On the steorn forum, Harvey says that the reason the roller in Clanzer's video
< http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o4kq1oNMtws >
goes through all three gates, is that the gates are close enough so that they are magnetically coupled, which means that there is no repulsion at the entrance to gate 2 and gate3.
I wonder if Clanzer or somebody could test this by moving the roller near the entrance to gate 2 and seeing if there is any repulsion. If there is none, then the gates are magnetically coupled and need to be moved farther apart until repulsion appears at the entrance to gate 2. If the roller is then started at the entrance to gate 1, and still enters gate 2, then the tri-force magnets are probably OU, else they are not.
Though after seeing the video that dusty put up, it looks like the thing is a bust: his rotor went past a series of magnets where there was (probably) no repulsion, but stopped when it came around to the first one because there was repulsion there.
@couldbe,
The outcome of @Dusty's experiment was expected. I explained it several times. It's a waste of time to go along that route. A magnetic motor won't work if there's no assisting properly overlaid additional field (as in @xpenzif's and @ltesung888's) or there's no field change from withing, caused by the action of the motor itself (as in Torbay motor, @alsetalokin's and Lego motor). Another way to deal with @Dusty's problem is through brute force, creating the assisting field from wihout through spending external energy, the way Paul Sprain does.
Arrange an array of Gates - of a length determined by the factors below.
angle the gates to approx, 24.3 degree incline (give or take for the strength of your particular magnets)
take a ramp, and place it in front of the first gate, and angle it upwards, until your roller enters the gate from a release at the top of the ramp, WAY outside the influence of the Tri-Forge Gates.
This is your starting point (Point A).
From point A - the roller rolls down the ramp, into the gate entrance, and transverses the gate at approx. 24.3-degree incline, for a distance X. Where X is greater than or equal to the height of Point A, + the extra height needed to return the roller from point B (gate exit) to Point A, down a secondary ramp.
The actuall heights,ramp angles, and number of gates needed may vary. even using the same brand magnets, there is a (slight) difference in each individual magnet, and thus each individual gate.
Doesn't he have a different magnet for the reverse test? Maybe it doesn't apply, but there was a difference from just using a solid magnet like in the beginning of clanzers vids.
MMM this is a bummer :(
http://nl.youtube.com/watch?v=jQbuFaeNWdc
Quote from: Unicron on February 21, 2008, 06:34:38 AM
MMM this is a bummer :(
http://nl.youtube.com/watch?v=jQbuFaeNWdc
Like I said, it's a complete waste of time to go along this route (cf., for instance, http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,3871.msg78029.html#msg78029) . It is already well understood why it won't work. I don't think it's wise to bump our heads into the same dead end over and over again.
Quote from: sm0ky2 on February 20, 2008, 09:05:44 PM
From point A - the roller rolls down the ramp, into the gate entrance, and transverses the gate at approx. 24.3-degree incline, for a distance X. Where X is greater than or equal to the height of Point A, + the extra height needed to return the roller from point B (gate exit) to Point A, down a secondary ramp.
That sounds like the one thing the gates should be able to do that doesn't involve needing to overcome repulsion, yet you would get work done - OU.
I think clanzer is going to try it this weekend.
http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=QPpvsM5tuQ
My effort , but i am not convinced at all..
@Craigy,
It is well understood already that ideas such as this won't work. It's a waste of time to pursue that avenue. There must be another, independent field, properly superimposed, lacking here, for this device to work. Never forget what the principle of action of the Johannes Taisnierius device (contemporary SMOT, that is) is. Recall that if there were no gravitational field properly superimposed there, the ball wouldn't be able to restore its initial position. Like I've already explained, in a device such as yours, when the whole ring of stations is assembled, there will be a set of potential hills and troughs formed due to the cooperative action of all the magnets of the ring. When you start the ball at the top of such hill, due to losses it will not have enough energy when at the follow-up trough to even climb the next hill, let alone overcome it, and the rotor will wiggle back and forth until coming to a stop at the trough. The only thing that can be achieved is if one of the hills is higher than the rest, as it usually happens in a practical experiment, to have the rotor start from there and have it overcome a couple of follow-up lower hills. This is seen in Butch LaFonte's video, for instance. As you understand, that's no achievement at all. Therefore, in order for such motor to work conditions have to be sought to have an additional, independent field assist the main field by proper overlaying of that assisting field.
