sounds like a verification?
kossxf (5 days ago)
Can I buy this from you?
xpenzif (5 days ago)
Yes I have a smaller one I can sell you, pm me.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rA3pGixr5rc
kossxf (11 hours ago)
I have one of his devices. Its supposed to be mounted on a stepper motor in a way that lines up its push/pull with the screw alignment. It's like two systems balancing out each other. he doesnt mention it in his video.
klicUK
does it work?
kossxf (1 hour ago)
Yes it works fairly well.
Quote from: pultimo on October 22, 2007, 07:08:56 AM
QuoteI repeat, Einstein's theory of relativity cannot derive the mass-energy relationship E = mc^2. It is only propaganda that it does. The "theory" of relativity is only a compilation of elementary, childish errors, full of internal contradictions. Said theory has never had nor can it have experimental confirmations because the "conclusions" from it which the propaganda pushes on the world, don't even follow from it. The "theory" of relativity must be abandoned in its entirety. Physics has no use for such falsities. Why this is so is off-topic and I don't want to discuss it here.
@Omnibus:
you are crazy, definitively crazy. Stay away from every serious forum. You are harmful.
On the contrary, you are harmful. You are crazy and despicable. The "theory" of relativity is indefensible and must be categorically removed from every serious scientific pursuit. It is one of the most reprehensible things in Science to defend indefesible nonsense such as the "theory" of relativity.
Quote from: tobasco on October 22, 2007, 02:59:18 PM
in a way that lines up its push/pull with the screw alignment
My HDD motor has hardly a push/pull. I will search for another one. I guess we need as much screws on a row as there are bumps in the stepper motor.
Eric
Quote from: tobasco on October 22, 2007, 02:59:18 PM
Sounds like a verification?
kossxf (5 days ago)
Can I buy this from you?
xpenzif (5 days ago)
Yes I have a smaller one I can sell you, pm me.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rA3pGixr5rc
kossxf (11 hours ago)
I have one of his devices. Its supposed to be mounted on a stepper motor in a way that lines up its push/pull with the screw alignment. It's like two systems balancing out each other. he doesnt mention it in his video.
klicUK
does it work?
kossxf (1 hour ago)
Yes it works fairly well.
It would be great if kossxf would post a much longer video of the device running.
Thanks
@eavogels
Hm, interesting. Mine HDD motor turns also as smooth as baby when turning by hand. As input it has 4 pins. Does somebody knows more about these motors? If I connect any two pins to say 5volt disk just jerks once and stops (taking ~1amp). I could not turn it it needs pulses.
HDD is (was) Quantum ~ 5years old tech, died in storm.
I'll check an old CDROM.
So we need two systems outbalancing each other step by step, hm ... Maybe two such PVC wheels out of sync ...
MT
I don't believe a word of it. That is probably the same chap using a second youtube id. He has been logging in to youtube , and probably viewing whats going on here , shame he can't come back to talk to you guys who have invested time in trying to replicate...Ok so you leave the stepper motor intact, is that with coils short circuit or not ..seems like he is just "screwing" the lot of us.
Quote from: Craigy on October 22, 2007, 05:42:26 PM
I don't believe a word of it. That is probably the same chap using a second youtube id. He has been logging in to youtube , and probably viewing whats going on here , shame he can't come back to talk to you guys who have invested time in trying to replicate...Ok so you leave the stepper motor intact, is that with coils short circuit or not ..seems like he is just "screwing" the lot of us.
Remember this quote from Xpensif?
"As for the hard drive spindle, [it] was the most convenient thing I had back then, but now I have several bearings I can use. "
Either it was posted here, or was in the original text on Youtube, anyway it can be found on peswiki,com
HL
As a point of information only:
Hard drive spindle motors are usually 3 or more phase motors or polyphase. What this means is they usually have a 3 or 4 conductor ribbon connected to the motor. The rotor is a ring magnet with only one point polarized different from the rest of the ring. Short those leads out if you want the spindle to drag at the points of the multiple pole windings. The motor won't drag unless you put a load on it when it is acting like a generator.
Quote from: tobasco on October 22, 2007, 02:59:18 PM
Sounds like a verification?
kossxf (5 days ago)
Can I buy this from you?
xpenzif (5 days ago)
Yes I have a smaller one I can sell you, pm me.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rA3pGixr5rc
kossxf (11 hours ago)
I have one of his devices. Its supposed to be mounted on a stepper motor in a way that lines up its push/pull with the screw alignment. It's like two systems balancing out each other. he doesnt mention it in his video.
klicUK
does it work?
kossxf (1 hour ago)
Yes it works fairly well.
No, no, no...
The full post is
kossxf (20 hours ago)
I have one of his devices. Its supposed to be mounted on a stepper motor in a way that lines up its push/pull with the screw alignment. It's like two systems balancing out each other. he doesnt mention it in his video.
klicUK (18 hours ago)
does it work?
kossxf (10 hours ago)
Yes it works fairly well.
klicUK (8 hours ago)
does it self start? I must say it contradicts all my findings, and the 2nd device I built is pretty faithfull to the original. You need to post a video - WITH SOUND
AutogenicMotor (5 hours ago)
SO the device you recieved is incomplete? You have to mount it yourself on a stepper motor?
Quote from: HLEV on October 22, 2007, 05:58:43 PM
Quote from: Craigy on October 22, 2007, 05:42:26 PM
I don't believe a word of it. That is probably the same chap using a second youtube id. He has been logging in to youtube , and probably viewing whats going on here , shame he can't come back to talk to you guys who have invested time in trying to replicate...Ok so you leave the stepper motor intact, is that with coils short circuit or not ..seems like he is just "screwing" the lot of us.
Remember this quote from Xpensif?
"As for the hard drive spindle, [it] was the most convenient thing I had back then, but now I have several bearings I can use. "
Either it was posted here, or was in the original text on Youtube, anyway it can be found on peswiki,com
HL
thus all secondary assumptions about stepper motors and conjecture about how they would be used in conjunction can be discarded. CD spindles are as good a facsimile as any.
Lots of claims on YouTube of working devices - no videos posted yet.
I'll be honest. I approached testing with an open mind, but since building I have tried god knows how many permutations with stators and rotor alignment (I even turned to a full 90 degrees). The result is always the same. It Breaks. I have posted the reasons why I believe xpenzifs explanation is wrong on PESWIKI.
Perhaps the most compelling evidence that this is fake is that xpenzif removed my video response of the replication (XPENZIF Replication part 2). Now why, when someone has gone to the trouble of virtually duplicating the device would he do that. He went public by showing it in the first place. If that were me I would be pointing out the mistakes, but then how do you explain the breaking effect, which is so apparent and obviously in direct contradiction to his claims. Surely the first time he tested his hypothesis he would have got the same result. Why then would he have continued if the result was so antagonistic to his vision. He also sells 'incomplete' units.
My position should now be clear...
Before I built it I had an open mind.
When I built the first rough protype I had my doubts.
Now I have built a faithful copy I believe it is fake.
.
duplicate post - sorry
I tried mounting my screw assembly to a cd fan and it does rotate a lot differently. Mine still doesn't give any indication of spinning, although my screws aren't spaced according to the motor in the fan. I will try again and make the spacing to the motor spacing and see if that works. I think that the backscrubber motor on utube might have worked the same way.
o.K. ill try to explain continuos motion
what you see is a chart containing a force measurement of two horizontal moving magnets from kedron project eden
# the magnets are spaced 1/32" apart (line of movement)
# one curve in the chart represents one magnet with his counter magnet interacting force
# the curves are arranged as several pairs of magnets acts in a time shifted manner but isolated from each other (e.g. several discs, drum)
# the sum curve represents the sum of all forces in horizontal plane which should be observed
# there should be always an increase in this curve which could be engineered by closing the loop
# ever observe the sumline while shifting the space between the different magnet pairs, in this case the shifting is 3*1/32"
->if the sumline (integral) gets nearly horizontal thats no problem (no additional force) but if it falls the system is surging power from the rotating mass
->if the sumline rises, energy is added to the momentum storing device (wheel)
...backwardengineering-> design a verry good forcecurve and try to shape your attractor (screw, magnet, piece of magnetic metal etc.) that it fits to the searched curve
kaRLfunkel
Quote from: ken_nyus on October 15, 2007, 10:08:47 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jZjEYu9BbW0
4 rows of screws lengthwise on a cyclinder, rotating in attraction to 4 magnets outside the cylinder.
Short video but interesting.
Maybe little late to quote the first post, but here is my opinion:
Right at 1 min 17 sec in the video, the guy removes the magnets. Look closely on the wheel at that moment. The wheel is actually accelerating a fraction of a second even after the magnets has been removed. I believe a handheld magnet under the table is moved to activate the rotation, but he did not sync. both hands... Better try next time :D
Vidar
I also see it speeding up as he removes the stator.
I'm not sure if this is a sign of deception.
I believe this is the best sign so far of a scam.
All of the replicators here have reported that approaching the magnets to the screws will brake the drum from rotating.
And this is exactly what happens in the video. The guy removes the braking magnets and the drum is released from its
brake and turns faster just before he turns of the hidden motor.
I think it's time to skip this fraud and focus on other things.
I bet that almost all of the replicators so far can get their replications to work just by using a small fan to blow it into rotation. ::)
Like I stated at the start of this thread, I would gladly try to get shop time to replicate this if Xpenzif would post more video and details of construction. So far nothing from him. Yep. starting to look like a hoax.. Too bad. A lot of effort into wasted replications. At least the replications were fairly easy to replicate and not to expensive compared to the Torbay one.. I guess Xpenzif got his few minutes of fame.
Yeh too bad....so now that thats over with, lets all discuss my design?!
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=3495.0
Quote from: skycaptain on October 23, 2007, 11:04:28 AM
Yeh too bad....so now that thats over with, lets all discuss my design?!
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=3495.0
Not at all, it's not over with. Where's your working model, however, to warrant discussing it?
Quote from: ken_nyus on October 23, 2007, 09:29:08 AM
I also see it speeding up as he removes the stator.
I'm not sure if this is a sign of deception.
That's right. Grasping at straws.
@All,
So far all the "replications" are to be ignored except for that of @klicUK. It seems the closest to the original but still needs more work.
@xpenzif has to come forth with a new longer video and with a careful explanation of the conditions. For instance, is it true that a stepper motor (mentioned by @kossfx) has a role which he hasn't mentioned so far?
I should also say this--@xpenzif demonstrated before certain confusion when discussing some basic questions. Nevertheless, he might have stumbled upon a working, although somewhat familiar (http://youtube.com/watch?v=YvHb41KP7To) design. In order to confirm that his construction demonstrates a real effect (actually produces excess energy continuously) he has to do more than just sending standard letters to forum members with promises for a demo at an unknown date. We've seen this before.
QuoteNot at all, it's not over with. Where's your working model, however, to warrant discussing it?
What a bunch of crap... The purpose of this forum is to discuss ideas and pursue those that seem promising. I don't recall reading anywhere that one has to have a working model
first, before discussing it......
Dear Omni,
May I take you back to an earlier quote of yours
" While there are many proposals, patents and claims for such devices, this one is the first practical one actually demonstrated (except for Finsrud's which I have seen personally but which is of a more or less theoretical importance)."
Nothing has been demonstrated until it can be replicated or independently validated. The onus is on the inventor now...not the replicaors. I think you insulted a lot of people when you said they should be ignored. In science nothing is ignored.
I am sure I could find someone here or in the NEC who lives nearby and could validate this. Even a longer video running would help.
Mark
Quote from: acp on October 23, 2007, 12:01:46 PM
QuoteNot at all, it's not over with. Where's your working model, however, to warrant discussing it?
What a bunch of crap... The purpose of this forum is to discuss ideas and pursue those that seem promising. I don't recall reading anywhere that one has to have a working model first, before discussing it......
In this thread we're discussing something which appears viable because at least a video is presented. One has to have a working model to warrant discussing it in this thread. Where's your video? Be courteous.
Quote from: markdansie on October 23, 2007, 03:36:12 PM
Dear Omni,
May I take you back to an earlier quote of yours
" While there are many proposals, patents and claims for such devices, this one is the first practical one actually demonstrated (except for Finsrud's which I have seen personally but which is of a more or less theoretical importance)."
Nothing has been demonstrated until it can be replicated or independently validated. The onus is on the inventor now...not the replicaors. I think you insulted a lot of people when you said they should be ignored. In science nothing is ignored.
I am sure I could find someone here or in the NEC who lives nearby and could validate this. Even a longer video running would help.
Mark
Not so. In Science, errors are ignored, illogical conjectures are ignored, violation of truth is ignored etc. Science is about truth, not about arrogant politeness and foisting ideas that don't work. Someone wants his unsubstantiated ideas to be discussed instead of something which the inventor has taken care to shoot a video of and has offered an actual model for verification. That's arrogance and such arrogant people must be told off. Not a pleasant thing to do but that person is asking for it.
Hi nice & courteous Builders and 'Fighters' (Belligerents)!
Sorry for disturbing.
Actually, the KlicUK's serious (IMHO) replications does not bode well.
Anyway I'm foolishly continuing my own reproduction.
Gluing all these bl' screws is boring and even tedious. Is it not?
BTW: I also, as Our-Gracious-Omnibus, do believe that the 'Theory' of Relativity is a bunch of whatever negative qualificative you could add.
Best
Ok id have to say that the left side of the axel base mount is at least 10 degrees higher on the left side .. hmmmm and the magnet thing on the right is tipped at a 25 degree angle or so when it runs if your looking top down on the device with the motor on top and the magnet gate on the bottom
@KlicUK:
I agree with your assesment and reports of your findings. I think your replication was as "spot on" as required to prove/disprove this device. I personally thank you, and the other replicaters, for your efforts here.
Bill
Of course, @klicUK has done a good job. His replication seems closest to the original compared to everyone else?s effort in this respect. Of course, there are still issues with his replication on the face of it, as I have already commented, as well as some possible additional factors such as the stepper motor mentioned by someone claiming to have one of @xpenzif?s devices. However, I think @xpenzif should come back here and give his comments on @klicUK?s experiment as well as describe better what he has done. Otherwise, it would be a rehash of something we?ve seen so many times before?the claimant splashes a sensational claim only to disappear later without a trace. Certainly, violation of CoE has already been proven beyond any doubt and self-sustaining devices are expected to be real. However, the engineering and especially the tune-up of such devices is a daunting task, indeed. No one so far has openly demonstrated such device despite the numerous claims. Until they are demonstrated and reproduced independently all the efforts of their creators is in vain. @xpenzif?s device is the closest so far but he should know that until he ensures that independent parties replicate what he has shown in the video no one would consider his construction as viable. As I said, @xpenzif has demonstrated some confusion regarding theoretical issues before. Nevertheless, he might have been able to stumble upon a working construction but this still remains an open question until it is independently confirmed.
@xpenzif should know that, despite his impression, if he is serious about what he's shown, he cannot be more busy with anything else but with assuring that independent parties replicate his device and confirm its reality. The bare statements by the likes of @Bossnik1, @RHEAD100 and @X00013 aren't enough. More evidence is needed.
If @xpenzif is joking, that's a tasteless joke.
Quote from: Omnibus on October 24, 2007, 12:07:01 AM
@xpenzif should know that, despite his impression, if he is serious about what he's shown, he cannot be more busy with anything else but with assuring that independent parties replicate his device and confirm its reality. The bare statements by the likes of @Bossnik1, @RHEAD100 and @X00013 aren't enough. More evidence is needed.
If @xpenzif is joking, that's a tasteless joke.
If he is selling them, what motivation does he have to want to share the details with us? My guess is he never intended to show us, and just wants to peddle them over utube. He didn't even start this thread, and if he wanted to share, he would have given specific details, not to mention leaving out the harddrive spindles real purpose. I have since given up, and am working on another magnet design from a video. I hope anyone here is successful in their replications.
Omnibus, are you working on a replication?
Quote from: Omnibus on October 23, 2007, 05:12:15 PM
Quote from: acp on October 23, 2007, 12:01:46 PM
QuoteNot at all, it's not over with. Where's your working model, however, to warrant discussing it?
What a bunch of crap... The purpose of this forum is to discuss ideas and pursue those that seem promising. I don't recall reading anywhere that one has to have a working model first, before discussing it......
In this thread we're discussing something which appears viable because at least a video is presented. One has to have a working model to warrant discussing it in this thread. Where's your video? Be courteous.
Be courteous? Man, you are a hypocrite. You just insulted nearly all of the replicators and you accuse me of being discourteous. Where's
your video?
Quote from: acp on October 24, 2007, 03:59:30 AM
Quote from: Omnibus on October 23, 2007, 05:12:15 PM
Quote from: acp on October 23, 2007, 12:01:46 PM
QuoteNot at all, it's not over with. Where's your working model, however, to warrant discussing it?
What a bunch of crap... The purpose of this forum is to discuss ideas and pursue those that seem promising. I don't recall reading anywhere that one has to have a working model first, before discussing it......
In this thread we're discussing something which appears viable because at least a video is presented. One has to have a working model to warrant discussing it in this thread. Where's your video? Be courteous.
Be courteous? Man, you are a hypocrite. You just insulted nearly all of the replicators and you accuse me of being discourteous. Where's your video?
All negative replications so far except for that of @klicUK must be ignored because they are very far from what is to be reproduced and therefore, of course, won't work. There are also a few positive claims. Therefore, it's not over with.
Quote from: Freezer on October 24, 2007, 02:40:45 AM
Quote from: Omnibus on October 24, 2007, 12:07:01 AM
@xpenzif should know that, despite his impression, if he is serious about what he's shown, he cannot be more busy with anything else but with assuring that independent parties replicate his device and confirm its reality. The bare statements by the likes of @Bossnik1, @RHEAD100 and @X00013 aren't enough. More evidence is needed.
If @xpenzif is joking, that's a tasteless joke.
If he is selling them, what motivation does he have to want to share the details with us? My guess is he never intended to show us, and just wants to peddle them over utube. He didn't even start this thread, and if he wanted to share, he would have given specific details, not to mention leaving out the harddrive spindles real purpose. I have since given up, and am working on another magnet design from a video. I hope anyone here is successful in their replications.
Omnibus, are you working on a replication?
You have missed it, I guess, but I already said at the beginning of this thread that, unfortunately, at the moment I?m not in the US and will be back by the end of this month. I don?t have proper equipment here. Nevertheless, I made some preliminary experiments and I saw that this motor ?suffers? from exactly the same need every single magnet motor has?tune-up, tune, tune-up. I don?t think in this respect it is different from the Torbay, Fecera or Perendev motor. I?m pretty sure Sterling Alen couldn?t get his Perendev replica to work exactly because of the tune-up issues. The difference here is that the manufacturing of this motor is probably the easiest of all I?ve seen so far. The other project you?re working on will meet with the same tune-up issues, only it will be more difficult to produce technically. As I said, all motors are based on the same principles and I encourage you to work and bring to fruition an easier one such as this. The ease of manufacturing will also contribute to its better practical applicability.
The motivation to share the details with us comes also from the fact that he wants to sell it. Unless he relies on the naivete of people who would buy something which has never been proved to work. Once he has put it out in the open world (on youtube, overuynity.com or wherever else), especially with the intention to peddle these devices, he must come clean. Otherwise, it?s some kind of a tasteless joke, as I already mentioned.
Quote from: Pirate88179 on October 23, 2007, 11:18:47 PM
@KlicUK:
I agree with your assesment and reports of your findings. I think your replication was as "spot on" as required to prove/disprove this device. I personally thank you, and the other replicaters, for your efforts here.
Bill
@Pirate88179
Thanks Bill - appreciate it
Also thanks to Omnibus for your comments.
Quote from: Omnibus on October 24, 2007, 12:07:01 AM
@xpenzif should know that, despite his impression, if he is serious about what he's shown, he cannot be more busy with anything else but with assuring that independent parties replicate his device and confirm its reality. The bare statements by the likes of @Bossnik1, @RHEAD100 and @X00013 aren't enough. More evidence is needed.
If @xpenzif is joking, that's a tasteless joke.
@ Omnibus.
Completely agree.
completely off topic (sorry) but earlier in the year on YouTube there was a contributer called Eltimple. Anyone know if he is still active, as a replicator?
Also, what happened to ZeroFossilFuel
Anyone know??
LOL, ELTimple is me...not posted much lately as i have been under nda on the dark side..
Quote from: Craigy on October 24, 2007, 03:29:52 PM
LOL, ELTimple is me...not posted much lately as i have been under nda on the dark side..
you've done some nice work mate ;)
Dear Omnibus,
I appreciate your posts. I do have a question,
In Rference to " I don?t think in this respect it is different from the Torbay, Fecera or Perendev motor." i am not aware of any independent validation or successful replication of any of these devices. If you know of any I would appreciate it.
I do hope like many others that a real device does emerge. i have unfortunately seen many that havnt and often I am under NDA's when testing them. Its ironic that the NDA's dont protect the intellectual property but rather I cant go public and dislose that they dont work. Suc's.
I really cant see this device moving forward unless we do hear from the inventor or someone successfully replicates it.
Kind Regards
Mark
Quote from: markdansie on October 24, 2007, 04:39:32 PM
Dear Omnibus,
I appreciate your posts. I do have a question,
In Rference to " I don?t think in this respect it is different from the Torbay, Fecera or Perendev motor." i am not aware of any independent validation or successful replication of any of these devices. If you know of any I would appreciate it.
I do hope like many others that a real device does emerge. i have unfortunately seen many that havnt and often I am under NDA's when testing them. Its ironic that the NDA's dont protect the intellectual property but rather I cant go public and dislose that they dont work. Suc's.
I really cant see this device moving forward unless we do hear from the inventor or someone successfully replicates it.
Kind Regards
Mark
No, I don't know of any successful replication of these devices. The only working perpetuum mobile that I've seen personally is that of Finsrud. There are, however, some very simple experiments to be carried out to exclude the objection that it's just a very efficient re-distributor of an initially imparted energy. Unfortunately, Finsrud hasn't been cooperative in clarifying this issue.
As I've said before, my confidence that such motors can exist is based on the fact that I've already conclusively proven the CoE can be violated. When experimenting to prove that, tuning-up has been a major issue. For instance, although an experiment such as this http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2383887636280790847 conclusively proves CoE is violated the mere constructing of the device isn't as straightforward as it may seem not to say that the effect can be larger upon better adjustment. That's why I think tune-up is a major issue in producing such motors.
If you think about what is happening when a magnet is placed near a piece of metal/iron, the metal reacts by forming a magnetic field opposite (so as to be in attraction) to the magnet and allow magnetic flux flow. Therefore, the other end of the metal will form the same pole as the magnet. As the magnet moves closer to the end of the metal, at some point the pole will flip, and the attractive force will be back toward the area that was travelled previously with the same pole as the magnet being formed at the beginning of the metal piece. The next piece of metal will also form an attractive force, and there will be two attractive forces spaced apart creating a gap of equal attraction forces. When metal is used with a magnet, it is simply a weak magnet that is formed that has a moving domain until it is easier for the flux to flow the other way through the metal (pole flip).
N | S
_________________ metal
S
m
a
g
n
e
t
N
S | N
________________ metal
S
m
a
g
n
e
t
N
As I've mentioned before, human eye cannot see the magnetic fields but these are the field responsible for the effects. Symmetrical constructions on the face of it produce asymmetric magnetic fields whose form isn't clear to conveniently allow adjustment. In @xpenzif's case we have the advantage, as in SMOT, to have pieces of steel, not magnets, floating in the magnetic field of the stator. This is a major advantage. Still, as I mentioned above, even in SMOT constructing it to be efficient isn't as straightforward as it may seem.
Quote from: Liberty on October 24, 2007, 10:29:18 PM
If you think about what is happening when a magnet is placed near a piece of metal/iron, the metal reacts by forming a magnetic field opposite (so as to be in attraction) to the magnet and allow magnetic flux flow. Therefore, the other end of the metal will form the same pole as the magnet. As the magnet moves closer to the end of the metal, at some point the pole will flip, and the attractive force will be back toward the area that was travelled previously with the same pole as the magnet being formed at the beginning of the metal piece. The next piece of metal will also form an attractive force, and there will be two attractive forces spaced apart creating a gap of equal attraction forces. When metal is used with a magnet, it is simply a weak magnet that is formed that has a moving domain until it is easier for the flux to flow the other way through the metal (pole flip).
N | S
_________________ metal
S
m
a
g
n
e
t
N
S | N
________________ metal
S
m
a
g
n
e
t
N
Correct. In this case, however, the iron pieces are asymmetric and when the flipping occurs the attraction to the more massive head will be greater than to the less massive tail.
Quote from: Omnibus on October 24, 2007, 10:44:59 PM
Quote from: Liberty on October 24, 2007, 10:29:18 PM
If you think about what is happening when a magnet is placed near a piece of metal/iron, the metal reacts by forming a magnetic field opposite (so as to be in attraction) to the magnet and allow magnetic flux flow. Therefore, the other end of the metal will form the same pole as the magnet. As the magnet moves closer to the end of the metal, at some point the pole will flip, and the attractive force will be back toward the area that was travelled previously with the same pole as the magnet being formed at the beginning of the metal piece. The next piece of metal will also form an attractive force, and there will be two attractive forces spaced apart creating a gap of equal attraction forces. When metal is used with a magnet, it is simply a weak magnet that is formed that has a moving domain until it is easier for the flux to flow the other way through the metal (pole flip).
N | S
_________________ metal
S
m
a
g
n
e
t
N
S | N
________________ metal
S
m
a
g
n
e
t
N
Correct. In this case, however, the iron pieces are asymmetric and when the flipping occurs the attraction to the more massive head will be greater than to the less massive tail.
Perhaps the devices that are made will help you to determine through experimentation, if that is what actually happens.
Wishing you the best success Omnibus and all the experimenters!
Have a good evening/day,
Liberty
Quote from: Omnibus on October 23, 2007, 11:28:53 AM
So far all the "replications" are to be ignored except for that of @klicUK. It seems the closest to the original.
Why? I didn't think mine was so bad.
Hello!
Have been following this discussion with interest since I first saw that video on youtube. Does anyone know what the stator is made off? I just wondered if it might be having some form of magnetic shielding affect on the screws as the pass the magnets, i.e. preventing them from being pulled back. Just a though, although I'm sure some of you have already considered this.
QuoteDoes anyone know what the stator is made off?
It had been stated by xpenzif either in this thread or on YouTube that is was aluminum although he did state the magnets where 'stuck on'. I speculated in this thread that it might be some sort of magnet alloy like soft iron. I also speculated that the hard drive platter that he had it mounted on might make a difference. Even though this setup seems simple enough there are a fair amount of variables that can still come into play. For instance it has also been shown that the rotor is off center and mounted at an angle. I am sure that this adds to the variables. Magnet strength is another. Xpenzif stated n45 but in the video he easily removes the screw driver which I think would be a lot harder to do if they were really N45. It boils down to this.... Without xpenzif actually stepping forward and providing detailed information and video feedback I fear that a working replication will be random at best and therefore a waste of resources to replicate at this time. As shown by the replicators here that have already tried without success it is not going to be as easy as it first appears even if it really did work to begin with. With the amount of time that has passed and xpenzif not writing a word I feel that this project is pretty much dead.
Later,
Tom :)
Hi M0thman, welcome to the club!
Actually, when (and only when) you see all the 'failed' replications you begin to think that, at last, the the Xpenzif 'machine' has a non conventional behavior as the magnets do not seem to impede the rotor.
Should we conclude that it is a fake, another bad joke?
I'm not (still) convinced about that.
Something could be hidden ("some form of magnetic shielding" as M0thman pointed out) or anything else (Hydrocontrol post). Perhaps, as Omnibus said, it is just a matter of fine tuning (and huge luck, of course :)).
That's why I'm continuing to glue these *?# screws. :-\
Best
Quote from: hydrocontrol on October 25, 2007, 02:17:55 PM
QuoteDoes anyone know what the stator is made off?
It had been stated by xpenzif either in this thread or on YouTube that is was aluminum although he did state the magnets where 'stuck on'. I speculated in this thread that it might be some sort of magnet alloy like soft iron. I also speculated that the hard drive platter that he had it mounted on might make a difference. Even though this setup seems simple enough there are a fair amount of variables that can still come into play. For instance it has also been shown that the rotor is off center and mounted at an angle. I am sure that this adds to the variables. Magnet strength is another. Xpenzif stated n45 but in the video he easily removes the screw driver which I think would be a lot harder to do if they were really N45. It boils down to this.... Without xpenzif actually stepping forward and providing detailed information and video feedback I fear that a working replication will be random at best and therefore a waste of resources to replicate at this time. As shown by the replicators here that have already tried without success it is not going to be as easy as it first appears even if it really did work to begin with. With the amount of time that has passed and xpenzif not writing a word I feel that this project is pretty much dead.
Later,
Tom :)
Some good points, but it has only been a week or so/ If I had the time and stuff lying around I'd give this a go, although to be honest I'm a bit sceptical. Does anyone know anything about this xpenzif person? If I'd posted something as intriguing as that on the Internet, I'd darn well stay around to bask in the glory for a bit and answer some questions so that others could reproduce the results.
Quote from: NerzhDishual on October 25, 2007, 03:35:16 PM
Hi M0thman, welcome to the club!
Actually, when (and only when) you see all the 'failed' replications you begin to think that, at last, the the Xpenzif 'machine' has a non conventional behavior as the magnets do not seem to impede the rotor.
Should we conclude that it is a fake, another bad joke?
I'm not (still) convinced about that.
Something could be hidden ("some form of magnetic shielding" as M0thman pointed out) or anything else (Hydrocontrol post). Perhaps, as Omnibus said, it is just a matter of fine tuning (and huge luck, of course :)).
That's why I'm continuing to glue these *?# screws. :-\
Best
I'm inclined to agree, if only because "wouldn't it be nice..." and I could really do with something for that empty space in the new display cabinet.
The reason I mentioned magnetic sheilding is that I had read somewhere on a page about that Perendev device that the magnets' south pole was encased in steel. If you think about it, you only want the attraction towards the stator and not the attraction on the other side. So I guess if you were to unbalance the magnetic field somehow so that its focused on that side it might have some chance of working.
Please don't flame me if this all sounds a load of crap. I'm just trying to bounce around some ideas.
QuoteSo I guess if you were to unbalance the magnetic field somehow so that its focused on that side it might have some chance of working.
LOL mOthman,
Isn't this what a myriad of experimenters have been unsuccessfully trying to do for the last 300 years??
Hans von Lieven
Hi M0thman!
For my part I do not flame anybody (except awkward & useless skeptic trolls of course)! You are positive.
May I direct anybody to this file on my Web site:
http://freenrg.info/UTOPIATECH/PROCES_VERBAL_2.pdf (http://freenrg.info/UTOPIATECH/PROCES_VERBAL_2.pdf)
It is an affidavit from a process server (in French, sorry).
It is about an hydrogen on demand generation. Obviously Over-unity.
This f' froggy French guy (as me) gets more than 75% mileage increase with his device. I'm in touch with him.
Best
Thanks NerzDishual,
My French is a little rusty these days, but for this document it was still enough.(I hope)
Very impressive. For those that don't read French let me just state the main points.
This is a legal document describing a round trip with a modified vehicle of 129.1 km.
The trip was undertaken twice once with the hydrogen generator running and the vehicle consumed 2.08 liters of petrol and 4 liters of demineralised water.
On the second trip the hydrogen generator was disconnected and the vehicle consumed 9.14 liters of petrol.
The speed was at both trips 130 km/h.
I hope I have stated it correctly here. As I said an impressive record worth following up.
Hans von Lieven
Hi Hans,
You got it perfectely straight! Your French is not rusty at all.
Another "official" test is planed with an huge (French-wise :)) Volvo truck.
I should attend this test 'soon' (and shot a video).
So, more to come soon.
Best
Quote from: m0thman on October 25, 2007, 05:19:57 PM
I'm inclined to agree, if only because "wouldn't it be nice..." and I could really do with something for that empty space in the new display cabinet.
The reason I mentioned magnetic sheilding is that I had read somewhere on a page about that Perendev device that the magnets' south pole was encased in steel. If you think about it, you only want the attraction towards the stator and not the attraction on the other side. So I guess if you were to unbalance the magnetic field somehow so that its focused on that side it might have some chance of working.
Please don't flame me if this all sounds a load of crap. I'm just trying to bounce around some ideas.
I tried sheilding. The breaking effect was slightly less pronounced, but my replication still acted as a frictionless break.
Quote from: NerzhDishual on October 25, 2007, 08:15:56 PM
Hi M0thman!
For my part I do not flame anybody (except awkward & useless skeptic trolls of course)! You are positive.
Got that part Hans? The awkward useless skeptic trolls?
@All,
This is a pm sent to me by @xpenzif on 22 October which he allowed me today to post in an open forum:
"I am planning a large demonstration so that I can take care of all of these verification requests at one time. The demonstration will be held in either Chico, CA or Sacramento, CA on a date which will be listed on the website as soon as it is launched. At this meeting hopefully all of your questions will be answered.
Thank you, and I appreciate your support,
Xpenzif"
I saw this same text posted a couple of days ago in another forum.
If you can see a flame in what I wrote Gaby, you are evidently less intelligent than I thought.
Hans von Lieven
Quote from: hansvonlieven on October 26, 2007, 12:14:04 AM
If you can see a flame in what I wrote Gaby, you are evidently less intelligent than I thought.
Hans von Lieven
Polite arrogance is flame.
Omnibus,
Still the same uneducated belligerent and anonymous so and so, I see.
Hans von Lieven
Hello Hans,
i like your opinions. As a farmous FE searcher I like to ask you a question.
Shielding is often a question when PMM motors are discussed.
Joules heating due to induced local circulating currents also.
The following observations are well known by nearly all PMM researchers:
# iron is attracted along the highest field gradient and is a good conductor for the magnetic field, therefore shielding by concentrating
# paramagnetic materials (e.g. pyro graphite, verry interesting: silver) is deflecting a part of the magnetic field, a big part is going through it; shielding by spreading (reflecting?) the fieldlines and superimposition of the resulting fields
# silver is also known to the involved to be a verry strong deflector for static and dynamic (E)M-fields, you know the patents. and see here:
http://www.science24.com/paper/899
New type of paramagnetic silver clusters in sodalite: Ag8n+.
So, we have a experimenting platform to combine different substances and to shape the inner structure by using a substrate to form the materials arround it.
Read the patent again; you know what patent I mean?
Now my question: could we produce a shielding material in powder form while combining the different effects by weight?
The following designrules are fixed:
#1 lowest attraction or repulsion between PMM and shielding material (balanced)
#2 lowest electric conductivity (sintered verry small particles, nanospheres)
#3 low weight to reduce work done to move the shield (when shield is planned to move)
The result will be: no pull in (slit in e-static) effect and no push out in a defined range of nearly static magnetic field strength, but a
strong shielding effect due to resembling the PMM's field.
Is it a possible dream?
Looking forward for your answer.
Best wishes
Karl
add:#
Gold or silver particles with paramagnetism, and composition containing thereof Document Type and Number:United States Patent 20070163678 Kind Code:A1
Link to this page:http://www.freepatentsonline.com/20070163678.html
Abstract:The present invention is related to gold or silver powder characterized by having paramagnetism. The gold or silver powder according to the present invention is a paramagnetic gold or silver powder having magnetism in the same direction as that of the external magnetic field in all temperature ranges. The paramagnetic gold or silver powder according to the present invention shows an extremely small coercive force, has no surface oxidation layers, is stable at a room temperature, has no cohesive property, and is highly dispersible.
Hi Karl,
Thanks for referring to that patent, I was not aware of that yet. Now this is the second suggestion for shielding magnetic fields. The first one I learned is also a patent application using similar and other mixtures of powdered materials is here: http://www.rexresearch.com/wardle/wardle.htm and was mentioned first on this forum last December: http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,1771.msg20092.html#msg20092
I have not managed to test this shield, due to other commitments. I like what they state (in fact the their patent application includes measurements with the shield).
rgds, Gyula
Hi Karl,
Thanks for referring to that patent, I was not aware of that yet. Now this is the second suggestion for shielding magnetic fields. The first one I learned is also a patent application using similar and other mixtures of powdered materials is here: http://www.rexresearch.com/wardle/wardle.htm and was mentioned first on this forum last December: http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,1771.msg20092.html#msg20092
I have not managed to test this shield, due to other commitments. I like what they state (in fact the their patent application includes measurements with the shield).
rgds, Gyula
Gyula,
the wardle patent is the one which was worked out the empirical way. This is the real recipe.
The other patent proposed by me contains only the part of the silver in paramagnetics.
Coal Slag 40/60 (40-50?) is a substance used for abrassive (BLackblast ist the Tradename) with nearly the same composition than proposed in the patent (see website, google for blackblast).
Silverpowder is used in electronics or for painting and is easy to purchase. A fine powder (6my) is like a paste.
The tree other components a verry healthy (mybe it's better to eat them in small doses).
I think they mean magnesia (MgO), CaCO and ZnCO which is used for medical purposes.
My opinion is:
The substrate is basicly an fine structured insulator with a low content of Fe(x)O(y) with an diameter of app. 50 my.
when coated with Ag powder (the finer the better as proposed, mybe nanosilver).
We are creating microspheres with silvercoating! a micromirrorarray.
We should first test this:
Substrate with silver->test
addition of Mg, Zn, Ca ->test if there is an difference
I don`t have the materials but it looks easy to do this.
Costs: 25kg Coal Slag 40/50 10$
10g
In the hard-disk theare are two pieces of nu-metal, arrount the heat actuation device, that is a magnet shield.
Quote from: del_toro_es on October 26, 2007, 04:15:48 PM
In the hard-disk theare are two pieces of nu-metal, arrount the heat actuation device, that is a magnet shield.
Again, I'm going to chuck in a few ideas - I'm sure its all been discussed before...? Did he not use part of a hard drive to mount the rotor on to? Maybe the stator was made from parts of the hard drive. I'm not sure what the casings are made of - they look like aluminium I guess, but is there any chance they have some magnetic shielding properties and that is part of what is going on here? Another thing that occurred to me. I'm not sure what the rotor was made off, it looked like some sort of substantial ceramic thing. I noticed that xpenzif was participating in threads that discussed flywheels and possibly magnetic shielding. I say possibly because it was all quite beyond me.
Anyway, please ignore if its all too obvious.
...teach me to walk softer...(Black Elk speaks...)
...teach me to turn smoother...(kaRLfunkel...)
Optical discs are not fully unterstood.
The thin layers on top are more powerful than you think.
Magnetic storage drives magneto-optical! layer proposes nonlinear characteristics related to different frequencies.
fresnel formula (optics: swinging photons & electrons, VHF, Light=) & faster than light ->magnetic fieldlines due to stationary high speed orbitals which superimposed is called magnetic field(s) meets epsilons (stato magnetics 0Hz, not really defined->relative motion to eather).
With the same formula optical constants (f(Hz)) and statomagnetic or dynamomagnetic epsilons or mys unite to fulfill one point of view instead of two different systems (E & M 45 degrees....ooooohhhh). This means that the index of refraction on this optical layer is in directly relationship to the magnetic constants (permeability = continous bending of light + relative linear movement to aether >spiral motion, storing this information of motion in time without changing the molecules itself!!!!.
There is only one moveable energyquanta (electron or proton are two of a few resonating states) and an interaction between this orbiting quant(relative fast->small mass) and a restzing matrix called nucleus. Sum of energy is in every point of our universe the same: The whole universe is acting to each relative point in the room in an different composition of frequencies (Planets and greater influences) but in the same sum. In an other case an hole (black or white) is creating a new reality to fulfill the roompoints interwoven will to suck or blow materia.
Is the particle resting (better: circulating arround a relative resting mass of the fixed aether matrix, and concentrate this matrix to one smaller point)
Nonlinear optics is called "NEW PHYSICS" by BEARDEN. Is the keypart of understanding nonlineary and nonlogical interwoven interactions in the flow
and in the methamorphosis of an quanta (see saw seen). Past->Present<-Future........#There is only an changing Present which is called PUTURE#.
Light is pure aether energy flowed in in one relative resting room point.
But when we are moving we see an line of light which is seen by our eye due to suberimpositioin of the moments and the direction of our relative mass-movement (rotating earth).
Backwardengineered: The line of light (seen as...) ends in our eye. This is the interface between timeless aether (full spectra->photon, electron, magnetic particle, moveable quantas) and timeful resting matrix (heavy out of our resting view). The thinking and the inner light while creating ideas or dreaming is related to this timeless plane of sharing informational reactions (forced to react due to action which has happened). No instrument can really measure this finestructured energy but only the manifestation due to interaction of stored informative tendencies to influence the moving particles (electrons at light speed, magnetic particles at speed faster than light (creating it'S own mass in the center due to concentration of the in the vacuum crystalline arranged fluxating points), increasing the relative orbital radius arround their own sun (protons,neutrons,positrons, trontrons, strings and other insects) which is aan matrixed fixed, crystalline background which rests in the timeless and therefore not defineable frequency (already an definition).
The sea of energy (timeless plane) consists of every particle quanta in every time (time domain) and is therefore not measureable but present in every time and in every point of the room in every time.
This is also esoterical, because the timeless plane coresponds and interacts with the souls and therefore with the LOGOS itself.
Every wish is an samen in aether (no THE, this is not one thing it is everything at the same time) which starts to proove the possibilities to manifest on the
material plane (if you have an material wish...).
Every technical revolution should be done in absolute harmony with the inner spirit (white light). If there is an conflict with the masterplan (target of evolution) we feel cold and slightly or impressive confronted with the reaction. If we loose this sin, we are cought in the unreviewable situation of the reaction of the complete universe to this energydirecting room point (relative big brain), sucking to find a solution for EGO or ALL.
This is one key to find Free Energy: To know that it is still everywhere is the alpha on omega of thinking.
To give her a name is to relativize one aspect of her interwoven activities on all planes or creation.
To pray for foregiveness (because we want something for our ego and take it away frome live supporting energy lines) is half the way back to the roots of thinking and foregiving is guarranteed.
No sinner (technical or religious (backbringer)) is really remarkeable for his/her sharing of energy if the quanta is flowing to the point in our roomed universe where it is comming from due to a closed fieldline and due to the complete knowledge of all relative movements on all planes which results simply in an pulsating roompoint which represents the whole great work itself, because it is a mirror of the complete surrounding and including inner structure.
What we want is basicly eternity of a force between two defined roompoints or a sume thereoff (defined in the timeless and pointless manner).
The interaction was seen on the timeful plane e.g. as rotation of our drum which is mounted on an magneto-nonlinear-layer which is bending the room more or less on different levels of awareness, interfaced normally by an information sharing system, here interfaced by an rota information (turn at defined sequence) which interacts with the static information (change in time due to all times e.g. static NSNS information plus information dynamicly written in time due to pulsating and therefore rhythmic read and compare the write sequences, which are induced due to interlacing magnetic conductors (screws on lower level of array) which acts as concentrators to the stator magnets and therefore dynamicly changes information of the underlying optical layer more or less.
It's the principle of akasha plane to purely store, compare, sort and start reactions.
What we could find if we move this device one revolution arround is an information written on an nonlinear multifrequential EM interacting layer which forces all frequencys surrounding the disk to force this movement at a defined speed because of the time domain changing information written in relative circuilar angular speed from an system with an time active component relative to this with an pure faster than light character (static PMM'S placed arround an rotating energy dynamo).
Basic principle could be this:
I load an capacitor (one point or area of magneto-optical disc where a screw is placed between disc and fixed magnet) to high level faster than light information with magnetic fieldlines which travels faster than light (because it is not consuming energy from the magnet) and the following rotation of the disk acts to the stored information (changing of position due to gradient on the disc). The variable information is the time of rest in one configuration (one moment) and in our case a kind of arrayed time shifted (dekta T) ramped (screw, arrow, diorection) information. The sectret is to shift this signal and the momentary actuating signal as like if you hang an carrot before an rabbit to perpetual try to speed it up.
This principle was ofter explained by an endless magneto-accoustical cassett which is, after the first revolution, always rewriting it's own information by using a time and therefore space shifted read and writehead. rotational speed is then much much slower than informational speed on magnetic fieldline coupled system (and a plus due to overlightspeed of the magnetic quantas itself it is only pulsating and not moving relative to aether.
Great Karl, but what does that have to do with the magnet motor this thread is about??
Has anyone actually managed to make a working replication yet?
I have found a number of replication videos but all of them show how an exact replication of the motor does NOT work;
all replicated versions slow to a full stop instead of actually rotating.
Who has actually made a working version, and what is the difference between their working version and the replications that do not work?
Anyone?
Guys, it's nice to see you've spun off into a discussion of magnetic shielding materials and so-called "new physics" (ahum), but the thread is about the magnet motor! Let's keep it on topic?
So, back on topic:
Has anyone actually made a working replication of this extremely simple magnet motor?
It seems a bit dodgy to me, as several much more intricate permanent magnet motors have been build in the past and they never really worked...
Also, the videos of replications of this specific motor all show that it does NOT work: all replicated versions slow to a complete halt. None of them actually rotate like the one in the original video.
I have built several permanent magnet motors that were very similar in design in the past, and NONE of them worked like I hoped. It would be quite odd if such a much simpler design would work. It would also be applaudable and a great breakthrough if it would actually work, but so far I have only seen the one prototype on the original video rotate, and no working replications at all yet.
If anyone as any videos of a working replication, please post them!
If not, then please do not let this thread turn into a general discussion on somewhat related topics, but let us then clearly state that there are no working replications and move on?
Quote from: karl on October 26, 2007, 04:36:21 AM
Hello Hans,
i like your opinions. As a farmous FE searcher I like to ask you a question.
Shielding is often a question when PMM motors are discussed.
Joules heating due to induced local circulating currents also.
The following observations are well known by nearly all PMM researchers:
# iron is attracted along the highest field gradient and is a good conductor for the magnetic field, therefore shielding by concentrating
# paramagnetic materials (e.g. pyro graphite, verry interesting: silver) is deflecting a part of the magnetic field, a big part is going through it; shielding by spreading (reflecting?) the fieldlines and superimposition of the resulting fields
# silver is also known to the involved to be a verry strong deflector for static and dynamic (E)M-fields, you know the patents. and see here:
http://www.science24.com/paper/899
New type of paramagnetic silver clusters in sodalite: Ag8n+.
So, we have a experimenting platform to combine different substances and to shape the inner structure by using a substrate to form the materials arround it.
Read the patent again; you know what patent I mean?
Now my question: could we produce a shielding material in powder form while combining the different effects by weight?
The following designrules are fixed:
#1 lowest attraction or repulsion between PMM and shielding material (balanced)
#2 lowest electric conductivity (sintered verry small particles, nanospheres)
#3 low weight to reduce work done to move the shield (when shield is planned to move)
The result will be: no pull in (slit in e-static) effect and no push out in a defined range of nearly static magnetic field strength, but a
strong shielding effect due to resembling the PMM's field.
A most interesting post. I think one should go for either reflection or absorption. Hilarious as it may sound to some of the more ignorant researchers. Steorn has a patent on a working shielding technology! haha! Their device moves the shield inside the magnetic field. The flux density remains constant. This allows the low energy magnetic actuator to open and close with very little friction/cost/drag/conservation.
I'm having my doubts about shielding in the long run but at least it can be used to create overunity between today and next week. :-)
Here is my effort towards documenting the tech.
http://magnetmotor.go-here.nl/magnetic-shielding
Magnetic shielding - MAGNETMOTOR.GO-HERE.NL
I will add the link to your posting some day I promise :) ....