There's another concept that can be at play--to have the device change the field from within during its action. This is the underlying concept in Torbay motor, Lego motor and @alsetalokin's motor among others. This doesn't seem to be the case in the device you're exploring right now (the tri-gate device).
Couple of vids while waiting for magnet kit to arrive.
Slope
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SP46aoVkOUQ
Curve
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uPnMkGbJbnw
Hi Res version available on forums at http://www.overunity.org.uk
Cheers
Sean.
@ClaNZeR,
The first video ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SP46aoVkOUQ ) seems very promising because there is this necessary assisting field of gravity available. Just as in Johannees Taisnierius? device (SMOT). It really is a variation of Taisnierius? device actually. Probably even better because in the latter there must be a sufficient height for the ball to fall through else it would get stuck at the sticky spot. In your experiment it seems the ball (the dumbbell) can exit smoothly the stations and proceed immediately along a trail of a reverse slope. That?s really critical if that?s the case. The dumbbell needs only a slight slope to go sliding steadily down until reaching again the entrance of the stations. Seems so obvious but like everything else must be actually done to have it really confirmed. Good luck with this experiment, mate. I?ll be following with great interest.
Not so sure about the success of the second video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uPnMkGbJbnw) but you may prove me completely wrong there. I still maintain the trough-hill theory I mentioned several times regarding Butch LaFonte?s contraption but here the things may be slightly different in view of the fact that the dumbbell gets far out of the way of the initial set of stations, beyond the action of their magnetic field. We?ll see what happens. Unfortunately, at this moment I don?t have the necessary setup to do the experiment myself but I hope to get one (what exactly is this set of magnets called so that I can order it?) to try especially the Taisnerius-like one.
If ever I wanted a camera its now.
Since two days I?ve been playing with this (96-piece GeoMag set 30 bloody ?) and the results are very interesting even if others may seem to think they are because of field coupling.
Try this.
Open the gate and put the parts on the lenght of a level table so that the points that were pointing inwards are now all pointing up, first series to the left, next series to the right. Now take your roller (same with two steel balls) and simply release it starting from the left at about an inch above the series.
The roller will accelerate to the right (Provided you are the right side up) decellerate when entering the second series (to the right) slow down, pass the last on the right, stop, and GO BACK to the left reaching a point just a little less than starting point, and then do it all over again, and again unit it finally locks in the center.
My record is now around 4 minutes of continuus motion using two sets of 6 triangles. Hypnotic to watch :)
Next I have taped 16 rollers to the wheel of an old golf trolley and put a gate UNDER the wheel, while balancing the cart horizontally so that it just not touches the ground. It is hard to find the ideal placement BUT I have now around 12 revolutions with only the slightest touch. There goes my weekend....
Another thing is the curve. If you try the first experiment without the steel balls, the rolling magnet will curve away nicely always following the same path. If you use a slight curve, the ball less roller FOLLOWS that path exactly.
Important to note that the more open the gate, the more stable the movement is.
I have calculated that I can keep a roller going indefinitly using a large circle of tri-gates widely spread, creating a circle of around 4 metres in diameter. There is one catch, I would need around 6 boxes of Geomag. At 30? a pop I am going over budget.
What a great idea to use different sized steel rollers, and surprisingly it works. But can motion be sustained?
I must know so I probably will buy more GeoMag once I do have the funds.
Great fun to play with, now if I could just convince my 7-year old not to touch anything...
@AquariuZ,
That's very interesting but this sounds worrisome:
Quoteunit it finally locks in the center.
The critics would say--well, that's what a pendulum does. As in a pendulum you put in initial energy (placing it at the entrance of the stations amounts to spending that initial energy) and then when it's let go it converts back and forth the potential and kinetic energy just as the pendulum does until coming to a stop due to losing it through friction and so on.