Good morning Gaby de wilde,
nice place to live.
Only intuitive fusion of seen effects.
Maybe I'll show you pictures from magnets attracting Coal slag (or a part from it, depends on mesh size and origin).
Coal slag itself is attracted only to strong magnetic gradients (only gradients?).
At a granulation size of 60my to 300my there is only a slightly shielding effect.
Watch the ingredients fo BLACKBLAST(C) coal slag.
I think there is everthing in it to build the shield (maybe some slightly radioactive elements?).
Basicly Fe(x)O(y) is in it which combines two principles at all.
Whats about materials used to fabricate ceramic sintered magnets
Powders to sinter ceramic magnets without magnetize and sinter them have serveral electric advantages (LEVITRON).
Without magnetization by only sinter them they have a neutral (shielding) or programmed (magnetized with a stationary information) without loosing your electrons in photonic exchange (heat).
Best wises
kaRLfunkel
This thing looks so fake. The way the cylinder stops when the magnets are pulled away is completely unnatural. It does not begin to slow down immediately, as it should, but then at then end comes to an abrupt halt. You would think it would spin for a while, given that it is on bearings.
Quote from: shruggedatlas on November 02, 2007, 04:38:00 AM
This thing looks so fake. The way the cylinder stops when the magnets are pulled away is completely unnatural. It does not begin to slow down immediately, as it should, but then at then end comes to an abrupt halt. You would think it would spin for a while, given that it is on bearings.
Similar remark was made with respect to the Torbay motor. However, that motor was coupled with a generator (not immediately obvious in the pictures) which made it only natural to have it stop this way. Same here. It was mentioned that the hard drive motor the cylinder sits on has the coils shorted. No doubt, however, @xpenzif has to come forth and discuss this and other issues.
Hi dudes,
I think it's time to end the game... my magnetic motor is a FAKE, it runs with a simple hair dryer, as some of you suggested.
Sorry for playing with you... ;D Next time, open a physics book!
Cheers
xpenzif
LOL
Hans von Lieven
Quote from: xpenzif . on November 02, 2007, 05:09:48 PM
Hi dudes,
I think it's time to end the game... my magnetic motor is a FAKE, it runs with a simple hair dryer, as some of you suggested.
Sorry for playing with you... ;D Next time, open a physics book!
Cheers
xpenzif
Next time, before claiming to fake motors, learn how to fake better your handle.
Isn't X00013's attempted replication in the video response encouraging? He obviously doesn't have it complete yet, but you can see acceleration.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KRcSlp58bHo
Hi guys,
Just a question:
Why is there two 'xpenzif' users on this forum?
from :http://www.overunity.com/index.php?action=mlist;sa=search (http://www.overunity.com/index.php?action=mlist;sa=search)
I got:
xpenzif Newbie 2007-01-17 36 (posts)
xpenzif Newbie 2007-11-02 1 (post)
???
Best
The newer Xpenzif account has a period following it that doesn't show up. It's a fake to play a trick about 4 posts back.
Quote from: NerzhDishual on November 02, 2007, 07:36:09 PM
Hi guys,
Just a question:
Why is there two 'xpenzif' users on this forum?
from :http://www.overunity.com/index.php?action=mlist;sa=search (http://www.overunity.com/index.php?action=mlist;sa=search)
I got:
xpenzif Newbie 2007-01-17 36 (posts)
xpenzif Newbie 2007-11-02 1 (post)
???
Best
Well, the one is "xpenzif" while the other one is "xpenzif ."
Do you see a difference?
Poor thing, he could've done it better, to fool more than the local fool.
Like I said, next time, before claiming to fake motors, this poor fellow should learn first how to make his fake handle appear realistic so that not only Hanses of the world get fooled..
Quote from: rrintoul on November 02, 2007, 06:27:07 PM
Isn't X00013's attempted replication in the video response encouraging? He obviously doesn't have it complete yet, but you can see acceleration.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KRcSlp58bHo
@Omnibus - is there not acceleration in X00013's replication attempt above?
Hi Omnibus,
Do you mean "xpenzif" versus "xpenzif." ?
With a period at the end of the name?
I am definitely dyslexic. :-\
Else N?1: I'm still wondering who the "local fool" could be? ;D
Else N?2: The X00013's replication attempt uses small magnets on the heads of some screws. (As I can figure out, of course)...
Best
Else N?2: The X00013's replication attempt uses small magnets on the heads of some screws. (As I can figure out, of course)...
Yes, but he doesn't try to hide that. He explains the extra magnets in the youtube comments. Even with extra magnets, it looks like magnetic acceleration that could work once he finishes the rest of his cylinder.
Quote from: rrintoul on November 02, 2007, 08:07:50 PM
Quote from: rrintoul on November 02, 2007, 06:27:07 PM
Isn't X00013's attempted replication in the video response encouraging? He obviously doesn't have it complete yet, but you can see acceleration.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KRcSlp58bHo
@Omnibus - is there not acceleration in X00013's replication attempt above?
I think @X00013 is doing a good job but more is needed to get what @xpenzif's experiment appears to demonstrate. I have in front of me right now a device which makes a full turn but bounces back right at the moment when the next turn is to begin. Bumps such as this are seen in @xpenxif's video (his first run, the successful one, that is) but he has managed to overcome them somehow. This has been a persistent problem with all replications, including Torbay and the like. These devices are extremely sensitive and to accomplish even what I told you I have on my desk now isn't an easy task, let alone to have it make consecutive full turns. Mind you this, instead of screws I'm using small neos placed diagonally across the outer surface of the cylinder in four rows. This isn't what @xpenzif has done and his solution is really clever and may work. In these designs such as mine (Torbay's etc.) the closed loop of magnets generates something like "superpoles" due to the fact these magnets they differ in strength, although being of the same shape. This is fatal and can only be avoided by excruciating efforts mainly by trial and error. What's good about @xpenzif's design is that the closed loop of the magnets is avoided and each one "station" works for itself as an individual SMOT of sorts. Thus, the cooperative phenomena I mentioned above are avoided. Hope the tiny magnets in @X00013's design won't reintroduce that problem. As you know, I insisted from the get go to follow exactly what @xpenzif has done. Too bad he diappeared and we cannot learn more details from him.
I was not thinking that he was trying to hide anything.
Actually, I also used (with no success) small magnets on all my screws's heads as I could not have my rotor spinning!
It behaves better = it is more "fluent" but it still does not work!
Best
Quote from: NerzhDishual on November 02, 2007, 08:23:05 PM
Hi Omnibus,
Do you mean "xpenzif" versus "xpenzif." ?
With a period at the end of the name?
I am definitely dyslexic. :-\
Else N?1: I'm still wondering who the "local fool" could be? ;D
Else N?2: The X00013's replication attempt uses small magnets on the heads of some screws. (As I can figure out, of course)...
Best
Go back where "xpenzif ." comment is and you'll see the post of the loca fool right after.
Hi guys:
My silly question:
What if (some?) of the xpenzif's screws were small = weak magnets?
You can make your own magnets with capacitor discharges (and a coil)? Can you not?
Best
Hi builders,
I have just found this out: http://www.lindsaybks.com/bks8/magn/ (http://www.lindsaybks.com/bks8/magn/)
Old Time Secrets of Making Permanent MagnetsQuoteYes, you can make powerful permanent magnets. No, they're not going to be as efficient as modern samarium or neodymium magnets, or even the classic alnico types. But revealed are precisely the techniques used to create the powerful magnetic magazine used by Michael Faraday to invent his disc generator that so intrigues the perpetual motion and free energy crowd
.
This is perhaps the Xpenzif "secret".....
Best
Quote from: NerzhDishual on November 02, 2007, 09:29:59 PM
Hi builders,
I have just found this out: http://www.lindsaybks.com/bks8/magn/ (http://www.lindsaybks.com/bks8/magn/)
Old Time Secrets of Making Permanent Magnets
QuoteYes, you can make powerful permanent magnets. No, they're not going to be as efficient as modern samarium or neodymium magnets, or even the classic alnico types. But revealed are precisely the techniques used to create the powerful magnetic magazine used by Michael Faraday to invent his disc generator that so intrigues the perpetual motion and free energy crowd
.
This is perhaps the Xpenzif "secret".....
Best
Who knows, you may be right. My experience shows me differently--as I said, I'm observing annoying cooperative phenomena which stand in the way when using magnets in a closed loop. However, here's once again where it all started: http://youtube.com/watch?v=Int5za7Eslo. We see here magnets on the drum instead of screws.
@ Omnibus:
The link you posted was the same one I posted here many pages back. I attempted to replicate that device some time ago with no success. I have another design variation of that one I am working on along with several other things. I have not heard any feedback on this video as to its reality, have you? We only see one side of the device running for a short time. We don't see the top, or the bottom, or the reverse side. It appears that he has several stationary magnet, or steel posts around the circumference. I saw mulltilple sticky spots and equilibrium in my replication attempts. I would like to hear from others if they too have tried this.
Bill
Quote from: Pirate88179 on November 02, 2007, 10:17:20 PM
@ Omnibus:
The link you posted was the same one I posted here many pages back. I attempted to replicate that device some time ago with no success. I have another design variation of that one I am working on along with several other things. I have not heard any feedback on this video as to its reality, have you? We only see one side of the device running for a short time. We don't see the top, or the bottom, or the reverse side. It appears that he has several stationary magnet, or steel posts around the circumference. I saw mulltilple sticky spots and equilibrium in my replication attempts. I would like to hear from others if they too have tried this.
Bill
Correct, that's the link you posted at the very beginning here. I wonder why is it that literally everybody who has made claims to have such motors successfully running (posted videos or otherwise) disappears. Not one remains to discuss his or her success. It's obvious that money will not come from this. There are numerous patents for such perpetuum mobiles, to no avail. And yet, something prevents the constructors from following up. Either they cannot reproduce what they originally saw or someone lights in them the sparks of unachievable dreams which prevent them from seeing that they are in fact hurting themselves when going into isolation. Anyway. I mentioned above my experience with a similar device. As I said, my device has four stripes of neos placed diagonally across the outer surface of the cylinder. What I noticed is that by no means one should use strong stator magnet. Therefore, as a stator I'm using one common RadioShack magnet. So far I was able to overcome (wasn't at all easy) the three sticky spots and the drum makes one full rotation, self-starting. To start another turn, however, there's one more sticky spot to be overcome which I can't do so far (recall this: http://youtube.com/watch?v=_mqLxUMx7kA). As I said, @xpenzif also has a similar problem but he somehow succeeds to overcome it. Either proper adjustment or there's something more than meets the eye. Therefore, it is very important, as I already emphasized more than once, to replicate @xpenzif's device exactly and for this reason if he really wants independent parties to replicate what he's done (which is crucial for the acceptance of his device) he should come around to share some more details.
@ Omnibus:
Agreed.
Bill
Hi Omnibus and others,
My 'reasoning' (feeling) is the following:
I have reproduced the xpenzif device. I'm (very) far from a machinist. OK
But I could not had it spinning at all. Actually, the rotor miserably 'sticks'.
I tried to quickly (and 'lousy') put (not glue) magnets on each screws's head (repulsion mode with the stator). I was (of course, due to my shabby work) not successful getting the rotor self spinning but it was more "free to move".
Then, I saw this X00013's replication attempt with his few small magnets.
I am also aware of the mysterious: http://youtube.com/watch?v=Int5za7Eslo .
That is why I'm now wondering whether all (or some) of the xpenzif's screws were not actually small (weak) magnets. It looks like screws, It sounds like screws, it smells and tastes like screws but actually it is magnets!
Of course, it is just a guess.
Best
Like I said, you may be right (judging also from the mysterious video) but what will you gain from having the screws magnetized? My understanding is, as I already said somewhere, that in @xpenzif's device we have separate, independent SMOT-like "stations" of sorts, each one passing the "baton" to the next. What is needed, I think, is to ensure proper timing of passing of that "baton" provided each "station" acts exactly as the previous. This uniformity of performance of each "station" and the timing are the crucial issues, I think, in these devices, especially in @xpenzif's.
No one got fooled Omnibus, I just laughed at the brazen attempt to throw a spanner in the works and being unable to bring it off.
That comment of yours was totally uncalled for. But most people here have your measure by now.
Not everyone is as malicious as you trying to discredit people that do not share your idiotic ideas on things such as SMOT.
Hans von Lieven
Quote from: hansvonlieven on November 03, 2007, 01:11:21 AM
No one got fooled Omnibus, I just laughed at the brazen attempt to throw a spanner in the works and being unable to bring it off.
That comment of yours was totally uncalled for. But most people here have your measure by now.
Not everyone is as malicious as you trying to discredit people that do not share your idiotic ideas on things such as SMOT.
Hans von Lieven
My ideas regarding SMOT are correct. You don't understand them the way yoiu didn't understand the silly joke the phony @xpenzif made couple of posts back. Go ahead, continue to make a fool of yourself.
Quote from: xpenzif . on November 02, 2007, 05:09:48 PM
Hi dudes,
I think it's time to end the game... my magnetic motor is a FAKE, it runs with a simple hair dryer, as some of you suggested.
Sorry for playing with you... ;D Next time, open a physics book!
Cheers
xpenzif
"next time"?
So you're planning to waste our time again sometime in the future with another fake motor post?
Please don't. You may not have anything better to do with your life than post nonsense on forums, but I for one and I presume many others with me are not doing this just to kill some spare time but to actually discuss possible pm motors...
There's tons of other websites where you can waste peoples time with nonsense and gobbledygook. Please go there.
and "open a physics book"? Open a book on ethics and figure out getting peoples hopes up and playing around with them is not at all nice, nor exactly funny. "dude".
Stefan, I saw your comment under @klicUK's replication attempt. The flux gate idea is good but I don't see @xpenzif using one. The biggest problem I see now, as I saw it in Torbay replication, is the non-uniformity of the magnets in the practical renditions for these ideas. The computer simulations are idealized, they prove it should work but when trying to actually make it one encounters magnets equal in shape but quite different in their magnetic induction. This is the problem that plagues the whole pmm field. The attractive feature of @xpenzif's device is that rotor magnets are avoided and the cooperative phenomena I was mentioning above causing "superpoles" to develop when permanent magnets form a closed loop seem to be avoided here. Nevertheless, proper form of the stator magnetic field is crucial and that isn't easy to achieve either, as we also see in @xpenzif's video--only his first attempt (out of three) is successful although it appears that the configuration remains is the same. These things are extremely sensitive and one needs a lot of patience to hit upon the right configuration by trial and error.
@All,
As I said, the unevenness of the magnetic induction from magnet to magnet (although their shapes are the same) is the main problem. This was my conclusion also in connection with Torbay motor. Before solving it the construction must be made more symmetric. I wonder if anybody knows a machinist who would lathe it and how much it would cost. I?m thinking of a plastic cylinder with vertical grooves in which to place the screws or magnets and then fix them in place by pegs of different length and an external cylindrical sleeve. In this way one would be able to test various configurations. Then, each individual magnet should be tested with a gauss meter to know its exact induction which will help in choosing matching magnets (imagine if there were eye glasses that would allow you to see the induction in colors the way we see it in computer simulations). In other words, serious research must be carried out not different from what is done in labs at Universities.
you have got to give up on this one. cant you see this was a hoax. build it and see. it will never work. it is sort of funny i guess when you think about all the time spent by all the guys here trying to replicate something like this. i even tried it, verry precisely i might add. i would concentrate on other things if i were you.
Look Folks....
The only thing that is going to work is a Howard Johnson type magnetic setups.
http://www.cheniere.org/books/HoJo/index.html
Everyone should be going down this road and replicating the "linear" magnetic tracks to learn from them and then on to spinning rotors etc.
Don't waste your time with this other junk!
That's my .02 worth.
~Dan
Quote from: rice on November 04, 2007, 09:52:30 PM
you have got to give up on this one. cant you see this was a hoax. build it and see. it will never work. it is sort of funny i guess when you think about all the time spent by all the guys here trying to replicate something like this. i even tried it, verry precisely i might add. i would concentrate on other things if i were you.
Can you show a video of your very precise replication?
Stop wasting your time on this one; it has already been admitted to be a hoax, so why cotinue this ?
@Dansway: so where are these working johnson style motors then? I have looked into that avenue myself and have not found any working replications yet...
Sure, there are some that claim to have built a replication, but they can never provide proof...
Like I said, there are many variations on the theme, Johnsons being one. Where are the working versions?
At least some things do work... This one for example, is not actually a pm motor but it does produce ou output:
http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/mromag.htm
And this is another very interesting device; again no pm motor but apparently it does produce output with no input:
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=695.0 (heh, yeah it's on this site even)
Quote from: Koen1 on November 05, 2007, 08:45:53 AM
Stop wasting your time on this one; it has already been admitted to be a hoax, so why cotinue this ?
@Dansway: so where are these working johnson style motors then? I have looked into that avenue myself and have not found any working replications yet...
Sure, there are some that claim to have built a replication, but they can never provide proof...
Like I said, there are many variations on the theme, Johnsons being one. Where are the working versions?
At least some things do work... This one for example, is not actually a pm motor but it does produce ou output:
http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/mromag.htm
And this is another very interesting device; again no pm motor but apparently it does produce output with no input:
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=695.0 (heh, yeah it's on this site even)
Where has it already been admitted this to be a hoax?
Well of course I can't be entirely sure this is really posted by expenzif as apparently people on this forum are already making fake usernames and even complete nutters are actively posting here (see "bowser3"s whacko vril posts), but as you can see on page 23 of this very thread here, there was a person who posted under the name of expenzif and who admitted it was a hoax using a blow dryer motor to turn the rotor...?
And besides that, I have done many experiments with permanent magnets including very similar ones to this design, and none of them worked, and it seems extremely unlikely that it would as much better designs do not.
the design is very simple, replication should also be very simple. If you are convinced it can work, build a version and try to get it to work.
It is not really any use continuing to discuss something that nobody replicates.
The replications that have been done do NOT work, NONE of them.
If you have any other information, please post it.
The post you're referring to was by "xpenzif .", not by "xpenzif". This was already explained. The poor thing "xpenzif ." is making silly jokes which only the local fool happily caught on to thinking that his foolishness is finally justified. Until the real @xpenzif comes forth and explains what the story is you shouldn't infer that it has already been admitted it's a hoax.
Also, the fact that you couldn't do something doesn't mean that it cannot be done. It was only you who couldn't do it and nothing more.
Well do not blame me for assuming the person posting under he name xpenzif was actually xpenzif.
I do not understand why people would post nonsense under false usernames anyway... what use is that?
Do these people really have nothing better to do with their lives than pollute fora where others attempt to discuss things seriously?
In any case, you can blame me for concluding this specific type of pmm will not work, based on my own experiences,
but I do not at all see you post any actually usefull infrmation here either...
Where is your replication then, if you are so sure it can work?
It is so damn simple to build... why don't you?
Or do you prefer to post a lot but not test it? Talk is cheap, it is said...
Prove me wrong by building a functional replication and I will gladly concede my error.
But do not belittle me or my past experiments without any substantiation.
It was not "only" me who could not get this type of design to work. It was tons of other people too.
Or, to bounce your own pretentious reply back to you:
the fact that you think it was only me who could not do it, does not mean it can be done and that I just happened not to manage to get it to work.
Instead of stubornly adhering to a conviction which you have apparently not even tested despite the extreme simplicity of the design, perhaps you should put your money where your mouth is and build it? Show me that it works and that it was "only me" who could not get it to work somehow. :)
Don't assume it has already been proven to be a hoax because some poor slob, having nothing else to do, posts crap. Don't do this. You have no basis to assume such nonsense.
Also, don't hide your inability to do things behind several others (not tons of other people) who were also not able. Talent isn't distributed evenly.
Quote from: Omnibus on November 05, 2007, 11:37:47 AM
Don't assume it has already been proven to be a hoax because some poor slob, having nothing else to do, posts crap. Don't do this. You have no basis to assume such nonsense.
I do not. I assumed people post their mesages under their own name (or nickname), and that the post by this impostor "xpenziv" was an actual confession. I stand corrected on that one.
On top of that and as I have already stated several times, I think this specific device is not real (a "hoax" if you want to call it that) based on my own experiments with many different permanent magnet motor designs including ones very similar if not identical to this one. I feel I have more than enough basis to assume it is faked.
Quote
Also, don't hide your inability to do things behind several others (not tons of other people) who were also not able. Talent isn't distributed evenly.
I resent your belittlement of my abilities.
Every serious scientist knows arguments should be countered on an intellectual level, rather than discrediting people personally in a passive-aggressive manner.
And again I would say: put your money where your mouth is.
I have done my experiments and based on that I say this specific type of design will not work. If you insist I could build a bunch of similar and identical ones that do not work, to substantiate my statement.
If you have done any experiments with similar or identical designs that do work, then by all means post your positive results and prove me wrong! :)
Either that, or stop insinuating I simply did things wrong.
No, don't impose your lack of abilities as a scientific proof of any kind. Stop that. It hasn't been proven that this cannot be built. The only thing that has been proven is that you and several others cannot build it in a working state. That counts for nothing. You shouldn't even announce it.
Ah, still not built one eh?
:D
Hey guys and gals,
Here's a concept motor/generator I came up with that I'm building right now. There are lots of modifications and considerations to creating a useable generator but it's a start.
The rough idea... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8JHb-xJGVUM
Peace,
Will
Pleas, stop this argueing. This will not lead anywhere :). if it is the same motor as shown in the first place on this thread, i do believe the motor is a not- working one. It should be very easy to build a similar motor and proove if it works or not.
I have one question though: Are the magnets in the "original" motor arranged with north or south pole facing the screws, or is the magnets magnetized across the length? Maybe a replica is not working because the magnets arn't set up right?
Vidar
Quote from: Golden Mean on November 05, 2007, 02:40:37 PM
Hey guys and gals,
Here's a concept motor/generator I came up with that I'm building right now. There are lots of modifications and considerations to creating a useable generator but it's a start.
The rough idea... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8JHb-xJGVUM
Peace,
Will
Nice animation (Except this PC in the hotel reception has Windows NT, and are VERY slow).
I see your idea, and and it has already been built and displayed on youtube - you should try to make one anyway to learn more about magnetism.
Vidar
Hi Vidar,
I did some crude testing of my own with the linear concept (as shown here... http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=3r2aZ3llqok )
and it does work. What happens with the V-gate is that as the first stator reaches the "gate", there are two more that want to get there. As the second stator reaches the gate, the other two stators are helping pull it through the gate and so on. The trick is figuring out the precise arrangement of the magnets on both the rotor and the stator to maximize the pull and momentum to keep it spinning and hopefully be able to extract some energy off the spin. The main problems I've been having are in fabrication. Without precision tooling equipment, I've found this a challenging endeavour. Still worth exploring IMO.
Peace,
Will
Quote from: Low-Q on November 05, 2007, 02:56:56 PM
I see your idea, and and it has already been built and displayed on youtube -
Vidar
Could you please post a link so I can check it out? Thanks.
Peace,
Will
Quote from: Golden Mean on November 05, 2007, 03:24:19 PM
...The main problems I've been having are in fabrication. Without precision tooling equipment, I've found this a challenging endeavour. Still worth exploring IMO.
Peace,
Will
I agree, precision counts in the magnet game, forces are squared with the distance, so small differences in distance can make a big diference in forces, and as Omnibus has pointed out above it is often wrong to assume all magnets in a batch are equal.
We are working blind with magnets, we need a way to see what is happening!
Quote from: ken_nyus on November 05, 2007, 07:51:50 PM
Quote from: Golden Mean on November 05, 2007, 03:24:19 PM
...The main problems I've been having are in fabrication. Without precision tooling equipment, I've found this a challenging endeavour. Still worth exploring IMO.
Peace,
Will
I agree, precision counts in the magnet game, forces are squared with the distance, so small differences in distance can make a big diference in forces, and as Omnibus has pointed out above it is often wrong to assume all magnets in a batch are equal.
We are working blind with magnets, we need a way to see what is happening!
I thought precision tooling equipment is crucial when I first tried Torbay. A friend who owns a machine shop made it very precisely. Special neos were bought etc. and it still didn't run. One reason, besides the very complicated construction, was the already mentioned unevenness of the magnets used. No matter what you do (I brought them several times to a major company producing magnets for remagnetization) they, although of the same form, still differed substantially in the form of the fields and induction. Like I already said, that seems to be the main problem that plagues the field. Not so much the precise machining as the inherent discrepancies in the magnets. Of all I've seen so far, @xpenzif's idea is the best (and is the only one that has been demonstrated, aside from Finsrud) because this major problem with magnets not matching is radically avoided. Like I said on several occasions, @xpenzif's idea is in fact convenient practical application of SMOT. Also, as I've already pointed out SMOT is the only experiment so far conclusively proving violation of CoE. Therefore, exploring SMOT-like ideas is the right direction. Magnet to magnet interactions seem a dead end at this point. Even people with perpetuum mobile patents based on magnet to magnet interactions such as Fecera haven't actually shown a working device to the US Patent Office, I learned from one of the examiners of that patent. Hope to be proven wrong on that magnet to magnet interaction skepticism.
Speaking of magnet to magnet interactions, however, in opposition to my just expressed skepticism, I would mention again the well-known Lego perpetuum mobile: http://fr.youtube.com/watch?v=wcy0tedYBMg. This seems like an interesting idea, seemingly not difficult to reproduce (if some additional details are known). It appears that the introduction of these rubber bands rotate the rotor magnets in just the right way to ensure the right timing of placing them into the field of the stators. Unfortunately, the author isn't forthcoming with more explanation (what else is new). I wrote him several pm's but never got a reply.
@Omnibus:
I have seen this video before and...if you watch closley, there is NO correlation between the magnets moving due to the rubber bands and the rotation. It appears random to me and I have serious doubts about this video. Hit the pause button during the rotation and you will see what I mean...and once again, we have a "successful" video posted and then...poof, the creator disappears from sight.
I don't ever want to call anything posted here or elsewhere a "fraud" without real evidence but, when they are brought to our attention and questions are raised and then, they are gone from sight, this brings a serious question to my mind about the credibility of the device.
I have not seen anything, including Xpenzif's device, that I would say, as some do, is the real deal. Still too early to state anything definitive especially when no one is here to answer any valid questions raised about the device and the video. I still have very, very serious doubts about this one.
Bill
I kind of agree with that.As I've said many times, so far the only device definitively proving CoE is SMOT. Nothing else has been verified properly yet (including the closest one, Finsrud's). As for the Lego device, I'm watching it frame by frame with VideoDub and, indeed, the disposition of the magnets during the first turn differs from what it is in the follow-up turns. This may be part of the solution to overcome the sticky spot. That's guesswork, though. I can't agree more that the constructors of these devices shouldn't disappear before the validity of their creations is verified. The rule, without an exception, however, is that they do disappear. I can think of at least ten such constructors some of which I've been even in personal contact with and who have even promised me that they will do anything possible for their devices to be verified, only to disappear later without a trace. What kind of a game that is beats me.
Quote from: Omnibus on November 05, 2007, 08:46:34 PM
What kind of a game that is beats me.
You do not understand the game? They are pranksters who enjoy watching gullible people fall for their pranks.
Also, I understand your opinion of the SMOT, but you do not speak honestly about it. You claim that "it has been proven" that the SMOT violates CoE, as if there is a concensus about this. You sort of leave out the bit that you are the only one who claims to have proven this, and no one else besides maybe Stefan agrees with you. My feeling is that you do not account for the magnetic pull on the ball by the magnet as it begins to drop.
Anyway, how does the SMOT even apply here? Gravity does not interrupt the magnetic force, so this is completely different from the SMOT.
Quote from: Golden Mean on November 05, 2007, 03:27:21 PM
Quote from: Low-Q on November 05, 2007, 02:56:56 PM
I see your idea, and and it has already been built and displayed on youtube -
Vidar
Could you please post a link so I can check it out? Thanks.
Peace,
Will
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=kCr3lOhMJCg (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=kCr3lOhMJCg)
it is a hand held magnet that power the wheel. However, if the stator was really static, the wheel would stop.
In your demonstration with the rail, I can see that the acceleratoion slows down half way. I look forward to see the test result from your rotating V-gate.
Vidar
@shruggedatlas,
Scientific truth is never established by voting. Consensus plays absolutely no role in establishing scientific truth because Science is a totalitarian system where truth is the dictator.
You feeling that I do not account for the magnetic pull on the ball by the magnet as it begins to drop is wrong. Read my analysis and try to understand it before expressing feelings. Science is not about feelings but is about logic and reason.
The likeness with SMOT here comes from the proper overlapping of conservative fields. In SMOT the properly overlapping conservative fields are of different kind, in this case the type of fields is the same.
@shruggedatlas,
QuoteYou do not understand the game? They are pranksters who enjoy watching gullible people fall for their pranks.
How about Frank Fecera and the like who hold patents for perpetuum mobile's? Are they also doing it for the love of sick sports and enjoyment.
[/quote]http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=kCr3lOhMJCg (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=kCr3lOhMJCg)
it is a hand held magnet that power the wheel. However, if the stator was really static, the wheel would stop.
In your demonstration with the rail, I can see that the acceleratoion slows down half way. I look forward to see the test result from your rotating V-gate.
Vidar
[/quote]
Thanks Vidar. Yes. I've seen that one and I agree that if he didn't manually move the stator, it would not work. The main difference is that I'm using 6 stators (3 per V-gate). For each stator that hits the gate, there are 2 more to pull/push it through. I've built another model based on this same concept with only one V-gate and four stators. It'll be interesting to see what happens.
I know the multiple stator works in the linear model as I've tested it myself. The question is if this does work, will we be able to extract any useful energy from it? I'll have to build it and find out!
Peace,
Will
interesting responses to the Xpenzif replication attempts
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vd03OyRIc70
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6lRe5sHfeo
Quote from: tobasco on November 07, 2007, 06:17:31 PM
interesting responses to the Xpenzif replication attempts
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vd03OyRIc70
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6lRe5sHfeo
I had a quick go at putting this together. I've come to the conclusion it wont work for the following reason...
Newtons 3rd Law of Motion: For every action there is an equal but opposite reaction.
The thing is the device works on repulsion mode , so as one rotor pushes the other, so the other pushes back. It doesn't self start. Sure you get some movement if if you spin it up first with your hand, but you would in a normal 'toothed cog' system.
Without the "Alien Hybrid" timing (23 secs of first vid) I can't see it working.
@klickUK:
For what it's worth, I agree with you.
Bill
@klicUK,
Not to oppose your finding, since I've no idea what that guy has actually done but let me mention this, recall that Veljko Milkovic claims violation of Newton's third law with his device (http://youtube.com/watch?v=IHln0xczRk8). Still isn't clear to me whether it really does. To understand that the backward problem for his device has to be solved (there have already been attempts to solve the forward, more obvious problem: http://freeenergynews.com/Directory/Pendulum/Mathematical_analisys_Tosic_english.pdf), Of course, this analysis must be rigorous and not based just on opinions and feeling as some have already expressed in their positive or negative analysis and criticism.
Quote from: Golden Mean on November 06, 2007, 09:20:06 AM
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=kCr3lOhMJCg (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=kCr3lOhMJCg)
it is a hand held magnet that power the wheel. However, if the stator was really static, the wheel would stop.
In your demonstration with the rail, I can see that the acceleratoion slows down half way. I look forward to see the test result from your rotating V-gate.
Vidar
[/quote]
Thanks Vidar. Yes. I've seen that one and I agree that if he didn't manually move the stator, it would not work. The main difference is that I'm using 6 stators (3 per V-gate). For each stator that hits the gate, there are 2 more to pull/push it through. I've built another model based on this same concept with only one V-gate and four stators. It'll be interesting to see what happens.
I know the multiple stator works in the linear model as I've tested it myself. The question is if this does work, will we be able to extract any useful energy from it? I'll have to build it and find out!
Peace,
Will
[/quote]
With several stators you'll just even the forces. In addition each magnets magnetic field is altered to do less work on the rotor. So in theory, the forces woud be the same with one magnet or with more. But as you said, you should build one to see how it works. It should also be quite easy to simulate your motor in Femm.
Br.
Vidar
Quote from: Omnibus on November 08, 2007, 09:47:54 AM
@klicUK,
Not to oppose your finding, since I've no idea what that guy has actually done but let me mention this, recall that Veljko Milkovic claims violation of Newton's third law with his device (http://youtube.com/watch?v=IHln0xczRk8). Still isn't clear to me whether it really does. To understand that the backward problem for his device has to be solved (there have already been attempts to solve the forward, more obvious problem: http://freeenergynews.com/Directory/Pendulum/Mathematical_analisys_Tosic_english.pdf), Of course, this analysis must be rigorous and not based just on opinions and feeling as some have already expressed in their positive or negative analysis and criticism.
Not to be controversial, but the guy is pushing the pendulum several times to increase the swing. Imagine pushing a kid on a swing you don't give one almighty bang to get your little one up to the highest point. Lots of little pushes just enough to get a bit higher - same thing here. Now also look at the angle of attack, roughly 45 degrees and he slides the hadle down the pendulum, increasing the time of the push.
To me a fair test would be calibrate the device correctly by weighing the pendulum and then letting it go from a preset hieght. Way to much human intervention on this one for me to see any thing of significance. Easy for him to change the experimental setup though to make the whole thing measurable.
Quote from: klicUK on November 08, 2007, 11:49:40 AM
Quote from: Omnibus on November 08, 2007, 09:47:54 AM
@klicUK,
Not to oppose your finding, since I've no idea what that guy has actually done but let me mention this, recall that Veljko Milkovic claims violation of Newton's third law with his device (http://youtube.com/watch?v=IHln0xczRk8). Still isn't clear to me whether it really does. To understand that the backward problem for his device has to be solved (there have already been attempts to solve the forward, more obvious problem: http://freeenergynews.com/Directory/Pendulum/Mathematical_analisys_Tosic_english.pdf), Of course, this analysis must be rigorous and not based just on opinions and feeling as some have already expressed in their positive or negative analysis and criticism.
Not to be controversial, but the guy is pushing the pendulum several times to increase the swing. Imagine pushing a kid on a swing you don't give one almighty bang to get your little one up to the highest point. Lots of little pushes just enough to get a bit higher - same thing here. Now also look at the angle of attack, roughly 45 degrees and he slides the hadle down the pendulum, increasing the time of the push.
To me a fair test would be calibrate the device correctly by weighing the pendulum and then letting it go from a preset hieght. Way to much human intervention on this one for me to see any thing of significance. Easy for him to change the experimental setup though to make the whole thing measurable.
I was referring specifically to the claim for Newton's third law violation. Whether or not more energy is obtained than the input is a separate discussion.
What is demonstrated is that when swaying the pendulum the other side of the lever starts moving up and down. On the other hand, when moving up and down that other part of lever doesn't cause swaying of the pendulum. This is claimed to be an apparent violation of the Newtons third law. Whether or not there's indeed such violation hasn't been understood well yet. Like I said, a proposal for the forward problem has already been given. No analytical solution exists yet of the reverse problem. I really mean analytical solution--writing the proper differential equation and solving it and not just expressing hunches (I don't mean what you did but what others have expressed both positively or negatively).
Quote from: Omnibus on November 08, 2007, 12:03:36 PM
I was referring specifically to the claim for Newton's third law violation. Whether or not more energy is obtained than the input is a separate discussion.
What is demonstrated is that when swaying the pendulum the other side of the lever starts moving up and down. On the other hand, when moving up and down that other part of lever doesn't cause swaying of the pendulum. This is claimed to be an apparent violation of the Newtons third law. Whether or not there's indeed such violation hasn't been understood well yet. Like I said, a proposal for the forward problem has already been given. No analytical solution exists yet of the reverse problem. I really mean analytical solution--writing the proper differential equation and solving it and not just expressing hunches (I don't mean what you did but what others have expressed both positively or negatively).
ahhh - got you.
Quote from: Omnibus on November 06, 2007, 08:23:24 AM
@shruggedatlas,
Scientific truth is never established by voting. Consensus plays absolutely no role in establishing scientific truth because Science is a totalitarian system where truth is the dictator.
You feeling that I do not account for the magnetic pull on the ball by the magnet as it begins to drop is wrong. Read my analysis and try to understand it before expressing feelings. Science is not about feelings but is about logic and reason.
The likeness with SMOT here comes from the proper overlapping of conservative fields. In SMOT the properly overlapping conservative fields are of different kind, in this case the type of fields is the same.
OK, I have a serious question, then. If the SMOT is overunity, i.e. produces excess energy from nothing, what happens to this excess energy? Where does it go? There is clearly not enough left over to even do something as menial as get the ball back to the starting point, so it must get spent somewhere.
I understand your position that extracting excess energy from the SMOT is an engineering problem, and I am not asking you to solve it. I am asking you to account for where this excess energy ends up. I think this is critical if you want others to accept your theory, and you must have some interest in this, if you want the above engineering problem solved. Thanks in advance.
@shruggedatlas,
It isn?t true that it is critical for the acceptance of my analysis or of any analysis for that matter to account for where the excess energy ends up, let alone it?s more than obvious where it ends up. For instance, excess kinetic energy in the present rendition of SMOT ends up as heat.
It must be clearly emphasized, however, that even in its present form the excess energy produced in SMOT is practically usable although its use isn?t as convenient as it would be upon a skilful engineering solution whereby it can be produced continuously (SMOT in its present form, treated in my analysis, only produces excess energy discontinuously). So far, the closest engineering solution for a SMOT producing excess energy continuously is that proposed by @xpenzif (except for Finsrud?s maybe). Of course, setting up a working SMOT, as the one I analyzed, not to speak about @xpenzif?s, needs a lot of fine tuning and isn?t as easy as it may seem. I wouldn?t be surprised if @xpenzif himself is unable to reproduce his own creation as I haven?t always been able to reproduce the simple device I?ve analyzed. Those of the participants here who teach labs, let alone those who work towards their PhD?s know exactly what I mean. Sometimes the most trivial and well-understood lab cannot be reproduced properly, especially when one is under pressure.
Quote from: Omnibus on November 08, 2007, 12:03:36 PM
What is demonstrated is that when swaying the pendulum the other side of the lever starts moving up and down. On the other hand, when moving up and down that other part of lever doesn't cause swaying of the pendulum.
I believe that this part of the video is, disappointingly, a deception.
It is true that moving the lever will not
start the pendulum moving, but it can certainly
keep the pendulum moving and increase the amplitude of its oscillations if it is moving already. In other words, adding work at the lever
does store it in the moving pendulum, and taking it out at the lever
does remove it from the moving pendulum.
I expect that he knows this, otherwise he would not have made sure the pendulum was still before moving the lever.
Cheers,
Mr. Entropy
P.S. You would know this too, if you were physics professor, as some claim. Do you, yourself, claim to be a physics professor, Omnibus?
Quote from: Mr.Entropy on November 08, 2007, 09:24:24 PM
Quote from: Omnibus on November 08, 2007, 12:03:36 PM
What is demonstrated is that when swaying the pendulum the other side of the lever starts moving up and down. On the other hand, when moving up and down that other part of lever doesn't cause swaying of the pendulum.
I believe that this part of the video is, disappointingly, a deception.
It is true that moving the lever will not start the pendulum moving, but it can certainly keep the pendulum moving and increase the amplitude of its oscillations if it is moving already. In other words, adding work at the lever does store it in the moving pendulum, and taking it out at the lever does remove it from the moving pendulum.
I expect that he knows this, otherwise he would not have made sure the pendulum was still before moving the lever.
Cheers,
Mr. Entropy
P.S. You would know this too, if you were physics professor, as some claim. Do you, yourself, claim to be a physics professor, Omnibus?
I have visited Mr. Veljko Milkovic personally in Novi Sad, Serbia this Summer and I have done the experiment I mentioned myself. Before asking inadequate questions first know what you're talking about.
Quote from: Omnibus on November 08, 2007, 09:29:06 PM
Before asking inadequate questions first know what you're talking about.
You are amazingly brazen going on like this, and about your nonsensical SMOT "analysis" that people should "understand" before arguing with you. Rest assured that I do know what I'm talking about, and I know, as you must, that the people who "understand" your analysis are the people that "see" the emperor's new clothes.
You are so brazen that I actually expected you to answer my question, and I'm disappointed that you did not.
Oh well,
Mr. Entropy
Quote from: Mr.Entropy on November 08, 2007, 09:42:34 PM
Quote from: Omnibus on November 08, 2007, 09:29:06 PM
Before asking inadequate questions first know what you're talking about.
You are amazingly brazen going on like this, and about your nonsensical SMOT "analysis" that people should "understand" before arguing with you. Rest assured that I do know what I'm talking about, and I know, as you must, that the people who "understand" your analysis are the people that "see" the emperor's new clothes.
You are so brazen that I actually expected you to answer my question, and I'm disappointed that you did not.
Oh well,
Mr. Entropy
No, you don't know what you're talking about so you'd better restrain from cluttering the thread.
@ Omnibus:
To help answer Shrugged Atlas's question, would this be a fair description for where the exta energy in the SMOT goes? As I see it...if you have a steel ball at x height and the SMOT makes it rise to X+whatever, then the potential energy of the ball has been raised and it is stored in the ball. In other words, a one pound weight 1 foot off the ground has more potential energy than a one pound ball 6" off the ground. Correct? I think this is where the SMOT shows OU.
I don't really know so I am just putting this out there. The fact that the engineering problem has not been solved, as Shrugged says, to close the loop does not preclude the extra potential energy imparted to the sphere by the SMOT in my mind.
Bill
Quote from: Pirate88179 on November 08, 2007, 09:45:10 PM
@ Omnibus:
To help answer Shrugged Atlas's question, would this be a fair description for where the exta energy in the SMOT goes? As I see it...if you have a steel ball at x height and the SMOT makes it rise to X+whatever, then the potential energy of the ball has been raised and it is stored in the ball. In other words, a one pound weight 1 foot off the ground has more potential energy than a one pound ball 6" off the ground. Correct? I think this is where the SMOT shows OU.
I don't really know so I am just putting this out there. The fact that the engineering problem has not been solved, as Shrugged says, to close the loop does not preclude the extra potential energy imparted to the sphere by the SMOT in my mind.
Bill
That's correct.
I do not believe the excess energy is being dissipated as heat. A steel ball rolling on a ramp should not generate much heat. I have another theory.
In a nutshell, Omnibus's position is that since the ball gains potential gravitational energy from B to C, and maintains the same potential magnetic energy from start point A and endpoint A, then there is a net overall gain in energy.
This sound good in theory, but has not been proven to be true in practice. I think I know where the energy goes, and why it is impossible to extract any energy from the device. I have attached a diagram below for illustration. The dark grey dots at B and C are the balls, and the larger grey circles represent a given area around the ball. The balls and the grey areas are exactly the same sizes.
What happens is that when the ball drops from C, it exerts a greater magnetic drag on the ball, compared with the assistance that point B provides to the ball as it is raised. If you look carefully, the amount of magnet in the grey circle near the balls appears roughly equal at points B and C. However, at point C, there is more magnet close to the ball, because the angle is acute. At point B, the angle is obtuse, so there is less magnet close to the ball.
I believe Omnibus's analysis assumes the magnetic force on the ball is the same at B and C. Is that what you are claiming, Omnibus?
@shruggedatlas,
This is wrong. Read my analysis carefully and try to understand it.
Quote from: Omnibus on November 09, 2007, 01:30:18 AM
@shruggedatlas,
This is wrong. Read my analysis carefully and try to understand it.
I did read it carefully, and I do not see anywhere where you account for greater pull at C than at B. Anything you can do to clear this up would be appreciated.
Quote from: shruggedatlas on November 09, 2007, 01:34:34 AM
Quote from: Omnibus on November 09, 2007, 01:30:18 AM
@shruggedatlas,
This is wrong. Read my analysis carefully and try to understand it.
I did read it carefully, and I do not see anywhere where you account for greater pull at C than at B. Anything you can do to clear this up would be appreciated.
This is accounted for in the analysis. Read it again carefully and try to understand it. I can only explain it as I've done many times already but I cannot understand it for you.
Quote from: Omnibus on November 09, 2007, 01:37:38 AM
Quote from: shruggedatlas on November 09, 2007, 01:34:34 AM
Quote from: Omnibus on November 09, 2007, 01:30:18 AM
@shruggedatlas,
This is wrong. Read my analysis carefully and try to understand it.
I did read it carefully, and I do not see anywhere where you account for greater pull at C than at B. Anything you can do to clear this up would be appreciated.
This is accounted for in the analysis. Read it again carefully and try to understand it. I can only explain it as I've done many times already but I cannot understand it for you.
I have read it. Many times. Your position is that at point A, where the ball starts and stops, the magnetic potential is the same, so it is not a factor (you conclude that the net change in magnetic energy along A-B-C-A is zero). Then, because the researcher only uses energy -mgh1 and the returned energy is (+mgh1 +mgh2) plus also the kinetic gained along B to C, then there is an excess of energy +mgh2 plus the kinetic. That is all you write. If there is more, please correct me. I have reviewed this and I understand what you are getting at.
I challenge the underlying assumption that the net change in magnetic energy is zero. The potential magnetic energy at A is not at its peak but is in fact zero, because the magnet is too far away to have any pull at that point, so it is dishonest to conclude from this that the net change in magnetic energy throughout the entire process is zero. Simply put, when the researcher lifts the ball closer to the magnet and actually imparts magnetic potential, there is where you should begin to take into account magnetic forces. And you continue to take them into account until the ball leaves the pull of the magnet, somewhere below point C. Your equation fails to do this, but instead relies on the misplaced belief that magnetic forces are a wash.
The end result is that the ball returns to point A with less kinetic energy than what it would take to place the ball at B. It seems it costs more energy to get the ball away from point C and to point A than what the researcher expended to get the ball to from point A to point B, even with the magnet helping to pull at point B. Result: no excess energy. Why? Because the magnetic pull of the SMOT ramp has taken what it has given. (The only reason the ball even returns to point A is because gravity is so much stronger than the magnetic pull at C.)
So please do not blame the losses on heat until you have an equation that accounts accurately for all the forces in play.
@shruggedatlas,
You have gaps in understanding basic Physics and therefore, what you're saying is incorrect. Please consult first some standard Physics textbook before coming here to discuss this matter. It's a waste of time to continue when you're so confused about the fundamentals.
Quote from: Omnibus on November 09, 2007, 07:26:15 AM
@shruggedatlas,
You have gaps in understanding basic Physics and therefore, what you're saying is incorrect. Please consult first some standard Physics textbook before coming here to discuss this matter. It's a waste of time to continue when you're so confused about the fundamentals.
Yes, I agree, Omnibus. We should not be draining Stefan's bandwidth with this.
It is patently obvious that a ball gaining height has an increase in potential energy
of M x G x H where H is the change in height and G is the gravitational constant.
As for a rotating system which is going at a steady speed, the energy would be that required to
overcome friction in the bearings.
Paul.
Hi SA,
Quote from: shruggedatlas on November 09, 2007, 04:18:01 AM
I challenge the underlying assumption that the net change in magnetic energy is zero. The potential magnetic energy at A is not at its peak but is in fact zero, because the magnet is too far away to have any pull at that point, so it is dishonest to conclude from this that the net change in magnetic energy throughout the entire process is zero.