Will be interesting to try having it traverse full closed loops. Then the above argument is hard to sustain. Good luck and hope the little buddy doesn't lose too many of the pieces while assisting you do the experiment.
Quote from: Omnibus on February 22, 2008, 07:23:42 PM
@ClaNZeR,
The first video ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SP46aoVkOUQ ) seems very promising because there is this necessary assisting field of gravity available. Just as in Johannees Taisnierius? device (SMOT). It really is a variation of Taisnierius? device actually.
I have the inclination to disagree with this point. Much unlike the "smot" device, the gravitational field is not necessary with the Tri-Force Gates. you can exit the roller onto a level plane.
It does not have to "drop" to escape.
in fact, dropping it like this - subjects the roller to the attraction field, which is just under the repulsion zone, when the roller is exiting - that will actually pull the roller back towards the gates.
I would suggest gradually reducing the angle of slope at the top of the ramp,
and eject the roller on the same plane as the last gate. then wrap it back around on a curved "slide" type ramp, then down a steep incline, onto a curve to re-enter the gate at the bottom.
omni,
i've been playing poker in my spare time. want to go all in with your "absolute proof" on this one? i'm all in! doesn't work. want to take the bet to just shuit up about it anywhere but a smot site?
lol
sam
Quote from: sm0ky2 on February 22, 2008, 09:13:03 PM
Quote from: Omnibus on February 22, 2008, 07:23:42 PM
@ClaNZeR,
The first video ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SP46aoVkOUQ ) seems very promising because there is this necessary assisting field of gravity available. Just as in Johannees Taisnierius? device (SMOT). It really is a variation of Taisnierius? device actually.
I have the inclination to disagree with this point. Much unlike the "smot" device, the gravitational field is not necessary with the Tri-Force Gates. you can exit the roller onto a level plane.
It does not have to "drop" to escape.
in fact, dropping it like this - subjects the roller to the attraction field, which is just under the repulsion zone, when the roller is exiting - that will actually pull the roller back towards the gates.
I would suggest gradually reducing the angle of slope at the top of the ramp,
and eject the roller on the same plane as the last gate. then wrap it back around on a curved "slide" type ramp, then down a steep incline, onto a curve to re-enter the gate at the bottom.
Yes, there's this difference indeed. Recall I recognized the fact that here in this case the piece will probably exit the stations smoothly (without the need to drop from a height as in SMOT) and will proceed immediately along a trail of a reverse slope. If that's the case the likelihood of closing the loop seems around the corner. We'll see. Notice, however, that gravity still has to play a role in this.
I should say one can detect also another difference from SMOT providing an additional argument for the violation of CoE. In SMOT when placing the ball at C (exit of ramp) would never allow it to go back at B.(entrance of ramp). In this case placing it at B brings it spontaneously at C while placing it at C brings it spontaneously back at B. In other words, when placed at B the dumbbell sees C as the foot of the hill. Conversely, placing it at C the dumbbell see now B as the foot of the hill. This is what appears to be the case from @CLaNZeR's video. This is a clear indication that when placed at B excess energy is produced at C. Of course, this has to be studied better but even at this point one sees dramatic confirmations and furthering of the conclusions from the Johannes Taisnierius device.
As for closing the loop in the level plain variant, like I said, I'm skeptical but @CLaNZeR very well may prove me wrong. Let's see what happens. I'll try to get these days a set of geomag pieces to conduct my own experiments.
Quote from: supersam on February 22, 2008, 09:28:20 PM
omni,
i've been playing poker in my spare time. want to go all in with your "absolute proof" on this one? i'm all in! doesn't work. want to take the bet to just shuit up about it anywhere but a smot site?
lol
sam
The best thing you can do is go away and not clutter the thread with you nonsense.
i still dont see how gravity plays a role in this.
there is no need for a reverse slope. the roller will immediately proceed along a horizontal plane.
Omni, hit it with a bigger hammer, you may be able to bash some Smot out of this after all...
Quote from: sm0ky2 on February 22, 2008, 10:41:02 PM
i still dont see how gravity plays a role in this.
there is no need for a reverse slope. the roller will immediately proceed along a horizontal plane.
Omni, hit it with a bigger hammer, you may be able to bash some Smot out of this after all...
Like I said, that part I doubt but @CLaNZeR may very well prove me wrong. We'll see. As for the part with the incline, that's a variant of Johannes Taisnierius' device (SMOT) exactly because of the superposition of gravity. If indeed, the piece can exit smoothly following a path with a reverse slope then the likelihood for successful closing of the loop is substantial.
@sm0ky2,
Take a look at these videos: http://www.theverylastpageoftheinternet.com/menu/adsitt.htm and maybe it'll become clear why just proceeding along a horizontal plane isn't a very likely solution. There mus be an additional field superimposed as in Taisnierius' device and its variant here with the wooden piece at an incline.
G'day all,
If I was esoterically inclined I would say that Omnibus is a re-incarnation of Johannes Taisnierius. He sure sounds like it, hough the all round education of that period seems missing. All that is left is his obsession with that stupid magnet.
My advice to Omnibus is; 450 years of chasing a pipe dream is enough. Go on to something else. Maybe you could become a Lesbian or something. It would be a lot less boring.
Hans von Lieven
Quote from: hansvonlieven on February 23, 2008, 01:44:41 AM
G'day all,
If I was esoterically inclined I would say that Omnibus is a re-incarnation of Johannes Taisnierius. He sure sounds like it, hough the all round education of that period seems missing. All that is left is his obsession with that stupid magnet.
My advice to Omnibus is; 450 years of chasing a pipe dream is enough. Go on to something else. Maybe you could become a Lesbian or something. It would be a lot less boring.
Hans von Lieven
My advice to you and to anyone else of your ilk is to go away. Your incoherent blabber is the least needed here.
Hey the only way I can accept that it will not work is too see it with my own eyes, mad I know but someone has got to do it ;D ;D ;D ;D .
Few more videos while waiting for delivery man.
Gates
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S3aJ3I6x9QU
Reverse around the Curve.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8fhGbRmNnQ0
Removing the Back bars.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tO7AA7IKonU
The Tri-Force Gate meets the FireTruck.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vgel2_M2GNQ
Cheers
CLaNZeR
@CLaNZeR,
The videos are great save the shaky camera but that's all right. What concerns me more is the repelling force when entering the stations. You always place the piece (and the fire engine) beyond that point. I hope that in the variant with the incline the piece would've gathered enough gravitational potential energy when smoothly exiting the stations and sliding along the reversely sloping plane (hope that'd really be the case) for this piece to overcome the repelling force at the entrance of the gates.
Who knows, despite my skepticism, judging from your video 5 one may expect that your horizontal variant may also provide enough excess energy at the exit to allow the piece to overcome the repelling force at the input of the system when attempting a follow up run along the closed loop. We'll see. Like you say we have to see if that's the case with our own eyes. Very much so. Good luck again with the experiments and keep up the good work.
Hi Omnibus
I have to start it at the edge of the first gate because of the repulsion. I could push the Roller over that first bit, but I think that defeats the object. So I place the roller where the attraction field starts.
What I did expect to find, like I have done with alot of other experiements is for the attraction field to be of equal force as the roller departs, because as we all know that is the problem with magnet fields, it self balances out eventually. But with this setup the attractive field is indeed there but not as stong as you would find on a smot V ramp for instance. This is why I think it has potential.
What I want too find out next is as the curve gets to 180 degree's will it start balancing out? or when the 360 degree loop is closed, will there be no ROLL as such at all?
Looks like I will not find out this weekend as my Big magnet set did not arrive today as I expected :(
Found this interesting, I used bigger magnets on the Roller, made it wider and left the magnets 20mm raised above the roller.
As you can see it easly beats the exit attraction.
http://www.overunity.org.uk/tri-gate/CLaNZeRSTri-ForceGate10.wmv
Cheers
Sean.