The magnetic potential energy is maximal at A. Since the magnets are attracting the ball, it takes work to move the ball away from them, and they do work on the ball when the ball moves towards them. The ball's magnetic potential energy at any point is the amount of work you could get by allowing the ball to move toward the magnet as far as possible. So, the farther away the ball is, the more magnetic potential energy it has. Since the attractive force is very low at A and points farther away, the ball's magnetic potential energy at A is very close its magnetic potential energy at points very far away. Some people like to call the far away value 0, and assign negative numbers to the close-in values -- it doesn't matter since only relative measurements are made.
The field of magnetic force that pushes on the ball is pretty much "conservative", meaning that the net work done by the field on by ball as it moves between two points is the same, regardless of the path it takes between those points, and is equal to the change in potential. In terms of magnetic potential, A > B > C.
The gravitational force field is also conservative in this way, but in terms of gravitational potential, C > B > A.
The thing about the SMOT that fools observers is simply that the drop in magentic potential between B and C overwhelms the gain in gravitational potential. The net loss in potential energy is converted into the kinetic energy imparted to the ball.
During the fall from C to A, the ball loses gravitational potential energy, but gains magnetic potential energy. The gravitational loss is larger, again resulting in net addition of kinetic energy to the ball.
I'm afraid that ALL of this kinetic energy is indeed dissipated as heat and sound when the ball hits the ceramic dish and bounces around a little.
Not to worry, though. As the monkey's hand raises the ball from A to B, there is a net gain in the potential energy of the ball that (pretty much) exactly balances the net loss experienced as the ball moves from B to C to A. It must balance, because, due to the conservative nature of the fields involved, the total change from B to B, along any path, including B-C-A-B, is zero.
Hope that helps,
Mr. Entropy
P.S. the "pretty much" qualifications above are due to the fact that the magnetization of the ball is not constant, and may include time-sensitive effects, meaning that the ball may have slightly different magnetizations in the same place at different times. This means the field of force on the ball isn't precisely conservative. AFAIK, all of those effects are loss mechanisms like eddy currents and magnetic viscosity, but I don't know about
all the applicable effects.
@Mr.Entropy,
While you show slightly better understanding of Physics than @shruggedatlas (cf. the correct understanding what the magnetic potential energy at A is and that conservative (not ?pretty much conservative?) fields are under observation here) you suddenly fail at the final:
QuoteNot to worry, though. As the monkey's hand raises the ball from A to B, there is a net gain in the potential energy of the ball that (pretty much) exactly balances the net loss experienced as the ball moves from B to C to A. It must balance, because, due to the conservative nature of the fields involved, the total change from B to B, along any path, including B-C-A-B, is zero.
Hope that helps,
This is how a monkey would understand something obvious. Trained person will immediately see that the net gain in the potential energy when raising the ball from A to B which is (+mgh1 ?(Ma ? Mb)) doesn?t equal the energy (+mgh1 +Mb) = (mgh1 + mgh2 + [kinetic ...+]) the ball loses along the rest of the closed loop. This is in clear violation of CoE. The excess energy which accounts for this discrepancy has no source and is energy out of nothing.
This has already been explained many times over and, like I already said, you?d do better to restrain from cluttering the thread with nonsense.
The discussion in this thread is how to apply this already proven fact that energy out of nothing can be produced discontinuously (which, as a matter of fact, is already practically applicable in its own right) to construct a device producing such energy out of nothing continuously--a much more convenient practical utilization of the already proven violation of CoE. Except for maybe Finsrud, @xpensif is the closest to achieving this goal. The only thing now needed for @xpenzif to get full credit is to have replication of his motor by an independent third party or better independent third parties.
@Omnibus,
When you pretend to be a professor, do you pretend to treat your students so abusively?
You are tempting me to clutter the thread with yet more explanations! Unlike yourself, I don't mind explaining physics to people who don't know that much physics, and who might appreciate it.
But take heart! You, I'm certain, would not appreciate it, so I will refrain, and leave you to the furious defense of your own ignorance.
Cheers,
Mr. Entropy
Quote from: Mr.Entropy on November 09, 2007, 11:26:57 PM
@Omnibus,
When you pretend to be a professor, do you pretend to treat your students so abusively?
You are tempting me to clutter the thread with yet more explanations! Unlike yourself, I don't mind explaining physics to people who don't know that much physics, and who might appreciate it.
But take heart! You, I'm certain, would not appreciate it, so I will refrain, and leave you to the furious defense of your own ignorance.
Cheers,
Mr. Entropy
This thread doesn't need monkey-type explanations such as the ones you clutter it with. What this thread needs I mentioned in my previous post.
Quote from: Omnibus on November 09, 2007, 10:16:31 PM
...
Trained person will immediately see that the net gain in the potential energy when raising the ball from A to B which is (+mgh1 ?(Ma ? Mb)) doesn?t equal the energy (+mgh1 +Mb) = (mgh1 + mgh2 + [kinetic ...+]) the ball loses along the rest of the closed loop. This is in clear violation of CoE.
...
I?m sorry to interfere. I?m also a trained person but the above is not clear.
The sign for Mb in ?(+mgh1 +Mb) = (mgh1 + mgh2 + [kinetic ...+])? should be negative imho. But the discussion may go forever because the problem is not well defined, not to mention it is discontinuously and scarcely presented in various small posts. For instance, the reference point for gravitational potential energy is clearly assumed (as per elementary physics) but what is the reference point for magnetic potential? A, B, C or infinite? I couldn?t find it stated?
Considering the above as well as the overall non-constructive/futile discussions above the subject, may I respectfully suggest Omnibus to write a small but clear&comprehensive article about CoE violation in SMOT and post it somewhere so anyone can read it and refer to it?
Many thanks,
Tinu
Quote from: tinu on November 10, 2007, 04:28:15 AM
Quote from: Omnibus on November 09, 2007, 10:16:31 PM
...
Trained person will immediately see that the net gain in the potential energy when raising the ball from A to B which is (+mgh1 ?(Ma ? Mb)) doesn?t equal the energy (+mgh1 +Mb) = (mgh1 + mgh2 + [kinetic ...+]) the ball loses along the rest of the closed loop. This is in clear violation of CoE.
...
I?m sorry to interfere. I?m also a trained person but the above is not clear.
The sign for Mb in ?(+mgh1 +Mb) = (mgh1 + mgh2 + [kinetic ...+])? should be negative imho. But the discussion may go forever because the problem is not well defined, not to mention it is discontinuously and scarcely presented in various small posts. For instance, the reference point for gravitational potential energy is clearly assumed (as per elementary physics) but what is the reference point for magnetic potential? A, B, C or infinite? I couldn?t find it stated?
Considering the above as well as the overall non-constructive/futile discussions above the subject, may I respectfully suggest Omnibus to write a small but clear&comprehensive article about CoE violation in SMOT and post it somewhere so anyone can read it and refer to it?
Many thanks,
Tinu
Not so. All signs and reference points are correct and the problem is well defined. Think before posting.
Quote from: Omnibus on November 10, 2007, 07:34:20 AM
Quote from: tinu on November 10, 2007, 04:28:15 AM
Quote from: Omnibus on November 09, 2007, 10:16:31 PM
...
Trained person will immediately see that the net gain in the potential energy when raising the ball from A to B which is (+mgh1 ?(Ma ? Mb)) doesn?t equal the energy (+mgh1 +Mb) = (mgh1 + mgh2 + [kinetic ...+]) the ball loses along the rest of the closed loop. This is in clear violation of CoE.
...
I?m sorry to interfere. I?m also a trained person but the above is not clear.
The sign for Mb in ?(+mgh1 +Mb) = (mgh1 + mgh2 + [kinetic ...+])? should be negative imho. But the discussion may go forever because the problem is not well defined, not to mention it is discontinuously and scarcely presented in various small posts. For instance, the reference point for gravitational potential energy is clearly assumed (as per elementary physics) but what is the reference point for magnetic potential? A, B, C or infinite? I couldn?t find it stated?
Considering the above as well as the overall non-constructive/futile discussions above the subject, may I respectfully suggest Omnibus to write a small but clear&comprehensive article about CoE violation in SMOT and post it somewhere so anyone can read it and refer to it?
Many thanks,
Tinu
Not so. All signs and reference points are correct and the problem is well defined. Think before posting.
How the problem is well defined?
Signs in potential energy are a matter of convention. Then you make other assumptions which may or may not be true. In fact, I?ll show below that they are not true.
For instance, considering that DEp negative means the system does work, you a priory imply that Ma>Mb. But it is also clear that Mb>Mc, otherwise the ball wouldn?t move up on the ramp, as seen in the movie. So Ma>Mb>Mc. Here is already something else not well defined. That?s because A-B-C defines a closed loop and there is always on that very loop a point C? so defined as Ma+Mb+Mc?=0. But C? and C are two different points. Let me be very clear: Ma+Mb+Mc is not zero. C is not the point of minimum magnetic potential energy. C? is. C is just a local minimum and it doesn?t mean much. The true minimum magnetic potential energy is probably somewhere below the ramp.
Then, moving further, how it comes that the ball is in equilibrium in A?
Well, if h of A is taken 0, the equilibrium requires that Ma < Mb +mgh1, otherwise the ball would fly from A to B. Take lim(h1)->0 and you'll have that Ma<=Mb, which is in contradiction with the first assumption that Ma>Mb. Shortly, to cut the crap, here is your mistake, dear Omnibus. You strongly believe that just because the ball is ferromagnetic and just because there is a magnet in B, the ball should be attracted and when you lift it you have to spend less than mgh1. Wrong. The configuration of the magnetic field is such a way that the ball is much strongly attracted to another point that B. In conclusion, you lift the ball from A to B and you spend more than mgh1, not less.
I hope you agree that I do think from time to time. I don?t have any problem with your demonstration other that it is incomplete so far (and wrong in the end) and I?ll let it be your way, if this is your wish instead of consuming 30mins for compiling one simple page.
By your way I mean that SMOT violates CoE but no one agrees except you. And the great physical demo requires input energy. Of course, one can always pretend it?s a matter of engineering.
Sorry for cluttering the thread. ;D
Tinu
Quote from: tinu on November 10, 2007, 11:13:55 AM
Quote from: Omnibus on November 10, 2007, 07:34:20 AM
Quote from: tinu on November 10, 2007, 04:28:15 AM
Quote from: Omnibus on November 09, 2007, 10:16:31 PM
...
Trained person will immediately see that the net gain in the potential energy when raising the ball from A to B which is (+mgh1 ?(Ma ? Mb)) doesn?t equal the energy (+mgh1 +Mb) = (mgh1 + mgh2 + [kinetic ...+]) the ball loses along the rest of the closed loop. This is in clear violation of CoE.
...
I?m sorry to interfere. I?m also a trained person but the above is not clear.
The sign for Mb in ?(+mgh1 +Mb) = (mgh1 + mgh2 + [kinetic ...+])? should be negative imho. But the discussion may go forever because the problem is not well defined, not to mention it is discontinuously and scarcely presented in various small posts. For instance, the reference point for gravitational potential energy is clearly assumed (as per elementary physics) but what is the reference point for magnetic potential? A, B, C or infinite? I couldn?t find it stated?
Considering the above as well as the overall non-constructive/futile discussions above the subject, may I respectfully suggest Omnibus to write a small but clear&comprehensive article about CoE violation in SMOT and post it somewhere so anyone can read it and refer to it?
Many thanks,
Tinu
Not so. All signs and reference points are correct and the problem is well defined. Think before posting.
How the problem is well defined?
Signs in potential energy are a matter of convention. Then you make other assumptions which may or may not be true. In fact, I?ll show below that they are not true.
For instance, considering that DEp negative means the system does work, you a priory imply that Ma>Mb. But it is also clear that Mb>Mc, otherwise the ball wouldn?t move up on the ramp, as seen in the movie. So Ma>Mb>Mc. Here is already something else not well defined. That?s because A-B-C defines a closed loop and there is always on that very loop a point C? so defined as Ma+Mb+Mc?=0. But C? and C are two different points. Let me be very clear: Ma+Mb+Mc is not zero. C is not the point of minimum magnetic potential energy. C? is. C is just a local minimum and it doesn?t mean much. The true minimum magnetic potential energy is probably somewhere below the ramp.
Then, moving further, how it comes that the ball is in equilibrium in A?
Well, if h of A is taken 0, the equilibrium requires that Ma < Mb +mgh1, otherwise the ball would fly from A to B. Take lim(h1)->0 and you'll have that Ma<=Mb, which is in contradiction with the first assumption that Ma>Mb. Shortly, to cut the crap, here is your mistake, dear Omnibus. You strongly believe that just because the ball is ferromagnetic and just because there is a magnet in B, the ball should be attracted and when you lift it you have to spend less than mgh1. Wrong. The configuration of the magnetic field is such a way that the ball is much strongly attracted to another point that B. In conclusion, you lift the ball from A to B and you spend more than mgh1, not less.
I hope you agree that I do think from time to time. I don?t have any problem with your demonstration other that it is incomplete so far (and wrong in the end) and I?ll let it be your way, if this is your wish instead of consuming 30mins for compiling one simple page.
By your way I mean that SMOT violates CoE but no one agrees except you. And the great physical demo requires input energy. Of course, one can always pretend it?s a matter of engineering.
Sorry for cluttering the thread. ;D
Tinu
Like I said, think before posting and don't waste my and other participants' time with things you haven't understood well.
Quote from: Omnibus on November 08, 2007, 09:46:56 PM
Quote from: Pirate88179 on November 08, 2007, 09:45:10 PM
@ Omnibus:
To help answer Shrugged Atlas's question, would this be a fair description for where the exta energy in the SMOT goes? As I see it...if you have a steel ball at x height and the SMOT makes it rise to X+whatever, then the potential energy of the ball has been raised and it is stored in the ball. In other words, a one pound weight 1 foot off the ground has more potential energy than a one pound ball 6" off the ground. Correct? I think this is where the SMOT shows OU.
I don't really know so I am just putting this out there. The fact that the engineering problem has not been solved, as Shrugged says, to close the loop does not preclude the extra potential energy imparted to the sphere by the SMOT in my mind.
Bill
That's correct.
That?s wrong.
See above posts.
Hallo to All:
Somehow, nobody mentions here Troy Reed and his "Surge" invention:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jt5z8L4LBJE
and his patent:
http://v3.espacenet.com/origdoc?DB=EPODOC&IDX=WO9010337&F=0&QPN=WO9010337#
Unfortunately, this isn't an educational forum. People who wish to discuss things here are presumed to be familiar with the fundamentals. Not that I don't want, I simply don't have the time to carry out education here. Recently, especially unprepared to discuss this particular stuff was @shrggedatlas. @Mr.Entropy showed some sparks of understanding, but he's still way off as is the last participant @tinu. It's good to make efforts to understand things but this should be done with less arrogance and self-righteousness. When you're told you're wrong and should think before posting you should really do so and not continue to push your confusion more and more. My analysis isn't something accidental and shallow remarks such as the recent ones have been rejected long ago.
Quote from: tinu on November 10, 2007, 11:33:01 AM
Quote from: Omnibus on November 08, 2007, 09:46:56 PM
Quote from: Pirate88179 on November 08, 2007, 09:45:10 PM
@ Omnibus:
To help answer Shrugged Atlas's question, would this be a fair description for where the exta energy in the SMOT goes? As I see it...if you have a steel ball at x height and the SMOT makes it rise to X+whatever, then the potential energy of the ball has been raised and it is stored in the ball. In other words, a one pound weight 1 foot off the ground has more potential energy than a one pound ball 6" off the ground. Correct? I think this is where the SMOT shows OU.
I don't really know so I am just putting this out there. The fact that the engineering problem has not been solved, as Shrugged says, to close the loop does not preclude the extra potential energy imparted to the sphere by the SMOT in my mind.
Bill
That's correct.
That?s wrong.
See above posts.
Stop persisting with your confusion. That's arrogant.
Quote from: Qwert on November 10, 2007, 11:39:34 AM
Hallo to All:
Somehow, nobody mentions here Troy Reed and his "Surge" invention:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jt5z8L4LBJE
and his patent:
http://v3.espacenet.com/origdoc?DB=EPODOC&IDX=WO9010337&F=0&QPN=WO9010337#
The problem with these constructions is that they have external power supply and therefore it isn't at all straightforward to claim they produce more energy than energy put in. Before all these are accepted constructions such as that of @xpenzif must be verified as real perpetuum mobile's. Therefore, the focus must be on @xpenzif and similar motors rather than on motors which may seem more practical. That said, I have to remind you that violation of CoE has already been proven beyond doubt and that's not what is sougt for now. What the focus should be now is how to produce excess energy continuously without any energy input whatsoever.
Quote from: Omnibus on November 10, 2007, 11:48:47 AM
Quote from: Qwert on November 10, 2007, 11:39:34 AM
Hallo to All:
Somehow, nobody mentions here Troy Reed and his "Surge" invention:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jt5z8L4LBJE
and his patent:
http://v3.espacenet.com/origdoc?DB=EPODOC&IDX=WO9010337&F=0&QPN=WO9010337#
The problem with these constructions is that they have external power supply and therefore it isn't at all straightforward to claim they produce more energy than energy put in. Before all these are accepted constructions such as that of @xpenzif must be verified as real perpetuum mobile's. Therefore, the focus must be on @xpenzif and similar motors rather than on motors which may seem more practical. That said, I have to remind you that violation of CoE has already been proven beyond doubt and that's not what is sougt for now. What the focus should be now is how to produce excess energy continuously without any energy input whatsoever.
To my knowledge the "Surge" does not have any external power supply. Well, maybe only a starter. By the way, You must be very fast guy, since You could find my post, check the links and write the reply within ten minutes from mine.
Quote from: Qwert on November 10, 2007, 06:03:57 PM
Quote from: Omnibus on November 10, 2007, 11:48:47 AM
Quote from: Qwert on November 10, 2007, 11:39:34 AM
Hallo to All:
Somehow, nobody mentions here Troy Reed and his "Surge" invention:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jt5z8L4LBJE
and his patent:
http://v3.espacenet.com/origdoc?DB=EPODOC&IDX=WO9010337&F=0&QPN=WO9010337#
The problem with these constructions is that they have external power supply and therefore it isn't at all straightforward to claim they produce more energy than energy put in. Before all these are accepted constructions such as that of @xpenzif must be verified as real perpetuum mobile's. Therefore, the focus must be on @xpenzif and similar motors rather than on motors which may seem more practical. That said, I have to remind you that violation of CoE has already been proven beyond doubt and that's not what is sougt for now. What the focus should be now is how to produce excess energy continuously without any energy input whatsoever.
To my knowledge the "Surge" does not have any external power supply. Well, maybe only a starter. By the way, You must be very fast guy, since You could find my post, check the links and write the reply within ten minutes from mine.
It has. The starter, as you put it. That's enough to put it into question. Of course, if it is self-sustaining it must be looked into. However, have you heard of any independent verification of its self-sustaining mode? None, correct? Mind you, there are many, many claims such as this one, none of which have found independent verification yet. The latest I visited was also for a similar device, even more interesting than that, having no moving parts. It indeed appeared that the input energy is less than the output but there's still much more to be done to convince the community that it's really so. Like I said, so far, the most interesting device is the SMOT and its modifications by Finsrud and especially by @xpenzif since it is easily demonstrable, has no energy input whatsoever and is obviously self-sustaining. Everything else is more or less hearsay as of today.
G'day Omnibus,
QuoteI said, so far, the most interesting device is the SMOT and its modifications by Finsrud and especially by @xpenzif since it is easily demonstrable, has no energy input whatsoever and is obviously self-sustaining. Everything else is more or less hearsay as of today.
I would have thought since no-one to date has replicated xpensif's motor this would still qualify as hearsay.
But who I am I to argue with the first man on earth that has proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is energy from nothing in a SMOT
Ave Omnibus, ignorami te salutamus.
Hans von Lieven
Quote from: hansvonlieven on November 10, 2007, 11:05:03 PM
G'day Omnibus,
QuoteI said, so far, the most interesting device is the SMOT and its modifications by Finsrud and especially by @xpenzif since it is easily demonstrable, has no energy input whatsoever and is obviously self-sustaining. Everything else is more or less hearsay as of today.
I would have thought since no-one to date has replicated xpensif's motor this would still qualify as hearsay.
But who I am I to argue with the first man on earth that has proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is energy from nothing in a SMOT
Ave Omnibus, ignorami te salutamus.
Hans von Lieven
Indeed, @xpenzif's motor is still to be reproduced independently. However, this doesn't help you to become less incompetent. My analysis treats a reproducible experiment and is based on solid Science which, regretfully, is beyond you.
Ave Omnibus, ignorami te salutamus.
Hans von Lieven
This is your only recourse. Weakness because of lack of arguments and competence. I think Stefan should delete posts such as this because they contribute nothing to the discussion and only demonstrate the personal characteristics of some poor slob no one needs to know about.
You have no idea what I said you ignorant idiot, do you?
Get yourself an education, there was nothing insulting in what I said!
Hans von Lieven
Quote from: hansvonlieven on November 11, 2007, 12:08:41 AM
You have no idea what I said you ignorant idiot, do you?
Get yourself an education, there was nothing insulting in what I said!
Hans von Lieven
I think Stefan should delete this post as well because it also doesn't contribute anything to the discussion but only shows the impudence of someone negligible, nevertheless pushing to be noticed.
When it comes to deleting posts I am not in favour of this, however if I was, I would suggest the deletion of ALL your posts since they contain nothing but opinionated rubbish and insults.
And while you are getting yourself an education get yourself some manners too!
Hans von Lieven
QuoteWhen it comes to deleting posts I am not in favour of this, however if I was, I would suggest the deletion of ALL your posts since they contain nothing but opinionated rubbish and insults.
And while you are getting yourself an education get yourself some manners too!
Hans von Lieven
This post also doesn't contribute to the discussion and has no place in the thread. Someone negligible and incompetent really wants to be noticed and pushes himself desperately like a little blind puppy standing in the way of people trying to do some serious work.
Quote from: Omnibus on November 11, 2007, 12:26:27 AM
This post also doesn't contribute to the discussion and has no place in the thread. Someone negligible and incompetent really wants to be noticed and pushes himself desperately like a little blind puppy standing in the way of people trying to do some serious work.
I quite agree Omnibus, your post doesn't contribute to the discussion and was posted by someone negligible and incompetent who wants to be noticed.
Here's another one, insignificant but willing to be noticed. There are others too. My last posts were provoked by someone pushing nonsense. To push nonsense in a thread like this, discussing important issues can be done only by small minds trying to get noticed. I didn't start this. I want to discuss @xpenzif's motor and how to reproduce it.
No Omnibus, you don't discuss anything, you dictate. Although you like to give the impression of being some kind of wonder in logic and physics, you seem willing to accept an unverified video as evidence of your "proof". When anyone questions your "rigorous analysis" of the smot as tinu did, you refuse to answer anthing or even discuss it, and accuse anyone who questions you, incompetent, lacking in basic knowledge etc. Stating that you don't have time to educate people. You, however, do seem to find plenty of time for posts similar to your last 5 and many other posts from you on this forum, not to mention the posts on steorn which went on ad infinitum : You are a snot. No, you are a snot. No, you are a snot and incompetent etc...
Quote from: acp on November 11, 2007, 08:12:50 AM
No Omnibus, you don't discuss anything, you dictate. Although you like to give the impression of being some kind of wonder in logic and physics, you seem willing to accept an unverified video as evidence of your "proof". When anyone questions your "rigorous analysis" of the smot as tinu did, you refuse to answer anthing or even discuss it, and accuse anyone who questions you, incompetent, lacking in basic knowledge etc. Stating that you don't have time to educate people. You, however, do seem to find plenty of time for posts similar to your last 5 and many other posts from you on this forum, not to mention the posts on steorn which went on ad infinitum : You are a snot. No, you are a snot. No, you are a snot and incompetent etc...
No, you are a snot. You are a disgusting snot. Dirty little nothing.
@tinu's "arguments" are ridiculous. These "arguments" have been rejected long ago. Starting with the obvious incompetence of @shruggedatlas, obvious inability of @Mr.Entropy to see that (+mgh1 + Mb) is different from (mgh1 - (Ma - Mb)) and ending with @tinu's obviously incorrect claim that at B the signs in the potential energy the ball has are not as I have shown them to be, that is, (+mgh1 +Mb), all this is a complete waste, disrespect to the fundamentals of science and sheer arrogance. You are another idiot who doesn't understand this, who is incompetent and who behaves as a snot.
As for the video, it is in the process of verification, The process isn't over yet. The jury is still out. Only snots such as you wish it isn't but is real is still out. Disgusting nobodies such as you and several others, including some on the Steorn forum are standing in the way of real scientific discussion and must be confronted. This I have time to do. Go, educate yourself first, don't expect me to substitute for your teachers, learn how science works, and then allow yourself to post posts. Otherwise you'll remain just a snot dirtying an important discussion.
QuoteNo, you are a snot. You are a disgusting snot. Dirty little nothing.
I wasn't actually calling you a snot, I was merely referring to that fact that you like to indulge in this kind of name calling which you have demonstrated so well again. Of course, you may call me a snot from the safety of your keyboard, that is your privilege being an elite member of this forum.
Quoteand ending with @tinu's obviously incorrect claim that at B the signs in the potential energy the ball has are not as I have shown them to be, that is, (+mgh1 +Mb),
You haven't "shown" anything, you simply repeat that tinu etc. are wrong and that you are obviously right.
Quote from: acp on November 11, 2007, 09:16:12 AM
QuoteNo, you are a snot. You are a disgusting snot. Dirty little nothing.
I wasn't actually calling you a snot, I was merely referring to that fact that you like to indulge in this kind of name calling which you have demonstrated so well again. Of course, you may call me a snot from the safety of your keyboard, that is your privilege being an elite member of this forum.
Quoteand ending with @tinu's obviously incorrect claim that at B the signs in the potential energy the ball has are not as I have shown them to be, that is, (+mgh1 +Mb),
You haven't "shown" anything, you simply repeat that tinu etc. are wrong and that you are obviously right.
Hey, buddy, you're a liar on top of that. Read you previous post and see once again are or are you not calling me a snot. From the safety of you keyboard ...
Also, I have shown what I claim I've shown. You don't understand it but that doesn't mean that I haven't shown it. As for @tinu's misunderstanding, it is not to be used as an argument. Confusion and misunderstanding are never scientific arguments. @tinu must be clearly told that he just doesn't know what he's talking about when claiming that at B the potential energy of the ball (+mgh1 +Mb) has the wrong signs. This is basic stuff which a person conversant in Physics knows ahead of time, even before knowing me and my argument. One should know such stuff before entering into the discussions here. The fact that (+mgh1 +Mb) is the potential energy of the ball at B isn't prone to consensus. This is an absolute fact. Science isn't a democracy, it's a dictatorship and facts such as the above dictate. There cannot be equally valid varying opinions about such facts. Therefore, one cannot be polite with people impudently pushing for such facts to be ignored and something stupid to be accepted as truth. You don't understand this and therefore you should restrain from further cluttering the thread with your useless but nasty comments.
Quote from: hansvonlieven on November 10, 2007, 11:05:03 PM
But who I am I to argue with the first man on earth that has proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is energy from nothing in a SMOT
With every respect to Omnibus, he is not the first man to have done this. It is
as obvious as it is that night follows day. It is the classic proof that, in principle,
free energy is possible. The snag is that nobody can turn the ramp into a circle,
and thereby a useful motor.
Paul.
Quote from: Paul-R on November 11, 2007, 09:42:32 AM
Quote from: hansvonlieven on November 10, 2007, 11:05:03 PM
But who I am I to argue with the first man on earth that has proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is energy from nothing in a SMOT
With every respect to Omnibus, he is not the first man to have done this. It is
as obvious as it is that night follows day. It is the classic proof that, in principle,
free energy is possible. The snag is that nobody can turn the ramp into a circle,
and thereby a useful motor.
Paul.
Paul, let me be perfectly clear. No one before me has carried out a scientifically sound, rigorous analysis proving beyond doubt that excess energy (energy out of nothing) can be produced thus violating CoE. The ideas for such devices, especially the device I'm discussing, are around since the 13th century. All that was done before me was to give the likes of Simanek opportunity to spew nonsense on the net because the claims of those proponents have never been scientifically well supported. Proof without rigorous scientific arguments isn't proof at all, let alone classic.
As for the usefulness, as I've said many times before, the excess energy produced in SMOT, although discontinuously, can be utilized for useful practical purposes even as is. Therefore, this device and the analysis of it is not only an advancement in our understanding of Science but, as is always the case with important scientific discoveries, it also has direct practical perspectives. However, it is more convenient to have a device producing excess energy continuously and such device will undoubtedly be constructed (if it hasn't been already). The problem is that professional scientists are snubbing this field and it is left to mostly incompetent but many times greedy people to handle it. Why the professional scientists are snubbing this field is another story, but this hurts the field (and, of course, society as a whole) enormously. Therefore, anything must be done, now that violation of CoE has been proven beyond doubt, to have this recognized by the professional Science and become part of its body of knowledge.
Quote from: Omnibus on November 11, 2007, 10:00:55 AM
Therefore, anything must be done, now that violation of CoE has been proven beyond doubt....
Don't forget that the CoE equation must take into account ALL FORMS OF ENERGY, and this must
include forms not understood, and forms that we do not even know about. (viz Hal Puthoff)
A tricky business, the CoE.
Paul.
Quote from: Paul-R on November 11, 2007, 10:09:40 AM
Quote from: Omnibus on November 11, 2007, 10:00:55 AM
Therefore, anything must be done, now that violation of CoE has been proven beyond doubt....
Don't forget that the CoE equation must take into account ALL FORMS OF ENERGY, and this must
include forms not understood, and forms that we do not even know about. (viz Hal Puthoff)
A tricky business, the CoE.
Paul.
I don't think so. Hal is my friend (haven't talked to him a long time, though) but with all due respect his ideas have nothing to do with what we're discussing here. In this case, the excess energy produced has no source which is the important thing, not what type of energy that is. Also, Science never considers undiscovered entities as discovered and never takes such entities into account when carrying out energy balances.
I'd mention also that Hal is just about the only professional scientist doing research in this area. Gene Mallove was sort of but he's not with us any more. Hal expects that these experiments will justify his zero point energy stuff but I'm afraid he's mistaken. Neither Steorn's whose failed demo he visited nor SMOT and its developments such as that of @xpenzif can serve as any proof for zpe whatsoever. I'm afraid that the zero point energy comes about from the problems in Quantum Mechanics and isn't something to be celebrated as a real phenomenon. This is a separate discussion, hope you'll agree.
What I am amazed by is how lightly Omnibus and supporters take this alleged violation of the laws of thermodynamics. If the principle of CoE was violated, it would be the greatest breakthrough since . . . well it would be huge, let's leave it at that. I admit I am not a trained scientist, but from what I remember in college, the basic order for scientific research goes something like this. You state a hypothesis, and then you run experiments to support it. When you have enough experimentation, you can conclude there is evidence to support your hypothesis, and then you can proceed to the next steps of drawing up a proper theory, validation by peers, etc.
Now you guys have this hypothesis that the SMOT violates the principle of CoE. This is no small claim. CoE has been established and confirmed through rigorous testing by untold thousands (millions?) of scientists over the years. But that's fine - new things are discovered. So you have this hypothesis that challenges everything we know, but what do you do? You do not bother actually running any experiments that demonstrate excess energy being extracted from the closed system.
At best, you run an experiment where you assist the device by using human energy to lift the ball part of the way. But this does not demonstrate the overall overunity of the device, because you do not calculate exactly how much work the hand does on the way up. There is more work than just lifting the ball - the hand also has to resist the magnetic pull from the SMOT ramps, and the pull is strongest from the center (not from point B), so there are questions left unaswered. If the ball travelled directly on its own from C back to B, there would be no questions at all.
Heck, if you had a mechanical device lift the ball from A to B, we could at least measure the amount of energy this device was consuming. Then, we could similarly measure how much energy the ball dropping from C creates and compare. With a human hand, how can you measure? Why would you use such a silly method as proof of your hypothesis. It convinces no one except the gullible.
Then I come up with a reasonable question - what happens to the excess energy? You guys say it is dissipated through heat and leave it at that. How do you know it is all due to heat? How hot does the ball really get rolling along a ramp? Based on your equation, there should be quite a bit of excess energy, more than should be lost through the very minor friction of a smooth steel ball rolling on a ramp. These things do not give you the slightest pause? Not even the tiniest doubt?
I am not a scientist, but even I can see that this is not science. This is conjecture. To say that the SMOT "has been proven overunity beyond all doubt" borders on fraud. There is plenty of doubt. The honest thing to say is that you have a hypothesis that has yet to be proven. No one would take issue with that.
Quote:Reply #431 on: November 10, 2007, 11:41:51 PM Posted by: Omnibus:
..."Like I said, so far, the most interesting device is the SMOT and its modifications by Finsrud and especially by @xpenzif since it is easily demonstrable, has no energy input whatsoever and is obviously self-sustaining. Everything else is more or less hearsay as of today."
Finally, I've found that famous (at least to some) SMOT link (page 21 on this forum). It's (almost) devine! It's divinity is in its LACK OF PERPENDICULLARITY BETWEEN THOSE TWO ROD MAGNETS, creating slightly V-shaped slot. The ball is placed on a track in the wider side V-shaped slot between those two not-quite-perpendicular rod magnets. And GO!!! Note that the path is relatively short (it cannot be narrowing into infinity). The ball is always pulled by gradually approaching magnets' ends and at end of track (the ball) drops out of the track. The inertia of the ball's mass is greater than magnets' pull at the moment of drop. That way it can go only to the end of the track.
How one can even compare this basic SMOT expriment to ready patent and already working machine (Troy Reed)?
Quote from: shruggedatlas on November 11, 2007, 10:45:41 AM
What I am amazed by is how lightly Omnibus and supporters take this alleged violation of the laws of thermodynamics. If the principle of CoE was violated, it would be the greatest breakthrough since . . . well it would be huge, let's leave it at that. I admit I am not a trained scientist, but from what I remember in college, the basic order for scientific research goes something like this. You state a hypothesis, and then you run experiments to support it. When you have enough experimentation, you can conclude there is evidence to support your hypothesis, and then you can proceed to the next steps of drawing up a proper theory, validation by peers, etc.
Now you guys have this hypothesis that the SMOT violates the principle of CoE. This is no small claim. CoE has been established and confirmed through rigorous testing by untold thousands (millions?) of scientists over the years. But that's fine - new things are discovered. So you have this hypothesis that challenges everything we know, but what do you do? You do not bother actually running any experiments that demonstrate excess energy being extracted from the closed system.
At best, you run an experiment where you assist the device by using human energy to lift the ball part of the way. But this does not demonstrate the overall overunity of the device, because you do not calculate exactly how much work the hand does on the way up. There is more work than just lifting the ball - the hand also has to resist the magnetic pull from the SMOT ramps, and the pull is strongest from the center (not from point B), so there are questions left unaswered. If the ball travelled directly on its own from C back to B, there would be no questions at all.
Heck, if you had a mechanical device lift the ball from A to B, we could at least measure the amount of energy this device was consuming. Then, we could similarly measure how much energy the ball dropping from C creates and compare. With a human hand, how can you measure? Why would you use such a silly method as proof of your hypothesis. It convinces no one except the gullible.
Then I come up with a reasonable question - what happens to the excess energy? You guys say it is dissipated through heat and leave it at that. How do you know it is all due to heat? How hot does the ball really get rolling along a ramp? Based on your equation, there should be quite a bit of excess energy, more than should be lost through the very minor friction of a smooth steel ball rolling on a ramp. These things do not give you the slightest pause? Not even the tiniest doubt?
I am not a scientist, but even I can see that this is not science. This is conjecture. To say that the SMOT "has been proven overunity beyond all doubt" borders on fraud. There is plenty of doubt. The honest thing to say is that you have a hypothesis that has yet to be proven. No one would take issue with that.
@shruggedatlas,
Recall how this darn CoE was introduced in Science. Recall physician Mayer?s ?experiments? with the color of soldier?s blood. Even more interesting is the Helmholtz story. Another doctor (same as Mayer) just out of college, having nothing to do with physics braces himself to introduce the most general principle in Science. Based on what logic? Well, based on the fact that up to that moment no one has built a periodically working machine which can do work at the expense of no energy of any kind. What kind of logic is that? Ridiculous kind of logic, of course. And, rightfully so, his paper has never been accepted in a proper scientific journal. All we know about his ?findings? is from a talk he has given before some society. Certain powers that be, for obvious reasons, have liked and promoted this idea. Plain and simple. And now, what are we facing? We are facing the fact that there is such machine?a periodically working machine which can do work at the expense of no energy spent. Now what, then?
In addition, I am not at all certain that practical devices producing energy out of nothing haven?t been around in the past. We are told so but that may not be the case. As it is not the case that Einstein?s theory is anything else but a compilation of trivial errors. Propaganda of these matters is fierce and the real scientist and the person seeking the truth must be very, very careful not to sink in this propaganda pit. First thing to do is to educate himself or herself very carefully, be humble and not make any compromises with the truth.
Thus, because you have demonstrated obvious gaps in your knowledge of even the most elementary things in Physics, you are in no position to judge what is Science and what is not. What you?re saying above is incorrect and repeats the errors you?ve made before. I?ve told you that but you continue to insist. Why?
Quote from: Qwert on November 11, 2007, 11:01:33 AM
Quote:Reply #431 on: November 10, 2007, 11:41:51 PM Posted by: Omnibus:
..."Like I said, so far, the most interesting device is the SMOT and its modifications by Finsrud and especially by @xpenzif since it is easily demonstrable, has no energy input whatsoever and is obviously self-sustaining. Everything else is more or less hearsay as of today."
Finally, I've found that famous (at least to some) SMOT link (page 21 on this forum). It's (almost) devine! It's divinity is in its LACK OF PERPENDICULLARITY BETWEEN THOSE TWO ROD MAGNETS, creating slightly V-shaped slot. The ball is placed on a track in the wider side V-shaped slot between those two not-quite-perpendicular rod magnets. And GO!!! Note that the path is relatively short (it cannot be narrowing into infinity). The ball is always pulled by gradually approaching magnets' ends and at end of track (the ball) drops out of the track. The inertia of the ball's mass is greater than magnets' pull at the moment of drop. That way it can go only to the end of the track.
How one can even compare this basic SMOT expriment to ready patent and already working machine (Troy Reed)?
What's your point?
Quote from: Omnibus on November 11, 2007, 09:31:39 AM
Quote from: acp on November 11, 2007, 09:16:12 AM
QuoteNo, you are a snot. You are a disgusting snot. Dirty little nothing.
I wasn't actually calling you a snot, I was merely referring to that fact that you like to indulge in this kind of name calling which you have demonstrated so well again. Of course, you may call me a snot from the safety of your keyboard, that is your privilege being an elite member of this forum.
Quoteand ending with @tinu's obviously incorrect claim that at B the signs in the potential energy the ball has are not as I have shown them to be, that is, (+mgh1 +Mb),
You haven't "shown" anything, you simply repeat that tinu etc. are wrong and that you are obviously right.
Hey, buddy, you're a liar on top of that. Read you previous post and see once again are or are you not calling me a snot. From the safety of you keyboard ...
Also, I have shown what I claim I've shown. You don't understand it but that doesn't mean that I haven't shown it. As for @tinu's misunderstanding, it is not to be used as an argument. Confusion and misunderstanding are never scientific arguments. @tinu must be clearly told that he just doesn't know what he's talking about when claiming that at B the potential energy of the ball (+mgh1 +Mb) has the wrong signs. This is basic stuff which a person conversant in Physics knows ahead of time, even before knowing me and my argument. One should know such stuff before entering into the discussions here. The fact that (+mgh1 +Mb) is the potential energy of the ball at B isn't prone to consensus. This is an absolute fact. Science isn't a democracy, it's a dictatorship and facts such as the above dictate. There cannot be equally valid varying opinions about such facts. Therefore, one cannot be polite with people impudently pushing for such facts to be ignored and something stupid to be accepted as truth. You don't understand this and therefore you should restrain from further cluttering the thread with your useless but nasty comments.
Well, well. This is already pretty boring, isn?t it?
I said Mb is negative because it is actually opposing the sign of mgh, which is positive. At the time of posting that it was more like a hint. Now I have it shown.
Write it as you may like. Mb+mgh1<mgh1. Do you like it better this way?
Now, what I was asking for was clarifications about the: ?Trained person will immediately see that the net gain in the potential energy when raising the ball from A to B which is (+mgh1 ?(Ma ? Mb)) doesn?t equal the energy (+mgh1 +Mb) = (mgh1 + mgh2 + [kinetic ...+]) the ball loses along the rest of the closed loop. This is in clear violation of CoE. The excess energy which accounts for this discrepancy has no source and is energy out of nothing.?
I was gently trying to tell you that you walk through deep swamps. But truth is the above quote is the most stupid statement I?ve ever read, given the scientific accuracy claims. Now you have it plainly stated. Take it slowly; if you don?t understand I?ll explain its complete idiocy. Hint: (mgh1-(Ma-Mb)) does not equal (mgh1+Mb). Huh! Well?!!! Of course they are not mathematically equal. Does it take a ?trained person? to see that?! They are not equal unless Ma=0 or? What? Why? Is it correct or wrong? What?s the physical significance? (MrEntropy and few others please refrain from posting the answer. I?d like to hear it from the source).
Anyway, after reading the above I realized it must be a complete vortex in your mind but let?s wait for your explanation; maybe I judged wrong. Then, as if it was not already enough, the puzzling part comes: ?the excess energy which accounts for??! Really?!!! Which excess?! That resulting from the above non-sense? If not from there, maybe from the ??? in the right term. Or from other mysterious place?
Now, if one can write mgh1-Mb as potential energy in B and it can do that - believe me (this is also science and not far from basic stuff), so some explanations are expected from you, not only about the above in respect to your obvious ?intellectual superiority? but also about that SMOT utopia CoE you stressed us for the last 1.5 years if not longer.
You seem like talking a lot about ?people impudently pushing for such facts to be ignored and something stupid to be accepted as truth? but I suppose the only one doing that is you erroneously pushing about SMOT CoE violation. I guess it?s time to deal with it one way or the other, if you really can stand such a discussion. If not, sorry for provoking.
My analysis about SMOT and about its behavior is done. I?ll post it soon, in reply to yours.
Meanwhile, please stop cluttering the thread with non-sense. ;)
Tinu
Quote from: Omnibus on November 11, 2007, 12:15:35 PM
As it is not the case that Einstein?s theory is anything else but a compilation of trivial errors. Propaganda of these matters is fierce and the real scientist and the person seeking the truth must be very, very careful not to sink in this propaganda pit.
Wildly off topic, but do you have evidence to bash Einstein? Which parts do you disagree with? The Hafele?Keating experiment (explained in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele-Keating_experiment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele-Keating_experiment)) confirmed the principles of special relativity. Do you have any reason to believe this was performed incorrectly? Furthermore, the same effect is observed consistently today with GPS systems, where atomic clocks on the ground are compared with the atomic clock of an orbiting satellite (details in http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-1/index.html (http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-1/index.html)).
And do you have an issue with the basic prinicple that gravity is no different than acceleration, that is a person in a rocketship, accelerating at 9.81m/s
2 would feel no different than if he was standing on Earth. When you say "full of trivial errors", I am curious to know what trivial errors the great man committed. As it stands, we know quite a bit about him, but virtually nothing about your work, except for a questionable experiment, so I am going to side with Einstein for the time being.
Back to the SMOT, it is clear why you are not precisely measuring the amount of energy required to move the ball from A to B - it requires an expensive component you do not have onhand. Unfortunately, without some way to precisely compare total energy in versus total energy out, you will not convince anyone but the choir.
Quote from: tinu on November 11, 2007, 01:01:05 PM
Quote from: Omnibus on November 11, 2007, 09:31:39 AM
Quote from: acp on November 11, 2007, 09:16:12 AM
QuoteNo, you are a snot. You are a disgusting snot. Dirty little nothing.
I wasn't actually calling you a snot, I was merely referring to that fact that you like to indulge in this kind of name calling which you have demonstrated so well again. Of course, you may call me a snot from the safety of your keyboard, that is your privilege being an elite member of this forum.
Quoteand ending with @tinu's obviously incorrect claim that at B the signs in the potential energy the ball has are not as I have shown them to be, that is, (+mgh1 +Mb),
You haven't "shown" anything, you simply repeat that tinu etc. are wrong and that you are obviously right.
Hey, buddy, you're a liar on top of that. Read you previous post and see once again are or are you not calling me a snot. From the safety of you keyboard ...
Also, I have shown what I claim I've shown. You don't understand it but that doesn't mean that I haven't shown it. As for @tinu's misunderstanding, it is not to be used as an argument. Confusion and misunderstanding are never scientific arguments. @tinu must be clearly told that he just doesn't know what he's talking about when claiming that at B the potential energy of the ball (+mgh1 +Mb) has the wrong signs. This is basic stuff which a person conversant in Physics knows ahead of time, even before knowing me and my argument. One should know such stuff before entering into the discussions here. The fact that (+mgh1 +Mb) is the potential energy of the ball at B isn't prone to consensus. This is an absolute fact. Science isn't a democracy, it's a dictatorship and facts such as the above dictate. There cannot be equally valid varying opinions about such facts. Therefore, one cannot be polite with people impudently pushing for such facts to be ignored and something stupid to be accepted as truth. You don't understand this and therefore you should restrain from further cluttering the thread with your useless but nasty comments.
Well, well. This is already pretty boring, isn?t it?
I said Mb is negative because it is actually opposing the sign of mgh, which is positive. At the time of posting that it was more like a hint. Now I have it shown.
Write it as you may like. Mb+mgh1<mgh1. Do you like it better this way?
Now, what I was asking for was clarifications about the: ?Trained person will immediately see that the net gain in the potential energy when raising the ball from A to B which is (+mgh1 ?(Ma ? Mb)) doesn?t equal the energy (+mgh1 +Mb) = (mgh1 + mgh2 + [kinetic ...+]) the ball loses along the rest of the closed loop. This is in clear violation of CoE. The excess energy which accounts for this discrepancy has no source and is energy out of nothing.?
I was gently trying to tell you that you walk through deep swamps. But truth is the above quote is the most stupid statement I?ve ever read, given the scientific accuracy claims. Now you have it plainly stated. Take it slowly; if you don?t understand I?ll explain its complete idiocy. Hint: (mgh1-(Ma-Mb)) does not equal (mgh1+Mb). Huh! Well?!!! Of course they are not mathematically equal. Does it take a ?trained person? to see that?! They are not equal unless Ma=0 or? What? Why? Is it correct or wrong? What?s the physical significance? (MrEntropy and few others please refrain from posting the answer. I?d like to hear it from the source).
Anyway, after reading the above I realized it must be a complete vortex in your mind but let?s wait for your explanation; maybe I judged wrong. Then, as if it was not already enough, the puzzling part comes: ?the excess energy which accounts for??! Really?!!! Which excess?! That resulting from the above non-sense? If not from there, maybe from the ??? in the right term. Or from other mysterious place?
Now, if one can write mgh1-Mb as potential energy in B and it can do that - believe me (this is also science and not far from basic stuff), so some explanations are expected from you, not only about the above in respect to your obvious ?intellectual superiority? but also about that SMOT utopia CoE you stressed us for the last 1.5 years if not longer.
You seem like talking a lot about ?people impudently pushing for such facts to be ignored and something stupid to be accepted as truth? but I suppose the only one doing that is you erroneously pushing about SMOT CoE violation. I guess it?s time to deal with it one way or the other, if you really can stand such a discussion. If not, sorry for provoking.