Nice Tri-Force Study Video by klicUK
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Euc_sHVq4Y0
this is very exciting!
i just looked this up http://www.target.com/b/ref=sc_iw_r_1_1/602-6867701-2250238?node=13463801
target is very close to my house. be back later guys! :) it's only 20 dollars or so :D
would you guys say we now have eliminated "the sticky spot"? i would say so but could be wrong ;)
peace
Quote from: FreeEnergy on February 23, 2008, 02:49:34 PM
this is very exciting!
i just looked this up http://www.target.com/b/ref=sc_iw_r_1_1/602-6867701-2250238?node=13463801
target is very close to my house. be back later guys! :) it's only 20 dollars or so :D
would you guys say we now have eliminated "the sticky spot"? i would say so but could be wrong ;)
peace
Looks as if there still is a sticky spot from the repulsion in the beginning. The more stators added, the more the repulsion force. I would try mounting the roller on a vertical wheel, and perhaps it would enter the stators just past the sticky spot. We have to think in terms of the completed array, cause it will change as more magnets are added. Just an opinion of course.
im back now and have bought a magnetix kit :D
fun to play with. see you guys later. i will report asap if i close the loop.
peace
@klickUK,
You're doing an excellent job. Keep up the good work. Thanks also to @CLaNZeR for bringing this to our attention.
@ Free Energy
Magnetix, supermags, and a few others do not work as good as GeoMags.
The cheap brands are just 2 magnets, held apart by the plastic piece.
inside a GeoMag you will find a paramagnetic (steel?) rod - that physically connects the magnetic ends. This effectively stretches the opposing lines of flux, and keps them along the outer edges of the Triangle. With the other magnets, the fields less distorted, and the opposing flux arcs outwards, which weakens the device.
I have actually constructed Tri-Force gates out of Neodyium magnets, which work a LOT better than the GeoMags, but i an using GeoMags to keep consistent with everyone else's experiments.
You can use the cheap brands, but if you are unable to achieve some of the effects that others are demonstrating , this is probably "why".
Quote from: FreeEnergy on February 23, 2008, 03:24:21 PM
im back now and have bought a magnetix kit :D
fun to play with. see you guys later. i will report asap if i close the loop.
ahhhhhh you should read more.
Most people have been using the GeoMag sets as they have a wire joining the two magnets inside the plastic casing.
Apparently the Magnetix sets do not have this joining wire and not the exact same effect.
In saying that I reckon the effect is still there.
Quote from: sm0ky2 on February 23, 2008, 04:34:44 PM
Magnetix, supermags, and a few others do not work as good as GeoMags.
The cheap brands are just 2 magnets, held apart by the plastic piece.
inside a GeoMag you will find a paramagnetic (steel?) rod - that physically connects the magnetic ends. This effectively stretches the opposing lines of flux, and keps them along the outer edges of the Triangle. With the other magnets, the fields less distorted, and the opposing flux arcs outwards, which weakens the device.
I have actually constructed Tri-Force gates out of Neodyium magnets, which work a LOT better than the GeoMags, but i an using GeoMags to keep consistent with everyone else's experiments.
Cross Post LOL I just said the same thing.
But one thing I did find was that the 6mm * 12.7mm N42 neo bars mixed with the Geomag ball bearings were not as good as the weaker Geo Bars.
Again no dought down to balance and length.
The Geomag's are not actually that strong and I have great hopes for finding a off the shelf combination that will give the same effect, but with greater forces as such.
Cheers
Sean.
About the looped "curve"
When attempting this set-up what i have found is that there is no "linear" force between the start and end of the gate-track.
each area between the gate becomes a "trap". one of which will eventually snag yur roller.
If this is to work, i think we must keep (at least one pair) of gates far enough apart to keep the magnetic distortion effect intact.
meaning that the cummulative field from the gates must be "bulged" at each end, to produce linear force in-between the gates.
Repulsion force IN and OUT of the gate-track is essentially the same, minus im guessing losses from friction and/or your slope angle.
The force that we seem to be able to extract from lies inbetween the gates. As demonstrated in Clanzer's "firetruck" video - the gate is able to perform work, by moving the firetruck from one end to the other. - that is to say that the roller magnet, can carry more than its own weight.
- on a side note, if you "extract" too much of this energy, the roller does not have enough force to properly exit the gate, so we need to find that max line and stay below it.