My analysis about SMOT and about its behavior is done. I?ll post it soon, in reply to yours.
Meanwhile, please stop cluttering the thread with non-sense. ;)
Tinu
This is crap. Restrain from posting such crap here because it only clutters the discussion. There are really important issues to discuss here rather than straightening out someone's confusion.
Quote from: shruggedatlas on November 11, 2007, 01:13:29 PM
Quote from: Omnibus on November 11, 2007, 12:15:35 PM
As it is not the case that Einstein?s theory is anything else but a compilation of trivial errors. Propaganda of these matters is fierce and the real scientist and the person seeking the truth must be very, very careful not to sink in this propaganda pit.
Wildly off topic, but do you have evidence to bash Einstein? Which parts do you disagree with? The Hafele?Keating experiment (explained in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele-Keating_experiment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele-Keating_experiment)) confirmed the principles of special relativity. Do you have any reason to believe this was performed incorrectly? Furthermore, the same effect is observed consistently today with GPS systems, where atomic clocks on the ground are compared with the atomic clock of an orbiting satellite (details in http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-1/index.html (http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-1/index.html)).
And do you have an issue with the basic prinicple that gravity is no different than acceleration, that is a person in a rocketship, accelerating at 9.81m/s2 would feel no different than if he was standing on Earth. When you say "full of trivial errors", I am curious to know what trivial errors the great man committed. As it stands, we know quite a bit about him, but virtually nothing about your work, except for a questionable experiment, so I am going to side with Einstein for the time being.
Back to the SMOT, it is clear why you are not precisely measuring the amount of energy required to move the ball from A to B - it requires an expensive component you do not have onhand. Unfortunately, without some way to precisely compare total energy in versus total energy out, you will not convince anyone but the choir.
Of course I do. I won't say that if I don't. Also, this isn't bashing. This is uncovering the truth and uncovering the truth is everything else but bashing.
Firstly, as can easily be seen, STR (Einstein's "theory", that is) cannot derive the Lorentz transformations despite the vigorous propaganda that it does. Therefore, no effects following from the Lorentz transformations, including the ones you cite, have anything to do with the STR. Therefore, it's a lie that there have been experimental confirmations of STR. Because the effects which have been experimentally confirmed, if at all (they in fact haven't been), do not even follow from that "theory". STR has never had neither can it have experimental confirmations despite the ugly propaganda that is has had.
Secondly, Lorentz transformations (which as already said have nothing to do with STR), although mathematically consistent, have no physical meaning whatsoever in their own right. All the purported "confirmations" are in error and appear to confirm the Lorentz transformations physical consequences only through unacceptable adjustments to call it mildly.
The whole story with the STR is an outright fraud. Blatant fraud.
As for the SMOT what you're saying is incorrect. What is discussed in my analysis is the energy the ball has. Start from there. This is what is had in mind also in the trivial cases which the student is exposed to when discussing CoE still in high school. You should know at least that.
Quote from: Omnibus on November 11, 2007, 01:17:50 PM
Quote from: tinu on November 11, 2007, 01:01:05 PM
Quote from: Omnibus on November 11, 2007, 09:31:39 AM
Quote from: acp on November 11, 2007, 09:16:12 AM
QuoteNo, you are a snot. You are a disgusting snot. Dirty little nothing.
I wasn't actually calling you a snot, I was merely referring to that fact that you like to indulge in this kind of name calling which you have demonstrated so well again. Of course, you may call me a snot from the safety of your keyboard, that is your privilege being an elite member of this forum.
Quoteand ending with @tinu's obviously incorrect claim that at B the signs in the potential energy the ball has are not as I have shown them to be, that is, (+mgh1 +Mb),
You haven't "shown" anything, you simply repeat that tinu etc. are wrong and that you are obviously right.
Hey, buddy, you're a liar on top of that. Read you previous post and see once again are or are you not calling me a snot. From the safety of you keyboard ...
Also, I have shown what I claim I've shown. You don't understand it but that doesn't mean that I haven't shown it. As for @tinu's misunderstanding, it is not to be used as an argument. Confusion and misunderstanding are never scientific arguments. @tinu must be clearly told that he just doesn't know what he's talking about when claiming that at B the potential energy of the ball (+mgh1 +Mb) has the wrong signs. This is basic stuff which a person conversant in Physics knows ahead of time, even before knowing me and my argument. One should know such stuff before entering into the discussions here. The fact that (+mgh1 +Mb) is the potential energy of the ball at B isn't prone to consensus. This is an absolute fact. Science isn't a democracy, it's a dictatorship and facts such as the above dictate. There cannot be equally valid varying opinions about such facts. Therefore, one cannot be polite with people impudently pushing for such facts to be ignored and something stupid to be accepted as truth. You don't understand this and therefore you should restrain from further cluttering the thread with your useless but nasty comments.
Well, well. This is already pretty boring, isn?t it?
I said Mb is negative because it is actually opposing the sign of mgh, which is positive. At the time of posting that it was more like a hint. Now I have it shown.
Write it as you may like. Mb+mgh1<mgh1. Do you like it better this way?
Now, what I was asking for was clarifications about the: ?Trained person will immediately see that the net gain in the potential energy when raising the ball from A to B which is (+mgh1 ?(Ma ? Mb)) doesn?t equal the energy (+mgh1 +Mb) = (mgh1 + mgh2 + [kinetic ...+]) the ball loses along the rest of the closed loop. This is in clear violation of CoE. The excess energy which accounts for this discrepancy has no source and is energy out of nothing.?
I was gently trying to tell you that you walk through deep swamps. But truth is the above quote is the most stupid statement I?ve ever read, given the scientific accuracy claims. Now you have it plainly stated. Take it slowly; if you don?t understand I?ll explain its complete idiocy. Hint: (mgh1-(Ma-Mb)) does not equal (mgh1+Mb). Huh! Well?!!! Of course they are not mathematically equal. Does it take a ?trained person? to see that?! They are not equal unless Ma=0 or? What? Why? Is it correct or wrong? What?s the physical significance? (MrEntropy and few others please refrain from posting the answer. I?d like to hear it from the source).
Anyway, after reading the above I realized it must be a complete vortex in your mind but let?s wait for your explanation; maybe I judged wrong. Then, as if it was not already enough, the puzzling part comes: ?the excess energy which accounts for??! Really?!!! Which excess?! That resulting from the above non-sense? If not from there, maybe from the ??? in the right term. Or from other mysterious place?
Now, if one can write mgh1-Mb as potential energy in B and it can do that - believe me (this is also science and not far from basic stuff), so some explanations are expected from you, not only about the above in respect to your obvious ?intellectual superiority? but also about that SMOT utopia CoE you stressed us for the last 1.5 years if not longer.
You seem like talking a lot about ?people impudently pushing for such facts to be ignored and something stupid to be accepted as truth? but I suppose the only one doing that is you erroneously pushing about SMOT CoE violation. I guess it?s time to deal with it one way or the other, if you really can stand such a discussion. If not, sorry for provoking.
My analysis about SMOT and about its behavior is done. I?ll post it soon, in reply to yours.
Meanwhile, please stop cluttering the thread with non-sense. ;)
Tinu
This is crap. Restrain from posting such crap here because it only clutters the discussion. There are really important issues to discuss here rather than straightening out someone's confusion.
No Sir. You are wrong. This is crap:
?Trained person will immediately see that the net gain in the potential energy when raising the ball from A to B which is (+mgh1 ?(Ma ? Mb)) doesn?t equal the energy (+mgh1 +Mb) = (mgh1 + mgh2 + [kinetic ...+]) the ball loses along the rest of the closed loop. This is in clear violation of CoE. The excess energy which accounts for this discrepancy has no source and is energy out of nothing.?
Please do not clutter the discussion with collateral posts lacking arguments.
Thanks,
Tinu
Quote from: tinu on November 11, 2007, 01:36:28 PM
Quote from: Omnibus on November 11, 2007, 01:17:50 PM
Quote from: tinu on November 11, 2007, 01:01:05 PM
Quote from: Omnibus on November 11, 2007, 09:31:39 AM
Quote from: acp on November 11, 2007, 09:16:12 AM
QuoteNo, you are a snot. You are a disgusting snot. Dirty little nothing.
I wasn't actually calling you a snot, I was merely referring to that fact that you like to indulge in this kind of name calling which you have demonstrated so well again. Of course, you may call me a snot from the safety of your keyboard, that is your privilege being an elite member of this forum.
Quoteand ending with @tinu's obviously incorrect claim that at B the signs in the potential energy the ball has are not as I have shown them to be, that is, (+mgh1 +Mb),
You haven't "shown" anything, you simply repeat that tinu etc. are wrong and that you are obviously right.
Hey, buddy, you're a liar on top of that. Read you previous post and see once again are or are you not calling me a snot. From the safety of you keyboard ...
Also, I have shown what I claim I've shown. You don't understand it but that doesn't mean that I haven't shown it. As for @tinu's misunderstanding, it is not to be used as an argument. Confusion and misunderstanding are never scientific arguments. @tinu must be clearly told that he just doesn't know what he's talking about when claiming that at B the potential energy of the ball (+mgh1 +Mb) has the wrong signs. This is basic stuff which a person conversant in Physics knows ahead of time, even before knowing me and my argument. One should know such stuff before entering into the discussions here. The fact that (+mgh1 +Mb) is the potential energy of the ball at B isn't prone to consensus. This is an absolute fact. Science isn't a democracy, it's a dictatorship and facts such as the above dictate. There cannot be equally valid varying opinions about such facts. Therefore, one cannot be polite with people impudently pushing for such facts to be ignored and something stupid to be accepted as truth. You don't understand this and therefore you should restrain from further cluttering the thread with your useless but nasty comments.
Well, well. This is already pretty boring, isn?t it?
I said Mb is negative because it is actually opposing the sign of mgh, which is positive. At the time of posting that it was more like a hint. Now I have it shown.
Write it as you may like. Mb+mgh1<mgh1. Do you like it better this way?
Now, what I was asking for was clarifications about the: ?Trained person will immediately see that the net gain in the potential energy when raising the ball from A to B which is (+mgh1 ?(Ma ? Mb)) doesn?t equal the energy (+mgh1 +Mb) = (mgh1 + mgh2 + [kinetic ...+]) the ball loses along the rest of the closed loop. This is in clear violation of CoE. The excess energy which accounts for this discrepancy has no source and is energy out of nothing.?
I was gently trying to tell you that you walk through deep swamps. But truth is the above quote is the most stupid statement I?ve ever read, given the scientific accuracy claims. Now you have it plainly stated. Take it slowly; if you don?t understand I?ll explain its complete idiocy. Hint: (mgh1-(Ma-Mb)) does not equal (mgh1+Mb). Huh! Well?!!! Of course they are not mathematically equal. Does it take a ?trained person? to see that?! They are not equal unless Ma=0 or? What? Why? Is it correct or wrong? What?s the physical significance? (MrEntropy and few others please refrain from posting the answer. I?d like to hear it from the source).
Anyway, after reading the above I realized it must be a complete vortex in your mind but let?s wait for your explanation; maybe I judged wrong. Then, as if it was not already enough, the puzzling part comes: ?the excess energy which accounts for??! Really?!!! Which excess?! That resulting from the above non-sense? If not from there, maybe from the ??? in the right term. Or from other mysterious place?
Now, if one can write mgh1-Mb as potential energy in B and it can do that - believe me (this is also science and not far from basic stuff), so some explanations are expected from you, not only about the above in respect to your obvious ?intellectual superiority? but also about that SMOT utopia CoE you stressed us for the last 1.5 years if not longer.
You seem like talking a lot about ?people impudently pushing for such facts to be ignored and something stupid to be accepted as truth? but I suppose the only one doing that is you erroneously pushing about SMOT CoE violation. I guess it?s time to deal with it one way or the other, if you really can stand such a discussion. If not, sorry for provoking.
My analysis about SMOT and about its behavior is done. I?ll post it soon, in reply to yours.
Meanwhile, please stop cluttering the thread with non-sense. ;)
Tinu
This is crap. Restrain from posting such crap here because it only clutters the discussion. There are really important issues to discuss here rather than straightening out someone's confusion.
No Sir. You are wrong. This is crap:
?Trained person will immediately see that the net gain in the potential energy when raising the ball from A to B which is (+mgh1 ?(Ma ? Mb)) doesn?t equal the energy (+mgh1 +Mb) = (mgh1 + mgh2 + [kinetic ...+]) the ball loses along the rest of the closed loop. This is in clear violation of CoE. The excess energy which accounts for this discrepancy has no source and is energy out of nothing.?
Please do not clutter the discussion with collateral posts lacking arguments.
Thanks,
Tinu
Hey, buddy, don't play with the truth or you'll be soory. Arrogance never pays.
This is a warning. Not only for @tinu but for anyone who would dare to post crap here. I will not tolerate idiocy to spread its wings in a forum where Science, that is search for the truth, is the goal. What nerve.
Quote from: Omnibus on November 11, 2007, 01:38:16 PM
Quote from: tinu on November 11, 2007, 01:36:28 PM
Quote from: Omnibus on November 11, 2007, 01:17:50 PM
Quote from: tinu on November 11, 2007, 01:01:05 PM
Quote from: Omnibus on November 11, 2007, 09:31:39 AM
Quote from: acp on November 11, 2007, 09:16:12 AM
QuoteNo, you are a snot. You are a disgusting snot. Dirty little nothing.
I wasn't actually calling you a snot, I was merely referring to that fact that you like to indulge in this kind of name calling which you have demonstrated so well again. Of course, you may call me a snot from the safety of your keyboard, that is your privilege being an elite member of this forum.
Quoteand ending with @tinu's obviously incorrect claim that at B the signs in the potential energy the ball has are not as I have shown them to be, that is, (+mgh1 +Mb),
You haven't "shown" anything, you simply repeat that tinu etc. are wrong and that you are obviously right.
Hey, buddy, you're a liar on top of that. Read you previous post and see once again are or are you not calling me a snot. From the safety of you keyboard ...
Also, I have shown what I claim I've shown. You don't understand it but that doesn't mean that I haven't shown it. As for @tinu's misunderstanding, it is not to be used as an argument. Confusion and misunderstanding are never scientific arguments. @tinu must be clearly told that he just doesn't know what he's talking about when claiming that at B the potential energy of the ball (+mgh1 +Mb) has the wrong signs. This is basic stuff which a person conversant in Physics knows ahead of time, even before knowing me and my argument. One should know such stuff before entering into the discussions here. The fact that (+mgh1 +Mb) is the potential energy of the ball at B isn't prone to consensus. This is an absolute fact. Science isn't a democracy, it's a dictatorship and facts such as the above dictate. There cannot be equally valid varying opinions about such facts. Therefore, one cannot be polite with people impudently pushing for such facts to be ignored and something stupid to be accepted as truth. You don't understand this and therefore you should restrain from further cluttering the thread with your useless but nasty comments.
Well, well. This is already pretty boring, isn?t it?
I said Mb is negative because it is actually opposing the sign of mgh, which is positive. At the time of posting that it was more like a hint. Now I have it shown.
Write it as you may like. Mb+mgh1<mgh1. Do you like it better this way?
Now, what I was asking for was clarifications about the: ?Trained person will immediately see that the net gain in the potential energy when raising the ball from A to B which is (+mgh1 ?(Ma ? Mb)) doesn?t equal the energy (+mgh1 +Mb) = (mgh1 + mgh2 + [kinetic ...+]) the ball loses along the rest of the closed loop. This is in clear violation of CoE. The excess energy which accounts for this discrepancy has no source and is energy out of nothing.?
I was gently trying to tell you that you walk through deep swamps. But truth is the above quote is the most stupid statement I?ve ever read, given the scientific accuracy claims. Now you have it plainly stated. Take it slowly; if you don?t understand I?ll explain its complete idiocy. Hint: (mgh1-(Ma-Mb)) does not equal (mgh1+Mb). Huh! Well?!!! Of course they are not mathematically equal. Does it take a ?trained person? to see that?! They are not equal unless Ma=0 or? What? Why? Is it correct or wrong? What?s the physical significance? (MrEntropy and few others please refrain from posting the answer. I?d like to hear it from the source).
Anyway, after reading the above I realized it must be a complete vortex in your mind but let?s wait for your explanation; maybe I judged wrong. Then, as if it was not already enough, the puzzling part comes: ?the excess energy which accounts for??! Really?!!! Which excess?! That resulting from the above non-sense? If not from there, maybe from the ??? in the right term. Or from other mysterious place?
Now, if one can write mgh1-Mb as potential energy in B and it can do that - believe me (this is also science and not far from basic stuff), so some explanations are expected from you, not only about the above in respect to your obvious ?intellectual superiority? but also about that SMOT utopia CoE you stressed us for the last 1.5 years if not longer.
You seem like talking a lot about ?people impudently pushing for such facts to be ignored and something stupid to be accepted as truth? but I suppose the only one doing that is you erroneously pushing about SMOT CoE violation. I guess it?s time to deal with it one way or the other, if you really can stand such a discussion. If not, sorry for provoking.
My analysis about SMOT and about its behavior is done. I?ll post it soon, in reply to yours.
Meanwhile, please stop cluttering the thread with non-sense. ;)
Tinu
This is crap. Restrain from posting such crap here because it only clutters the discussion. There are really important issues to discuss here rather than straightening out someone's confusion.
No Sir. You are wrong. This is crap:
?Trained person will immediately see that the net gain in the potential energy when raising the ball from A to B which is (+mgh1 ?(Ma ? Mb)) doesn?t equal the energy (+mgh1 +Mb) = (mgh1 + mgh2 + [kinetic ...+]) the ball loses along the rest of the closed loop. This is in clear violation of CoE. The excess energy which accounts for this discrepancy has no source and is energy out of nothing.?
Please do not clutter the discussion with collateral posts lacking arguments.
Thanks,
Tinu
Hey, buddy, don't play with the truth or you'll be soory. Arrogance never pays.
I?m not arrogant. You are.
All I?m asking is for a fair discussion.
If you can tell that everyone is wrong and only you are right, show why, if you can.
So far, the quote is wrong.
Tinu
Quote from: tinu on November 11, 2007, 01:43:48 PM
Quote from: Omnibus on November 11, 2007, 01:38:16 PM
Quote from: tinu on November 11, 2007, 01:36:28 PM
Quote from: Omnibus on November 11, 2007, 01:17:50 PM
Quote from: tinu on November 11, 2007, 01:01:05 PM
Quote from: Omnibus on November 11, 2007, 09:31:39 AM
Quote from: acp on November 11, 2007, 09:16:12 AM
QuoteNo, you are a snot. You are a disgusting snot. Dirty little nothing.
I wasn't actually calling you a snot, I was merely referring to that fact that you like to indulge in this kind of name calling which you have demonstrated so well again. Of course, you may call me a snot from the safety of your keyboard, that is your privilege being an elite member of this forum.
Quoteand ending with @tinu's obviously incorrect claim that at B the signs in the potential energy the ball has are not as I have shown them to be, that is, (+mgh1 +Mb),
You haven't "shown" anything, you simply repeat that tinu etc. are wrong and that you are obviously right.
Hey, buddy, you're a liar on top of that. Read you previous post and see once again are or are you not calling me a snot. From the safety of you keyboard ...
Also, I have shown what I claim I've shown. You don't understand it but that doesn't mean that I haven't shown it. As for @tinu's misunderstanding, it is not to be used as an argument. Confusion and misunderstanding are never scientific arguments. @tinu must be clearly told that he just doesn't know what he's talking about when claiming that at B the potential energy of the ball (+mgh1 +Mb) has the wrong signs. This is basic stuff which a person conversant in Physics knows ahead of time, even before knowing me and my argument. One should know such stuff before entering into the discussions here. The fact that (+mgh1 +Mb) is the potential energy of the ball at B isn't prone to consensus. This is an absolute fact. Science isn't a democracy, it's a dictatorship and facts such as the above dictate. There cannot be equally valid varying opinions about such facts. Therefore, one cannot be polite with people impudently pushing for such facts to be ignored and something stupid to be accepted as truth. You don't understand this and therefore you should restrain from further cluttering the thread with your useless but nasty comments.
Well, well. This is already pretty boring, isn?t it?
I said Mb is negative because it is actually opposing the sign of mgh, which is positive. At the time of posting that it was more like a hint. Now I have it shown.
Write it as you may like. Mb+mgh1<mgh1. Do you like it better this way?
Now, what I was asking for was clarifications about the: ?Trained person will immediately see that the net gain in the potential energy when raising the ball from A to B which is (+mgh1 ?(Ma ? Mb)) doesn?t equal the energy (+mgh1 +Mb) = (mgh1 + mgh2 + [kinetic ...+]) the ball loses along the rest of the closed loop. This is in clear violation of CoE. The excess energy which accounts for this discrepancy has no source and is energy out of nothing.?
I was gently trying to tell you that you walk through deep swamps. But truth is the above quote is the most stupid statement I?ve ever read, given the scientific accuracy claims. Now you have it plainly stated. Take it slowly; if you don?t understand I?ll explain its complete idiocy. Hint: (mgh1-(Ma-Mb)) does not equal (mgh1+Mb). Huh! Well?!!! Of course they are not mathematically equal. Does it take a ?trained person? to see that?! They are not equal unless Ma=0 or? What? Why? Is it correct or wrong? What?s the physical significance? (MrEntropy and few others please refrain from posting the answer. I?d like to hear it from the source).
Anyway, after reading the above I realized it must be a complete vortex in your mind but let?s wait for your explanation; maybe I judged wrong. Then, as if it was not already enough, the puzzling part comes: ?the excess energy which accounts for??! Really?!!! Which excess?! That resulting from the above non-sense? If not from there, maybe from the ??? in the right term. Or from other mysterious place?
Now, if one can write mgh1-Mb as potential energy in B and it can do that - believe me (this is also science and not far from basic stuff), so some explanations are expected from you, not only about the above in respect to your obvious ?intellectual superiority? but also about that SMOT utopia CoE you stressed us for the last 1.5 years if not longer.
You seem like talking a lot about ?people impudently pushing for such facts to be ignored and something stupid to be accepted as truth? but I suppose the only one doing that is you erroneously pushing about SMOT CoE violation. I guess it?s time to deal with it one way or the other, if you really can stand such a discussion. If not, sorry for provoking.
My analysis about SMOT and about its behavior is done. I?ll post it soon, in reply to yours.
Meanwhile, please stop cluttering the thread with non-sense. ;)
Tinu
This is crap. Restrain from posting such crap here because it only clutters the discussion. There are really important issues to discuss here rather than straightening out someone's confusion.
No Sir. You are wrong. This is crap:
?Trained person will immediately see that the net gain in the potential energy when raising the ball from A to B which is (+mgh1 ?(Ma ? Mb)) doesn?t equal the energy (+mgh1 +Mb) = (mgh1 + mgh2 + [kinetic ...+]) the ball loses along the rest of the closed loop. This is in clear violation of CoE. The excess energy which accounts for this discrepancy has no source and is energy out of nothing.?
Please do not clutter the discussion with collateral posts lacking arguments.
Thanks,
Tinu
Hey, buddy, don't play with the truth or you'll be soory. Arrogance never pays.
I?m nor arrogant. You are.
All I?m asking is for a fair discussion.
If you can tell that everyone is wrong and only you are right, show why, if you can.
So far, the quote is wrong.
Tinu
Everyone who says, as you do, that at B the ball doesn't have energy (+mgh1 +Mb) is wrong and will be confronted by me vigorously as arrogant slob pushing his ignorance on the forum. Every single one.
Quote from: Omnibus on November 11, 2007, 01:47:03 PM
Quote from: tinu on November 11, 2007, 01:43:48 PM
Quote from: Omnibus on November 11, 2007, 01:38:16 PM
Quote from: tinu on November 11, 2007, 01:36:28 PM
Quote from: Omnibus on November 11, 2007, 01:17:50 PM
Quote from: tinu on November 11, 2007, 01:01:05 PM
Quote from: Omnibus on November 11, 2007, 09:31:39 AM
Quote from: acp on November 11, 2007, 09:16:12 AM
QuoteNo, you are a snot. You are a disgusting snot. Dirty little nothing.
I wasn't actually calling you a snot, I was merely referring to that fact that you like to indulge in this kind of name calling which you have demonstrated so well again. Of course, you may call me a snot from the safety of your keyboard, that is your privilege being an elite member of this forum.
Quoteand ending with @tinu's obviously incorrect claim that at B the signs in the potential energy the ball has are not as I have shown them to be, that is, (+mgh1 +Mb),
You haven't "shown" anything, you simply repeat that tinu etc. are wrong and that you are obviously right.
Hey, buddy, you're a liar on top of that. Read you previous post and see once again are or are you not calling me a snot. From the safety of you keyboard ...
Also, I have shown what I claim I've shown. You don't understand it but that doesn't mean that I haven't shown it. As for @tinu's misunderstanding, it is not to be used as an argument. Confusion and misunderstanding are never scientific arguments. @tinu must be clearly told that he just doesn't know what he's talking about when claiming that at B the potential energy of the ball (+mgh1 +Mb) has the wrong signs. This is basic stuff which a person conversant in Physics knows ahead of time, even before knowing me and my argument. One should know such stuff before entering into the discussions here. The fact that (+mgh1 +Mb) is the potential energy of the ball at B isn't prone to consensus. This is an absolute fact. Science isn't a democracy, it's a dictatorship and facts such as the above dictate. There cannot be equally valid varying opinions about such facts. Therefore, one cannot be polite with people impudently pushing for such facts to be ignored and something stupid to be accepted as truth. You don't understand this and therefore you should restrain from further cluttering the thread with your useless but nasty comments.
Well, well. This is already pretty boring, isn?t it?
I said Mb is negative because it is actually opposing the sign of mgh, which is positive. At the time of posting that it was more like a hint. Now I have it shown.
Write it as you may like. Mb+mgh1<mgh1. Do you like it better this way?
Now, what I was asking for was clarifications about the: ?Trained person will immediately see that the net gain in the potential energy when raising the ball from A to B which is (+mgh1 ?(Ma ? Mb)) doesn?t equal the energy (+mgh1 +Mb) = (mgh1 + mgh2 + [kinetic ...+]) the ball loses along the rest of the closed loop. This is in clear violation of CoE. The excess energy which accounts for this discrepancy has no source and is energy out of nothing.?
I was gently trying to tell you that you walk through deep swamps. But truth is the above quote is the most stupid statement I?ve ever read, given the scientific accuracy claims. Now you have it plainly stated. Take it slowly; if you don?t understand I?ll explain its complete idiocy. Hint: (mgh1-(Ma-Mb)) does not equal (mgh1+Mb). Huh! Well?!!! Of course they are not mathematically equal. Does it take a ?trained person? to see that?! They are not equal unless Ma=0 or? What? Why? Is it correct or wrong? What?s the physical significance? (MrEntropy and few others please refrain from posting the answer. I?d like to hear it from the source).
Anyway, after reading the above I realized it must be a complete vortex in your mind but let?s wait for your explanation; maybe I judged wrong. Then, as if it was not already enough, the puzzling part comes: ?the excess energy which accounts for??! Really?!!! Which excess?! That resulting from the above non-sense? If not from there, maybe from the ??? in the right term. Or from other mysterious place?
Now, if one can write mgh1-Mb as potential energy in B and it can do that - believe me (this is also science and not far from basic stuff), so some explanations are expected from you, not only about the above in respect to your obvious ?intellectual superiority? but also about that SMOT utopia CoE you stressed us for the last 1.5 years if not longer.
You seem like talking a lot about ?people impudently pushing for such facts to be ignored and something stupid to be accepted as truth? but I suppose the only one doing that is you erroneously pushing about SMOT CoE violation. I guess it?s time to deal with it one way or the other, if you really can stand such a discussion. If not, sorry for provoking.
My analysis about SMOT and about its behavior is done. I?ll post it soon, in reply to yours.
Meanwhile, please stop cluttering the thread with non-sense. ;)
Tinu
This is crap. Restrain from posting such crap here because it only clutters the discussion. There are really important issues to discuss here rather than straightening out someone's confusion.
No Sir. You are wrong. This is crap:
?Trained person will immediately see that the net gain in the potential energy when raising the ball from A to B which is (+mgh1 ?(Ma ? Mb)) doesn?t equal the energy (+mgh1 +Mb) = (mgh1 + mgh2 + [kinetic ...+]) the ball loses along the rest of the closed loop. This is in clear violation of CoE. The excess energy which accounts for this discrepancy has no source and is energy out of nothing.?
Please do not clutter the discussion with collateral posts lacking arguments.
Thanks,
Tinu
Hey, buddy, don't play with the truth or you'll be soory. Arrogance never pays.
I?m nor arrogant. You are.
All I?m asking is for a fair discussion.
If you can tell that everyone is wrong and only you are right, show why, if you can.
So far, the quote is wrong.
Tinu
Everyone who says, as you do, that at B the ball doesn't have energy (+mgh1 +Mb) is wrong and will be confronted by me vigorously as arrogant slob pushing his ignorance on the forum. Every single one.
That?s all what I ask for. A complete analysis.
Show it and if correct I will support the SMOT idea to the end of my life.
Until then, it (CoE>1) never happened. No offense, but I could not see it proved neither theoretically nor experimentally and apparently no one else around did, except you.
Many thanks,
Tinu
My analysis is complete. To understand it you have to recall what potential energy is. Thus, because potential energy is the energy of position, the ball at B must have gravitational potential energy +mgh1 with respect to A because it's at a distance h1 from A (at A the potential energy is arbitrarily set to zero). Same thing with the magnetic potential energy. Because at C the potential energy is arbitrarily set to zero, as is required when talking about potential energy--it is always measured with respect to an arbitrary zero--the magnetic potential energy of the ball at B with respect to C, outstanding from C at a distance BC, is +Mb. Thus, the total potential energy of the ball at B (being the sum of its gravitational and its magnetic potential energies) is (+mgh1 +Mb) and is not different from that, as you're incorrectly trying to push it through posting continuously here.
Quote from: Omnibus: Reply #453 on: Today at 05:16:52 PM
...>"What's your point?"<
My point is this: SMOT is a linear equivalent of this idea:
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=kCr3lOhMJCg
Quote from: Qwert on November 11, 2007, 02:35:51 PM
Quote from: Omnibus: Reply #453 on: Today at 05:16:52 PM
...>"What's your point?"<
My point is this: SMOT is a linear equivalent of this idea:
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=kCr3lOhMJCg
Better yet of this: http://youtube.com/watch?v=jZjEYu9BbW0. This whole thread is about it.
Quote from: Omnibus on November 11, 2007, 02:05:15 PM
My analysis is complete. To understand it you have to recall what potential energy is. Thus, because potential energy is the energy of position, the ball at B must have gravitational potential energy +mgh1 with respect to A because it's at a distance h1 from A (at A the potential energy is arbitrarily set to zero). Same thing with the magnetic potential energy. Because at C the potential energy is arbitrarily set to zero, as is required when talking about potential energy--it is always measured with respect to an arbitrary zero--the magnetic potential energy of the ball at B with respect to C, outstanding from C at a distance BC, is +Mb. Thus, the total potential energy of the ball at B (being the sum of its gravitational and its magnetic potential energies) is (+mgh1 +Mb) and is not different from that, as you're incorrectly trying to push it through posting continuously here.
I know well what potential energy is. Please don?t explain it to me as an insult.
When some people here, including various physicists, ask for an analysis this means, as you should well know, a formal proof conducted in a logical/scientific manner, which ends with CoE(SMOT)=Eout/Ein>1. Either it is done or it is not. Is it done? If it is, where can be founded? If not, are you willing&capable of posting one?
Please remember that claiming yourself as scientist as well as this forum as being scientific requires you to prove your claims. So far SMOT CoE issue is only vaguely discussed among hundreds of completely irrelevant posts and few rare posts that should give hope contain heavy gaps in pursuing the scientific proof and several unpardonable errors.
I re-quote one of your posts that started this discussion:
?Trained person will immediately see that the net gain in the potential energy when raising the ball from A to B which is (+mgh1 ?(Ma ? Mb)) doesn?t equal the energy (+mgh1 +Mb) = (mgh1 + mgh2 + [kinetic ...+]) the ball loses along the rest of the closed loop. This is in clear violation of CoE. The excess energy which accounts for this discrepancy has no source and is energy out of nothing.?
Your last answer does not correct the above. Actually it aggravates the error.
I?ll explain in detail where I see the big flaw in your demonstration but not today. It?s already late here.
On short, the error is here: in order to have excess energy, the following has to hold true: (+mgh1 ?(Ma ? Mb))< (+mgh1 +Mb). Can you prove it? I don?t think so, because any astute mind will immediately see it?s already the opposite?
Anyway, I?ll ask here loud and clear, once for all: do you have enough guts to put the proof on a file, going all the way from beginning to the end, with drawings, various formulas you throw disparately in different posts and everything else is needed (incl. a short discussion) for a problem-solving approach? Yes or no, please.
Many thanks,
Tinu
Has anyone recreated this or is it just another FRAUD??
Quote from: leeroyjenkinsii on November 11, 2007, 04:05:12 PM
Has anyone recreated this or is it just another FRAUD??
Under replication, so far.
My strong belief: it is a fraud.
All ?perpetual magnetic motors? are. There is no such thing.
Good night,
Tinu
Quote from: tinu on November 11, 2007, 04:01:59 PM
Quote from: Omnibus on November 11, 2007, 02:05:15 PM
My analysis is complete. To understand it you have to recall what potential energy is. Thus, because potential energy is the energy of position, the ball at B must have gravitational potential energy +mgh1 with respect to A because it's at a distance h1 from A (at A the potential energy is arbitrarily set to zero). Same thing with the magnetic potential energy. Because at C the potential energy is arbitrarily set to zero, as is required when talking about potential energy--it is always measured with respect to an arbitrary zero--the magnetic potential energy of the ball at B with respect to C, outstanding from C at a distance BC, is +Mb. Thus, the total potential energy of the ball at B (being the sum of its gravitational and its magnetic potential energies) is (+mgh1 +Mb) and is not different from that, as you're incorrectly trying to push it through posting continuously here.
I know well what potential energy is. Please don?t explain it to me as an insult.
When some people here, including various physicists, ask for an analysis this means, as you should well know, a formal proof conducted in a logical/scientific manner, which ends with CoE(SMOT)=Eout/Ein>1. Either it is done or it is not. Is it done? If it is, where can be founded? If not, are you willing&capable of posting one?
Please remember that claiming yourself as scientist as well as this forum as being scientific requires you to prove your claims. So far SMOT CoE issue is only vaguely discussed among hundreds of completely irrelevant posts and few rare posts that should give hope contain heavy gaps in pursuing the scientific proof and several unpardonable errors.
I re-quote one of your posts that started this discussion:
?Trained person will immediately see that the net gain in the potential energy when raising the ball from A to B which is (+mgh1 ?(Ma ? Mb)) doesn?t equal the energy (+mgh1 +Mb) = (mgh1 + mgh2 + [kinetic ...+]) the ball loses along the rest of the closed loop. This is in clear violation of CoE. The excess energy which accounts for this discrepancy has no source and is energy out of nothing.?
Your last answer does not correct the above. Actually it aggravates the error.
I?ll explain in detail where I see the big flaw in your demonstration but not today. It?s already late here.
On short, the error is here: in order to have excess energy, the following has to hold true: (+mgh1 ?(Ma ? Mb))< (+mgh1 +Mb). Can you prove it? I don?t think so, because any astute mind will immediately see it?s already the opposite?
Anyway, I?ll ask here loud and clear, once for all: do you have enough guts to put the proof on a file, going all the way from beginning to the end, with drawings, various formulas you throw disparately in different posts and everything else is needed (incl. a short discussion) for a problem-solving approach? Yes or no, please.
Many thanks,
Tinu
Don't continue with this crap. You're wrong, you don't know what scientific proof is and, yes, you need explaining what potential energy and other elementary concepts are because you are unfamiliar with them, as it is quite obvious. It's better for you to listen more and try to learn rather than impudently push your ignorance here and obstruct the important discussion.
Quote from: tinu on November 11, 2007, 04:16:48 PM
Quote from: leeroyjenkinsii on November 11, 2007, 04:05:12 PM
Has anyone recreated this or is it just another FRAUD??
Under replication, so far.
My strong belief: it is a fraud.
All ?perpetual magnetic motors? are. There is no such thing.
Good night,
Tinu
Your strong belief ... This isn't religion buddy. You'd better try to learn the elementary concepts of Physics first before expressing incompetent opinions no one needs. What nerve.
Quote from: Omnibus: Reply #466 on: Today at 07:37:55 PM
>"Better yet of this: http://youtube.com/watch?v=jZjEYu9BbW0. This whole thread is about it."<
Hey, Omnibus. Now you tell me what's your point? Why SMOT is better over other ideas, especially over those already working machines (Minato, Reed, Gamma, etc.). What is so special in that, that a steel ball rolls along a track set between two V-shaped rows of magnetic lines, started at wider side? There's nothing devine. No other force except magnetic one. One with some imagination can see some resemblance in the idea described here:
http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,3456.msg54069.html#msg54069
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=3456.0;attach=13487
Imagine that they are two V-shaped halves, circle-shaped; rotor instead of the steel ball.
Quote from: Qwert on November 11, 2007, 04:58:11 PM
Quote from: Omnibus: Reply #466 on: Today at 07:37:55 PM
>"Better yet of this: http://youtube.com/watch?v=jZjEYu9BbW0. This whole thread is about it."<
Hey, Omnibus. Now you tell me what's your point? Why SMOT is better over other ideas, especially over those already working machines (Minato, Reed, Gamma, etc.). What is so special in that, that a steel ball rolls along a track set between two V-shaped rows of magnetic lines, started at wider side? There's nothing devine. No other force except magnetic one. One with some imagination can see some resemblance in the idea described here:
http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,3456.msg54069.html#msg54069
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=3456.0;attach=13487
Imagine that they are two V-shaped halves, circle-shaped; rotor instead of the steel ball.
See, the thing is, I agree with you in principle. However, as it was already discussed here, using magnet-to-magnet constructions ends up in some cooperative phenomena among the magnets because of their intrinsic lack of uniformity of induction (although the shapes are exactly equal). This was one of the reasons why Torbay couldn't demonstrate it in NYC. These devices are extremely sensitive and bringing it from Argentina to the US disjointed it so that Torbay couldn't reproduce what he had (a government minister providing the money for the experiment assured me of this) in Argentina. Here in this case the problem with the non-uniformity of the magnets is resolved radically by having a magnet-to-iron type of interaction. And this is what SMOT is, isn't it. Remember, there hasn't been a single device so far except for SMOT that has really worked in a reproducible manner. This is one of the reasons. Try making a SMOT with a magnetic ball. Would be interesting to see if it'll work. Like I said, you may take a look somewhere at the beginning of this thread where these problems were discussed.
Quote from: leeroyjenkinsii on November 11, 2007, 04:05:12 PM
Has anyone recreated this or is it just another FRAUD??
It's being sold on ebay - search xpenzif
http://search.ebay.com/search/search.dll?sofocus=bs&sbrftog=1&from=R10&_trksid=m37&satitle=xpenzif&sacat=-1%26catref%3DC6&sargn=-1%26saslc%3D2&sadis=200&fpos=ZIP%2FPostal&sabfmts=1&saobfmts=insif&ftrt=1&ftrv=1&saprclo=&saprchi=&fsop=1%26fsoo%3D1&coaction=compare&copagenum=1&coentrypage=search&fgtp=
I hope the buyer is prepared to post a video of it - working or not!
I don't see the stator there, so caveat emptor
Quote from: klicUK on November 11, 2007, 10:13:35 PM
Quote from: leeroyjenkinsii on November 11, 2007, 04:05:12 PM
Has anyone recreated this or is it just another FRAUD??
It's being sold on ebay - search xpenzif
http://search.ebay.com/search/search.dll?sofocus=bs&sbrftog=1&from=R10&_trksid=m37&satitle=xpenzif&sacat=-1%26catref%3DC6&sargn=-1%26saslc%3D2&sadis=200&fpos=ZIP%2FPostal&sabfmts=1&saobfmts=insif&ftrt=1&ftrv=1&saprclo=&saprchi=&fsop=1%26fsoo%3D1&coaction=compare&copagenum=1&coentrypage=search&fgtp=
I hope the buyer is prepared to post a video of it - working or not!
I don't see the stator there, so caveat emptor
What do you make of this:
"I have one of the old screw spindles that is compatible with the number of teeth on this stepper."
Someone was mentioning before the importance of the correct stepper motor in addition to the drum with properly positioned screws.
@klickUK:
Good find. Maybe someone from here will buy it but, I don't think I would. It says it's the original one. If it worked, why would he sell it? Now, I could see selling many of them as working devices but this appears to be "the one" and not one in a line of many. And, like you said, it's just the rotor...makes me curious. Thanks for posting the link.
Bill
Quote from: Pirate88179 on November 11, 2007, 10:54:19 PM
@klickUK:
Good find. Maybe someone from here will buy it but, I don't think I would. It says it's the original one. If it worked, why would he sell it? Now, I could see selling many of them as working devices but this appears to be "the one" and not one in a line of many. And, like you said, it's just the rotor...makes me curious. Thanks for posting the link.
Bill
It's not just the rotor and he says why he's selling it. Read more carefully before posting.
@ Omnibus:
I did read carefully before posting. It is only the rotor, not the stator which would be useless and not work as being sold. I just checked again after reading your post and I am correct. He also has some drive/turntable device but for our purposes the rotor AND stator would easily prove/disprove the functionality of the device. So, no stator, no working device. Right?
Also, he does NOT say why he is selling it. He said he has an improved version that he created using this as a model but, he did not say that was why he was selling it. If one were into making huge assumptions, I guess one could "assume" that was why he was selling it. I try NOT to assume...it is not scientific.
Bill
Quote from: Pirate88179 on November 11, 2007, 11:30:29 PM
@ Omnibus:
I did read carefully before posting. It is only the rotor, not the stator which would be useless and not work as being sold. I just checked again after reading your post and I am correct. He also has some drive/turntable device but for our purposes the rotor AND stator would easily prove/disprove the functionality of the device. So, no stator, no working device. Right?
Also, he does NOT say why he is selling it. He said he has an improved version that he created using this as a model but, he did not say that was why he was selling it. If one were into making huge assumptions, I guess one could "assume" that was why he was selling it. I try NOT to assume...it is not scientific.
Bill
Sorry about the stator. He isn't selling the stator. You're right. I asked him a question to that effect.
See this, though:
"I have made an improved and working spindle using the same measurements on this older spindle."
Quote from: Omnibus: Reply #473 on: November 11, 2007, 10:28:21 PM:
...>"Like I said, you may take a look somewhere at the beginning of this thread where these problems were discussed".<
Thanks, Omnibus. This explanation clears my doubts.
Anyway, I am a practitioner rather than a theorist. I want to build a motor which would propel machines. So, I am looking for guys who have knowledge in materials needed tu build such contraption (magnetic motor).
G'day all,
Quote from E-bay where the stepper motor on which X-pensif's spindle was mounted is being auctioned as well as the spindle. Now if I remember correctly the stepper motor was only supposed to provide a convenient mounting for the spindle and took no other part in the workings of his device. This is not what is being said now:
Hans von Lieven
This is what is says in the ads (colour added by me for emphasis):
Stepper Motor
Up for auction is a stepper spindle sent to me from xpenzif on 10/18/07.
This is the correct type of stepper per xpenzif's patent. I have bought a new stepper just like this and had a special mounting bracket made so I no longer need this one. If you are trying to replicate this motor and need the correct stepper model then this item is for you.
Please check my other auctions, as I have one of the old screw spindles that is compatible with the number of teeth on this stepper.
Email me with any questions.
Spindle
Up for sale is an original xpenzif motor spindle purchased from user xpenzif on 10/18/07. I have made an improved and working spindle using the same measurements on this older spindle.
If you want to replicate this device without figuring out the measurements yourself, or if you simply want to verify this technology, then this device is for you.
Please check my other auctions. I have a stepper which is compatible with this spindle(has correct number of teeth).
I will be happy to answer any questions.
@ Hans:
Exactly. This does NOT make me less suspicious.
Bill
This stepper motor thing is indeed a mystery. Someone mentioned it somewhere in the commentaries before but no one seemed to pay attention to that then. Of course, it's not that the stepper motor runs powered by something. I don't think that's what is meant but I think they attribute certain role to that short-circuited stepper motor. That is one thing @xpenzif has to come forth and explain. Also, how come the seller is offering only the stepper motor and the drum with the screws and not the stator? What good is it?
Quote from: Omnibus on November 12, 2007, 04:32:25 PM
Also, how come the seller is offering only the stepper motor and the drum with the screws and not the stator? What good is it?
One possible explanation is that the seller bought the motor and could not get it to work. If he were to sell it as a non working motor no-one would buy it, if he sold it as a working motor it would be fraud.
Selling it this way as parts for experimentation the deal is perfectly legitimate.
Notice the cautious language in the ads, no claims are being made as to workability.
I am not saying this is the case, though it has to be a possibility.
Hans von Lieven
Quote from: hansvonlieven on November 12, 2007, 04:50:32 PM
One possible explanation is that the seller bought the motor and could not get it to work. If he were to sell it as a non working motor no-one would buy it, if he sold it as a working motor it would be fraud.
Hans von Lieven
I wonder why he would sell these at all? If I got something to work, it would be in a glass box up on a pedestal.
Quote from: hansvonlieven on November 12, 2007, 04:50:32 PM
Quote from: Omnibus on November 12, 2007, 04:32:25 PM
Also, how come the seller is offering only the stepper motor and the drum with the screws and not the stator? What good is it?
One possible explanation is that the seller bought the motor and could not get it to work. If he were to sell it as a non working motor no-one would buy it, if he sold it as a working motor it would be fraud.
Selling it this way as parts for experimentation the deal is perfectly legitimate.
Notice the cautious language in the ads, no claims are being made as to workability.
I am not saying this is the case, though it has to be a possibility.
Hans von Lieven
That's one possible way to see this, indeed. The offer is quite strange and gives the impression of covering legal issues in advance. I wonder how much if would sell for in the end and whether this charade (unless its just the naivete of a young person) would be "worth" the effort. Scheming minds such as this, if that's the case, would do much better for the society and for themselves if they put their intelligence into more legitimate pursuits.
@ Omnibus:
Well said.
Bill
In this thread I said:
Quote from: hansvonlieven on October 16, 2007, 04:50:56 PM
I am always weary when an old disk drive is used for a turntable, as it contains a small motor.
to which xpensif answered:
Quote from: xpenzif on October 16, 2007, 05:52:19 PM
@hans
As for the hard drive spindle, I don't blame you at all for being skeptical. The spindle was the most convenient thing I had back then, but now I have several bearings I can use.
How does this jibe with what is being said now???
Hans von Lieven
Quote from: hansvonlieven on November 12, 2007, 05:56:32 PM
In this thread I said:
Quote from: hansvonlieven on October 16, 2007, 04:50:56 PM
I am always weary when an old disk drive is used for a turntable, as it contains a small motor.
to which xpensif answered:
Quote from: xpenzif on October 16, 2007, 05:52:19 PM
@hans
As for the hard drive spindle, I don't blame you at all for being skeptical. The spindle was the most convenient thing I had back then, but now I have several bearings I can use.
How does this jibe with what is being said now???
Hans von Lieven
Yes, I remember that exchange. Note, however, that the stepper motor idea is pushed by supposedly someone else, not @xpenzif. I don't recall @xpenzif ever emphasizing the role of the stepper motor, as the above quote from him also indicates.
@ Hans:
Good catch. I remember those posts but did not make the connection to this new development. So, if it works on "any bearings" why does one now need a stepping motor with the correct "number of teeth"?
Bill
The ridiculous thing here is that we again are trying to read into the casually uttered words and phrases and seek deeper meaning in them instead of having @xpenzif come out here and set the record straight. Remember the saga with that mysterious Mike who purportedly replicated Bedini's device. What a pathetic story. And so many good people fell for it. It's still continuing (without Mike, of course, who suddenly disappeared right at the moment when he found he has wetted enough the appetite of everybody).
Quote from: Pirate88179 on November 12, 2007, 06:07:08 PM
@ Hans:
Good catch. I remember those posts but did not make the connection to this new development. So, if it works on "any bearings" why does one now need a stepping motor with the correct "number of teeth"?
Bill
Again, that's the opinion of the seller, not of the originator. Speaking of the seller--here's this question once again, why wouldn't the seller make a video of his new working motor he says he has made by replicating @xpenzif's?
Well Omnibus,
We are here assuming that the seller and xpensif are different people. Since both are anonymous and hide behind handles it's really difficult to tell.
Hans von Lieven
QuoteThis is the correct type of stepper per xpenzif's patent[/quote]
The above quote is from Hans's quote from the ebay ad. (underline added by me) I just realized that he mentions expenzif's "Patent". What patent? Has he attempted to patent this? He has already put the design in the public domain on here, and youtube so, that should not be possible. Knowing the USPO they will probably issue a patent to him anyway, even if a non-working device, as Omnibus has been saying about similar granted patents. This is a sad state of affairs if true.
Bill
Quote from: hansvonlieven on November 12, 2007, 06:16:05 PM
Well Omnibus,
We are here assuming that the seller and xpensif are different people. Since both are anonymous and hide behind handles it's really difficult to tell.
Hans von Lieven
Correct. Also, that @kossxf is not the same as the seller.
Quote from: Pirate88179 on November 12, 2007, 06:17:07 PM
QuoteThis is the correct type of stepper per xpenzif's patent[/quote]
The above quote is from Hans's quote from the ebay ad. (underline added by me) I just realized that he mentions expenzif's "Patent". What patent? Has he attempted to patent this? He has already put the design in the public domain on here, and youtube so, that should not be possible. Knowing the USPO they will probably issue a patent to him anyway, even if a non-working device, as Omnibus has been saying about similar granted patents. This is a sad state of affairs if true.
Bill
Well, we here in the US work under the presumption "first to invent" while in Europe the principle is "first to publish" if I remember correctly. We should ask @shruggedatlas, however, for clarification on these matters because she seems to be a real expert in this.
Correct Bill,
Which begs the question what is really going on here. Could it be that this is some pilot programme for a massive scam? Could someone just use this whole thing to test the waters as it were?
It is not that it hasn't been done before.
Only time will tell, we shall have to see what emerges.
Hans von Lieven
This seller guy probably thinks he has already something better (and, who know, maybe not only thinks but he really has it) which he can get a patent for and he's now trying to recover the money he paid @xpenzif for it by selling on ebay the already unnecessary old model. Same old, same old ... patents shmatents, useless but standing in the way of true research.
@ Omnibus:
I agree. I have very little faith now in the patent office. Best to invent something, produce it, and sell it. If it is an OU device, then share it with the world. I can't think of a better calling than that.
Bill
As this is a new clearer image of the spindle, is there a chance of a more accurate replication? Also, this hard drive motor has to be fairly generic, any ideas what make/model that is?
Joe.
Quote from: joemensor on November 13, 2007, 04:02:52 AM
As this is a new clearer image of the spindle, is there a chance of a more accurate replication? Also, this hard drive motor has to be fairly generic, any ideas what make/model that is?
Joe.
With regard to the stepper, whatever energy is given from the push will surely be absorbed by the pull or visa versa. If this is not the case then this is the source of free energy - not the rotor.
Why? well my experiment was essentially a clone of the xpenzif device less the one parameter that allegedly makes it work; the stepper. In other words it was an experimental control. I found this to do absolutely NO work, with the screw alignment shown in the video.
One other thing I noticed was the favourites video on the xpenzif profile. Generally if you trawl through the profiles of anyone else interested in this subject, you find the favourites littered with YouTube posts of people doing genuine experiments.
With xpenzif you get
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Q_ESdiF2wM
It's a complete parody of Steorn's energy claims. Now, I know this sounds like I'm clutching at straws but it kind of gives an insight into his psychology. Does he really take this subject seriously, or is he running a different type of experiment?
As for "is there a chance of a more accurate replication?" - err, not from me... ???
regards,
klicuk
@klicUK,
This is an interesting psychological observation. I'm no expert in psychology but it seems to me many times it isn't quite clear why people do certain things and sometimes their logic of actions differs from what we would expect it to be.
As for the role of the stepper motor, one thing that has always bothered me about magnetic motors is the fact that in most cases there's only one field the contraptions are supposed to utilize. If this field is stationary there's no way for any motor action to take place. That's a law of Nature and to fight with that is nothing but a hopeless illusion. One attempt to change that was Torbay's construction which supposedly would create the needed change in the magnetic field due to its own devices, from within, so to say. The torque created by the gap existing in the construction from the onset would cause changes in the disposition of the elements of the construction which will also have as a side result change in the magnetic field. This was what was expected to happen--creation of torque being unconnected with the change of the field. That is, the torque is caused by the field but is unconnected with its change. To this day, however, mainly because of the much discussed discrepancies in the magnetic induction of same form magnets, this idea hasn't been shown to work in a real device.
Although Torbay idea is worth pursuing, we have something which has been proven to work violating CoE beyond a shadow of a doubt. This is a case whereby not one conservative field (through exploring ways to induce changes from within the device) but two conservative fields are superimposed in such a way so that one assists the other and vice versa. This is exactly what SMOT is. In order for the SMOT idea to be utilized practically in a convenient way (SMOT may be applied practically as is but isn't as convenient) it has to be harnessed to do rotary, motor, motion. One of the brightest proposals for such application I've seen is @xpenzif's. Where are the two fields, properly overlaid? One way to see this is when rows of magnetic elements, properly aligned, work independent of each other and the next element picks up from the previous element from another row just before that previous element has completed a certain part of its loop. This can be accomplished without stepper motor. Easier to see the superposition of two conservative fields (of the same type unlike the fields in SMOT), however, is by considering a stepper motor whose field is completely unconnected with the field at play with the steel elements on the drum. When playing with a stepper motor one notices that when trying to turn it it's quite a bumpy turn. One feels the minimums and the maximums of magnetic potential energy. If one stops the rotor of the stepper motor at a hill (the maximum of the magnetic potential energy) and then lets it go the rotor slips downhill followed by uphill, then again downhill, all this with decreasing amplitude until the rotor stops to a rest. Imagine, however, that another field, unconnected with the field of the stepper motor acting on the rotor, picks the rotor up just before the rotor would otherwise revert its direction towards the stepper motor minimum. The other, unconnected field, will move the rotor one notch further, correct? In other words, that unconnected field will help the rotor to do something which it won't do in its absence in a million years. Now apply the same idea further but reverse the roles of the stepper motor field and the unconnected field. This will lead to yet another notch, correct? Now, continue with this ... Notch by notch, the drum will be advancing always tending towards equilibrium but never reaching it. Now the problem is, how to achieve these conditions? Well, for now by trial and error, is the answer. @xpenzif has obviously found the engineering solution to that. Most importantly, he uses metal pieces, not magnets to accomplish this goal. Magnet-to-magnet attraction or repulsion can also be utilized but, as I said, it's much, much more complicated to deal with the unevenness of even equally shaped magnets and the unpredictable cooperative phenomena they are prone to.
Quote from: Omnibus on November 13, 2007, 11:45:27 AM
@klicUK,
This is an interesting psychological observation. I'm no expert in psychology but it seems to me many times it isn't quite clear why people do certain things and sometimes their logic of actions differs from what we would expect it to be.
As for the role of the stepper motor, one thing that has always bothered me about magnetic motors is the fact that in most cases there's only one field the contraptions are supposed to utilize. If this field is stationary there's no way for any motor action to take place. That's a law of Nature and to fight with that is nothing but a hopeless illusion. One attempt to change that was Torbay's construction which supposedly would create the needed change in the magnetic field due to its own devices, from within, so to say. The torque created by the gap existing in the construction from the onset would cause changes in the disposition of the elements of the construction which will also have as a side result change in the magnetic field. This was what was expected to happen--creation of torque being unconnected with the change of the field. That is, the torque is caused by the field but is unconnected with its change. To this day, however, mainly because of the much discussed discrepancies in the magnetic induction of same form magnets, this idea hasn't been shown to work in a real device.
Although Torbay idea is worth pursuing, we have something which has been proven to work violating CoE beyond a shadow of a doubt. This is a case whereby not one conservative field (through exploring ways to induce changes from within the device) but two conservative fields are superimposed in such a way so that one assists the other and vice versa. This is exactly what SMOT is. In order for the SMOT idea to be utilized practically in a convenient way (SMOT may be applied practically as is but isn't as convenient) it has to be harnessed to do rotary, motor, motion. One of the brightest proposals for such application I've seen is @xpenzif's. Where are the two fields, properly overlaid? One way to see this is when rows of magnetic elements, properly aligned, work independent of each other and the next element picks up from the previous element from another row just before that previous element has completed a certain part of its loop. This can be accomplished without stepper motor. Easier to see the superposition of two conservative fields (of the same type unlike the fields in SMOT), however, is by considering a stepper motor whose field is completely unconnected with the field at play with the steel elements on the drum. When playing with a stepper motor one notices that when trying to turn it it's quite a bumpy turn. One feels the minimums and the maximums of magnetic potential energy. If one stops the rotor of the stepper motor at a hill (the maximum of the magnetic potential energy) and then lets it go the rotor slips downhill followed by uphill, then again downhill, all this with decreasing amplitude until the rotor stops to a rest. Imagine, however, that another field, unconnected with the field of the stepper motor acting on the rotor, picks the rotor up just before the rotor would otherwise revert its direction towards the stepper motor minimum. The other, unconnected field, will move the rotor one notch further, correct? In other words, that unconnected field will help the rotor to do something which it won't do in its absence in a million years. Now apply the same idea further but reverse the roles of the stepper motor field and the unconnected field. This will lead to yet another notch, correct? Now, continue with this ... Notch by notch, the drum will be advancing always tending towards equilibrium but never reaching it. Now the problem is, how to achieve these conditions? Well, for now by trial and error, is the answer. @xpenzif has obviously found the engineering solution to that. Most importantly, he uses metal pieces, not magnets to accomplish this goal. Magnet-to-magnet attraction or repulsion can also be utilized but, as I said, it's much, much more complicated to deal with the unevenness of even equally shaped magnets and the unpredictable cooperative phenomena they are prone to.
I understand what you are saying RE the stepper working in conjunction, I was thinking the same myself, and if you had some sort of momentum going then maybe this would be a valid experiment. But, what I (and other replicators like x00013) observed with the rotor layout shown in the xpenzif design was that it was not possible to get that movement going. Change the design and you change the experiment. Actually it has just occurred to me that I was wrong to say that my device did NO work, because actually it did. Doing *no* work would be a passive rotor without any stators presented to it, but mine acted as a frictionless break. In other words, using that size screw (#4 I think), on that size rotor, with one stator aligned the same as in the original video, the results that I got (and many other replicators reported the same results with different alignments) was a device that acted antagonistically to motion. So with this rotor/screw configuration, placing the same rotor on a stepper motor and getting spontaneous motion would indeed be very interesting. But.... Time will tell if it's genuine.
regards,
klicUK
Quote from: Omnibus on November 12, 2007, 06:21:34 PM
Well, we here in the US work under the presumption "first to invent" while in Europe the principle is "first to publish" if I remember correctly. We should ask @shruggedatlas, however, for clarification on these matters because she seems to be a real expert in this.
Thank you for the kind compliment. I believe in the U.S. you are much better off filing a patent before you publish anything. To note, there is a grace period, so you have some period of time after disclosing your invention to file a patent. But still, it is better to file first than to risk the clock running out.
I have put some thought in to this design and I think it would be more powerful if the screw head was off set from the screw and it the next screw was cut to over lap. I also don?t think the timing is quite right.
When the first screw head is in the middle of the magnet, the next should be ? of the way towards the middle and the next should be ? way and the next should be a ? of the way, then the first up in the next row should be at the 0 point and the next at -?, the next at -?, the next -? and so on and contued like that all the way around.
How do you post drawings on this forum? I seem to have a bad way of explaining things and it may be better if I was to draw a picture and post it.
G'day nightlife.
After you have written your post go to the bottom of the page. There you see Attach: click on the browse button and locate the image you want to send on your computer. Double click on the image and the image location should appear in the window. Click Post and you are done.
Hope this helps.
Hans von Lieven
@All,
"This video has been removed by the user."
This is what I got when I tried to open @xpenzif's video on youtube.
Funny, all video responses are also removed except for the first one by @klicUK. Is this some kind of maintenance youtube does?
Correction. Both video responses by @klicUK are there but those of X00013 are gone. I don't find also the video response by that desert fellow with the hat and the one by the Russian guy.
xpenzif
Joined: October 13, 2007
Last Login: 3 hours ago
Videos Watched: 32Subscribers: 65
Channel Views: 3,097
Ownership of this project has been transfered to another party. Thanks for giving the needed support to get this project started.
Xpenzif
Age: 22
Website coming soon.
Country: United States
Companies: Xpenzif MFG
Thanks @nightlife. Where did you get this info from?
http://www.youtube.com/user/xpenzif
Same old, same old. Seems like another Paul Sprain story. I almost even know who might have offered him this deal (transfer to another party). Now, that's what stands in the way of Science. Dreams of wealth which on top of that will never be fulfilled at the expense of proper dissemination of knowledge. This is what kills all such projects.
Quote from: nightlife on November 14, 2007, 09:34:04 AM
http://www.youtube.com/user/xpenzif
"Last Login: 4 hours ago"
This must've happened early this morning. I saw this at around 8:30 Eastern time and California is 3 hours earlier.
I have came across this before when searching for designs I have seen before.
Makes me wonder what happened.
BTW, I still cant seem to post a drawing, is there a certain program I should use to when drawing some thing I want to post? I do have another forum I can post it on but you would have to create a account to see it. It is free but I don't know if many people would go there to look at it or if someone can copy it and then transfer it from there to here for me.
Here is some thing I found that shows part of it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rA3pGixr5rc
Quote from: nightlife on November 14, 2007, 10:04:31 AM
Here is some thing I found that shows part of it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rA3pGixr5rc
This is @klicUK's video response I mentioned above.
I do not think anything has been lost with regard to xpenzif. He has fully disclosed his invention, and it is very simple. It's just that no one can get it to actually work.
Quote from: shruggedatlas on November 14, 2007, 10:19:26 AM
I do not think anything has been lost with regard to xpenzif. He has fully disclosed his invention, and it is very simple. It's just that no one can get it to actually work.
That's true but as of today. Tomorrow that will change. It would've been better if @xpenzif were alive to aid in this. He's the original constructor of the device, after all. Now that he's dead (dead for proper exchange with him) his experience is gone and replication may take some more time. Mind you, it seems simple but there's specific tuneup which has to be done in order for this to work and @zpenzif has mastered it better than anyone because he has played longer with it. Such experience is invaluable. It's like a well educated engineer starting work at a manufacturing facility who can never compete with the old experienced workers there despite his superb education.
What "specific tuneup" are you talking about?
The design is extremely simple, and it is quite easy to construct a number of different rotors with slightly different screw types, sizes, and locations.
I don't think @xpenzif's input is crucial at all. It might help to know the exact dimensions of all of his rotors parts and the exact type of magnets he uses, so an exact replication can be made...
But since it is such a simple design it should not at all be hard to produce the same effect by trying slightly different versions.
Instead of continually claiming that it works and is great, perhaps you should actually try to build one?
Quote from: Koen1 on November 14, 2007, 11:55:54 AM
What "specific tuneup" are you talking about?
The design is extremely simple, and it is quite easy to construct a number of different rotors with slightly different screw types, sizes, and locations.
I don't think @xpenzif's input is crucial at all. It might help to know the exact dimensions of all of his rotors parts and the exact type of magnets he uses, so an exact replication can be made...
But since it is such a simple design it should not at all be hard to produce the same effect by trying slightly different versions.
Instead of continually claiming that it works and is great, perhaps you should actually try to build one?
I explained above what's the specific about the tune up. Perhaps you should read first what people write before commenting. Also, you should know that building one requires time as well as resources. Time you can't provide. How 'bout resources? Don't send these resources to me. Send them to @klicUK.OK?
Well, at any rate, there is quite a bit disclosed here - there is no black box at all. Compare that with other demonstrations where the inner workings of the device are hidden. So there is quite alot to go on. Logically, however, I cannot understand why this thing would spin at all. It seems that equilibrium is quickly established, and there is nothing going on that should cause the static magnets to continue being attracted to the next screw down the line more so than the screw they are already closest to.
Maybe xpenzif could provide some expert advice on how to manipulate the column of air so it causes the drum to accelerate realistically. :)
Quote from: shruggedatlas on November 14, 2007, 02:18:42 PM
Well, at any rate, there is quite a bit disclosed here - there is no black box at all. Compare that with other demonstrations where the inner workings of the device are hidden. So there is quite alot to go on. Logically, however, I cannot understand why this thing would spin at all. It seems that equilibrium is quickly established, and there is nothing going on that should cause the static magnets to continue being attracted to the next screw down the line more so than the screw they are already closest to.
Maybe xpenzif could provide some expert advice on how to manipulate the column of air so it causes the drum to accelerate realistically. :)
What column of air? Where did you see evidence for such a thing?
Also, you obviously have missed my explanation a couple of pages back. This works just as SMOT does but here we have superposition of same type of conservative fields unlike SMOT. This is a self-sustaining SMOT, if you will. Imagine two rows of steel pieces (screws in this case) which we'll call stations working independent of each other. The peculiarity here that helps is the fact that when one one station moves downhill from the potential maximum it doesn't stop at the potential minimum but proceeds beyond it. If we leave it alone it will back and forth just as a pendulum would do. However if there is another row of stations having its own maximums and minimums which is only mechanically coupled to the first row but not with respect to its response to a magnetic field acting only on it then things change if properly tuned up, Just before the fist station starts to bounce back another station is picks up, being at the maximum of the field acting on it, and the drum instead of going back proceeds in the forward direction. And so on. Thus, there's always a tendency towards equilibrium which is never reached. I already explained that but, as is the rule here, one has to repeat a hundred times the same thing because some people just don't bother to read what is being posted.
I don't think there's anything new in this construction concept and therefore there's nothing patentable about it. What is new is just the scientific analysis but scientific analysis isn't something that can be patented. This frantic desire to patent in this field is just a waste. Patents on perpetuum mobile's cannot withstand a serious scrutiny because all these ideas for perpetuum mobile devices without exception have been around for a long, long time. It very well may be that such devices have already existed but they have been ignored by the powers that be. As they will be ignored today as business ventures. Perpetuum mobile is everything business doesn't want to hear about. Therefore, don't waste your time, money, hopes, dreams etc. on patenting this thing, valid as it is. Just do it and contribute to the progress of society.
LOL, this will make everyone feel stupid. It's the magnet set up that is the trick. He must have some sort of spring in each one of the magnet housings. That is why we heard a click each time the magnet attracted to the screw.
This is another reason we don't see that part on EBay. It came to after wondering why he just didn't use one bar magnet and had 4 separate ones instead.
There you go, that?s the key. If you want to make that design more powerful, make sure the magnetic set up is angled with the tilt required for the gravitational pull.
Are there people in here with a lot of money? If so, email me because we are on our way to help change the worlds way of producing energy.
This will help me produce even more power with my other designs.
Another way would be to turn it on it's side with the shaft laid across an outer support on each side. This would give it a stronger gradational pull and allow it to produce even more power.
Gravitational pull is just fine. If it works with the help of gravity (I dont think so) it will be as interesting as it is now.
Quote from: Omnibus on November 14, 2007, 03:02:48 PM
What column of air? Where did you see evidence for such a thing?
Also, you obviously have missed my explanation a couple of pages back. This works just as SMOT does but here we have superposition of same type of conservative fields unlike SMOT. This is a self-sustaining SMOT, if you will. Imagine two rows of steel pieces (screws in this case) which we'll call stations working independent of each other. The peculiarity here that helps is the fact that when one one station moves downhill from the potential maximum it doesn't stop at the potential minimum but proceeds beyond it. If we leave it alone it will back and forth just as a pendulum would do. However if there is another row of stations having its own maximums and minimums which is only mechanically coupled to the first row but not with respect to its response to a magnetic field acting only on it then things change if properly tuned up, Just before the fist station starts to bounce back another station is picks up, being at the maximum of the field acting on it, and the drum instead of going back proceeds in the forward direction. And so on. Thus, there's always a tendency towards equilibrium which is never reached. I already explained that but, as is the rule here, one has to repeat a hundred times the same thing because some people just don't bother to read what is being posted.
I don't think there's anything new in this construction concept and therefore there's nothing patentable about it. What is new is just the scientific analysis but scientific analysis isn't something that can be patented. This frantic desire to patent in this field is just a waste. Patents on perpetuum mobile's cannot withstand a serious scrutiny because all these ideas for perpetuum mobile devices without exception have been around for a long, long time. It very well may be that such devices have already existed but they have been ignored by the powers that be. As they will be ignored today as business ventures. Perpetuum mobile is everything business doesn't want to hear about. Therefore, don't waste your time, money, hopes, dreams etc. on patenting this thing, valid as it is. Just do it and contribute to the progress of society.
I am taking a stab at explaining why it works for xpenzif and no one else. Column of air seems like the easiest explanation. If you or someone else ever gets this thing to make two revolutions unassisted, I will gladly eat crow.
As it stands, I understand the concept, I just do not believe that it can work this way. There is only one force at play. Replace magnetism with gravity, and set the device on a horizontal axis instead of vertical. Instead of screws there would be four rows of hills and valleys. There is no way to extract any extra energy out of that, even if you could place some kind of diagonal weight on top, that rises and falls with no friction and is held in position from slipping horizontally. It just does not make any sense, and this doesn't either, at least not to me.
Also, you would be surprised at what is patentable. Most likely, if there is no previous patent for "screws on a drum with some magnets on the side," there should be no problem. If the applicant does not claim perpetual motion, there should not be a requirement to present a working model, either.
Deleted for not thinking first. Sorry.
Sorry, but when I get on a roll I cant stop. LOL
Quote from: shruggedatlas on November 14, 2007, 03:31:13 PM
Quote from: Omnibus on November 14, 2007, 03:02:48 PM
What column of air? Where did you see evidence for such a thing?
Also, you obviously have missed my explanation a couple of pages back. This works just as SMOT does but here we have superposition of same type of conservative fields unlike SMOT. This is a self-sustaining SMOT, if you will. Imagine two rows of steel pieces (screws in this case) which we'll call stations working independent of each other. The peculiarity here that helps is the fact that when one one station moves downhill from the potential maximum it doesn't stop at the potential minimum but proceeds beyond it. If we leave it alone it will back and forth just as a pendulum would do. However if there is another row of stations having its own maximums and minimums which is only mechanically coupled to the first row but not with respect to its response to a magnetic field acting only on it then things change if properly tuned up, Just before the fist station starts to bounce back another station is picks up, being at the maximum of the field acting on it, and the drum instead of going back proceeds in the forward direction. And so on. Thus, there's always a tendency towards equilibrium which is never reached. I already explained that but, as is the rule here, one has to repeat a hundred times the same thing because some people just don't bother to read what is being posted.
I don't think there's anything new in this construction concept and therefore there's nothing patentable about it. What is new is just the scientific analysis but scientific analysis isn't something that can be patented. This frantic desire to patent in this field is just a waste. Patents on perpetuum mobile's cannot withstand a serious scrutiny because all these ideas for perpetuum mobile devices without exception have been around for a long, long time. It very well may be that such devices have already existed but they have been ignored by the powers that be. As they will be ignored today as business ventures. Perpetuum mobile is everything business doesn't want to hear about. Therefore, don't waste your time, money, hopes, dreams etc. on patenting this thing, valid as it is. Just do it and contribute to the progress of society.
I am taking a stab at explaining why it works for xpenzif and no one else. Column of air seems like the easiest explanation. If you or someone else ever gets this thing to make two revolutions unassisted, I will gladly eat crow.
As it stands, I understand the concept, I just do not believe that it can work this way. There is only one force at play. Replace magnetism with gravity, and set the device on a horizontal axis instead of vertical. Instead of screws there would be four rows of hills and valleys. There is no way to extract any extra energy out of that, even if you could place some kind of diagonal weight on top, that rises and falls with no friction and is held in position from slipping horizontally. It just does not make any sense, and this doesn't either, at least not to me.
Also, you would be surprised at what is patentable. Most likely, if there is no previous patent for "screws on a drum with some magnets on the side," there should be no problem. If the applicant does not claim perpetual motion, there should not be a requirement to present a working model, either.
No, lets be serious, there's no column of hot air as there are no Martians driving it. These attempts for an explanation are hot air themselves.
Also, the gravity example isn't analogous to what I said. Read it again.
As for patents, forget it, when push comes to shove none of this will withstand scrutiny. Designs maybe but not patents. Patents is a useless pursuit in this case.
ominibus,
it seems to me the only "hot" air around here is coming from you. have you given any thought to a better way to use that "hot air than constantly jumping on people that, obviously have an interest in proving exactly what you want. go to a physics site for that.
if you are using the same retarded mathimatics in your synopsis of the smot ramp as the physics, "experts", then why are you having so much trouble understanding that the loop to "actual" over unity can not be achieved, in and of itself.
you might want to look a little further at some other supposed over unity projects, for a cobination of things that might just work to actually return the ball to the start point. maybe it will be functional if you combined it with a highly efficient gravity powered device or vice-versa. until then dude, you can't make it work with "hot air " alone.
lol
sam
Quote from: supersam on November 14, 2007, 06:08:48 PM
ominibus,
it seems to me the only "hot" air around here is coming from you. have you given any thought to a better way to use that "hot air than constantly jumping on people that, obviously have an interest in proving exactly what you want. go to a physics site for that.
if you are using the same retarded mathimatics in your synopsis of the smot ramp as the physics, "experts", then why are you having so much trouble understanding that the loop to "actual" over unity can not be achieved, in and of itself.
you might want to look a little further at some other supposed over unity projects, for a cobination of things that might just work to actually return the ball to the start point. maybe it will be functional if you combined it with a highly efficient gravity powered device or vice-versa. until then dude, you can't make it work with "hot air " alone.
lol
sam
This is obvious crap. You should restrain from cluttering the discussion with useless blabber.
The video is now gone from youtube!
Removed by user!
Quote from: ken_nyus on November 14, 2007, 08:22:49 PM
The video is now gone from youtube!
Removed by user!
This was discussed extensively today. See also the reason why this was done.
What about this thought. replace the screws with half moon 1/8 inch thick magnetic disc with the north facing the attraction and cover the south and the outer ring with magnetic shielding and cover the stator magnets with the same with only the end north pole open to for the attraction and use the spring like the original one does?
Has anyone seen the big wooden wheel that is said to take very little effort to push but yet takes 60lbs to pull back? I think if it is actually true, that it may be done by using the magnetic shielding and the spring set up. I also believe the that it has to do with the angle they are placed at as well.
I will try and find that one again and post it.
Quote from: Omnibus on November 14, 2007, 08:29:48 PM
This was discussed extensively today. See also the reason why this was done.
Didn't see it two pages back, thanks.
Quote from: nightlife on November 14, 2007, 08:31:20 PM
Has anyone seen the big wooden wheel that is said to take very little effort to push but yet takes 60lbs to pull back? I
G'day nightlife,
I can give you a wheel that is very very easy to push and almost impossible to pull back. It is called a ratchet drive. Maybe I can power a Bessler wheel with it or maybe even a SMOT.
Hans von Lieven
I think its fairly obvious this whole thing was a hoax, its the same old same old. Lets be honest if any of us discovered free energy we'd either go completely public and explain how to replicate or keep it completely to ourselves, but this idea of cryptically demonstrating devices, not answering emails, being busy etc. etc.. is a sure sign of bs.
Lets face it, these are some college kids having a laugh, and now they are selling the same bits and pieces of the device from the video on Ebay so they can make a quick buck too, they'll never sell the stator so that it can never be PROVED that it was a hoax!
Suprising how much effort was spent by the community following this up.
Joe.
Omnibus, you keep going on and on about how this setup works, but all you present is talk.
Like I said before, talk is cheap.
I have extensive experience with various forms and variations of the SMOT as well as this motor design, as I have already stated before.
where are your working versions then?
Do they only exist in your mind?
oh, and there is no need to keep going on with your pro-free energy propaganda. We are all in this forum because we believe or at least hope it is possible to produce "free" energy (or "over unity").
Instead of repeating that perpetuum mobile and overunity devices are possible and do work, over and over again in different formulations,
please present something tangiable? Or at least stop repeating yourself, please?
Quote from: joemensor on November 15, 2007, 03:48:09 AM
I think its fairly obvious this whole thing was a hoax, its the same old same old. Lets be honest if any of us discovered free energy we'd either go completely public and explain how to replicate or keep it completely to ourselves, but this idea of cryptically demonstrating devices, not answering emails, being busy etc. etc.. is a sure sign of bs.
Lets face it, these are some college kids having a laugh, and now they are selling the same bits and pieces of the device from the video on Ebay so they can make a quick buck too, they'll never sell the stator so that it can never be PROVED that it was a hoax!
Suprising how much effort was spent by the community following this up.
Joe.
There's no question that this is annoying behavior. Cryptically demonstrating devices, not answering emails, being busy etc. etc. indeed feeds fears that it might be something we've seen so many times before. However, people not always behave rationally even when they do legitimate things. On the other hand, if it's a hoax it's a really compelling hoax. I challenge you to figure out a hoax that's that compelling, stator not offered on ebay notwithstanding. As for the few bucks, it's a decision of whoever wants to give them, it's their money not ours so we shouldn't worry too much about that.
Quote from: Koen1 on November 15, 2007, 08:24:44 AM
Omnibus, you keep going on and on about how this setup works, but all you present is talk.
Like I said before, talk is cheap.
I have extensive experience with various forms and variations of the SMOT as well as this motor design, as I have already stated before.
where are your working versions then?
Do they only exist in your mind?
oh, and there is no need to keep going on with your pro-free energy propaganda. We are all in this forum because we believe or at least hope it is possible to produce "free" energy (or "over unity").
Instead of repeating that perpetuum mobile and overunity devices are possible and do work, over and over again in different formulations,
please present something tangiable? Or at least stop repeating yourself, please?
As I?ve made it clear, I?m repeating myself and will repeat myself in the future only when doubts are expressed about certain things in this research which are already firmly established such as the fact that CoE can be violated. That?s not propaganda, that?s a fact. It?s not I who should be blamed, it?s those who tend to ignore already established scientific facts, which is the greatest insult.
As for the replication, I already told you and I will repeat, it takes time and resources. You cannot provide time. However, if you?re willing to offer resources offer them to @klicUK and @X00013 who have shown the best efforts so far in trying to replicate this device. If you?re not offering resources but continue to require replication then it will have as a result hearing over and over again the same thing I just told you. Causing such a thing is counterproductive.
Quote from: Omnibus on November 15, 2007, 09:41:44 AM
Quote from: joemensor on November 15, 2007, 03:48:09 AM
I think its fairly obvious this whole thing was a hoax, its the same old same old. Lets be honest if any of us discovered free energy we'd either go completely public and explain how to replicate or keep it completely to ourselves, but this idea of cryptically demonstrating devices, not answering emails, being busy etc. etc.. is a sure sign of bs.
Lets face it, these are some college kids having a laugh, and now they are selling the same bits and pieces of the device from the video on Ebay so they can make a quick buck too, they'll never sell the stator so that it can never be PROVED that it was a hoax!
Suprising how much effort was spent by the community following this up.
Joe.
There's no question that this is annoying behavior. Cryptically demonstrating devices, not answering emails, being busy etc. etc. indeed feeds fears that it might be something we've seen so many times before. However, people not always behave rationally even when they do legitimate things. On the other hand, if it's a hoax it's a really compelling hoax. I challenge you to figure out a hoax that's that compelling, stator not offered on ebay notwithstanding. As for the few bucks, it's a decision of whoever wants to give them, it's their money not ours so we shouldn't worry too much about that.
Of course you
KNOW what will happen next. lol.
The 'buyer' will post another video (with their own stator of course) of the device spinning like a top. ROFL. I can just see it now. Honestly, the prank value of this is brilliant.
I just hope that nobody gets conned into parting with any cash investing into any future company that "xpenzif" might set up.
klicUK
Quote from: Omnibus on November 15, 2007, 09:52:46 AM
As I?ve made it clear, I?m repeating myself and will repeat myself in the future only when doubts are expressed about certain things in this research which are already firmly established such as the fact that CoE can be violated. That?s not propaganda, that?s a fact. It?s not I who should be blamed, it?s those who tend to ignore already established scientific facts, which is the greatest insult.
"Firmly established" implies some form of peer review and general concensus. You repeating over and over that something is firmly established does not make it so. "Highly controversial" is much more accurate in this case. It is a really dishonest thing to say, and you are just inviting criticism, but maybe that is your goal, I don't know.
Quote from: shruggedatlas on November 15, 2007, 02:41:44 PM
Quote from: Omnibus on November 15, 2007, 09:52:46 AM
As I?ve made it clear, I?m repeating myself and will repeat myself in the future only when doubts are expressed about certain things in this research which are already firmly established such as the fact that CoE can be violated. That?s not propaganda, that?s a fact. It?s not I who should be blamed, it?s those who tend to ignore already established scientific facts, which is the greatest insult.
"Firmly established" implies some form of peer review and general concensus. You repeating over and over that something is firmly established does not make it so. "Highly controversial" is much more accurate in this case. It is a really dishonest thing to say, and you are just inviting criticism, but maybe that is your goal, I don't know.
Not at all. The incompetent remarks by some don't make anything controversial no matter how impudently or subtly they push it. Absolutely not. Science is un-dented by incompetence. Otherwise the world will be in a much greater mess than it is now.
There's no consensus in Science. Scientific truth isn't decided by voting, especially by incompetents voting. Science is a totalitarian system where the truth is a dictator. Hard Science we're talking about, not Social Sciences where anything goes and "truth" there is indeed a consensual category, allowing for many opposing concepts about a social phenomenon to be equally valid in order to avoid social unrest.
Quote from: Omnibus on November 15, 2007, 02:48:20 PM
Not at all. The incompetent remarks by some don't make anything controversial no matter how impudently or subtly they push it. Absolutely not. Science is un-dented by incompetence. Otherwise the world will be in a much greater mess than it is now.
More accurately, your self-assurance is undented. I will give you this - you do not care one bit what others think. But even you must realize that when you say "firmly established", you mean firmly established for you and a handful others, but not really in the rest of the scientific community or even very many people in this forum.
Overall, I want to make one last point about this. Intentially or unintentionally, the SMOT analysis you champion is just like the numerous frustrating overunity claims out there, like those made by Steorn, Newman, and countless others through history. They refuse to build a self-sustaining device, but what they do is say, "Well, here is energy input, and here is the energy output. When we calculate the two in this manner, see how the output is more? Due to technical issues, soon to be overcome, we cannot feed the output into the input, but based on the calculations, it is clearly overunity."
Well, why not just pass the only test that matters - have a self-sustaining device? It would just put an end to all this controversy. It would show up mainstream science once and for all. Never happens though.
Hi people,
Just the 2cents of an unfortunate 'OU' handyman ...
Actually, I have also built my own xpenzif's magnet motor replication.
OK:
The screws gluing is crude.
The rotor is not so well balanced.
I'm far from a machinist. :-\
However:
The ball bearing comes from a recovery of a (professional) Meteorological drifting buoy wind speed sensor and is very efficient.
Guess what : it (unfortunately) does not work (at all)!
Of course, you can blame the shabby craftsmanship (that's what I do).
But I do not feel any hope having this @#& rotor moving.
I mean : with a mere single small magnet glued on another (slightly leaning) drum-like rotor, an initial small impulse, a quick tuning, I can get this rotor making 2 or 3 revolutions.
That Ain't 'OU'! Of course! But it is turning. Paltry consolation.
So? Is the xpenzif's motor faked?
Just a (twisted) idea:
Why not tyring to 'smart' deceit/false this very motor with a fan, an hair drier, a minuscule tamed hamster or whatever you want?.
That's my next project.
Remember: the (in)famous Mike's window Motor was also made self running on a mere capacitor (and an hidden 9 volts bat. ;)).
My window motor is also running very well with a small bat. ;D
Best
i also wish it was true. bud sadly this device does not work. most of us have proved this to ourselves. why not just put an end to it and stop arguing, it does not work
Quote from: shruggedatlas on November 15, 2007, 03:04:29 PM
Quote from: Omnibus on November 15, 2007, 02:48:20 PM
Not at all. The incompetent remarks by some don't make anything controversial no matter how impudently or subtly they push it. Absolutely not. Science is un-dented by incompetence. Otherwise the world will be in a much greater mess than it is now.
More accurately, your self-assurance is undented. I will give you this - you do not care one bit what others think. But even you must realize that when you say "firmly established", you mean firmly established for you and a handful others, but not really in the rest of the scientific community or even very many people in this forum.
Overall, I want to make one last point about this. Intentially or unintentionally, the SMOT analysis you champion is just like the numerous frustrating overunity claims out there, like those made by Steorn, Newman, and countless others through history. They refuse to build a self-sustaining device, but what they do is say, "Well, here is energy input, and here is the energy output. When we calculate the two in this manner, see how the output is more? Due to technical issues, soon to be overcome, we cannot feed the output into the input, but based on the calculations, it is clearly overunity."
Well, why not just pass the only test that matters - have a self-sustaining device? It would just put an end to all this controversy. It would show up mainstream science once and for all. Never happens though.
On the contrary, I do care very much what others say. Whenever it's crap, however, (and this is most of the time) I say so. One mustn't be polite with intruders in Science, trying to turn it into mockery and playground of stupidity.
Also, my analysis of SMOT absolutely must not be compared to the unsubstantiated claims of Steorn, Newman and countless others in history because my analysis is scientifically rigorous and sound. Their claims are not. Big difference. By the way, for my analysis to be scientifically sound it is absolutely not necessary to have a self-sustaining device. You should understand this one and for all. I've been repeating it over and over but who to listen.
Quote from: NerzhDishual on November 15, 2007, 03:17:53 PM
Hi people,
Just the 2cents of an unfortunate 'OU' handyman ...
Actually, I have also built my own xpenzif's magnet motor replication.
OK:
The screws gluing is crude.
The rotor is not so well balanced.
I'm far from a machinist. :-\
However:
The ball bearing comes from a recovery of a (professional) Meteorological drifting buoy wind speed sensor and is very efficient.
Guess what : it (unfortunately) does not work (at all)!
Of course, you can blame the shabby craftsmanship (that's what I do).
But I do not feel any hope having this @#& rotor moving.
I mean : with a mere single small magnet glued on another (slightly leaning) drum-like rotor, an initial small impulse, a quick tuning, I can get this rotor making 2 or 3 revolutions.
That Ain't 'OU'! Of course! But it is turning. Paltry consolation.
So? Is the xpenzif's motor faked?
Just a (twisted) idea:
Why not tyring to 'smart' deceit/false this very motor with a fan, an hair drier, a minuscule tamed hamster or whatever you want?.
That's my next project.
Remember: the (in)famous Mike's window Motor was also made self running on a mere capacitor (and an hidden 9 volts bat. ;)).
My window motor is also running very well with a small bat. ;D
Best
@NerzhDishual:
thanks for posting the results. Gathering data of results is important. So far ALL replications give the same result. So you are helping to expose the prank / scam / potential serious fraud.
klicUK
Hi crowd,
It does not work [Rice]. This definitive statement does not disturb me.
I just want to check it out more accurately by tyring to deliberately fake this device as subtlety as Xpenzif might have done it.
This could be another evidence of any "potential serious fraud" [KlicUK]
To advocate the Devil:
Should I, according to my age, be keeping on repeating myself:
In the Xpenzif's device (some of) the screws could actually be small magnets. That could be the trick (if any). You can build your own magnets. Ask Google.
-------------------
BTW: Xpenzif (the well named) claims are going to be expensive
time/money/(interminable)discussion-wise. Are they not? ;D
Best
Quote from: Omnibus on November 15, 2007, 03:41:48 PM
By the way, for my analysis to be scientifically sound it is absolutely not necessary to have a self-sustaining device. You should understand this one and for all. I've been repeating it over and over but who to listen.
OK, I have been reading your explanations and familiarized myself with the terms involved. I do not understand where the excess energy is. Here are the terms as I understand them.
h1: Vertical distance between A and B
h2: Vertical distance between B and C
Ma: Magnetic potential at A
Mb: Magnetic potential at B
Mc: Magnetic potential at C
m: mass
g: gravitational constant
Let's look at what happens at each stage:
Stage 1: A to BResearcher lifts ball. Energy spent is what is required to lift a ball from A to B, subtracting for magnetic assistance, which can be expressed as the difference in magnetic potential between A and B.
mg(h1) - (Ma - Mb) = mg(h1) - Ma + Mb
Stage 2: B to CMagnets pull ball to C. Magnet does work equal to energy required to lift a ball from B to C. The cost is the decrease in magnetic potential.
mg(h2) - (Mb - Mc) = mg(h2) - Mb + Mc
Stage 3: C to ABecause the ball is no longer on the ramp, the magnets do not have the mechanical advantage needed to resist gravity, so the ball falls from C to A. Here the gravitational energy returned is equal to the energy of the ball dropping from the sum of heights h1 and h2, but is tempered by the magnetic forces involved (difference in magnetic potential between A and C). In essense, the magnets are taking back what they gave.
-mg(h1 + h2) + (Ma - Mc) = -mg(h1) - mg(h2) + Ma - Mc
Summary:If we add all these up, we get:
+mg(h1) - Ma + Mb + mg(h2) - Mb + Mc - mg(h1) - mg(h2) + Ma - Mc = 0
So, no excess energy. This is confirmed by the fact that when the ball drops from C to A, it has insufficient kinetic energy to get back to B.
**********
Anything wrong with the above?
@ Shruggedatlas:
So, you are saying that nasty word "equilibrium" due to the fact that any "excess" energy can be explained by the potential energy stored in the ball by the researcher lifting it to the starting point? I don't want to put words in your mouth so correct me if I am wrong. So, this would be like saying that "hey, once I lift this weight inside this clock, it runs for a week on free energy." I see your point and don't disagree. I am not a physics expert and don't claim to be. I think you have raised a valid question that should be answered, or at least, looked in to. I am still experimenting with the SMOT as it relates to a rotating wheel but I have not progressed far enough to voice an opinion either way.
Bill
shruggedatlas, which design are you referring too?
One thing I can say for the one this topic is about is that the spring loaded magnets gives this design the power to keep it's self going because it limits the draw back affect.
The power that could be used would depend on the distance achieved after going through the first set of screws and where the next one would be placed if there was a fifth in place. So if it goes a inch past the last screw and the screws were 1/8 inch apart from the attraction points, that would mean it would have a bout a 80% over unity efficiency making it about 180% efficient. This is just an example because I don't have the actual motor to test it but the concept is still the same.
QuoteBy the way, for my analysis to be scientifically sound it is absolutely not necessary to have a self-sustaining device.
That may be true, but for it to be accepted by 99.999% of the world , you are going to have to show a self sustaining device. Maybe you don't care about the other 99.999% the world, but I can see that your analysis means a lot to you, otherwise you wouldn't spend all the hours you do on this forum repeating it.
Maybe the time would be better spent building a device and "fine tuning it", This will bring your message much further and quicker than repeating that your analysis is rigorous, hard science etc.
Lets be honest, Your analysis could be written in a much more accessible form, so that more people on this forum could understand it, I get the impression that the vast majority of poeple on this forum don't understand it. A lot of these people are the experimenters, the builders, the people who might be able to prove you correct with a working device. The more experimenters you get to understand what you are talking about, the greater the chances of a working device. Give a general explanation of what is happaening in your analysis.
[/quote]
Of course you KNOW what will happen next. lol.
The 'buyer' will post another video (with their own stator of course) of the device spinning like a top. ROFL. I can just see it now. Honestly, the prank value of this is brilliant.
I just hope that nobody gets conned into parting with any cash investing into any future company that "xpenzif" might set up.
klicUK
[/quote]
I think you would have better results if you used the correct stator as he did. It must be spring loaded for it to have the clicking noise as it was shown to have.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rA3pGixr5rc
After watching ths video, I found that teh replica does not have a spring loaded stator setup nor does it use the same size srews. I also noticed it is not angled the same either.
@ nightlife:
Please don't take offense to this as I am not into arguing on this site. But, (there is always a but) you have mentioned in several posts about the "spring loaded stator" which you surmised by the clicking sounds. Well, if you look way back in the beginning posts the major complaint was that there was no sound track to this video which caused some to think of the hair dryer, air propulsion, etc. as to the reason for the rotation. So, if there is no sound track, how can you hear the clicking of the springs in the stator? I shoot my videos using my digital still camera in video mode and it also produces clicks for some reason, even if I turn the sound off. I am just suggesting that this might possibly be what you heard, and if so, I don't think it is a logical jump to say the stator has springs in it. It may very well have, I don't know or claim to know but, I have worked with his design and in my mind I have found it to be unworkable. I don't claim to know everything and I hope I am proved wrong, as I have stated time and time again in earlier posts. Just consider this in your reasoning. Thanks.
Bill
Pirate88179, thank you for that response and you may just be right. I thought it was actual footage with sound but as you stated, you just never know.
It does have me curious but I still am not looking for that type of design to be very promising even if it does work because of the size it would require to produce any real usable power.
A spring loaded stator does open up more doors for me as I hope it does for others.
Thanks again for the reality check, I need those once in a while. LOL
Can anyone tell me what is the best thing to use for magnetic shielding and how good it actually is?
@ nightlife:
Hey, we all do. I think I speak for a lot of us, if not all, on this forum when I say that we want someone (even if it isn't you or me) to make a successful device. If we didn't think it possible, we would not be here. I still have hope that it will happen. I think we have some of the most creative minds in the world on Stefan's site and if it can't be done here, then, who will do it? Thanks.
Bill
Quote from: Pirate88179 on November 16, 2007, 01:51:40 AM
@ Shruggedatlas:
So, you are saying that nasty word "equilibrium" due to the fact that any "excess" energy can be explained by the potential energy stored in the ball by the researcher lifting it to the starting point? I don't want to put words in your mouth so correct me if I am wrong. So, this would be like saying that "hey, once I lift this weight inside this clock, it runs for a week on free energy." I see your point and don't disagree. I am not a physics expert and don't claim to be. I think you have raised a valid question that should be answered, or at least, looked in to. I am still experimenting with the SMOT as it relates to a rotating wheel but I have not progressed far enough to voice an opinion either way.