Quote from: CLaNZeR on February 23, 2008, 04:47:32 PM
But one thing I did find was that the 6mm * 12.7mm N42 neo bars mixed with the Geomag ball bearings were not as good as the weaker Geo Bars.
Again no dought down to balance and length.
The Geomag's are not actually that strong and I have great hopes for finding a off the shelf combination that will give the same effect, but with greater forces as such.
Cheers
Sean.
hmm, thats interesting i didnt try that. the ball bearings i used with my neos were somewhat larger (1/2").
specs:
1/4" neo disks, magnetized through the thickness
10 of these in a stack to make one 'leg'
1/2" steel ball bearings
--- if there turns out to be a crucial factor in the size of the balls, we can find a proportion that can be scaled to any size / flux density.
i can still return it :)
guess i'll do that tomorrow
@ClaNZeR et al
What I have been trying to tell you guys is that YOU DO NOT NEED to pair the gate in a left right or up down configuration. The roller will move past a single row of triangles!
There is no repellent force when u use single rows of triangles.
On a single line I have placed six triangles (not interconnected with a fourth bar) in NNS config and six triangles in a SSN config on the SAME line.
Now take a roller (magnet with two steel balls) place it in the beginning of the line, and you will see a fierce acceleration to the right (provided you have S down). Decelleration at triangle 7 or 8, complete stop well past triangle 12. Comes back and swiftly accelerates past 12, 11, 10 , 9 , 8 & 7 and starts slowing when nearing 6, 5. Then comes to a complete stop near triangle 1, and swiftly accelerates again in direction of 12 and does so for about 4 minutes...
You do not need to run the roller between two triangles, it will pass a single triangle with less resistance and very fast so.
I wish I had a camera, :-\
@AqyariuZ,
Can't you use one of these cheap $5- $6 web cameras ( http://www.geeks.com/products.asp?cat=VID ), use your cellphone or borrow from a friend or a neighbor? It's interesting to see what you've done.
@AquariuZ, no webcam or cameraphone?, flatbed scanner? :D
Quote from: Lakes on February 23, 2008, 05:49:29 PM
@AquariuZ, no webcam or cameraphone?, flatbed scanner? :D
Now, flatbed scanner to produce a video is a wee bit stretching it but what do I know ...
Quote from: Omnibus on February 23, 2008, 05:53:23 PM
Quote from: Lakes on February 23, 2008, 05:49:29 PM
@AquariuZ, no webcam or cameraphone?, flatbed scanner? :D
Now, flatbed scanner to produce a video is a wee bit stretching it but what do I know ...
LoL, I was thinking of a still picture to start off with anyway... ;D
@CLaNZeR:
I must say your work is truly inspiring.
I was playing today with my tri-gate setup and noticed what we all have noticed. There is repulsion before magnet enters into the "ring" ;) and after it leaves magnetic force is pulling it back.
So I thought "Why not avoid this two spots"?
See here:
(https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww4.slikomat.com%2F08%2F0224%2Fgh-nihalo.gif&hash=64e013107127de23bdd52a23401ec22632fdd8bd)
This is side look of what I am building now :)
I will release magnet from the top, and the pray that it comes back to the top or even further. ;)
@Omnibus
Well if Da Vinci had GeoMag it would take him a day to get a working toy. (Dare I say the "P" word?)
It should take the brains in here no more than a week or so then :-)
I will try to make a drawing.
The idea is to make a ramp where the roller follows a fixed path along a single row of triangles, and at maximum speed when passing the last triangle follows the ramp into an 180? turn thus reversing polarity and accelerating again back to where it came from. Will need two layers of triangles spread widely apart with the ramp in the middle.
It?s 01:43 am here and my wife told me if she hears another steel ball rolling on the dining table I can sleep on the couch. Hmm. Who needs sleep anyway.
Let me see what I can find to make a ramp but first I will post a drawing. Microsoft Pain(t) hehe.
I can get a camera tomorrow from a neigbour I guess.