Bill
(For nightlife's benefit, my analysis refers to Omnibus's SMOT model, where point A is the bottom of the dish receptacle that catches the ball, point B is the bottom of the SMOT ramp, and point C is the top of the SMOT ramp, where the ball falls through the ramp and to the bottom of the receptacle, point A. Refer to http://gggttt.host.sk/sketch.pdf (http://gggttt.host.sk/sketch.pdf) for a diagram of what Omnibus is talking about. The motion of the ball is discontinuous, as the reasearcher manually lifts it from A to B, then the ball proceeds spontaneously from B to C, and lastly the ball falls down at C and ends up at rest back at A.)
I am no physics expert either, and I had to spend a few hours getting to understand this. Fortunately, it is just the basics, high school stuff at the worst. No calculus is involved.
I do not think I am saying exactly what you are saying. I am not so much focused on what the researcher does. Remember, Omnibus focuses on the ball rising spontaneously from B to C, thus spanning h2. The energy expended in this fashion, as I understand it, is mg(h2) - (Mb - Mc). Omnibus claims the energy mg(h2), or at least a portion of it, is never properly "returned" by the time the ball returns to A, and is therefore in excess (or "overunity"). The point of my analysis is to show that this spontaneous energy gain is in fact fully accounted for and does not remain "in excess" by the time the ball returns to A.
Omnibus is more knowledgable than I am in physics and spent much longer working on his theory, so it is quite possible I missed something.
@shruggedatlass,
Please, understand that ball at C gains, I repeat, gains, energy mgh2 (height h2), as well as kinetic energy plus other kinds of energy, at the expense of the energy (Mb - Mc), where Mc = 0. Again, energy (Mb - Mc) is spent energy, while energy mgh2 plus kinetic and other energies are gained energies. Energy (Mb - Mc) is spent in order to gain energy mgh2 plus kinetic and other energies. This is the CoE in its "transformation" part which firmly holds and which is the part almost always considered in scientific analyses--the energy (Mb - Mc) is transformed in equivalent quantity into mgh2 plus kinetic and other energies. In SMOT as in any experiment whatsoever, there is no violation of CoE in its "transformation" aspect, formulated still in Lomonosov's works. Lomonosov isn't known in the West at all but in fact, as far as I know, he was the first to formulate that aspect of the CoE principle. When people say that the principle of CoE has never been proven to have been violated they mostly mean exactly this "transformation" part of the CoE principle which, indeed, has never been violated. As I said, SMOT doesn't violate it as well. What is new in SMOT is that it demonstrates the production of the energy mgh2 + kinetic etc. from no source. The magnetic energy (Mb - Mc) spent to produce said mgh2 + kinetic etc. energies upon closing the A-B-C-A loop is fully compensated when that A-B-C-A loop closes. There's no depletion of the magnetic potential energy reservoir when the A-B-C-A loop closes. Thus, upon closing the A-B-C-A loop, although there's no loss or gain of magnetic potential energy, the ball loses more energy (mgh1 + mgh2 + kinetic etc.) than the energy that was imparted to it (mgh1).
Compare what I said with this statement from your post: "The energy expended in this fashion, as I understand it, is mg(h2) - (Mb - Mc)." In fact, what you should have said is not that that quantity is energy spent but that it's a balance of the spent and gained energy as point C. That balance at point C is zero. At C magnetic potential energy (Mb - Mc) is lost, while gravitational potential energy plus kinetic plus other kinds of energy are gained at the expense of losing that magnetic energy. That is, mgh2 + [kinetic +] - (Mb - Mc) = 0.
Quote from: Omnibus on November 16, 2007, 09:34:33 AM
@shruggedatlass,
Please, understand that ball at C gains, I repeat, gains, energy mgh2 (height h2), as well as kinetic energy plus other kinds of energy, at the expense of the energy (Mb - Mc), where Mc = 0. Again, energy (Mb - Mc) is spent energy, while energy mgh2 plus kinetic and other energies are gained energies. Energy (Mb - Mc) is spent in order to gain energy mgh2 plus kinetic and other energies. This is the CoE in its "transformation" part which firmly holds and which is the part almost always considered in scientific analyses--the energy (Mb - Mc) is transformed in equivalent quantity into mgh2 plus kinetic and other energies. In SMOT as in any experiment whatsoever, there is no violation of CoE in its "transformation" aspect, formulated still in Lomonosov's works. Lomonosov isn't known in the West at all but in fact, as far as I know, he was the first to formulate that aspect of the CoE principle. When people say that the principle of CoE has never been proven to have been violated they mostly mean exactly this "transformation" part of the CoE principle which, indeed, has never been violated. As I said, SMOT doesn't violate it as well. What is new in SMOT is that it demonstrates the production of the energy mgh2 + kinetic etc. from no source. The magnetic energy (Mb - Mc) spent to produce said mgh2 + kinetic etc. energies upon closing the A-B-C-A loop is fully compensated when that A-B-C-A loop closes. There's no depletion of the magnetic potential energy reservoir when the A-B-C-A loop closes. Thus, upon closing the A-B-C-A loop, although there's no loss or gain of magnetic potential energy, the ball loses more energy (mgh1 + mgh2 + kinetic etc.) than the energy that was imparted to it (mgh1).
I see what you are saying, but I am wondering if the mgh2 that is produced on the way from B to C is also compensated for by the end of the A-B-C-A loop.
I am curious, let's say you have a strong magnet a foot above a steel ball, enough to lift the ball off the floor. If you (1) place the ball directly under the magnet, (2) let it go, letting it rise and attach to the magnet, and (3) pull it back using your hand and place it at the starting spot on the floor, is excess energy produced in this experiment, or is entire process under unity? I would say it is not overunity, because the energy produced by the magnet was spent by the human hand pulling the ball back to the original position. Hopefully we agree on this.
If we agree, please indulge me in a thought experiment. Lets keep your SMOT setup exactly the same, but increase the magnetism tenfold, enough to lift the ball off the ground at A. To enable the ball to path correctly, let's place a hypothetical no-friction wire tube between A and B and also between B and C. As before, point C is where magnetic potential is zero.
My position is that increasing the magnetic force should not fundamentally change the over/under unity aspect of the experiment, assuming the ball still travels in the same path.
Now, let's see what happens. The ball is placed at A, and as soon as it is released, the ball (1) spontaneously rises to B, and then (2) immediately proceeds to C, where it stops. Now, for the third step, the researcher uses his hand to pull the ball away from C and lower it to A.
Without running any calculations, I would say that this hypothetical situation is really no different than letting a ball go directly under a magnet. The only difference is the ball takes a dog-leg path to the point of minimum magnetic potential energy. Therefore, the experiment is not over unity. I would also say that this experiment is really no different from the original SMOT scenario. Given that both magnetic and gravitational fields are conservative, increasing one ought to not change the fact that the process is still over or under unity, whichever the case may be, so long as there is enough magnetic force to cause the steel ball to ascend from B to C. (I admit that the amount of energy spontaneously generated between points B and C may change, depending on magnet strength).
Can you meaningfully differentiate my hypotheticals from your scenario - did I make a mistake somewhere? And if not, how do you account for excess energy in your example and no excess energy in my example? Thanks for your time.
QuoteI am curious, let's say you have a strong magnet a foot above a steel ball, enough to attract lift the ball off the floor. If you (1) place the ball directly under the magnet, (2) let it go, letting it rise and attach to the magnet, and (3) pull it back using your hand and place it at the starting spot on the floor, is excess energy produced in this experiment, or is entire process under unity? I would say it is not overunity, because the energy produced by the magnet was spent by the human hand pulling the ball back to the original position. Hopefully we agree on this.
That?s correct. We agree on that.
QuoteIf we agree, please indulge me in a thought experiment. Lets keep your SMOT setup exactly the same, but increase the magnetism tenfold, enough to lift the ball off the ground at A. To enable the ball to path correctly, let's place a hypothetical no-friction wire tube between A and B and also between B and C. As before, point C is where magnetic potential is zero.
My position is that increasing the magnetic force should not fundamentally change the over/under unity aspect of the experiment, assuming the ball still travels in the same path.
This second experiment differs from your first experiment. Recall you said when you offered your second experiment that we?ll keep the SMOT setup exactly the same which I also take it to mean that the ball will go along the closed A-B-C-A loop. In your second experiment the ball restores spontaneously it?s initial position A (if it is to be analogous to SMOT, as you required). In the first it doesn?t. In your first experiment you have to spend energy to move the ball back to its initial position. Therefore, the second one, if it should be analogous to SMOT, is ?overunity?. It?s like watching a rock lying in front of you which suddenly jumps up and then falls back on the ground for no reason at all as you?re staring at it. Such a phenomenon cannot be observed just like that, correct? It has never been observed, as a matter of fact. What is observed in SMOT is under some very, very special condition and it is in it?s essence exactly as you?d observe the above rock. But that's under some very special circumstances.
QuoteNow, let's see what happens. The ball is placed at A, and as soon as it is released, the ball (1) spontaneously rises to B, and then (2) immediately proceeds to C, where it stops. Now, for the third step, the researcher uses his hand to pull the ball away from C and lower it to A.
Ooops. The researcher in SMOT doesn?t use his hand to move the ball from C to A. Therefore, what you?re proposing now isn?t analogous to what SMOT does.
QuoteWithout running any calculations, I would say that this hypothetical situation is really no different than letting a ball go directly under a magnet. The only difference is the ball takes a dog-leg path to the point of minimum magnetic potential energy. Therefore, the experiment is not over unity. I would also say that this experiment is really no different from the original SMOT scenario. Given that both magnetic and gravitational fields are conservative, increasing one ought to not change the fact that the process is still over or under unity, whichever the case may be, so long as there is enough magnetic force to cause the steel ball to ascend from B to C. (I admit that the amount of energy spontaneously generated between points B and C may change, depending on magnet strength).
Like I said, the hypothetical situation you describe is different from what the situation in SMOT is. Never forget that the researcher only spends energy along the part A-B of the path. The rest of the path, that is B-C-A, until the ball closes the loop is covered by the ball spontaneously (no involvement of the researcher). That?s different from what you propose in your thought experiment.
Now, a word about these fields being conservative. Both these fields are conservative and the overall sum of all work terms along the closed loop amounts to zero, however, some of these terms (cf. mgh2) have appeared out of nothing. Thus, there is no energy source responsible for the appearance of the term mgh2.
QuoteCan you meaningfully differentiate my hypothetical from your scenario - did I make a mistake somewhere? And if not, how do you account for excess energy in your example and no excess energy in my example? Thanks for your time.
I did this differentiation above. In your example there is no excess energy because all the magnetic potential energy the ball loses in going along A-B-C is restored by you when you pull it from C to place it back at A (we?re talking about the energy of the ball, never forget that). Same applies in your case to the gravitational potential energy (in the opposite sense, of course). In the SMOT I?m talking about, the energy gained by the ball due to the activity of the researcher and his or her spending energy is (mgh1 ? (Ma - Mb)) while the energy the ball loses is (mgh1 + Mb) = (mgh1 + mgh2 + [kinetic + ...]) when the ball completes the A-B-C-A loop. As you see, in the case I?m discussing the ball loses more energy than the energy imparted to it (imparted to the ball; we?re always considering the energy of the ball in these analyses) by the researcher. This is in clear violation of CoE in its ?conservation? part, not its ?transformation? part, the latter continuing to hold good.
If you are familiar with Dan LaRochelle's theory called "Tri-Force" then you will see why most of these magnetic motor setups are similar in that they are using three rows of magnets.
The theory is that magnet A and B help to overcome the sticky spot of magnet C, thus creating a constant surplus of positive force at all times. 2 magnets are always overcoming the third magnets drag.
Look at most of the magnetic motor setups that look promising or claim to be working. They almost always use three rotors, rows etc.
May be obvious to some already but worth mentioning.
Did this guy just disappear or what? No answers from him in a while?
Tad
Quote from: Omnibus on November 16, 2007, 04:31:41 PM
In the first it doesn?t. In your first experiment you have to spend energy to move the ball back to its initial position. Therefore, the second one, if it should be analogous to SMOT, is ?overunity?. It?s like watching a rock lying in front of you which suddenly jumps up and then falls back on the ground for no reason at all as you?re staring at it. Such a phenomenon cannot be observed just like that, correct? It has never been observed, as a matter of fact. What is observed in SMOT is under some very, very special condition and it is in it?s essence exactly as you?d observe the above rock. But that's under some very special circumstances.
Thank you for taking the time to answer.
This spontaneous jump appears to be central to your analysis. In the SMOT scenario, the mechanical advantage the ramp allows the magnetic bars to overcome the force of gravity and pull the ball up to point C. But without this mechanical advantage, there would be no "jumping up and falling back."
How can any excess energy can be created when all that happens is that a temporary mechanical advantage allows one force to temporarily dominate another? The SMOT's design is clever in that the ramp ends. If the ramp did not end, the ball would get stuck at C. Conversely, if there was no ramp, the ball would be at B forever. But even in the clever classical configuration, there is no way to get the ball back to B with even the tiniest frictional losses, because a ramp does not create energy, it just allows one side to prevail for a while.
This reminds me of all the failed perpetual motion wheel designs. They all invariably rely solely on mechanical advantage, with things shifting from inside parts of the wheel to the exterior. We all know at this point that mechanical advantage alone is a dead end, and I really do not see how the SMOT is anything more.
Finally, I have to ask, do you really think that the reason the ball cannot make it back to B is due to frictional losses? Honestly? A steel ball rolling along a smooth surface has very low rolling friction, because unlike a tire wheel or something similar, there is virtually no deformation. SMOT enthusiasts make claims of 113% unity. Surely the extra 13% percent, or heck even 3%, ought to be enough to keep a steel ball rolling along a smooth track, no? Doesn't this observation give you the slightest pause?
Don't you think it would be prudent to actually measure frictional losses and see if they can possibly account for the lack of kinetic energy of the ball as it arrives back at A (or exits C, or escapes the magnetic pull of C, whichever you prefer)?
From a laymans point of view, the outstanding thing that I see is that a certain distance was accomplished or traveled by the steel ball after traveling up the magnetic track without energy input during a portion of the SMOT track without resulting in magnetic lock at the end to release it.
QuoteThis spontaneous jump appears to be central to your analysis. In the SMOT scenario, the mechanical advantage the ramp allows the magnetic bars to overcome the force of gravity and pull the ball up to point C. But without this mechanical advantage, there would be no "jumping up and falling back."
Of course. Central to my analysis is the specific construction which allows for excess energy to be obtained. Should the construction be different there will be no excess energy obtained in the general case. That?s the whole point. And the fact that excess energy is obtained with this particular construction is true beyond doubt, hope you already understand that. Production of excess energy is construction dependent, it?s a function of the construction, if you will.
QuoteHow can any excess energy can be created when all that happens is that a temporary mechanical advantage allows one force to temporarily dominate another? The SMOT's design is clever in that the ramp ends. If the ramp did not end, the ball would get stuck at C. Conversely, if there was no ramp, the ball would be at B forever. But even in the clever classical configuration, there is no way to get the ball back to B with even the tiniest frictional losses, because a ramp does not create energy, it just allows one side to prevail for a while.
That?s exactly the point?if there?s a way (and there is, indeed; SMOT shows that there is) for the part of the closed loop in one field the ball to be dominated by another field, then the net energy in the first field will not be zero. Zero is only the integral in a conservative field along a closed loop. The integral along non-closed loop in a conservative field is not zero.
Therefore, don?t speculate what will happen if this or that. In this particular configuration it does what my analysis shows, in other configurations it may or may not. Understand first what it does in the configuration we?re discussing. Don?t distract yourself with other configurations.
Mind you again, prevailing for a while is the key here. It prevails for a while properly so that one field assists the other and vice versa. As a result energy is obtained which does not have a source. This is seen more thoroughly by the concrete analysis of the energy terms I?ve presented.
QuoteThis reminds me of all the failed perpetual motion wheel designs. They all invariably rely solely on mechanical advantage, with things shifting from inside parts of the wheel to the exterior. We all know at this point that mechanical advantage alone is a dead end, and I really do not see how the SMOT is anything more.
No, as seen in this particular case (the SMOT) it isn?t a dead end if by ?mechanical advantage? you mean one properly overlaid conservative field assisting another one and vice versa. In whatever perpetuum mobile?s you have in mind it may be a dead end, not here, though.
QuoteFinally, I have to ask, do you really think that the reason the ball cannot make it back to B is due to frictional losses? Honestly? A steel ball rolling along a smooth surface has very low rolling friction, because unlike a tire wheel or something similar, there is virtually no deformation. SMOT enthusiasts make claims of 113% unity. Surely the extra 13% percent, or heck even 3%, ought to be enough to keep a steel ball rolling along a smooth track, no? Doesn't this observation give you the slightest pause?
I really think that the excess energy produced in SMOT is not produced in the proper form (see, for instance, how far from A-B line is the excess kinetic energy produced and what inappropriate for the purposes of going from A to B the direction of ball?s velocity is). Let alone the frictional losses, rotational energy losses, etc. The proper way to utilize SMOT-like mechanisms is along the way @xpenzif?s construction does (or Finsrud?s for that matter).
QuoteDon't you think it would be prudent to actually measure frictional losses and see if they can possibly account for the lack of kinetic energy of the ball as it arrives back at A (or exits C, or escapes the magnetic pull of C, whichever you prefer)?
No, I don?t. The analysis of the SMOT stands on its own legs without any further necessity of additional measurements to validate it. It definitively proves that excess energy is produced discontinuously. Like I said, because of the problems explained above I don?t think that SMOT in it?s original rendition can be made easily into a self-sustaining machine. Not to speak that there will be no practical use for such a self-sustaining machine. As I?ve said many times already, the practical solutions must be sought along the lines of the SMOT-like devices such as the one shown by @xpenzif (Finsrud?s self-sustaining device, although of great scientific value, won?t serve any practical purpose either).
Finsrud is a very decent and honest person. I don?t see what he has to do with SMOT or with perpetual motion/free energy. He stated several times that he created a perpetual work-of-art sculpture. Which means that he never claimed it is perpetual in the sense of over-unity or free energy.
I appreciate him for his genius. He is a genius indeed, as so many looks to his machines and few (if any) imagine what?s keeping it moving. But remember: it is work-of-art. That?s why he is reluctant in discussing it.
Now: I may be wrong, of course. But until I find a statement directly coming from Finsrud that his machine is a free-energy one, I guess I?ll keep my views.
Tinu
Quote from: tinu on November 17, 2007, 05:48:56 AM
Finsrud is a very decent and honest person. I don?t see what he has to do with SMOT or with perpetual motion/free energy. He stated several times that he created a perpetual work-of-art sculpture. Which means that he never claimed it is perpetual in the sense of over-unity or free energy.
I appreciate him for his genius. He is a genius indeed, as so many looks to his machines and few (if any) imagine what?s keeping it moving. But remember: it is work-of-art. That?s why he is reluctant in discussing it.
Now: I may be wrong, of course. But until I find a statement directly coming from Finsrud that his machine is a free-energy one, I guess I?ll keep my views.
Tinu
You're wrong. I've met with him personally and he does claim this to be a perpetuum mobile. He also showed me a number of contraptions which he has made in the course of 30 years in his quest for perpetuum mobile. The device which he is showing on display now, based on the SMOT principle, is the only one working. As I have said many, many times I still have some subtle questions regarding his device and I told him there are some very simple additional experiments to be made in order to exclude that this is a very efficient re-distributor of initially imparted energy. Unfortunately, the guy is too burnt-out from trying to convince people in the validity of his claim (he's been visited by all kinds of parties, in the course of more than a decade, unsuccessfully trying to debunk it) that he just doesn't care anymore to convince anyone in anything.
Quote from: Omnibus on November 16, 2007, 08:19:06 PM
Of course. Central to my analysis is the specific construction which allows for excess energy to be obtained. Should the construction be different there will be no excess energy obtained in the general case. That?s the whole point. And the fact that excess energy is obtained with this particular construction is true beyond doubt, hope you already understand that. Production of excess energy is construction dependent, it?s a function of the construction, if you will.
OK, how about a test? What do you think of the test below. In the first trial, you just have a straight ramp. Place a steel ball at A, let it go, and measure exit velocity at B. In the second trial, you have a SMOT ramp in between. Do the same thing.
Do you think this is a valid experiment of whether or not the SMOT can produce excess energy? I think it is. After all, the ball's velocity upon exiting the SMOT ramp is still going in the correct direction. We can even smooth out the curves of the SMOT, since the ball will have sufficient built-up velocity to escape the SMOT even with a gentle slope at the end.
The thing I like about this experiment is that it does not require overunity, and the drag on the ball is largely identical in both ramps. We just have to see if the SMOT adds any velocity.
What do you think?
Quote from: shruggedatlas on November 17, 2007, 07:07:03 PM
Quote from: Omnibus on November 16, 2007, 08:19:06 PM
Of course. Central to my analysis is the specific construction which allows for excess energy to be obtained. Should the construction be different there will be no excess energy obtained in the general case. That?s the whole point. And the fact that excess energy is obtained with this particular construction is true beyond doubt, hope you already understand that. Production of excess energy is construction dependent, it?s a function of the construction, if you will.
OK, how about a test? What do you think of the test below. In the first trial, you just have a straight ramp. Place a steel ball at A, let it go, and measure exit velocity at B. In the second trial, you have a SMOT ramp in between. Do the same thing.
Do you think this is a valid experiment of whether or not the SMOT can produce excess energy? I think it is. After all, the ball's velocity upon exiting the SMOT ramp is still going in the correct direction. We can even smooth out the curves of the SMOT, since the ball will have sufficient built-up velocity to escape the SMOT even with a gentle slope at the end.
The thing I like about this experiment is that it does not require overunity, and the drag on the ball is largely identical in both ramps. We just have to see if the SMOT adds any velocity.
What do you think?
I see you're trying but that's not a good analogy either. Just read carefully what I explained above and try not to distract yourself with such obviously bogus analogies.
It will be good test, but I can suggest even better testing - first test with smot ramp, but no smot magnets. This will equate ball friction losses in both tests.
Quote from: Nostradamus2 on November 17, 2007, 07:20:04 PM
It will be good test, but I can suggest even better testing - first test with smot ramp, but no smot magnets. This will equate ball friction losses in both tests.
It's not only not a good test, it's not a test at all regarding our topic of discussion. Why are you continuing with this?
Quote from: Omnibus on November 17, 2007, 07:16:17 PM
I see you're trying but that's not a good analogy either. Just read carefully what I explained above and try not to distract yourself with such obviously bogus analogies.
Why is it bogus? What is wrong with assuming that if the SMOT creates excess energy, this energy ought to be imparted onto the ball as it leaves the ramp. There is no overunity requirement (i.e. ball does not need to get back to the beginning A). Only that the ball exit with greater velocity that it entered?
Quote from: Nostradamus2 on November 17, 2007, 07:20:04 PM
It will be good test, but I can suggest even better testing - first test with smot ramp, but no smot magnets. This will equate ball friction losses in both tests.
Excellent idea. An accurate control!
Quote from: shruggedatlas on November 17, 2007, 07:23:49 PM
Quote from: Omnibus on November 17, 2007, 07:16:17 PM
I see you're trying but that's not a good analogy either. Just read carefully what I explained above and try not to distract yourself with such obviously bogus analogies.
Why is it bogus? What is wrong with assuming that if the SMOT creates excess energy, this energy ought to be imparted onto the ball as it leaves the ramp. There is no overunity requirement (i.e. ball does not need to get back to the beginning A). Only that the ball exit with greater velocity that it entered?
What's this all about? I don't see your point.
Could it be that you're wondering why the ball has to go back at A in my experiment? This is done deliberately to have the A-B-C-A loop closed and avoid with one stroke various speculations which would arise is the loop were not closed.
Quote from: Omnibus on November 17, 2007, 07:27:44 PM
What's this all about? I don't see your point.
My point is this. I want to have an experiment that measures how much excess energy a SMOT ramp creates. You have stated that the reason a SMOT cannot currently be used to harness energy is because, due to engineering reasons, there is no way to make it practically overunity. It is merely theoretically over unity.
I am willing to accept that contention, but there is no reason why we cannot run a test. Practical overunity is not required. The ball does not need to get back to A (I am referring to the A on my drawing). All that is required is that the SMOT improve on the efficiency of a simple ramp. As nostradamus suggested, the ramp path can even be exactly the same. We just run trials with and without the SMOT magnets.
Would you agree that the SMOT ought to add velocity to the ball under this scenario, and thereby improve the efficiency of the ramp? If not, why not? Also, if not, is there another type of experiment where we can see the SMOT improve the efficiency of anything? Thanks.
Quote from: shruggedatlas on November 17, 2007, 07:41:00 PM
Quote from: Omnibus on November 17, 2007, 07:27:44 PM
What's this all about? I don't see your point.
My point is this. I want to have an experiment that measures how much excess energy a SMOT ramp creates. You have stated that the reason a SMOT cannot currently be used to harness energy is because, due to engineering reasons, there is no way to make it practically overunity. It is merely theoretically over unity.
I am willing to accept that contention, but there is no reason why we cannot run a test. Practical overunity is not required. The ball does not need to get back to A (I am referring to the A on my drawing). All that is required is that the SMOT improve on the efficiency of a simple ramp. As nostradamus suggested, the ramp path can even be exactly the same. We just run trials with and without the SMOT magnets.
Would you agree that the SMOT ought to add velocity to the ball under this scenario, and thereby improve the efficiency of the ramp? If not, why not? Also, if not, is there another type of experiment where we can see the SMOT improve the efficiency of anything? Thanks.
Oh, I see. So that's not an analogy of the important part of what SMOT does, that is, the obtainment of energy from nothing, but an analogy of the amount of kinetic and other energies (save the gravitational energy) the ball has at C. Yes, but why should we do that in this discussion? We can answer positively the main question of this discussion--is there excess energy produced in SMOT--without this. Trying to make a self-sustaining device out of it, something which is the stimulus for your latest proposal, is beside the point here. This is part of a separate discussion.
Quote from: Omnibus on November 17, 2007, 07:55:44 PM
Oh, I see. So that's not an analogy of the important part of what SMOT does, that is, the obtainment of energy from nothing, but an analogy of the amount of kinetic and other energies (save the gravitational energy) the ball has at C. Yes, but why should we do that in this discussion? We can answer positively the main question of this discussion--is there excess energy produced in SMOT--without this. Trying to make a self-sustaining device out of it, something which is the stimulus for your latest proposal, is beside the point here. This is part of a separate discussion.
It is pertinent because it goes to the heart of whether the SMOT produces any excess energy at all. I realize you feel this issue is settled, but it is nowhere near settled in anyone else's mind but yours and a handful of others. Here is an experiment that can demonstrate conclusively that you are correct. Furthermore, if confirmed, mainstream science would have no choice but to notice.
I am willing to do this experiment when I get some time. The only thing I need to know is whether I such an experiment can in fact conclusively prove whether the SMOT creates energy. If it does, then these findings can be used as a basis to spur work on an overunity device that utilizes the SMOT principle. On the other hand, if the experiment proves that the SMOT adds no energy to the ball, maybe we can put the SMOT discussions to rest, and people can discard that idea and not spend time on it.
You repeatedly claim that the SMOT violates CoE, but admittedly you have no conclusive empirical proof, only theoretical proof. Would you not care to see actual experimental proof?
Quote from: shruggedatlas on November 17, 2007, 08:06:18 PM
Quote from: Omnibus on November 17, 2007, 07:55:44 PM
Oh, I see. So that's not an analogy of the important part of what SMOT does, that is, the obtainment of energy from nothing, but an analogy of the amount of kinetic and other energies (save the gravitational energy) the ball has at C. Yes, but why should we do that in this discussion? We can answer positively the main question of this discussion--is there excess energy produced in SMOT--without this. Trying to make a self-sustaining device out of it, something which is the stimulus for your latest proposal, is beside the point here. This is part of a separate discussion.
It is pertinent because it goes to the heart of whether the SMOT produces any excess energy at all. I realize you feel this issue is settled, but it is nowhere near settled in anyone else's mind but yours and a handful of others. Here is an experiment that can demonstrate conclusively that you are correct. Furthermore, if confirmed, mainstream science would have no choice but to notice.
I am willing to do this experiment when I get some time. The only thing I need to know is whether I such an experiment can in fact conclusively prove whether the SMOT creates energy. If it does, then these findings can be used as a basis to spur work on an overunity device that utilizes the SMOT principle. On the other hand, if the experiment proves that the SMOT adds no energy to the ball, maybe we can put the SMOT discussions to rest, and people can discard that idea and not spend time on it.
You repeatedly claim that the SMOT violates CoE, but admittedly you have no conclusive empirical proof, only theoretical proof. Would you not care to see actual experimental proof?
Not at all. The last experiment you proposed has nothing to do with the main claim in SMOT, that is, the production of energy from nothing. Will be a waste of time to conduct such experiment if the goal is to prove by it whether or not excess energy is produced. And, yes, there is empirical proof energy from nothing is produced in SMOT--h2 is a real, not fictional, height, Mb is a real magnetic potential energy, not fictional one etc. All this is empirical proof, not illusion or speculation. Also, don't bother about this "it is nowhere near settled in anyone else's mind", that can't serve as a scientific argument.
The main empirical proof, of course, is that when lifted from A to B the ball indeed proceeds along B-C-A to close the loop at A. That that would happen isn't evident without experimentally (empirically) demonstrating it.
Quote from: Omnibus on November 17, 2007, 08:23:04 PM
Not at all. The last experiment you proposed has nothing to do with the main claim in SMOT, that is, the production of energy from nothing. Will be a waste of time to conduct such experiment if the goal is to prove by it whether or not excess energy is produced. And, yes, there is empirical proof energy from nothing is produced in SMOT--h2 is a real, not fictional, height, Mb is a real magnetic potential energy, not fictional one etc. All this is empirical proof, not illusion or speculation. Also, don't bother about this "it is nowhere near settled in anyone else's mind", that can't serve as a scientific argument.
The reason I say "it is not settled" is not to prove that it is not true. The reason I say this is to encourage further proof that would convince the masses, and then some real progress can be made.
And why is my experiment not applicable? You have told me to always focus on the energy in the ball. That is what I am doing. In my experiment:
1. The ball travels down a straight ramp to build up momentum,
2. It enters the SMOT ramp, where it gains even more energy in the process (the "energy from nothing").
3. It leaves the SMOT ramp with this "energy from nothing" in addition to the kinetic energy it already has from the normal downward acceleration.
4. It eventually exits the ramp at point B, where its velocity can be precisely measured using a modern instrument.
We can then compare the speed of the ball to the speed of a ball that travels the exact same path but is unassisted by magnets.
At which point am I mistaken? Why will this not work? I do not understand why you are ducking this simple experiment which can conclusively and definitively prove that you are correct.
While you may be certain of your position, you must admit it is not widely accepted at all. Would you rather see it widely accepted? We can make it happen with this simple test.
If you do not accept this experiment, would you kindly explain why the SMOT ramp is not capable of imparting the excess energy onto the ball in any way that it can actually be measured in the real world through a speed test. As you instructed, I am focusing on the energy in the ball and the energy in the ball only.
The problem in your proposal is that what you're calling "energy from nothing" isn't in fact energy from nothing. What your experiment does is to have an initially imparted energy to the ball be redistributed back an forth in various other forms of energy.
Quote from: Omnibus on November 17, 2007, 08:50:42 PM
The problem in your proposal is that what you're calling "energy from nothing" isn't in fact energy from nothing. What your experiment does is to have an initially imparted energy to the ball be redistributed back an forth in various other forms of energy.
So you are saying that in the two trials I propose, the trial with the SMOT
will not result in the ball having greater speed as it exits point B, correct? Or are you saying you are not sure?
If the ball in the SMOT trial will not have greater velocity upon exiting the ramp at point B, I have to ask, why not? What happened to the excess energy that the SMOT imparted? Friction is not the answer, because friction was also a factor in the first trial.
We can not nor can could we ever create something from nothing. It has more to do with collecting and storing what we already have in mass quantity?s to power things we use.
This can and has been done by using electricity. Nor only has it already been done but it has been even proven to collect a larger quantity then it actually used. The Bedini motor is a prime example of this.
BATTERY TEST FOR THE BEDINI MOTOR GENERATOR
DATE : OCTOBER 13, 2000
BATTERY TEST SEQUENCE:
One lead acid gel-cell (12 volts, 450 milliamps) is being utilized as the primary source fully charged at 12.5 volts
Three (3) lead acid gel-cell batteries (12 volt, 450 milliamps) strapped in parallel are being used as the charge destination. The batteries are discharged to 10 volts for the test purposes.
Test #1 starts at 10:45 AM utilizing primary battery fully charged at 12.5 volts charging three (3) destination batteries paralleled. The destination batteries reach a charge capacity of 14 volts at 11:20 AM.
The destination batteries are then discharged to 10 volts under working load to prepare for Test #2.
Test #2 starts at 11:25 AM utilizing primary battery measured at 11.5 volts. Charging three (3) destination batteries paralleled. The destination batteries reach a charge capacity of 14 volts at 12:50 PM.
The destination batteries are then discharged to 10 volts under working load to prepare for Test #3.
Test #3 starts at 1:00 PM utilizing primary battery measured at 10.5 volts. Charging three (3) destination batteries paralleled. The destination batteries reach a charge capacity of 14 volts at 1:40 PM.
The destination batteries are then discharged to 10 volts under working load to prepare for Test #4.
Test #4 starts at 2:05 PM utilizing primary battery measured at 9.5 volts. Charging three (3) destination batteries paralleled. The destination batteries reach a charge capacity of 13 volts at 2:40 PM. The primary battery is now discharged to 9 volts under working load and unable to further run the
Bedini motor generator.
TOTAL BATTERIES CHARGED:
12 lead acid gel-cell batteries (12 volts, 450 milliamps each). This ratio is a 12 to 1 charging factor. The motor operation (work) being performed as this was done is not included as an additional factor in this test.
http://www.rexresearch.com/bedini/bedini.htm#battest
This can be done with the same concept but in different ways that could be more productive in collecting and storing larger quantity?s.
I did find out away to manipulate a magnetic fields repelling affect that should prove to be very interesting and hopefully very beneficial in one of my designs. I would explain it but I am afraid I am not to good at explaining things to do it properly so I think it would be best to wait till I get it built and record the footage of it operating and explain each part.
I don't believe it would be as powerful as a pulse motor but then again only time will tell.
Quote from: shruggedatlas on November 17, 2007, 09:02:29 PM
Quote from: Omnibus on November 17, 2007, 08:50:42 PM
The problem in your proposal is that what you're calling "energy from nothing" isn't in fact energy from nothing. What your experiment does is to have an initially imparted energy to the ball be redistributed back an forth in various other forms of energy.
So you are saying that in the two trials I propose, the trial with the SMOT will not result in the ball having greater speed as it exits point B, correct? Or are you saying you are not sure?
If the ball in the SMOT trial will not have greater velocity upon exiting the ramp at point B, I have to ask, why not? What happened to the excess energy that the SMOT imparted? Friction is not the answer, because friction was also a factor in the first trial.
No, like I said, in your experiment there will only be mutual interchange in equivalent amounts of different forms of energy, one of these forms is kinetic energy. No excess energy, though in your experiment as in SMOT experiment.
Quote from: Omnibus on November 17, 2007, 09:43:16 PM
No, like I said, in your experiment there will only be mutual interchange in equivalent amounts of different forms of energy, one of these forms is kinetic energy. No excess energy, though in your experiment as in SMOT experiment.
If that is true, then how can Finsrud's machine or xpenzif's design possibly run, if in fact they do utilize the excess energy of the SMOT principle. Somehow, this energy must be able to be delivered, correct?
In discussions regarding Finsrud's machine in the Steorn forum, you yourself stated that if the magnets were taken off Finsrud's device, the ball would not run perpetually. If that is the case, that means that the magnets do impart energy to the ball. And if they do, why do the magnets in my experiment impart no additional energy? My experiment has a perfect SMOT ramp. Why does the ball not leave with extra energy? What happens to this energy.
Lastly, is there any possible experiment that would show excess energy in a measurable way, or is this excess energy like the Emperor's New Clothes? What happens to it? Why can we not measure it as the ball leaves the SMOT, or are you saying it is impossible for the ball to leave the SMOT with any of the energy that it was given by the SMOT? And if so, how is a SMOT over unity then?
Quote from: shruggedatlas on November 17, 2007, 09:53:56 PM
Quote from: Omnibus on November 17, 2007, 09:43:16 PM
No, like I said, in your experiment there will only be mutual interchange in equivalent amounts of different forms of energy, one of these forms is kinetic energy. No excess energy, though in your experiment as in SMOT experiment.
If that is true, then how can Finsrud's machine or xpenzif's design possibly run, if in fact they do utilize the excess energy of the SMOT principle. Somehow, this energy must be able to be delivered, correct?
In discussions regarding Finsrud's machine in the Steorn forum, you yourself stated that if the magnets were taken off Finsrud's device, the ball would not run perpetually. If that is the case, that means that the magnets do impart energy to the ball. And if they do, why do the magnets in my experiment impart no additional energy? My experiment has a perfect SMOT ramp. Why does the ball not leave with extra energy? What happens to this energy.
Lastly, is there any possible experiment that would show excess energy in a measurable way, or is this excess energy like the Emperor's New Clothes? What happens to it? Why can we not measure it as the ball leaves the SMOT, or are you saying it is impossible for the ball to leave the SMOT with any of the energy that it was given by the SMOT? And if so, how is a SMOT over unity then?
The SMOT we're talking about demonstrates excess energy in a measurable way. The excess energy in Finsrud's or @xpenzif's device comes about due to the fact that before the closed loop in one field is completed another field starts to act and the construction is such that that goes on forever.
Quote from: Omnibus on November 17, 2007, 10:09:47 PM
The SMOT we're talking about demonstrates excess energy in a measurable way. The excess energy in Finsrud's or @xpenzif's device comes about due to the fact that before the closed loop in one field is completed another field starts to act and the construction is such that that goes on forever.
You are ducking the issue. In order for Finsrud's or expenzif's device to work, at each little SMOT-like component, energy is imarted to the ball/drum whatever. There is a chain effect, but it is a chain made up of little energy boosts. If energy was never imparted at any stage, the devices would not work. It makes no sense that having all the SMOT-like components in a device would result in overunity, but no single component contributes any energy independently.
What I want to do is measure energy imparted during one run of a ball down a SMOT ramp. I do not care about overunity; I do not expect to have more energy out then in. (I understand that to have overunity, the SMOT-effect must be set up in a proper chain.) All I want to do is see what additional benefit a single SMOT brings to a device.
This would be like having two versions of xpenzif's device. One with screws on the drum and one without (though with added weight to exactly mimic the weight of the drum with screws). Give each a precisely-measured push. Then, after exactly one revolution, measure the speed of the drum. If there is an improvement, then we can say the SMOTs helped. If there is no improvement or a negative improvement, then the SMOTs did not help. Would this be a valid experiment? I am not proposing to do this, I just want to know if my thought process has any validity or not. If this would be a valid experiment (assuming we have xpenzif's exact working setup), why is my proposed experiment with the ramp and single SMOT invalid? Maybe run the experiment with just a single screw to isolate the effect to a single SMOT-like component?
Is my logic incorrect? I know I am an amateur, but I am trying to be as methodical and scientific here as possible. Let's do a test to prove the SMOT's overunity. Why are you so resistant to this? If you have a better test, I am all ears.
Not at all. That's the issue. Every little SMOT produces excess energy because the completion of its loop is assisted by the follow up independent little SMOT, the two SMOT's only being mechanically constrained. And so on. The very fact that this pattern is repeated and this goes on and on causing continuous rotation causing the drum to make full turns is itself the proof for the violation of CoE in @xpenzif's device.
Quote from: Omnibus on November 17, 2007, 11:09:01 PM
Not at all. That's the issue. Every little SMOT produces excess energy because the completion of its loop is assisted by the follow up independent little SMOT, the two SMOT's only being mechanically constrained. And so on. The very fact that this pattern is repeated and this goes on and on causing continuous rotation causing the drum to make full turns is itself the proof for the violation of CoE in @xpenzif's device.
Fine, how about the test below? There are two SMOT ramps in succession, the second taking over before the first can complete itself. This should be sufficient to create the phenomenon you speak of, and at B, we should be able to detect the change in velocity. What do you think?
That's the same thing as the previous proposal. No excess energy here since everything is about juggling with an initially imparted amount of energy.
Quote from: Omnibus on November 17, 2007, 11:40:56 PM
That's the same thing as the previous proposal. No excess energy here since everything is about juggling with an initially imparted amount of energy.
I am not simply juggling. I am passing a moving ball through an allegedly overunity device.
This is bordering on the ridiculous, and I am beginning to feel silly. You claim the SMOT is overunity. You claim it imparts energy to the travelling ball. You claim this energy is created out of nothing. Yet when the ball leaves the SMOT, there is no trace of this extra energy. This makes no sense whatsoever.
What practical test of a single SMOT can demonstrate its overunity? Unless you mean it is only overunity during the ball's ascent, but is not overunity by the time the ball leaves the SMOT. In which case the SMOT is not really overunity.
What I'm claiming is one thing while what you're presenting here is a completely different thing. You're trying to connect them and I've been telling you continuously that you're on the wrong path. Your device is not an overunity device and that should already be clear.
Quote from: Omnibus on November 17, 2007, 11:56:53 PM
What I'm claiming is one thing while what you're presenting here is a completely different thing. You're trying to connect them and I've been telling you continuously that you're on the wrong path. Your device is not an overunity device and that should already be clear.
I am doing my best to understand. Please help. Which part am I getting wrong about a single SMOT scenario, where the ball starts out on a downward ramp, as shown below? Let's break them into components.
1. The ball enters the SMOT at point X, traveling at (k1) meters per second.
2. The SMOT simultaneously lifts and accelerates the ball, thus imparting it with extra kinetic energy plus extra potential gravitational energy.
3. The energy imparted in step 2 is created out of nothing.
4. At the peak of the SMOT ramp, point Y, the ball is traveling at (k1 + k2) meters per second, with k2 being the additional kinetic energy imparted by the magnets.
5. At the peak of the SMOT ramp, point Y, the ball then drops to point Z, gaining additional kinetic energy from the fall, though losing some kinetic energy due to the increase in magnetic potential energy (magnetic drag).
6. At point Z, the ball is travelling at (k1 + k2 - k3) meters per second, where k3 is the magnetic drag after exiting Y (or My - Mz, if you will).
7. At point B, the ball is travelling at (k1 + k2 - k3 + k4), where k4 is the increased speed due to the acceleration between point Z and point B.
Where did I go wrong?
Imparting of a given known amount of energy which later is redistributed into other energies ultimately lost by the ball makes it different from SMOT whereby the initially imparted energy is less (not equal, as in your case) to the various energies lost by the ball at the end.
Quote from: Omnibus on November 18, 2007, 12:19:38 AM
Imparting of a given known amount of energy which later is redistributed into other energies ultimately lost by the ball makes it different from SMOT whereby the initially imparted energy is less (not equal, as in your case) to the various energies lost by the ball at the end.
I take from all this that there is no experiment where we can clearly measure the amount of energy created from nothing? And by "clearly," I mean something tangible, like a change in ball velocity.
Quote from: shruggedatlas on November 18, 2007, 12:27:26 AM
Quote from: Omnibus on November 18, 2007, 12:19:38 AM
Imparting of a given known amount of energy which later is redistributed into other energies ultimately lost by the ball makes it different from SMOT whereby the initially imparted energy is less (not equal, as in your case) to the various energies lost by the ball at the end.
I take from all this that there is no experiment where we can clearly measure the amount of energy created from nothing? And by "clearly," I mean something tangible, like a change in ball velocity.
Like I said, we can measure directly the excess energy produced in the experiment we're discussing. We know what the mass m of the ball is, we know how much g is and also we can measure quite accurately the distance h2. That's, of course, part of the excess energy. The kinetic energy at C can also be determined by measuring the velocity of the ball at C and then apply the known formula. There's also rotational energy at C which we can also measure etc. If we wish, we can measure the magnetic potential energy at B and so on. These measurements are unnecessary for the purposes of this discussion, however, because the crucial question is whether or not there is excess energy and not how much that excess energy is. The answer, as we know already, is in the positive. This whole thing I'm repeating for the umptieth time already.
Quote from: Omnibus on November 18, 2007, 12:37:38 AM
Quote from: shruggedatlas on November 18, 2007, 12:27:26 AM
Quote from: Omnibus on November 18, 2007, 12:19:38 AM
Imparting of a given known amount of energy which later is redistributed into other energies ultimately lost by the ball makes it different from SMOT whereby the initially imparted energy is less (not equal, as in your case) to the various energies lost by the ball at the end.
I take from all this that there is no experiment where we can clearly measure the amount of energy created from nothing? And by "clearly," I mean something tangible, like a change in ball velocity.
Like I said, we can measure directly the excess energy produced in the experiment we're discussing. We know what the mass m of the ball is, we know how much g is and also we can measure quite accurately the distance h2. That's, of course, part of the excess energy. The kinetic energy at C can also be determined by measuring the velocity of the ball at C and then apply the known formula. There's also rotational energy at C which we can also measure etc. If we wish, we can measure the magnetic potential energy at B and so on. These measurements are unnecessary for the purposes of this discussion, however, because the crucial question is whether or not there is excess energy and not how much that excess energy is. The answer, as we know already, is in the positive. This whole thing I'm repeating for the umptieth time already.
Fine, let's take your A-B-C-A scenario. Trial 1 - run it as you describe. We will take an accurate measurement of the balls velocity as it hits A.
Trial 2. We remove the SMOT ramp, but preciseley mark point B in the air somehow. We lift the ball from point A and place it at point B and then simply drop it. We similarly measure the ball's velocity as it hits A.
For there to be excess energy, as you say, is it not true that the ball should be travelling faster during Trial 1, compared with Trial 2?
Quote from: shruggedatlas on November 18, 2007, 12:46:10 AM
Quote from: Omnibus on November 18, 2007, 12:37:38 AM
Quote from: shruggedatlas on November 18, 2007, 12:27:26 AM
Quote from: Omnibus on November 18, 2007, 12:19:38 AM
Imparting of a given known amount of energy which later is redistributed into other energies ultimately lost by the ball makes it different from SMOT whereby the initially imparted energy is less (not equal, as in your case) to the various energies lost by the ball at the end.
I take from all this that there is no experiment where we can clearly measure the amount of energy created from nothing? And by "clearly," I mean something tangible, like a change in ball velocity.
Like I said, we can measure directly the excess energy produced in the experiment we're discussing. We know what the mass m of the ball is, we know how much g is and also we can measure quite accurately the distance h2. That's, of course, part of the excess energy. The kinetic energy at C can also be determined by measuring the velocity of the ball at C and then apply the known formula. There's also rotational energy at C which we can also measure etc. If we wish, we can measure the magnetic potential energy at B and so on. These measurements are unnecessary for the purposes of this discussion, however, because the crucial question is whether or not there is excess energy and not how much that excess energy is. The answer, as we know already, is in the positive. This whole thing I'm repeating for the umptieth time already.
Fine, let's take your A-B-C-A scenario. Trial 1 - run it as you describe. We will take an accurate measurement of the balls velocity as it hits A.
Trial 2. We remove the SMOT ramp, but preciseley mark point B in the air somehow. We lift the ball from point A and place it at point B and then simply drop it. We similarly measure the ball's velocity as it hits A.
For there to be excess energy, as you say, is it not true that the ball should be travelling faster during Trial 1, compared with Trial 2?
Jean Naudin does exactly that. And it's indeed more (traveling faster) in Trial 1 than in Trial 2. Still that experiment (Naudin's experiment) is enough to prove that there is excess energy in SMOT. Conclusive proof, however, as I already said, dealing in one stroke with all the ridiculous little objections to Naudin's experiment is provided when the experiment is carried out along the closed A-B-C-A loop.
Quote from: Omnibus on November 18, 2007, 12:54:41 AM
Jean Naudin does exactly that. And it's indeed more (traveling faster) in Trial 1 than in Trial 2. Still that experiment (Naudin's experiment) is enough to prove that there is excess energy in SMOT. Conclusive proof, however, as I already said, dealing in one stroke with all the ridiculous little objections to Naudin's experiment is provided when the experiment is carried out along the closed A-B-C-A loop.
I have reviewed the experiment. It is described here: http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/smotnrgt.htm (http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/smotnrgt.htm).
The problem is that he compares a drop from the input side of the SMOT ramp with a drop from the output side. This is not a valid comparison. A valid comparsion would have a drop from the height of the input side, but without the magnets present. Did I read it wrong?
Quote from: shruggedatlas on November 18, 2007, 01:13:58 AM
Quote from: Omnibus on November 18, 2007, 12:54:41 AM
Jean Naudin does exactly that. And it's indeed more (traveling faster) in Trial 1 than in Trial 2. Still that experiment (Naudin's experiment) is enough to prove that there is excess energy in SMOT. Conclusive proof, however, as I already said, dealing in one stroke with all the ridiculous little objections to Naudin's experiment is provided when the experiment is carried out along the closed A-B-C-A loop.
I have reviewed the experiment. It is described here: http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/smotnrgt.htm (http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/smotnrgt.htm).
The problem is that he compares a drop from the input side of the SMOT ramp with a drop from the output side. This is not a valid comparison. A valid comparsion would have a drop from the height of the input side, but without the magnets present. Did I read it wrong?
On the contrary, the comparison is valid. Review more carefully what he means by "drop from the input" and "drop from the output". Never mind what he calls these drops (he's named them so only for convenience; see, however, what he really does), this is exactly how the comparison should be made.
Quote from: Omnibus on November 18, 2007, 01:18:35 AM
On the contrary, the comparison is valid. Review more carefully what he means by "drop from the input" and "drop from the output". Never mind what he calls these drops (he's named them so only for convenience; see, however, what he really does), this is exactly how the comparison should be made.
I quote him:
"TEST 1 - Drop from the INPUT. The first measurement has been done with the magnetic ramps widely spaced from the aluminum rail."
I am also attaching a photo which confirms this.
So, the magnetic ramps are present during the drop from the input. They are widely spaced, but that is the normal configuration of the bottom of any SMOT ramp. This means that there is still magnetic drag from the magnets. A proper test would compare a drop from the output versus a drop from the height of the input but without magnets.
I will gladly run such a test, by the way. I just need confirmation that comparing a drop from the output of a SMOT ramp to a drop from the height of the input of the ramp but without magnets present would be a valid test. Do you agree with my thinking?
@all
thi whole discution reminds me of the first time i got the idea of overunity. i was taking a tour of the nuclear pwerhouse that my father was building at the time. "late 70's."
i was stricken with the idea that if all we needed to do to make steam was to produce heat, and the nuclear material, "a small amount" was all we needed to have to make haeat, why not just take the nuclear material and make enough heat to make the supehated steam, that makes the turbines turn and instead of making power for the grid, just use that power to generate electricity to heat the boilers, and then just sell the power that was generated off of that and keep the rest to reheat the boilers and keep the whole thing going? well then i was intrduced to thermodynamics. that i have never been proven to me to mean datilishit. even if you add or have heat losses in a system, why would this tact seem to have such a detrimental effect in the overall perfirmance of the system?
oh yea. now i remember then it would be too efficient. to what, i asked? the law of thermodynamics. B.S. think just a little outside of the box. the system i outlined was twice as efficient. they just didn't want to see it. maybe ya'll do, who knows. it has been proven already that there is know way to lift yourself into the sky by mechanical means. i guess this means vacumn or any other, like jet planes. so i guess we should give up on rockets too.
lol
sam
Quote from: shruggedatlas on November 18, 2007, 01:30:59 AM
Quote from: Omnibus on November 18, 2007, 01:18:35 AM
On the contrary, the comparison is valid. Review more carefully what he means by "drop from the input" and "drop from the output". Never mind what he calls these drops (he's named them so only for convenience; see, however, what he really does), this is exactly how the comparison should be made.
I quote him:
"TEST 1 - Drop from the INPUT. The first measurement has been done with the magnetic ramps widely spaced from the aluminum rail."
I am also attaching a photo which confirms this.
So, the magnetic ramps are present during the drop from the input. They are widely spaced, but that is the normal configuration of the bottom of any SMOT ramp. This means that there is still magnetic drag from the magnets. A proper test would compare a drop from the output versus a drop from the height of the input but without magnets.
I will gladly run such a test, by the way. I just need confirmation that comparing a drop from the output of a SMOT ramp to a drop from the height of the input of the ramp but without magnets present would be a valid test. Do you agree with my thinking?
You haven't understood well the experiment. Give it some more thought.
Quote from: supersam on November 18, 2007, 01:36:28 AM
@all
thi whole discution reminds me of the first time i got the idea of overunity. i was taking a tour of the nuclear pwerhouse that my father was building at the time. "late 70's."
i was stricken with the idea that if all we needed to do to make steam was to produce heat, and the nuclear material, "a small amount" was all we needed to have to make haeat, why not just take the nuclear material and make enough heat to make the supehated steam, that makes the turbines turn and instead of making power for the grid, just use that power to generate electricity to heat the boilers, and then just sell the power that was generated off of that and keep the rest to reheat the boilers and keep the whole thing going? well then i was intrduced to thermodynamics. that i have never been proven to me to mean datilishit. even if you add or have heat losses in a system, why would this tact seem to have such a detrimental effect in the overall perfirmance of the system?
oh yea. now i remember then it would be too efficient. to what, i asked? the law of thermodynamics. B.S. think just a little outside of the box. the system i outlined was twice as efficient. they just didn't want to see it. maybe ya'll do, who knows. it has been proven already that there is know way to lift yourself into the sky by mechanical means. i guess this means vacumn or any other, like jet planes. so i guess we should give up on rockets too.
lol
sam
That makes as much sense as using the steam from a boiling kettle to keep the kettle boiling.
Quote from: shruggedatlas on November 18, 2007, 03:20:53 AM
That makes as much sense as using the steam from a boiling kettle to keep the kettle boiling.
Or the Chas Campbell generator shrugged :-)
Hans von Lieven
I feel a concentration of love waves comming together in one heart in a constructive manner (syntax errrrrorrrrrrrriiiiiiiiaaaaaaaaohaaaaaauiuiuiuiuiuiuiuijaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhh !?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?......................)
Do you know what I mean now.
This should be always observed while constructing pmm's.
..the sun is shining...makes me feel good...
..hey boys...hey girls
...here we go...............................................................................()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()().......................................................................................
...don't push the button to soon, more between the lines..
Quote from: Omnibus on November 18, 2007, 01:46:39 AM
You haven't understood well the experiment. Give it some more thought.
I have thought about it, and I do not understand why there are magnets present during the "input drop".
But anyway, forget it. It is like pulling teeth to get any kind of suggestion from you regarding an objective test that would convincingly prove or disprove your theory. You really don't seem to care about this, and as a proponent of something that contradicts accepted theory, I would think you would care a little more. Maybe you have your reasons for this, but it seems to me like you are carefully avoiding any objective test that could disprove your position. It's like the excess energy exists, but only for a split magical moment, and it cannot be measured with any modern device, or it disappears. Only in the correct sequential oscillating resonating stacked SMOT arrangement, like that of the genius xpenzif, will this magical energy show itself. Good luck with that.
Quote from: shruggedatlas on November 18, 2007, 11:50:58 AM
Quote from: Omnibus on November 18, 2007, 01:46:39 AM
You haven't understood well the experiment. Give it some more thought.
I have thought about it, and I do not understand why there are magnets present during the "input drop".
But anyway, forget it. It is like pulling teeth to get any kind of suggestion from you regarding an objective test that would convincingly prove or disprove your theory. You really don't seem to care about this, and as a proponent of something that contradicts accepted theory, I would think you would care a little more. Maybe you have your reasons for this, but it seems to me like you are carefully avoiding any objective test that could disprove your position. It's like the excess energy exists, but only for a split magical moment, and it cannot be measured with any modern device, or it disappears. Only in the correct sequential oscillating resonating stacked SMOT arrangement, like that of the genius xpenzif, will this magical energy show itself. Good luck with that.
[/quote
I'm not avoiding your tests. On the contrary, I commented on them and I told you several times that they are not good tests for measuring excess energy because there is no excess energy in your tests. I also told you that excess energy is measured quantitatively directly in the SMOT experiment.
As for Naudin's experiment, please understand that the initial height at which the ball is lifted and from which the ball later falls (losing that initially imparted energy) when let go in the actual experiment and in the control experiment is one are the same. Therefore, the energy imparted to the ball when lifting it at this same height in the actual and in the control experiment should be the same. Thus, when falling from the same height the ball in the actual and in the control experiment should lose the same energy (should reach the same distance in the graduated tube). These energies, however, are not even the same, despite the ball being lifted at the same height, but in the actual experiment that initially imparted energy is less (because of the greater magnetic drag) than in the control experiment (where the magnetic drag is weaker--the magnets are pulled apart). Therefore, the ball in the actual experiment should lose less energy when it falls and should go a shorter distance in the glass tube than the ball in the control experiment, as is required if CoE is obeyed. However, as the experiment shows, the ball in the actual experiment, contrary to the expectations, reaches farther distance in the glass tube than the distance the ball reaches in the control experiment. This is in clear violation of CoE.
Quote from: Omnibus on November 18, 2007, 12:20:42 PM
As for Naudin's experiment, please understand that the initial height at which the ball is lifted and from which the ball later falls (losing that initially imparted energy) when let go in the actual experiment and in the control experiment is one are the same. Therefore, the energy imparted to the ball when lifting it at this same height in the actual and in the control experiment should be the same. Thus, when falling from the same height the ball in the actual and in the control experiment should lose the same energy (should reach the same distance in the graduated tube). These energies, however, are not even the same, despite the ball being lifted at the same height, but in the actual experiment that initially imparted energy is less (because of the greater magnetic drag) than in the control experiment (where the magnetic drag is weaker--the magnets are pulled apart). Therefore, the ball in the actual experiment should lose less energy when it falls and should go a shorter distance in the glass tube than the ball in the control experiment, as is required if CoE is obeyed. However, as the experiment shows, the ball in the actual experiment, contrary to the expectations, reaches farther distance in the glass tube than the distance the ball reaches in the control experiment. This is in clear violation of CoE.
I regret to say this, but I think going further with you on this is nonproductive. We will never agree on an experiment. Naudin compares a drop from the input (with magnets present, though maybe farther away) with the drop from the output (after the ball accelerates through the SMOT). I have gone over this in my head, and there is no way that this is proper. The only honest test is to compare the output drop with a drop from the input height but with no magnets anywhere. As it stands, of course the first Naudin trial will result in less energy - the ball starts at a lower height, but still has to battle the magnetic drag. Anyone can see this, and it is not a fair test.
If you ever get corroboration from a reputable source, please let us know. Perhaps someone else can put it in a way that is more persuasive, because with the way you have described it, it just does not make any sense at all to me.
@shruggedatlass,
You're confused by the fact that the ball in Naudin's experiment goes along a certain trajectory which differs from the trajectory it goes along in the control experiment. The spontaneous follow-up trajectory of the ball is unimportant, however, when you discuss the energy imparted to the ball. Read again what I told you, the energy imparted to the ball in the control experiment is even greater than the energy imparted to the ball in the actual experiment. Therefore, the ball in the actual experiment should lose spontaneously (going along the certain trajectory it goes along, having nothing to do with the imparted energy) less energy, if CoE is obeyed, than the energy the ball will lose spontaneously when the energy is imparted to it in the control experiment. Naudin demonstrates that it is just the opposite, which is in direct contradiction with the CoE. Again, don't get confused by the trajectories when you're comparing the energies imparted and energies lost. Naudin's experiment shows that even less energy (than the control experiment) leads to a greater energy loss (than in the control experiment). Try somehow to understand this evident contradiction with what would be according to CoE.
I know I will get shouted down for this, though I challenge anyone to prove that the suggested experiment is not definitive.
This simple experiment will qualitatively and quantitatively determine if there is overunity in a SMOT or not.
I know that the SMOT adherents do not want this and I will get flamed.
Ave Caesar, morituri te salutant.
(https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.keelytech.com%2Foverunity%2Fsmot.gif&hash=bf30b853c01d4ff5644a88f31aa1d46a89897b9f)
Place a steel ball in the starting position and let it roll.
(The starting position will have to be determined by experiment. The steel ball must generate enough inertia by gravity to overcome the "sticky points".and guarantee continuous motion)
Measure how far up it went on the scale.
Remove SMOT.
Place ball in the same starting position and let it roll.
Measure again.
Compare measurements.
The difference, if any, between both measurements will indicate gain or loss of energy.
Hans von Lieven
@ Hans:
I think this was what Shruggedatlas was suggesting however your design is more elegant. (In my opinion) It either goes higher with the SMOT or it doesn't. Same friction and heat loss, etc. for both experiments. I think Shruggedatlas's idea would have worked also but this, is simplicity in itself. (No flame here, I just want to know what is real)
Bill
Naudin's open-loop experiment gives the correct answer. All open-loop modifications of Naudin's experiment, such as the above, will give the same answer. The best experiment, however, proving violation of CoE beyond any doubt is the one in which the ball goes along the closed A-B-C-A loop. @shruggedatlass may have problems understanding it because she's no scientist and she has never pretended to be one. It's a shame, however, this to be beyond people who push themselves constantly to explain this or that in Science.
Always remember that in SMOT the force of gravity is in opposite direction to the magnetic force. A device whereby these two forces are in the same direction is not a SMOT and there would be no violation of CoE in it. In @shruggedatlass' examples, based only on gravity, a given initially imparted amount of energy was turning back and forth in other kinds of energy. These are not analogs of SMOT and are not in violation of CoE. Same applies to the numerous devices @gaby de Wilde was proposing, one of which is the above device. Proposing such devices to study excess energy only shows muddled thinking and poor understanding of the matters under discussion here. To get back on track, study carefully what Naudin has done and don't jump to conclusions before you have given it enough thought. I tried to explain it as succinctly as I could at least twice in my recent posts. Of course, the best way to understand why SMOT produces excess energy is by carefully reading my analysis of a SMOT in which the ball travels along the A-B-C-A loop. It is high time this to be understood so that we can really move on to reproducing properly SMOT-like devices such as the one proposed by @xpenzif where the excess energy is produced continuously (unlike the excess energy in the classical SMOT where it is obtained discontinuously).
Omnibus,
The experiment I suggested is DEFINITIVE! No matter how you wriggle to maintain your illusion, this will show it up one way or another.
Do it. But then, you have, by your own admission, never built a SMOT in your life. You only analyse them.
Hans von Lieven
Quote from: hansvonlieven on November 19, 2007, 02:14:38 AM
Omnibus,
The experiment I suggested is DEFINITIVE! No matter how you wriggle to maintain your illusion, this will show it up one way or another.
Do it. But then, you have, by your own admission, never built a SMOT in your life. You only analyse them.
Hans von Lieven
No, it isn't. It has nothing to do with excess energy because no excess energy is produced in it, as I already explained. I have commented on this experiment long ago when @gaby de Wilde first proposed it. Raising the ball above two centers of attraction, as in this experiment, will not produce excess energy.
An experiment clearly demonstrating production of excess energy is that of Naudin. And, of course, the best one proving beyond doubt that excess energy i obtained is the experiment whereby the ball travels along the A-B-C-A loop. These are already settled matters and only people with muddled thinking (or some who aren't scientists but still are curious and want to clarify this or that) make this a recurring topic. The real discussion has furthered long ago and now is about the convenient practical application of the produced excess energy (excess energy in classical SMOT can also find practical applications but because it's discontinuously produced it's application isn't as straightforward).
Quote from: Omnibus on November 19, 2007, 02:19:08 AM
Raising the ball above two centers of attraction, as in this experiment, will not produce excess energy.
In other words it doesn't work. Thanks Omnibus!
Hans von Lieven
Quote from: hansvonlieven on November 19, 2007, 02:43:00 AM
Quote from: Omnibus on November 19, 2007, 02:19:08 AM
Raising the ball above two centers of attraction, as in this experiment, will not produce excess energy.
In other words it doesn't work. Thanks Omnibus!
Hans von Lieven
In other words SMOT does work and does produce excess energy while the one first proposed by @gaby de Wilde which you unnecessarily repeat here does not work as a producer of excess energy and is only a product of muddled thinking. Not every superposition of gravitational and magnetic field produces excess energy. Read carefully what I write and think before posting because otherwise you clutter the important discussion with nonsense.
It is not possible to overthrow the firmly established fact that SMOT produces excess energy by flipping the script or by proposing frivolous combinations and permutations of the parts of SMOT. SMOT is a very clever device, behind its seeming simplicity, known since the 13th century which requires some effort and education in order to be understood. Any underestimation of that device puts you in a silly position, especially when you constantly push yourself to explain this or that in Science.
...here we go.....
Quote from: Pirate88179 on November 19, 2007, 02:59:13 AM
...here we go.....
Correct, here we go. Silliness must stop and we must get on solving the real problems of these devices.
The only problems with these devices is THEY DON"T WORK !
No amount of changing definitions and half arsed mathematics is going to change this.
Hans von Lieven
Quote from: hansvonlieven on November 19, 2007, 03:13:04 AM
The only problems with these devices is THEY DON"T WORK !
No amount of changing definitions and half arsed mathematics is going to change this.
Hans von Lieven
Don't be impudent. Enough with this silliness.
The greatest offense in a scientific discussion is when the Hanses of the world start ignoring the facts and the arguments and continue pushing stupidity and nonsense. This must be confronted vigorously in the name of reason and truth.
You know Omnibus,
Every day you sound more like a member of the Flat Earth Research Society.
Hans von Lieven
Quote from: hansvonlieven on November 19, 2007, 03:29:04 AM
You know Omnibus,
Every day you sound more like a member of the Flat Earth Research Society.
Hans von Lieven
Such evaluations coming from you are worthless because you're not competent enough. Stop with the stupidity.
Back to the discussion:
Rule of thumb: Not all superpositions of conservative fields lead to conditions for production of excess energy.
WOW omnibus.
more and more you sound "out to lunch"
hans is correct.
it is funny listening to someone like you who really does not know too much about anything
Just the fact that Naudin moves the magnets to the side and doesn't remove them completely seems strange, they are bound to hinder the drop of the ball. It would have been a much more convincing test with the magnets completely removed for the comparison test.
Quote from: rice on November 19, 2007, 03:57:03 AM
WOW omnibus.
more and more you sound "out to lunch"
hans is correct.
it is funny listening to someone like you who really does not know too much about anything
On the contrary, it is funny listening to someone like you. Of course, Hans is not correct. How stupid is it to propose an experiment whereby the two fields pull the ball in the same direction and to expect to have excess energy produced. This is like once dropping the ball from height h and then dropping it from height 2h and claiming that the difference may have anything to do with excess energy. Or. having once a ceramic magnet attracted to the fridge and then having a neo attracted to the fridge from the same distance and claiming that in this way you're proving excess energy because in the second care a greater potential energy is lost.
As I said, stupidity such as that continuously expressed by the likes of Hans must be confronted vigorously because it further muddles the thinking of people with shaky understanding like you.
Quote from: acp on November 19, 2007, 07:16:39 AM
Just the fact that Naudin moves the magnets to the side and doesn't remove them completely seems strange, they are bound to hinder the drop of the ball. It would have been a much more convincing test with the magnets completely removed for the comparison test.
If he removes them,completely the result will be qualitatively the same. In both cases the energy imparted to the ball in the control experiment is greater than in the actual experiment. Moving the magnets to the side makes the energy imparted to the ball in the control experiment even closer to the energy imparted in the actual experiment (but still more than in the actual experiment). Nevertheless, the energy lost in the actual experiment is greater than the energy lost in the control experiment. This is in clear violation of CoE. I already explained that several times but who to read.
Naudin's is one of the experiments proving excess energy because in his experiment the two conservative fields are correctly aligned to produce excess energy and the control experiment is adequate. This thread need not be cluttered with repeating discussions of experiments proposed by @gaby de Wilde and some others, because they have long been shown not to produce excess energy. The superpositions of conservative fields in them isn't proper to have excess energy produced.
The best experiment with properly aligned conservative fields proving the reality of excess energy beyond doubt is the one whereby the ball goes along the closed A-B-C-A loop. That experiment also deals with one stroke with little ridiculous objections such as the one suggested above.
@omnibus,
would you agree that a steel ball dropped with no magnets near it, imparts more energy on impact than the same ball dropped from the same height with a magnet placed near it? ( the magnet being placed close enough as to have attraction, but not close enough to prevent gravity allowing the ball to drop)
Quote from: acp on November 19, 2007, 12:24:58 PM
@omnibus,
would you agree that a steel ball dropped with no magnets near it, imparts more energy on impact than the same ball dropped from the same height with a magnet placed near it? ( the magnet being placed close enough as to have attraction, but not close enough to prevent gravity allowing the ball to drop)
Yes, I do agree with that. And that's exactly why the @gaby de Wilde device pushed again here doesn't produce excess energy.
@acp,
Notice, the experiment you propose can b done only if you have lifted the ball. With magnet the energy imparted to the ball will be less (as will be with magnet the energy ball loses upon return, as in the half-experiment you propose). No excess energy produced, that is, no violation of CoE here.
Guys, I do not think all of you grasp the intricacy of Omnibus's position. This is why we all keep proposing tests that he will not accept.
According to him, the magic starts after you place the ball at the SMOT entrance, and the magic ends before the ball leaves the influence of the SMOT. Look, just think of the SMOT as a black box. You add the black box to any device. The black box does not improve the device in any way (in fact, it hurts efficiency a bit, but do not worry about that part), in that energy coming out of it does not exceed energy coming in, but rest assured that what happens inside the black box violates known laws of CoE as we know them and is possibly an overunity situation.
The reason I qualify the "overunity" part is because Omnibus claims that the ball loses more energy than it could have possibly gained. So while there is a violation of CoE, it is not possible to extract this excess energy, because the energy is not there to be extracted - it is there to be consumed by the ball in law-defying fashion. Yes, the ball defies the law of CoE by swallowing up energy it was not supposed to even have. So, there is a violation of CoE resulting in an impossible-to-explain underunity situation.
I hope this clears it up for everyone. Whenever you consider responding, always think about whether you are referring to what is inside the black box or not. If you are not discussing the inside of the black box, you are polluting this thread with sillyness, wasting Stefan's precious bandwidth in the process.
@shrugedatlas,
These same thoughts and approach are applied to the trivial experiments used in high school to demonstrated obeying of CoE claiming it's definitive. As we see it's not. Same approach applied to one particular experiment discussed here (based on one very particular overlaying of conservative fields) reveals that there are exceptions and CoE must not be considered as a general principle.
Quote from: Omnibus on November 19, 2007, 01:39:01 PM
@shrugedatlas,
These same thoughts and approach are applied to the trivial experiments used in high school to demonstrated obeying of CoE claiming it's definitive. As we see it's not. Same approach applied to one particular experiment discussed here (based on one very particular overlaying of conservative fields) reveals that there are exceptions and CoE must not be considered as a general principle.
And here is an illustration for those who do not get it. You guys are all thinking too macro. Think micro. You have to get inside the SMOT, and then things will become clear. The reason we do not get excess energy, is that we are not operating in the SMOT frame, and we are not able to do this because we cannot exist solely inside the SMOT.
In the below scenario, there would be free abundant energy on this planet. The Earth itself is the ball in the SMOT. God lifts it from A to B. During the ascent from B to C (which takes, let's say, 8 billion years), energy is free and boundless. Bessler wheels are built by toddlers. Cars do not need accelerator pedals, but only brakes. You get the idea. But then, after the 8 billion years, God has to reset the system.
Quote from: Omnibus on November 19, 2007, 12:45:59 PM
Quote from: acp on November 19, 2007, 12:24:58 PM
@omnibus,
would you agree that a steel ball dropped with no magnets near it, imparts more energy on impact than the same ball dropped from the same height with a magnet placed near it? ( the magnet being placed close enough as to have attraction, but not close enough to prevent gravity allowing the ball to drop)
Yes, I do agree with that. And that's exactly why the @gaby de Wilde device pushed again here doesn't produce excess energy.
Then you also must agree then that Naudins reference test with the magnets placed further apart but not removed must have a braking effect on the ball, ie. it reduces the energy of the ball dropping in comparison to the test being made without the magnets present at all. The two scenarios are analagous are they not? therefore Naudins reference test is flawed.
Quote from: acp on November 19, 2007, 02:16:16 PM
Quote from: Omnibus on November 19, 2007, 12:45:59 PM
Quote from: acp on November 19, 2007, 12:24:58 PM
@omnibus,
would you agree that a steel ball dropped with no magnets near it, imparts more energy on impact than the same ball dropped from the same height with a magnet placed near it? ( the magnet being placed close enough as to have attraction, but not close enough to prevent gravity allowing the ball to drop)
Yes, I do agree with that. And that's exactly why the @gaby de Wilde device pushed again here doesn't produce excess energy.
Then you also must agree then that Naudins reference test with the magnets placed further apart but not removed must have a braking effect, ie. it reduces the energy of the ball dropping in comparison to the test being made without the magnets present at all. The two scenarios are analagous are they not? therefore Naudins reference test is flawed.
I, of course, agree to that and I explained carefully several times already that this still doesn't make the energy imparted to the ball in the control equal or less than that in the actual experiment. And yet, in the actual experiment the ball loses more energy than in the control which is in clear violation of CoE. Please, read carefully the arguments and think before posting. Therefore, Naudin's reference is completely legitimate, it's even, obviously, more to the detrementt of his thesis, and his experiment does demonstrate real excess energy.
Quote from: shruggedatlas on November 19, 2007, 02:03:15 PM
Quote from: Omnibus on November 19, 2007, 01:39:01 PM
@shrugedatlas,
These same thoughts and approach are applied to the trivial experiments used in high school to demonstrated obeying of CoE claiming it's definitive. As we see it's not. Same approach applied to one particular experiment discussed here (based on one very particular overlaying of conservative fields) reveals that there are exceptions and CoE must not be considered as a general principle.
And here is an illustration for those who do not get it. You guys are all thinking too macro. Think micro. You have to get inside the SMOT, and then things will become clear. The reason we do not get excess energy, is that we are not operating in the SMOT frame, and we are not able to do this because we cannot exist solely inside the SMOT.
In the below scenario, there would be free abundant energy on this planet. The Earth itself is the ball in the SMOT. God lifts it from A to B. During the ascent from B to C (which takes, let's say, 8 billion years), energy is free and boundless. Bessler wheels are built by toddlers. Cars do not need accelerator pedals, but only brakes. You get the idea. But then, after the 8 billion years, God has to reset the system.
Is this supposed to be funny? As I said, if you really want to understand the question apply the same way of thinking to the trivial experiments proving CoE and the SMOT. Outside of it as in the trivial experiments.
Quote from: Omnibus on November 19, 2007, 02:23:33 PM
I, of course, agree to that and I explained carefully several times already that this still doesn't make the energy imparted to the ball in the control equal or less than that in the actual experiment. And yet, in the actual experiment the ball loses more energy than in the control which is in clear violation of CoE. Please, read carefully the arguments and think before posting. Therefore, Naudin's reference is completely legitimate, it's even, obviously, more to the detrementt of his thesis, and his experiment does demonstrate real excess energy.
So you would have no objection to Naudin's experiment if in the input drop there were no magnets at all?
Quote from: shruggedatlas on November 19, 2007, 02:37:58 PM
Quote from: Omnibus on November 19, 2007, 02:23:33 PM
I, of course, agree to that and I explained carefully several times already that this still doesn't make the energy imparted to the ball in the control equal or less than that in the actual experiment. And yet, in the actual experiment the ball loses more energy than in the control which is in clear violation of CoE. Please, read carefully the arguments and think before posting. Therefore, Naudin's reference is completely legitimate, it's even, obviously, more to the detrementt of his thesis, and his experiment does demonstrate real excess energy.
So you would have no objection to Naudin's experiment if in the input drop there were no magnets at all?
Sure, I won't but it isn't needed. Even the way it is now it still shows less lost energy from greater control energy imparted than from the energy imparted in the actual experiment. This is enough to prove violation of CoE.
Quote from: Omnibus on November 19, 2007, 02:50:51 PM
Sure, I won't but it isn't needed. Even the way it is now it still shows less lost energy from greater control energy imparted than from the energy imparted in the actual experiment. This is enough to prove violation of CoE.
Then I take back all the things I said. We have reached an agreement. All we have to do is rerun Naudin's test, but this time take away all the magnets during the drop from the input height, and then we will have definitive proof of whether or not the SMOT violates CoE.
Mind you this, when the magnets are moved apart the control is practically in the absence of magnetic field. However, even in the unlikely event that in complete absence of magnets the control will show greater loss than the loss when SMOT is present (the imparted energy in the control being greater than that in the actual one), it will in no way invalidate the demonstrated discrepancy which is clearly at odds with CoE. Therefore, we don't even care what the outcome would be in whatever other experiment. In the concrete experiment Naudin carries out violation of CoE is real.
Quote from: shruggedatlas on November 19, 2007, 02:55:06 PM
Quote from: Omnibus on November 19, 2007, 02:50:51 PM
Sure, I won't but it isn't needed. Even the way it is now it still shows less lost energy from greater control energy imparted than from the energy imparted in the actual experiment. This is enough to prove violation of CoE.
Then I take back all the things I said. We have reached an agreement. All we have to do is rerun Naudin's test, but this time take away all the magnets during the drop from the input height, and then we will have definitive proof of whether or not the SMOT violates CoE.
Not so. Read my last post.
G'day all,
It ts an old adage that a lie repeated often enough will turn into truth.
This works well in religion and politics, it does not do so well in science.
Parmenides said over 2000 years ago "ex nihilo nihil fit" (translation: from nothing comes nothing)
I don't think Omnibus ever heard of it.
Hans von Lieven
Quote from: hansvonlieven on November 19, 2007, 03:04:46 PM
G'day all,
It ts an old adage that a lie repeated often enough will turn into truth.
This works well in religion and politics, it does not do so well in science.
Parmenides said over 2000 years ago "ex nihilo nihil fit" (translation: from nothing comes nothing)
I don't think Omnibus ever heard of it.
Hans von Lieven
Go away with you silliness. It's getting to be ridiculous.
Quote from: Omnibus on November 19, 2007, 03:00:18 PM
Mind you this, when the magnets are moved apart the control is practically in the absence of magnetic field. However, even in the unlikely event that in complete absence of magnets the control will show greater loss than the loss when SMOT is present (the imparted energy in the control being greater than that in the actual one), it will in no way invalidate the demonstrated discrepancy which is clearly at odds with CoE. Therefore, we don't even care what the outcome would be in whatever other experiment. In the concrete experiment Naudin carries out violation of CoE is real.
This is better than Lead Out.
Quote from: shruggedatlas on November 19, 2007, 03:24:08 PM
Quote from: Omnibus on November 19, 2007, 03:00:18 PM
Mind you this, when the magnets are moved apart the control is practically in the absence of magnetic field. However, even in the unlikely event that in complete absence of magnets the control will show greater loss than the loss when SMOT is present (the imparted energy in the control being greater than that in the actual one), it will in no way invalidate the demonstrated discrepancy which is clearly at odds with CoE. Therefore, we don't even care what the outcome would be in whatever other experiment. In the concrete experiment Naudin carries out violation of CoE is real.
This is better than Lead Out.
Maybe it's even better to not stoop to the low of some pushy nobody.
Quote from: Omnibus on November 19, 2007, 03:26:06 PM
Maybe it's even better to not stoop to the low of some pushy nobody.
Look who is talking LOL
Hans von Lieven
Quote from: Omnibus on November 19, 2007, 03:00:18 PM
Mind you this, when the magnets are moved apart the control is practically in the absence of magnetic field. However, even in the unlikely event that in complete absence of magnets the control will show greater loss than the loss when SMOT is present (the imparted energy in the control being greater than that in the actual one), it will in no way invalidate the demonstrated discrepancy which is clearly at odds with CoE. Therefore, we don't even care what the outcome would be in whatever other experiment. In the concrete experiment Naudin carries out violation of CoE is real.
I am sorry, but by this logic, how is Naudin's experiment relevant at all? You cannot both cite the experiment with the magnets moved apart as proof of violation of CoE, yet in the same breath, deem an experiment where the magnets are removed entirely as completely inconsequential.
The logic does not hold up.
Quote from: shruggedatlas on November 19, 2007, 03:58:44 PM
Quote from: Omnibus on November 19, 2007, 03:00:18 PM
Mind you this, when the magnets are moved apart the control is practically in the absence of magnetic field. However, even in the unlikely event that in complete absence of magnets the control will show greater loss than the loss when SMOT is present (the imparted energy in the control being greater than that in the actual one), it will in no way invalidate the demonstrated discrepancy which is clearly at odds with CoE. Therefore, we don't even care what the outcome would be in whatever other experiment. In the concrete experiment Naudin carries out violation of CoE is real.
I am sorry, but by this logic, how is Naudin's experiment relevant at all? You cannot both cite the experiment with the magnets moved apart as proof of violation of CoE, yet in the same breath, deem an experiment where the magnets are removed entirely as completely inconsequential.
The logic does not hold up.
How come? From an imparted 3 units, 3 units are lost (that's the control), while from the imparted 2 units in the actual experiment 4 units are lost.
Quote from: Omnibus on November 19, 2007, 04:55:38 PM
How come? From an imparted 3 units, 3 units are lost (that's the control), while from the imparted 2 units in the actual experiment 4 units are lost.
LOL Not much of a proof, happens to my money all the time LOL
Hans von Lieven
Quote from: hansvonlieven on November 19, 2007, 04:58:43 PM
Quote from: Omnibus on November 19, 2007, 04:55:38 PM
How come? From an imparted 3 units, 3 units are lost (that's the control), while from the imparted 2 units in the actual experiment 4 units are lost.
LOL Not much of a proof, happens to my money all the time LOL
Hans von Lieven
That's crap.
@shruggedatlas,
If you don't like the numbers I gave you take any other set of numbers but always remember that the energy imparted in the control must be a higher number than that of the actual experiment while the energy lost in the control experiment must be a lower number than in the actual experiment. The outcome of this is a violation of CoE.
Don't forget also, that, as I already told you, for all practical purposes the magnets moved away in the control experiment amount to no magnets at all. If you, however, want to forget that and still want to consider magnetic field in the control experiment (which, nevertheless, is necessarily lower than the magnetic field in the actual experiment) then you must choose numbers as in the previous paragraph.
Quote from: Omnibus on November 19, 2007, 04:55:38 PM
Quote from: shruggedatlas on November 19, 2007, 03:58:44 PM
Quote from: Omnibus on November 19, 2007, 03:00:18 PM
Mind you this, when the magnets are moved apart the control is practically in the absence of magnetic field. However, even in the unlikely event that in complete absence of magnets the control will show greater loss than the loss when SMOT is present (the imparted energy in the control being greater than that in the actual one), it will in no way invalidate the demonstrated discrepancy which is clearly at odds with CoE. Therefore, we don't even care what the outcome would be in whatever other experiment. In the concrete experiment Naudin carries out violation of CoE is real.
I am sorry, but by this logic, how is Naudin's experiment relevant at all? You cannot both cite the experiment with the magnets moved apart as proof of violation of CoE, yet in the same breath, deem an experiment where the magnets are removed entirely as completely inconsequential.
The logic does not hold up.
How come? From an imparted 3 units, 3 units are lost (that's the control), while from the imparted 2 units in the actual experiment 4 units are lost.
I admit that in the Naudin experiment, the ball travels farther from the output drop as compared to the imput drop, as illustrated in the diagram below. That is not in dispute.
My point is that you hypocritically use this result as validation of your position that the SMOT violates CoE. Note that the magnets are moved farther apart during the input drop (the control). When we suggest running the test again, but removing the magnet ramps altogether during the control drop, you insist that the entire test is irrelevant and will not prove violation of CoE one way or another.
My question is this. Why do you simultaneously use the test as validation of your position, while at the same time dismiss the idea of repeating the test as irrelevant? (Note that you have said that moving the magnet ramps farther apart or even removing them altogether does not materially change the experiment, so that should not be the issue to you.)
Quote from: shruggedatlas on November 19, 2007, 05:32:48 PM
Quote from: Omnibus on November 19, 2007, 04:55:38 PM
Quote from: shruggedatlas on November 19, 2007, 03:58:44 PM
Quote from: Omnibus on November 19, 2007, 03:00:18 PM
Mind you this, when the magnets are moved apart the control is practically in the absence of magnetic field. However, even in the unlikely event that in complete absence of magnets the control will show greater loss than the loss when SMOT is present (the imparted energy in the control being greater than that in the actual one), it will in no way invalidate the demonstrated discrepancy which is clearly at odds with CoE. Therefore, we don't even care what the outcome would be in whatever other experiment. In the concrete experiment Naudin carries out violation of CoE is real.
I am sorry, but by this logic, how is Naudin's experiment relevant at all? You cannot both cite the experiment with the magnets moved apart as proof of violation of CoE, yet in the same breath, deem an experiment where the magnets are removed entirely as completely inconsequential.
The logic does not hold up.
How come? From an imparted 3 units, 3 units are lost (that's the control), while from the imparted 2 units in the actual experiment 4 units are lost.
I admit that in the Naudin experiment, the ball travels farther from the output drop as compared to the imput drop, as illustrated in the diagram below. That is not in dispute.
My point is that you hypocritically use this result as validation of your position that the SMOT violates CoE. Note that the magnets are moved farther apart during the input drop (the control). When we suggest running the test again, but removing the magnet ramps altogether during the control drop, you insist that the entire test is irrelevant and will not prove violation of CoE one way or another.
My question is this. Why do you simultaneously use the test as validation of your position, while at the same time dismiss the idea of repeating the test as irrelevant? (Note that you have said that moving the magnet ramps farther apart or even removing them altogether does not materially change the experiment, so that should not be the issue to you.)
No, I don't. Read again what I wrote and try to understand it. Naudin always lifts the ball at the same hight, be it in the control or in the actual experiment. That's the fact you have to focus on.
"Drop from the input" and "drop from the output" is confusing you. The drop is always from the same place.
Quote from: Omnibus on November 19, 2007, 06:06:55 PM
"Drop from the input" and "drop from the output" is confusing you. The drop is always from the same place.
That is incorrect. Please refer to the photo below, which is from his website. Notice how he turned the SMOT around in the control. Also compare with the drawing from his website I attached earlier. He clearly marks the different heights. Input height is 31mm. Output height is 35mm.
Quote from: shruggedatlas on November 19, 2007, 06:34:08 PM
Quote from: Omnibus on November 19, 2007, 06:06:55 PM
"Drop from the input" and "drop from the output" is confusing you. The drop is always from the same place.
That is incorrect. Please refer to the photo below, which is from his website. Notice how he turned the SMOT around in the control. Also compare with the drawing from his website I attached earlier. He clearly marks the different heights. Input height is 31mm. Output height is 35mm.
Now, we've identified your confusion. What I'm saying is correct. Analyze the experiment more thoroughly and you'll find out that Naudin is "dropping" the ball always at the beginning of SMOT at a height of 31mm. Never mind what the ball does after Naudin "drops" it at this same, particular place. The ball behaves differently in the control and in the actual experiment afterwards (after Naudin places it at that same place) but that's beside the point--Naudin always puts the ball at the same place.
Quote from: Omnibus on November 19, 2007, 06:41:47 PM
Quote from: shruggedatlas on November 19, 2007, 06:34:08 PM
Quote from: Omnibus on November 19, 2007, 06:06:55 PM
"Drop from the input" and "drop from the output" is confusing you. The drop is always from the same place.
That is incorrect. Please refer to the photo below, which is from his website. Notice how he turned the SMOT around in the control. Also compare with the drawing from his website I attached earlier. He clearly marks the different heights. Input height is 31mm. Output height is 35mm.
Now, we've identified your confusion. What I'm saying is correct. Analyze the experiment more thoroughly and you'll find out that Naudin is "dropping" the ball always at the beginning of SMOT at a height of 31mm. Never mind what the ball does after Naudin "drops" it at this same, particular place. The ball behaves differently in the control and in the actual experiment afterwards (after Naudin places it at that same place) but that's beside the point--Naudin always puts the ball at the same place.
I still do not see it. Here is a side by side closeup. Notice how much higher the top of the ramp is above the tube as compared to the bottom of the ramp, which is practically on the same level as the tube opening.
@shruggedatlas,
Don't show the neck of the tube, this is not where Naudin, I repeat, Naudin, places the ball and lets it go, especially in the actual experiment.
Quote from: Omnibus on November 19, 2007, 06:57:26 PM
@shruggedatlas,
Don't show the neck of the tube, this is not where Naudin, I repeat, Naudin, places the ball and lets it go, especially in the actual experiment.
The photos above are from his website and show part of the neck of the tube.
I am running out of other photos to show you. Here is the beginning of each of his video (the videos themselves are no longer online). You can clearly see that the SMOT is turned around. Combined with the side-by-side photo above, I am convinced that this is the way he did it. What evidence do you have otherwise. Anything in the text?
Source: http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/smotnrgt.htm (http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/smotnrgt.htm)
Quote from: shruggedatlas on November 19, 2007, 07:02:38 PM
Quote from: Omnibus on November 19, 2007, 06:57:26 PM
@shruggedatlas,
Don't show the neck of the tube, this is not where Naudin, I repeat, Naudin, places the ball and lets it go, especially in the actual experiment.
The photos above are from his website and show part of the neck of the tube.
I am running out of other photos to show you. Here is the beginning of each of his video (the videos themselves are no longer online). You can clearly see that the SMOT is turned around. Combined with the side-by-side photo above, I am convinced that this is the way he did it. What evidence do you have otherwise. Anything in the text?
Source: http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/smotnrgt.htm (http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/smotnrgt.htm)
So what that the SMOT is turned around? The SMOT is turned around exactly to have the ball placed always at the same beginning position,
Otherwise he would have had to use two tubes, correct?
To be comparable, the ball must be let go from exactly the same spot in the control as well as in the actual experiment, correct?
Quote from: Omnibus on November 19, 2007, 07:10:29 PM
Otherwise he would have had to use two tubes, correct?
He uses one tube, and he turns the SMOT around because the tube is harder to reposition than the SMOT.
In the Output drop, he operates the SMOT in the classical fashion, placing the ball first at the Input and having it ascend up the ramp and then drop into the mouth of the tube from the top (the "Output") of the ramp.
In the Input drop, he turns the SMOT around so that ramp entrance faces the tube. He also moves the magnets farther apart (if he did not, the ball would not drop, but ascend like in the Output drop), and then simply lets the ball drop from the bottom of the ramp into the mouth of the tube.
Would this change your opinion of whether this is a proper test?
Quote from: shruggedatlas on November 19, 2007, 07:20:32 PM
Quote from: Omnibus on November 19, 2007, 07:10:29 PM
Otherwise he would have had to use two tubes, correct?
He uses one tube, and he turns the SMOT around because the tube is harder to reposition than the SMOT.
In the Output drop, he operates the SMOT in the classical fashion, placing the ball first at the Input and having it ascend up the ramp and then drop into the mouth of the tube from the top (the "Output") of the ramp.
In the Input drop, he turns the SMOT around so that ramp entrance faces the tube. He also moves the magnets farther apart (if he did not, the ball would not drop, but ascend like in the Output drop), and then simply lets the ball drop from the bottom of the ramp into the mouth of the tube.
Would this change your opinion of whether this is a proper test?
This is exactly the proper test. Anything else would not be proper. In the SMOT case he puts the ball at the mentioned position and a whole plethora of events occurs causing the ball to cover spontaneously, I repeat, spontaneously, a hugely longer and complex trajectory than in the control where the start of the ball is at the same exact place as in the actual experiment Thus, not only that in the actual experiment the imparted energy is less than the energy imparted in the control experiment but the length and the complexity of the trajectory is much greater, that is, in the actual experiment the energy the ball loses, gives away, is most obviously greater than the energy lost in the control experiment despite the greater imparted energy in the control experiment.
Quote from: Omnibus on November 19, 2007, 07:35:52 PM
This is exactly the proper test. Anything else would not be proper. In the SMOT case he puts the ball at the mentioned position and a whole plethora of events occurs causing the ball to cover spontaneously, I repeat, spontaneously, a hugely longer and complex trajectory than in the control where the start of the ball is at the same exact place as in the actual experiment Thus, not only that in the actual experiment the imparted energy is less than the energy imparted in the control experiment but the length and the complexity of the trajectory is much greater, that is, in the actual experiment the energy the ball loses, gives away, is most obviously greater than the energy lost in the control experiment despite the greater imparted energy in the control experiment.
So we are in agreement that the ball drops from different heights? The photos clearly establish this.
Then I must ask. Can we repeat Naudin's experiment exactly, with the minor difference that instead of spreading the magnets apart during the "Input Drop", we remove them altogether? And would this be conclusive proof one way or the other whether the SMOT is overunity, meaning conclusive in both directions.
If this is not acceptable, what is the difference between moving them apart and taking them away during the Input Drop that suddenly makes the test invalid?
Quote from: shruggedatlas on November 19, 2007, 07:41:33 PM
Quote from: Omnibus on November 19, 2007, 07:35:52 PM
This is exactly the proper test. Anything else would not be proper. In the SMOT case he puts the ball at the mentioned position and a whole plethora of events occurs causing the ball to cover spontaneously, I repeat, spontaneously, a hugely longer and complex trajectory than in the control where the start of the ball is at the same exact place as in the actual experiment Thus, not only that in the actual experiment the imparted energy is less than the energy imparted in the control experiment but the length and the complexity of the trajectory is much greater, that is, in the actual experiment the energy the ball loses, gives away, is most obviously greater than the energy lost in the control experiment despite the greater imparted energy in the control experiment.
So we are in agreement that the ball drops from different heights? The photos clearly establish this.
Then I must ask. Can we repeat Naudin's experiment exactly, with the minor difference that instead of spreading the magnets apart during the "Input Drop", we remove them altogether? And would this be conclusive proof one way or the other whether the SMOT is overunity, meaning conclusive in both directions.
If this is not acceptable, what is the difference between moving them apart and taking them away during the Input Drop that suddenly makes the test invalid?
Absolutely not. Please, go back and read the discussion again. The ball is always dropped from the same height of 31mm. I'm not going to go in circles here.
Quote from: Omnibus on November 19, 2007, 07:44:57 PM
Quote from: shruggedatlas on November 19, 2007, 07:41:33 PM
Quote from: Omnibus on November 19, 2007, 07:35:52 PM
This is exactly the proper test. Anything else would not be proper. In the SMOT case he puts the ball at the mentioned position and a whole plethora of events occurs causing the ball to cover spontaneously, I repeat, spontaneously, a hugely longer and complex trajectory than in the control where the start of the ball is at the same exact place as in the actual experiment Thus, not only that in the actual experiment the imparted energy is less than the energy imparted in the control experiment but the length and the complexity of the trajectory is much greater, that is, in the actual experiment the energy the ball loses, gives away, is most obviously greater than the energy lost in the control experiment despite the greater imparted energy in the control experiment.
So we are in agreement that the ball drops from different heights? The photos clearly establish this.
Then I must ask. Can we repeat Naudin's experiment exactly, with the minor difference that instead of spreading the magnets apart during the "Input Drop", we remove them altogether? And would this be conclusive proof one way or the other whether the SMOT is overunity, meaning conclusive in both directions.
If this is not acceptable, what is the difference between moving them apart and taking them away during the Input Drop that suddenly makes the test invalid?
Absolutely not. Please, go back and read the discussion again. The ball is always dropped from the same height of 31mm. I'm not going to go in circles here.
How can the ball drop from 31mm in the "Output Drop"? The ramp ascends to 35mm. I understand the ball is initially placed at 31mm, but that is not where it drops from. Are we just misconstruing terms?
Quote from: shruggedatlas on November 19, 2007, 07:50:18 PM
Quote from: Omnibus on November 19, 2007, 07:44:57 PM
Quote from: shruggedatlas on November 19, 2007, 07:41:33 PM
Quote from: Omnibus on November 19, 2007, 07:35:52 PM
This is exactly the proper test. Anything else would not be proper. In the SMOT case he puts the ball at the mentioned position and a whole plethora of events occurs causing the ball to cover spontaneously, I repeat, spontaneously, a hugely longer and complex trajectory than in the control where the start of the ball is at the same exact place as in the actual experiment Thus, not only that in the actual experiment the imparted energy is less than the energy imparted in the control experiment but the length and the complexity of the trajectory is much greater, that is, in the actual experiment the energy the ball loses, gives away, is most obviously greater than the energy lost in the control experiment despite the greater imparted energy in the control experiment.
So we are in agreement that the ball drops from different heights? The photos clearly establish this.
Then I must ask. Can we repeat Naudin's experiment exactly, with the minor difference that instead of spreading the magnets apart during the "Input Drop", we remove them altogether? And would this be conclusive proof one way or the other whether the SMOT is overunity, meaning conclusive in both directions.
If this is not acceptable, what is the difference between moving them apart and taking them away during the Input Drop that suddenly makes the test invalid?
Absolutely not. Please, go back and read the discussion again. The ball is always dropped from the same height of 31mm. I'm not going to go in circles here.
How can the ball drop from 31mm in the "Output Drop"? The ramp ascends to 35mm. I understand the ball is initially placed at 31mm, but that is not where it drops from. Are we just misconstruing terms?
Now, this is exactly where your confusion stems from. Read very carefully what I explained once again and see if you can get it.
Quote from: Omnibus on November 19, 2007, 07:55:52 PM
Now, this is exactly where your confusion stems from. Read very carefully what I explained once again and see if you can get it.
I think we are in agreement, we were just using different terms. I know that Naudin places the balls at the exact same spot in both tests. In the control (Input Drop), he just lets it drop from the bottom of the ramp, with the magnets spread out to allow this to happen. In the actual experiment (Output Drop) with the magnets in classical position, he places the ball, lets go, and allows the ball to ascend the ramp, from where it drops from the top of the ramp directly into the tube.
So I will again ask. Can we repeat Naudin's experiment exactly, with the minor difference that instead of spreading the magnets apart during the "Input Drop", we remove them altogether? And would this be conclusive proof one way or the other whether the SMOT is overunity, meaning conclusive in both directions?
If this is not acceptable, what is the difference between moving them apart and taking them away during the Input Drop that suddenly makes the test invalid?
hey omnibus
why dont you build and see for yourself
then put this one to bed
Quote from: shruggedatlas on November 19, 2007, 08:02:10 PM
Quote from: Omnibus on November 19, 2007, 07:55:52 PM
Now, this is exactly where your confusion stems from. Read very carefully what I explained once again and see if you can get it.
I think we are in agreement, we were just using different terms. I know that Naudin places the balls at the exact same spot in both tests. In the control (Input Drop), he just lets it drop from the bottom of the ramp, with the magnets spread out to allow this to happen. In the actual experiment (Output Drop) with the magnets in classical position, he places the ball, lets go, and allows the ball to ascend the ramp, from where it drops from the top of the ramp directly into the tube.
So I will again ask. Can we repeat Naudin's experiment exactly, with the minor difference that instead of spreading the magnets apart during the "Input Drop", we remove them altogether? And would this be conclusive proof one way or the other whether the SMOT is overunity, meaning conclusive in both directions?
If this is not acceptable, what is the difference between moving them apart and taking them away during the Input Drop that suddenly makes the test invalid?
As I already explained, we can do that but it isn't necessary for the purposes at hand--seeing whether or not CoE is violated. It is, as this particular experiment proves. The conclusion is drawn perfectly with what we already have, demonstrated in Naudin's video. If you have nothing else to do and like to carry out experiments you may do all kinds of variations of this experiments but none of them will undo what's observed here and won't show otherwise, that is, that CoE isn't violated. Therefore, it's a useless pursuit for the purposes of this discussion.
The best experiment, as I've already said, which proves conclusively that SMOT violates CoE and deals in one stroke with some little ridiculous "objections" (not even touched in our discussion here), is the closed A-B-C-A loop experiment. If you really like to do experiments which definitively prove violation of CoE, that's the experiment for you. It's also simpler than Naudin's.
Quote from: Omnibus on November 19, 2007, 08:25:40 PM
As I already explained, we can do that but it isn't necessary for the purposes at hand--seeing whether or not CoE is violated. It is, as this particular experiment proves. The conclusion is drawn perfectly with what we already have, demonstrated in Naudin's video. If you have nothing else to do and like to carry out experiments you may do all kinds of variations of this experiments but none of them will undo what's observed here and won't show otherwise, that is, that CoE isn't violated. Therefore, it's a useless pursuit for the purposes of this discussion.
First, the objection to Naudin's experiment is that magnets were moved apart but still present during the Input Drop. This is a very valid point, and seeing as you yourself have no objection to removing the magnets during the Input Drop, I think it would be worthwhile to run it again. I will not debate you on whether or not the magnets SHOULD make a difference, because I suspect this will be a long endeavor, so let's leave it at me not being satisfied and there being no harm in doing the test again.
Second, it is intellectually dishonest for you to claim that no further testing can invalidate Naudin's test. Suppose we ran this test again 1000 times and got the opposite results every time? Suppose he made a simple mistake somewhere (the magnets during the input drop DO make a difference, etc.)? We do not even have a video anymore, just his word on what happened. If you care about the truth, you should embrace further testing, because it can validate your position beyond all doubt.
Third, I do not agree with the A-B-C-A experiment being the "best." I think it is ridiculous to use a human hand in a procedure, because the energy expended cannot be precisely measured this way. I will not even attempt to argue that one with you, because if the 4000 posts on the Steorn forum were not enough, I know my puny attempts will not even dent you. So let's just agree to disagree on that one. Luckily, we do have a procedure we can agree on - Naudin's - so let's just use that.
I really cannot understand your reluctance to rerun (or have someone else rerun) Naudin. Heck, if you did it yourself (without magnets on the Input Drop) and recorded it, I would consider it pretty persuasive proof of violation of CoE. I think everyone else would too. I cannot understand why you would not care about this, unless of course you fear the results, which I suspect is the case. At any rate, I am not placing any burden on you to do anything. I can do it. I just need your confirmation on whether the proposed test (given sufficient peer review) will be a definitive test, a confirmation that you fear to give, though you provide no reasoning as to why except that Naudin's test is all you need. This is not good science.
Quote from: rice on November 19, 2007, 08:20:04 PM
hey omnibus
why dont you build and see for yourself
then put this one to bed
His religion might collapse if he saw what really happens. He cannot afford to do this.
Hans von Lieven
Quote from: shruggedatlas on November 19, 2007, 09:03:50 PM
Quote from: Omnibus on November 19, 2007, 08:25:40 PM
As I already explained, we can do that but it isn't necessary for the purposes at hand--seeing whether or not CoE is violated. It is, as this particular experiment proves. The conclusion is drawn perfectly with what we already have, demonstrated in Naudin's video. If you have nothing else to do and like to carry out experiments you may do all kinds of variations of this experiments but none of them will undo what's observed here and won't show otherwise, that is, that CoE isn't violated. Therefore, it's a useless pursuit for the purposes of this discussion.
First, the objection to Naudin's experiment is that magnets were moved apart but still present during the Input Drop. This is a very valid point, and seeing as you yourself have no objection to removing the magnets during the Input Drop, I think it would be worthwhile to run it again. I will not debate you on whether or not the magnets SHOULD make a difference, because I suspect this will be a long endeavor, so let's leave it at me not being satisfied and there being no harm in doing the test again.
Second, it is intellectually dishonest for you to claim that no further testing can invalidate Naudin's test. Suppose we ran this test again 1000 times and got the opposite results every time? Suppose he made a simple mistake somewhere (the magnets during the input drop DO make a difference, etc.)? We do not even have a video anymore, just his word on what happened. If you care about the truth, you should embrace further testing, because it can validate your position beyond all doubt.
Third, I do not agree with the A-B-C-A experiment being the "best." I think it is ridiculous to use a human hand in a procedure, because the energy expended cannot be precisely measured this way. I will not even attempt to argue that one with you, because if the 4000 posts on the Steorn forum were not enough, I know my puny attempts will not even dent you. So let's just agree to disagree on that one. Luckily, we do have a procedure we can agree on - Naudin's - so let's just use that.
I really cannot understand your reluctance to rerun (or have someone else rerun) Naudin. Heck, if you did it yourself (without magnets on the Input Drop) and recorded it, I would consider it pretty persuasive proof of violation of CoE. I think everyone else would too. I cannot understand why you would not care about this, unless of course you fear the results, which I suspect is the case. At any rate, I am not placing any burden on you to do anything. I can do it. I just need your confirmation on whether the proposed test (given sufficient peer review) will be a definitive test, a confirmation that you fear to give, though you provide no reasoning as to why except that Naudin's test is all you need. This is not good science.
No, no, never mind. I won't get into that. I explained it to you but I can't understand it for you. And please, don't qualify what's good Science and what's not. You show little understanding as to how Science works and that's understandable, you're not a scientist. So, don't make these evaluations. For instance, it is never acceptable to suppose that an effect demonstrated experimentally will not show up upon future trials until you do the actual experiments and prove otherwise. Also, your dissatisfaction stems from your confusion, not because there are legitimate reasons for a knowledgeable person to be dissatisfied. Therefore, instead of expressing whether or not you're satisfied it's much more advisable to take measures and try to understand what you don't understand now. I made some effort, going out of my way to help you in that. All is there, read it and think over it while restraining to give unqualified opinions. I feel you need to be told this because I see you are also starting to lose measure. Try not to absorb the polite arrogance and the passive aggressiveness of some semi-educated but quite pushy people here.
Also, I will not agree to disagree. I cannot agree to disagree with obviously confused people whom I told more than once, for instance, that the human hand isn't the issue but what is discussed is the energy of the ball. This kind of stubbornness leads to a dead end and I have to be perfectly clear with you, you have to understand what you don't understand now and not ask me to agree to disagree. Absolutely not.
Quote from: hansvonlieven on November 19, 2007, 09:05:33 PM
Quote from: rice on November 19, 2007, 08:20:04 PM
hey omnibus
why dont you build and see for yourself
then put this one to bed
His religion might collapse if he saw what really happens. He cannot afford to do this.
Hans von Lieven
That's crap.
Naudin's energy test would demonstrate a CoE violation if there wasn't so much energy lost when the ball crashes violently into the inside of the tube. As it was done, the difference in this loss in the SMOT vs. magnetless tests, due to the ball's differing trajectories and rotational speeds, suffices to explain the difference in the distance travelled up the tube.
To do this experiment more accurately, you would let the ball free-fall a bit to escape the magentic field, and then measure its velocity with a stroboscope or some other interference-free technique. Some of these techniques are easily accomplished by the amateur, and certainly well within Naudin's capabilities. For example:
- put a photodiode in a dark container with a pin-hole to let a pinpoint of light in, and shine a laser pointer at it horizontally from some distance away. Do this at some known height below the smot, so that the ball will break the beam as it falls.
- put another photodiode/laser pair parallel to the first one a couple inches below it.
As the ball falls, now, you can measure the time difference between the breaking of the first and second beam to find the velocity of the ball, which you can use to calculate the difference in kinetic energy in the smot vs. smotless case. There are easy electronic circuits you could us to make this measurement, but a scope works just as well.
Also, to be really fair, you don't want to move the smot magnets out of the way for the smotless case -- you'd just tilt the SMOT up until the ball could roll backwards out of the input, and raise it up to ensure that it starts at the same height that it starts at when it goes through the smot.
--
Mr. Entropy
Quote from: Mr.Entropy on November 19, 2007, 10:02:46 PM
Naudin's energy test would demonstrate a CoE violation if there wasn't so much energy lost when the ball crashes violently into the inside of the tube. As it was done, the difference in this loss in the SMOT vs. magnetless tests, due to the ball's differing trajectories and rotational speeds, suffices to explain the difference in the distance travelled up the tube.
To do this experiment more accurately, you would let the ball free-fall a bit to escape the magentic field, and then measure its velocity with a stroboscope or some other interference-free technique. Some of these techniques are easily accomplished by the amateur, and certainly well within Naudin's capabilities. For example:
- put a photodiode in a dark container with a pin-hole to let a pinpoint of light in, and shine a laser pointer at it horizontally from some distance away. Do this at some known height below the smot, so that the ball will break the beam as it falls.
- put another photodiode/laser pair parallel to the first one a couple inches below it.
As the ball falls, now, you can measure the time difference between the breaking of the first and second beam to find the velocity of the ball, which you can use to calculate the difference in kinetic energy in the smot vs. smotless case. There are easy electronic circuits you could us to make this measurement, but a scope works just as well.
Also, to be really fair, you don't want to move the smot magnets out of the way for the smotless case -- you'd just tilt the SMOT up until the ball could roll backwards out of the input, and raise it up to ensure that it starts at the same height that it starts at when it goes through the smot.
--
Mr. Entropy
Sure, that tests may be done as many other tests as well. They will all confirm that SMOT produces excess energy. If you disagree, show results from tests which demonstrate otherwise. As a matter of fact, all these tests are unnecessary, as I already noted, once the A-B-C-A closed loop experiment is carried out. It resolves in one stroke the above doubts and proves unequivocally that SMOT produces excess energy.
The amount of energy given freely on this topic could fuel the world.
Quote from: laserman on November 20, 2007, 02:10:07 PM
The amount of energy given freely on this topic could fuel the world.
LOL
.............(crickets)...............
Quote from: laserman on November 20, 2007, 05:44:50 PM
.............(crickets)...............
This is the sound when people are busy working ...
hey omnibus,
i'm out at the "ranch" right now, i wonder if i can find any more bull@@#@# to listen to. i can't believe you actually believe that you are right and the rest of the ou comunity has so much trouble with it.
if you are not even theoretically, prepared to have the scientific process duplicated, then i think you must be living in a delusional fantasy. what a crock of crap!!!!
lol
sam
ps: and i do mean crap!!!
Quote from: supersam on November 20, 2007, 08:10:37 PM
hey omnibus,
i'm out at the "ranch" right now, i wonder if i can find any more bull@@#@# to listen to. i can't believe you actually believe that you are right and the rest of the ou comunity has so much trouble with it.
if you are not even theoretically, prepared to have the scientific process duplicated, then i think you must be living in a delusional fantasy. what a crock of crap!!!!
lol
sam
ps: and i do mean crap!!!
You're not theoretically prepared to deal with the problem at hand. Therefore, restrain from talking crap.
Does anybody know what happened to this (the paranoid warning in the link cited there notwithstanding): http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,2017.0.html? Notice @xpenzif?s participation. He has obviously borrowed from it as well as from this: http://youtube.com/watch?v=YvHb41KP7To (here pushing the rotor by hand too strongly is suspicious, though), let alone Perendev, but made a significant step ahead in that he actually demonstrated his contraption working in a self-starting mode. Too bad these guys disappear all too often (it?s Thanksgiving time now, anyway.) In the current case it was, sadly, a sell-out (http://youtube.com/user/xpenzif) with a patent, I hear, filed in the Florida office of the USPTO which I haven't seen yet.
Oh, and notice also my insistence in http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,2017.0.html? that so far SMOT, constructed so that two conservative fields are properly superimposed, is the easiest reproducible way to demonstrate violation of energy conservation beyond doubt. SMOT violates CoE by producing excess energy (energy out of nothing) discontinuously. As I've mentioned many times, SMOT-like devices are the most likely candidates for success also in constructing machines producing excess energy (energy out of nothing) continuously.
with all due respect to omnibus and other SMOT evangelist...build it up or shut it up. Until you build at minimum a perpetual mobile you ain't got jack squat. I can show you 20 magnet motor designs I have that will run FOREVER as long as i keep my finger in them spinning it!!!
Quote from: laserman on November 23, 2007, 01:14:11 PM
with all due respect to omnibus and other SMOT evangelist...build it up or shut it up. Until you build at minimum a perpetual mobile you ain't got jack squat. I can show you 20 magnet motor designs I have that will run FOREVER as long as i keep my finger in them spinning it!!!
I disagree. There has been a device shown to work and now there are people trying to replicate it. Reproducing someone's results is sometimes a very long and difficult process, taking years sometimes, as many working towards their PhD's in experimental science can testify. Therefore, those trying to replicate these devices should not only not shut up but should intensify even more their exchange.
As for the running forever, a device violating CoE by producing excess energy shouldn't run forever. It should show a certain number of full turns made without external energy input and that'll be enough to conclude it violates CoE. Furthermotre, SMOT violates CoE, producing excess energy discontinuously, only when closing one single A-B-C-A loop.
If it wont sit on my desk and entertain me for more than a few revolutions...it has NO practical application. OK big deal beats CoE and energy out of nothing (as you claim) BIG WOOP. If it wont produce enough energy to light a fart...ITS USELESS, Move on to something with more potential. Build a working perpetual SMOT machine or move on down the road.
Quote from: laserman on November 23, 2007, 02:08:20 PM
If it wont sit on my desk and entertain me for more than a few revolutions...it has NO practical application. OK big deal beats CoE and energy out of nothing (as you claim) BIG WOOP. If it wont produce enough energy to light a fart...ITS USELESS, Move on to something with more potential. Build a working perpetual SMOT machine or move on down the road.
Keep your opinions to yourself. Opinions don't count as scientific argument.
Hi. to All!
Just another link (in my opinion) worth attention:
http://www.angelfire.com/ak5/energy21/magnetictechnology.htm
Quote from: laserman on November 23, 2007, 02:08:20 PM
If it wont sit on my desk and entertain me for more than a few revolutions...it has NO practical application. OK big deal beats CoE and energy out of nothing (as you claim) BIG WOOP. If it wont produce enough energy to light a fart...ITS USELESS, Move on to something with more potential. Build a working perpetual SMOT machine or move on down the road.
In fact, there will never be one revolution. The SMOT is based on a magnet, and we all know and it has been scientifically proven beyond all doubt that it is impossible to gain energy through interaction with a magnet. You will always have less by the end of the day. This has been proven numerous times and there is nothing violating the principle of CoE anywhere to be found.
Quote from: utilitarian on November 23, 2007, 05:00:07 PM
it has been scientifically proven beyond all doubt that it is impossible to gain energy through interaction with a magnet.
::)
Quote from: Freezer on November 23, 2007, 05:09:30 PM
Quote from: utilitarian on November 23, 2007, 05:00:07 PM
it has been scientifically proven beyond all doubt that it is impossible to gain energy through interaction with a magnet.
::)
Yes, you have an example to prove me wrong, oh wise one?
Quote from: utilitarian on November 23, 2007, 05:00:07 PM
Quote from: laserman on November 23, 2007, 02:08:20 PM
If it wont sit on my desk and entertain me for more than a few revolutions...it has NO practical application. OK big deal beats CoE and energy out of nothing (as you claim) BIG WOOP. If it wont produce enough energy to light a fart...ITS USELESS, Move on to something with more potential. Build a working perpetual SMOT machine or move on down the road.
In fact, there will never be one revolution. The SMOT is based on a magnet, and we all know and it has been scientifically proven beyond all doubt that it is impossible to gain energy through interaction with a magnet. You will always have less by the end of the day. This has been proven numerous times and there is nothing violating the principle of CoE anywhere to be found.
Not so. It has been proven beyond any doubt through a rigorous scientific analysis that SMOT violates CoE. At the end of the day, that is, when the A-B-C-A loop in SMOT is closed you will always have more energy out than in.
Quote from: Omnibus on November 23, 2007, 05:16:55 PM
Quote from: utilitarian on November 23, 2007, 05:00:07 PM
Quote from: laserman on November 23, 2007, 02:08:20 PM
If it wont sit on my desk and entertain me for more than a few revolutions...it has NO practical application. OK big deal beats CoE and energy out of nothing (as you claim) BIG WOOP. If it wont produce enough energy to light a fart...ITS USELESS, Move on to something with more potential. Build a working perpetual SMOT machine or move on down the road.
In fact, there will never be one revolution. The SMOT is based on a magnet, and we all know and it has been scientifically proven beyond all doubt that it is impossible to gain energy through interaction with a magnet. You will always have less by the end of the day. This has been proven numerous times and there is nothing violating the principle of CoE anywhere to be found.
Not so. It has been proven beyond any doubt through a rigorous scientific analysis that SMOT violates CoE. At the end of the day, that is, when the A-B-C-A loop in SMOT is closed you will always have more energy out than in.
No, even a simple glance at your so-called proof is enough to see that you are simply fooling yourself. Sorry to say, in your closed loop, there is always less energy out than in, as proved by the fact that you have to stick you hand in to make the process work. When you can do it without your hand, we will have something to talk about, but not until then. You are just too self-confident to see the error in your analysis. Think, try to make it work without your hand. When you realize why you can't, you will have seen the truth.
Quote from: utilitarian on November 23, 2007, 05:21:55 PM
Quote from: Omnibus on November 23, 2007, 05:16:55 PM
Quote from: utilitarian on November 23, 2007, 05:00:07 PM
Quote from: laserman on November 23, 2007, 02:08:20 PM
If it wont sit on my desk and entertain me for more than a few revolutions...it has NO practical application. OK big deal beats CoE and energy out of nothing (as you claim) BIG WOOP. If it wont produce enough energy to light a fart...ITS USELESS, Move on to something with more potential. Build a working perpetual SMOT machine or move on down the road.
In fact, there will never be one revolution. The SMOT is based on a magnet, and we all know and it has been scientifically proven beyond all doubt that it is impossible to gain energy through interaction with a magnet. You will always have less by the end of the day. This has been proven numerous times and there is nothing violating the principle of CoE anywhere to be found.
Not so. It has been proven beyond any doubt through a rigorous scientific analysis that SMOT violates CoE. At the end of the day, that is, when the A-B-C-A loop in SMOT is closed you will always have more energy out than in.
No, even a simple glance at your so-called proof is enough to see that you are simply fooling yourself. Sorry to say, in your closed loop, there is always less energy out than in, as proved by the fact that you have to stick you hand in to make the process work. When you can do it without your hand, we will have something to talk about, but not until then. You are just too self-confident to see the error in your analysis. Think, try to make it work without your hand. When you realize why you can't, you will have seen the truth.
Your simple glance at my analysis is just too simple. Don't fool yourself, you have understood nothing of my analysis and therefore you don't need to push your confusion here.
Just a little help. The energy (mgh1 - (Ma - Mb)) which the hand imparts to the ball is less than the energy (mgh1 + Mb) the ball loses upon closing the loop. That is in clear violation of CoE.
Quote from: utilitarian on November 23, 2007, 05:12:33 PM
Yes, you have an example to prove me wrong, oh wise one?
First show me the proof that it has been scientifically proven beyond all doubt that it is impossible to gain energy through interaction with a magnet. ;) I'm so sure every single material and configuration with integration of magnets have been tested, as well as artificial materials and configurations which haven't even been thought of yet right?
Quote from: Freezer on November 23, 2007, 05:29:05 PM
Quote from: utilitarian on November 23, 2007, 05:12:33 PM
Yes, you have an example to prove me wrong, oh wise one?
First show me the proof that it has been scientifically proven beyond all doubt that it is impossible to gain energy through interaction with a magnet. ;)
See above.
Here we go again...omnibus defending SMOT but wont produce ONE running SMOT engine..NOT ONE!!! SHIT...Draw one for me and ILLLLLLLL build it!!!!!! .yawn...
Quote from: Omnibus on November 23, 2007, 05:27:50 PM
Just a little help. The energy (mgh1 - (Ma - Mb)) which the hand imparts to the ball is less than the energy (mgh1 + Mb) the ball loses upon closing the loop. That is in clear violation of CoE.
This has all been talked about, and that is clearly not so. You are using a semantic trick to convince yourself and are calculating improperly. The magnet doesn't care about your calculations, though, and when you can get your hand out of the experiment, you will have a leg to stand on, but not until then. The overunity you mention (the difference is Ma, which is quite substantial) should clearly be enough to overcome the minor friction involved and return the ball to B. But it is not - you need your hand to do that. No amount of theoretical proof or bullshit youtube videos from "expensive" are going to get the ball back to B. It is flat-out impossible. You can live a million lifetimes and devote every second to nothing but getting the ball back to B, and you will always end up using your hand in the end.
Quote from: laserman on November 23, 2007, 05:40:06 PM
Here we go again...omnibus defending SMOT but wont produce ONE running SMOT engine..NOT ONE!!! SHIT...Draw one for me and ILLLLLLLL build it!!!!!! .yawn...
The SMOT I'm analyzing works. It does violate CoE and produces excess energy (energy out of nothing) discontinuously.
Quote from: utilitarian on November 23, 2007, 05:45:00 PM
Quote from: Omnibus on November 23, 2007, 05:27:50 PM
Just a little help. The energy (mgh1 - (Ma - Mb)) which the hand imparts to the ball is less than the energy (mgh1 + Mb) the ball loses upon closing the loop. That is in clear violation of CoE.
This has all been talked about, and that is clearly not so. You are using a semantic trick to convince yourself and are calculating improperly. The magnet doesn't care about your calculations, though, and when you can get your hand out of the experiment, you will have a leg to stand on, but not until then. The overunity you mention (the difference is Ma, which is quite substantial) should clearly be enough to overcome the minor friction involved and return the ball to B. But it is not - you need your hand to do that. No amount of theoretical proof or bullshit youtube videos from "expensive" are going to get the ball back to B. It is flat-out impossible. You can live a million lifetimes and devote every second to nothing but getting the ball back to B, and you will always end up using your hand in the end.
On the contrary, what I'm saying is clearly so--SMOT does violate CoE. The energy (mgh1 - (Ma - Mb)) which the hand imparts to the ball is less than the energy (mgh1 + Mb) the ball loses upon closing the loop. That is in clear violation of CoE.
Again, restrain from pushing your obvious confusion thus cluttering this important discussion.
Quote from: Omnibus on November 23, 2007, 05:47:30 PM
On the contrary, what I'm saying is clearly so--SMOT does violate CoE.
Again, restrain from pushing your obvious confusion thus cluttering this important discussion.
Nope, the SMOT clearly obeys CoE. This has been proven beyond all doubt and is also confirmed by real world trials, which you have none of.
Come back when you can get your hand out of the loop. It is sad, really. Here you are, working with an OU device, using your hand to help it along. Oh, the sweet irony.
Quote from: utilitarian on November 23, 2007, 05:52:03 PM
Quote from: Omnibus on November 23, 2007, 05:47:30 PM
On the contrary, what I'm saying is clearly so--SMOT does violate CoE.
Again, restrain from pushing your obvious confusion thus cluttering this important discussion.
Nope, the SMOT clearly obeys CoE. This has been proven beyond all doubt and is also confirmed by real world trials, which you have none of.
Come back when you can get your hand out of the loop. It is sad, really. Here you are, working with an OU device, using your hand to help it along. Oh, the sweet irony.
Stop spewing nonsense.
SMOT does violate CoE. The energy (mgh1 - (Ma - Mb)) which the hand imparts to the ball is less than the energy (mgh1 + Mb) the ball loses upon closing the loop. That is in clear violation of CoE.
That's the reality with these confused people, behaving like real fanatics You slap them with irrefutable arguments, they still continue to repeat their mantra. Typical for people who think that a lie repeated a hundred times becomes truth. No, it won't become truth that SMOT doesn't violate CoE because the energy (mgh1 - (Ma - Mb)) which the hand imparts to the ball is less than the energy (mgh1 + Mb) the ball loses upon closing the loop. That is in clear violation of CoE.
Mr. E: I need to return my Omnibus
Clerk: Why?
Mr. E: There's something wrong with it.
Clerk: Does it not speak when spoken to?
Mr. E: Oh, it speaks well enough, but it only says stupid and insulting things. Watch:
OMNIBUS, SPEAK!
Quote from: Mr.Entropy on November 23, 2007, 11:36:16 PM
Mr. E: I need to return my Omnibus
Clerk: Why?
Mr. E: There's something wrong with it.
Clerk: Does it not speak when spoken to?
Mr. E: Oh, it speaks well enough, but it only says stupid and insulting things. Watch:
OMNIBUS, SPEAK!
Silly
someone close this thread.
omnibus can start another thread to just argue with zero evidence.
Quote from: rice on November 24, 2007, 12:02:46 AM
someone close this thread.
omnibus can start another thread to just argue with zero evidence.
Better yet, people like you to restrain from cluttering the thread with nonsense.
in order for you to have a valid argument you need to spend a few bucks and get what you need to build what you claim is works.
if you could build it you could shut me and all others up.
until then you have nothing to say
Quote from: Omnibus on November 23, 2007, 11:54:20 PM
Silly
Clerk: That wasn't very insulting at all
Mr.E: Sigh. No. I swear It wasn't behaving this way before.
Clerk: Should we say something about SMOT? Perhaps point out that a superposition of conservative fields is, itself, conservative? Maybe mention that the demostration that supposedly "proves" OU would look the same whether it was OU or not?
Mr. E: Oh, please no. *whispers* It can hear you
Quote from: rice on November 24, 2007, 12:26:10 AM
in order for you to have a valid argument you need to spend a few bucks and get what you need to build what you claim is works.
if you could build it you could shut me and all others up.
until then you have nothing to say
Regarding SMOT, I'm shutting you (don't bother about others, don't hide behind their backs) up at once. SMOT does violate CoE by producing excess energy (energy from nothing) discontinuously because the energy (mgh1 - (Ma - Mb)) which the hand imparts to the ball is less than the energy (mgh1 + Mb) the ball loses upon closing the loop. That is in clear violation of CoE.
You wanted a valid argument, you got it
Quote from: Mr.Entropy on November 24, 2007, 12:27:28 AM
Quote from: Omnibus on November 23, 2007, 11:54:20 PM
Silly
Clerk: That wasn't very insulting at all
Mr.E: Sigh. No. I swear It wasn't behaving this way before.
Clerk: Should we say something about SMOT? Perhaps point out that a superposition of conservative fields is, itself, conservative? Maybe mention that the demostration that supposedly "proves" OU would look the same whether it was OU or not?
Mr. E: Oh, please no. *whispers* It can hear you
Silly.
may i ask why you dont build it?
do you have all your fingers.
do you have basic tools.
if yes it should be easy
Quote from: rice on November 24, 2007, 12:40:03 AM
may i ask why you dont build it?
do you have all your fingers.
do you have basic tools.
if yes it should be easy
I have built SMOT, I have shown it works and I have analyzed it rigorously proving scientifically beyond any doubt that it violates CoE.
why you have not closed the loop?
Quote from: rice on November 24, 2007, 12:49:29 AM
why you have not closed the loop?
I have closed the loop. The loop A-B-C-A I'm analyzing is a closed loop.
well then do show us perpetual motion please
Quote from: rice on November 24, 2007, 12:55:56 AM
well then do show us perpetual motion please
I have proved beyond doubt violation of CoE which is the important fact. Focus on that.
Quote from: rice on November 24, 2007, 12:49:29 AM
why you have not closed the loop?
Simple - the loop is closed when the researcher brings the ball up to B using his hand. Come on, we can all do the Omnibus at this point!
In all seriousness, Entropy had a very insightful point. The ABCA experiment would look the same even if the SMOT was grossly under unity. For example, upon leaving C and dropping to A, the ball experienced such a strong magnetic pull from C that it only barely touched down at A, hardly making a noise at all. Clearly it would arrive at A with barely any kinetic energy at all, obviously under unity. Omnibus's calculation would not change one bit. So long as his hand is available to shove the ball up to B, overunity is preserved. Something is clearly missing.
As a matter of fact, @xpenzif demonstrates one practical application of the important fact of CoE violation proven by SMOT in a perpetual motion machine.
i dont understand why would omnibus make such claims when this had been beaten to death by many
including himself
arguing with guy like him is pointless
i have no more to say
Quote from: shruggedatlas on November 24, 2007, 12:58:16 AM
Quote from: rice on November 24, 2007, 12:49:29 AM
why you have not closed the loop?
Simple - the loop is closed when the researcher brings the ball up to B using his hand. Come on, we can all do the Omnibus at this point!
In all seriousness, Entropy had a very insightful point. The ABCA experiment would look the same even if the SMOT was grossly under unity. For example, upon leaving C and dropping to A, the ball experienced such a strong magnetic pull from C that it only barely touched down at A, hardly making a noise at all. Clearly it would arrive at A with barely any kinetic energy at all, obviously under unity. Omnibus's calculation would not change one bit. So long as his hand is available to shove the ball up to B, overunity is preserved. Something is clearly missing.
Not so. The loop is closed when the ball returns at A. Please try to learn elementary things before engaging in a discussion. @Mr.Entropy has absolutely no point whatsoever and he, the same way as you, doesn't know what he's talking about.
Quote from: rice on November 24, 2007, 01:01:44 AM
i dont understand why would omnibus make such claims when this had been beaten to death by many
including himself
arguing with guy like him is pointless
i have no more to say
You're a shameless liar. The opposite of what you're saying is true. SMOT has been proven to violate CoE beyond any doubt.
Quote from: Omnibus on November 24, 2007, 01:03:24 AM
Quote from: rice on November 24, 2007, 01:01:44 AM
i dont understand why would omnibus make such claims when this had been beaten to death by many
including himself
arguing with guy like him is pointless
i have no more to say
You're a shameless liar. The opposite of what you're saying is true. SMOT has been proven to violate CoE beyond any doubt.
Do you have some kind of pathological need to get the last word, even if it adds nothing new to the discussion?
Quote from: shruggedatlas on November 24, 2007, 01:17:15 AM
Quote from: Omnibus on November 24, 2007, 01:03:24 AM
Quote from: rice on November 24, 2007, 01:01:44 AM
i dont understand why would omnibus make such claims when this had been beaten to death by many
including himself
arguing with guy like him is pointless
i have no more to say
You're a shameless liar. The opposite of what you're saying is true. SMOT has been proven to violate CoE beyond any doubt.
Do you have some kind of pathological need to get the last word, even if it adds nothing new to the discussion?
Probably you do. Stop uttering these incoherent ramblings and you won't hear a response from me. This applies to everyone else cluttering the thread with crap.
@ Omnibus:
With all due respect sir, and I do respect your knowledge of physics, you keep touting Xpensiv's device as an example. I totally disagree. I think this device was a fraud from the word go. (Please feel free to check all of my posts on the matter) A lot of others here agree. My replication attempts, as well as many others, have shown this to be "true". Please show evidence that we are all wrong. He is gone so he is of no help here. I have seen nothing, I repeat, nothing that "demonstrates" that this was not a fraud. Show us something that overturns this and I will apologize to him. Until then, I remain hopeful, but not encouraged.
Bill
Quote from: Pirate88179 on November 24, 2007, 01:27:37 AM
@ Omnibus:
With all due respect sir, and I do respect your knowledge of physics, you keep touting Xpensiv's device as an example. I totally disagree. I think this device was a fraud from the word go. (Please feel free to check all of my posts on the matter) A lot of others here agree. My replication attempts, as well as many others, have shown this to be "true". Please show evidence that we are all wrong. He is gone so he is of no help here. I have seen nothing, I repeat, nothing that "demonstrates" that this was not a fraud. Show us something that overturns this and I will apologize to him. Until then, I remain hopeful, but not encouraged.
Bill
What's funny is that expezif's device does not even have two conservative fields, so I do not know why Omnibus is so gung ho on it. It is positioned sideways, so gravity is not a factor, only magnetic force is (well, and the hairdryer). Omnibus is so desperate for any validation, he will cling even to an obvious scam until the bitter end. To him, the video is prima facie evidence that now needs to be disproved beyond all doubt, which is of course impossible, since any failure can be easily explained by the screws not being correctly placed, etc.
@ Shruggedatlas:
Exactly!!!!
Bill
PS I repeat, I mean no disrespect to Omnibus. This is nothing personal here. We are expressing our opinions based upon our knowledge in this area. If new evidence arrises, I know I will look at it as will others.
Bill
Quote from: Pirate88179 on November 24, 2007, 01:27:37 AM
@ Omnibus:
With all due respect sir, and I do respect your knowledge of physics, you keep touting Xpensiv's device as an example. I totally disagree. I think this device was a fraud from the word go. (Please feel free to check all of my posts on the matter) A lot of others here agree. My replication attempts, as well as many others, have shown this to be "true". Please show evidence that we are all wrong. He is gone so he is of no help here. I have seen nothing, I repeat, nothing that "demonstrates" that this was not a fraud. Show us something that overturns this and I will apologize to him. Until then, I remain hopeful, but not encouraged.
Bill
In the latest posts the accent was on SMOT. There must be absolutely no doubt that SMOT violates CoE, this has been proven beyond doubt and no time should be wasted on repeating the same debate. The debate concerning SMOT is over. SMOT is violating CoE.Period. End of story.
As it concerns the application of that violation of CoE in a practical device producing excess energy continuously (a device which will inevitably be constructed), I agree, there's still more to be done. It is a well known fact that many times reproducing results is not an easy task. Sometimes one cannot reproduce even his or her own results. This is the experience of every instructor teaching labs, for instance. Sometimes even most trivial canned experiments cannot be readily reproduced for one reason or another let alone something that is far from trivial. Sometimes it takes years to reproduce results and this is a common experience of any researcher in any experimental science. I can show you instances where completely inconsistent results from various research groups have existed for decades, published in most prestigious journals, at that concerning phenomena of much lesser importance than this one. Of course, many here are not interested in science but want something practical that can immediately take care of their energy bills piling up each month. Now, that's something we're very far away from at this point and anyone expecting an easy solution to such a problem shouldn't attend this discussion. Those of us, however, who are interested in the scientific aspect know that the study is far from over and the fact that some still haven't had success in reproducing it in the short period from the time @xpenzif showed it, up until now, by no means gives us grounds to give up let alone label it as fraud. This problem is in the process of study and every lack of patience only ruins the creative atmosphere and contributes nothing to the process of studying the phenomenon.
Quote from: shruggedatlas on November 24, 2007, 01:40:59 AM
Quote from: Pirate88179 on November 24, 2007, 01:27:37 AM
@ Omnibus:
With all due respect sir, and I do respect your knowledge of physics, you keep touting Xpensiv's device as an example. I totally disagree. I think this device was a fraud from the word go. (Please feel free to check all of my posts on the matter) A lot of others here agree. My replication attempts, as well as many others, have shown this to be "true". Please show evidence that we are all wrong. He is gone so he is of no help here. I have seen nothing, I repeat, nothing that "demonstrates" that this was not a fraud. Show us something that overturns this and I will apologize to him. Until then, I remain hopeful, but not encouraged.
Bill
What's funny is that expezif's device does not even have two conservative fields, so I do not know why Omnibus is so gung ho on it. It is positioned sideways, so gravity is not a factor, only magnetic force is (well, and the hairdryer). Omnibus is so desperate for any validation, he will cling even to an obvious scam until the bitter end. To him, the video is prima facie evidence that now needs to be disproved beyond all doubt, which is of course impossible, since any failure can be easily explained by the screws not being correctly placed, etc.
I explained it once why there is a superposition of conservative fields in @xpenzif's device and I'm not going to repeat it because someone doesn't want to read and think. As for the obvious fraud, that's preposterous. Such allegations must be proved. The burden of proof for such allegations is on the person making them.
No, again, I respectfully disagree. The burden of proof is on the guy that made the claim, and disappeared. I call it fraud, he needs to prove me wrong. He posted the video and made the claims, he needs to back them up, which he did not, and probably can not do. Just my view on the matter.
Bill
Quote from: Pirate88179 on November 24, 2007, 01:53:57 AM
No, again, I respectfully disagree. The burden of proof is on the guy that made the claim, and disappeared. I call it fraud, he needs to prove me wrong. He posted the video and made the claims, he needs to back them up, which he did not, and probably can not do. Just my view on the matter.
Bill
Whoever makes allegations (say, for fraud) must prove these allegations. The burden of proof is on the person making the allegations.
Think about how science works. Someone publishes results which others cannot reproduce. The reasons for this can be numerous but the first researcher will never be accused of fraud, unless it is proven that fraud has indeed been committed. Even in such cases the final conclusion may not be fraud. Recall what happened with the investigation of congressman Dingell in Dr. Baltimore's case. It took over ten years, FBI got involved, US Congress got involved amidst numerous allegations for fraud on the part of Imanishi-Kari (Baltimore's assistant) and nevertheless the final outcome was acquitting them of all these allegations. It is very difficult to prove fraud in research and when one makes such allegations one must have real facts to back them up, not that others weren't able to reproduce the results of that research.
Now I'm interested in some more practical questions. Does anyone know how one can find out what exact type the various hard drive stepper motors are. What was that 8-tooth stepper motor that was said to be so important in @xpenzif's device that it wouldn't work otherwise? Any model number? It was said that the device won't work on a free ball bearing. Remember, there were a couple of guys who said they have it working (although never showed a video, except for that guy from Texas but that wasn't really it).
These hard drives are really some achievement in fine mechanics. Not much info about the stepper motors they use, though.
Hey Guys
got this in my box today http://www.magneticpowerinc.com/perpetual.html seems might be the same guy!
Wayne
Please....
You can forget everything about Magnetic Power Inc.
This company just show a bunch of written goals and promises from one year to another.
And they never show any hardware, just patents on crap and lot's of invester attracting thesis nobody with a healthy mind will care about.
Their latest article on the "screw motor guy" is just another attempt to get peoples attentions.
Magnetic Power Inc is a site of fancy words and a crook behind the curtains.
Hi guys and girls , i would like to explain xpensivs video , it is clear that he doesnt know why the rotor turned , he THOUGHT it was because of the head of the screws attracting more flux, however he is wrong you could use any metal in any shape you like doesnt have to be screws or triangles could be ball bearings, the reason zpensivs rotor turned by itself is due to the numetal he has used as the little magnet stand you can see he has taken a railing from a seagate 5 inch hard drive, this part of the shielding is in loads of harddrives and if your looking for it then il tell you where youl get it open the hard drive find the stator magnet that is used to move the read/write heads in and out of the disc you will notice that the magnet is fixed onto a clamp of some shape this clap contains shielding and i believe that xpensiv has accidentally used this much to his advantage! i would also believe that he has tried to replicate it on a bigger scale but has failed in excatly the same way all the replications have failed this is probably why you havent heard of him,
imagine running an ac sinewave through a dc motor the spindle will not rotate too oposing waves negative cycle and positive cycle both counteracting one another now rectify the ac into dc and the motor will spin in the given direction, imagine the shielding as a diode rectifying the magnetic flux, therefore giving you a pull on a flywheel but without the drag, iv got one working i would like to post it on youtube (im new to the internet) i am currently building a larger unit which i am happy to discuss and share with all (i didnt think there were so many people interested in it) good to see that there are people like you in this world im sure that without a doubt you all make the world a better place
and i have lots of respect for you all dedicating your time and effort to finding an alternative fuel source.
finally please please please in you tube search for ... one way magnetic shielding the holy grail this guy has realised the potential and understands how xpensifs device worked and once youve watched the video you will too hopefully lol
oh one more thing for some unknown reason (unknown to me) the substances used to create the numetal shielding is a closely guarded secret ... why????
please look at video on you tube ... one way magnetic shielding the holy grail
one more thig just incase i didnt make it clear enough whwn the flywheel is spinning the magnets on the side facing you in the video are pulling the screws toward them turning the flywheel the flywheel turning then moves the magnet behind the shielding and the shielding simply stops most of the attraction on the other side thus it is only attracting on the side of the magnets,
if your not believeing the shielding properties of numetal then open up an old hard drive put your screwdriver on the magnet end bang strong attraction then turn over there will be next to nothing im not kidding its that much of a difference , and that is how you see these free energy motors that keep running after there unplugged , with a dc motor your putting a load through the coil electro magnet to act upon a stationary magnet you could do the same without the sationary magnets but iron just time the spinning coils to attract to the iron and the motor will turn not very efficient but it will turn there is no difference to this concept the only difference is your not using electro magnets your using magnet magnets lol , the flywheel spinning combined with the shielding placed in the right position will rotate a rotor, and no your not getting power for nothing your using the enormouse amount of energy stored in the magnets they will run dry after about 200 years just because something holds a great deal of energy it doesnt mean its infinate , but it certainly beats the socks off of thos AA`s thats for sure
go get yourselves some old hard drives and rip em apart and with a bit of tinkering youl be pleasently surprised , i say again instead of using electricity to power an electro magnet use a magnet !!!! do you guys get it now? the shielding is acting as a firing sequence turning on and off the field at the right point with no moving parts simply when the flywheel pushes the iron to the shielded part of the magnet it is simulating dis-engaging the magnet ( this is what your brushes would do in a dc motor ) i hope you guys have fun if you get enuff people doing it the oil companys will have no chance but to back down , remember your govorment gets tax from fuel , the motor companies get paid commission to make their cars drink more fuel than they need to , why would they let a magnetic battery the size of two car batteries which would run your car for 200 years escape into public knowledge ??? trust me iv got one lighting a 60w 240volt light bulb off of a 12 volt inverter and it runs and runs not a lot i know but it is really hard to source bearings ect on a tight budget so i just have to wait and see what comes up at the junkuyards but i will have a bigger version soon pumping out around 600 - 1000 watts plenty to 24 hour charge an electric cars batteries , youd have it running 24 / 7 in the boot of your car
jaaysonkey@yahoo.co.uk, If this works as you state it does, then this next concept would work and be more powerfull. The magnetic draw is always seeking the center of the attracting polarity. If the center of the polarity is always kept away from the attraction, it would always create a draw making the wheel spin untill the magnets lost their polarity. When ever shielding is applied, the center of polarity is then centered between the start and end of the shielding and if the magnet is spinning, the center of polarity will stay in one position if part of it is shielded.
Quote from: nightlife on May 07, 2008, 12:28:55 PM
this next concept would work and be more powerfull
Actually, the attraction between the shield and the magnet will be a show stopper.
Eric
eavogels, "Actually, the attraction between the shield and the magnet will be a show stopper."
That may not be true as long as the stationairy magnets attraction to the moving magnet is stronger then the attraction the moving magnet has with the sheild.
There are several different ways sheilding can be applied and I intend to try using as many as I can think of to find what is best and or if any will work at all.
I have ordered some magnets to see if this could work as well as I have ordered some magnets to see if my pulse motor concepts will work.
So has anyone succeeded in replicating this yet?
What about Jeffery Lacroix's motor that uses magnets on the rotor rather than screws?
Nothing works, all fake.
There is a difference between having a non working device and a fake, to lump all of them into the same grouping is wrong.