@AquariuZ
Like the the layout here? http://freespace.virgin.net/tony.colayouts/Race%20Track%207.htm
@ futuristic
the magnetic field, be it a forced monopole, or bipolar, tripolar.
extends from the steel balls at a vector angle, of the combined magnets.
for instance, if you have 2 magnetic bars at 45-degrees in each direction, the magnetic meridian will be at the vertical
:
:
O
/ \
so, bending the magnets away in such a manner will actually create an unwanted "sticky-spot".
i have to admit i had the very same idea, and had to learn why it didnt work, the hard way.
\
@ Aquiriuz
As far as using the Half-Gates, i think what Omni said earlier about that is the most likely situation. similar to a pendulum, the energy you input when forcing it throuhg the initial repulsion zone, is simply converted from potential<->kenetic energy, as the roller moves back and forth, and is slowly depleted from friction/heat/ect.
Half of a gate creates an additional sticky-spot at the end of the track, whichpulls the magnet back.
this is not present in the full-gate set-up. (actually it is to a lesser degree, but the energy built up in the middle of the track overcomes this)
@Lakes: Close!
Well here goes my idea for a toy, sorry I?m terrible with drawings but I can blame Paint.
The idea is that the roller will accelerate and rotate at the end of the track by the momentum, and start accelerating all over again etc.etc.
Looking for something to build such a track, needs to be simple and non conductive
Could this work?
Hi @CLaNZeR
My names Graham I'm the designer of the TriGate and I have enjoyed watching your videos, I just wanted to tell you, you can increase the attraction in by placing bar magnet on the corner of the TriGate, I have a video in the Minato Wheel group showing this you can find it at the file section under this name ExtendedTriGate.wmv.
This setup will increase the attraction in and also gives a greater kick out, you can use one gate setup instead of 3 or more, I find the more gates you have together the weaker the repelling force gets.
Take Care @CLaNZeR
Graham
Hi Graham! Thank you for sharing your wonderful discovery with the world!
- i have found that removing those two angled magnets at the gate exit makes for a much smoother exit, and subsequent transition into the next gate.
I've posted a video on YouTube of 4 Extended gates.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gzNyzSS3BYs (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gzNyzSS3BYs)
Hi sm0ky2
Thanks for your kind words, I was very interested in your video and I would still add the two magnets on the end to increase the repel out, it is good that you took a look at the video showing how you can increase the attraction in, you can also drop your roller magnet into the extended part of the trigate and it will start rolling, maybe place a stand above your extended trigate with something to rest your roller magnet on that can be pulled away letting your roller fall into the field then watch it start down to the gates and kick away, also you could link two rollers together one behind the other and watch one pull the other into the gate past the slight repel at the begining.
I find the trigate works best if the roller magnet is rolling so instead of sticking the bar magnets on a toy car I would make the bar magnet the wheels of a toy car and watch how great it works as a toy, toy cars racing down two tracks with out using springs or batteries great for the kids.
Take Care sm0ky2
Graham
Quote from: Rusty_Springs on February 24, 2008, 12:13:32 AM
Hi @CLaNZeR
My names Graham I'm the designer of the TriGate and I have enjoyed watching your videos, I just wanted to tell you, you can increase the attraction in by placing bar magnet on the corner of the TriGate, I have a video in the Minato Wheel group showing this you can find it at the file section under this name ExtendedTriGate.wmv.
This setup will increase the attraction in and also gives a greater kick out, you can use one gate setup instead of 3 or more, I find the more gates you have together the weaker the repelling force gets.
Hi Graham
Great too see you in the forums and thanks for giving us something new to play with.
I have seen your extended gate video and actually have it on my site for people too see http://www.overunity.org.uk/triforcegate.html
I have also tried it and it does increase the overal speed like you say.
Did you ever get enough gates together to try a closed loop, as there are two things I want too aim for now.
1.) See what the longest straight line I can get it to go for.
2.) Go for the full loop over the course of a big circle spacing the gates.
Thanks again Graham.
Cheers
Sean.
Quote from: Rusty_Springs on February 24, 2008, 04:20:41 AM
I find the trigate works best if the roller magnet is rolling so instead of sticking the bar magnets on a toy car I would make the bar magnet the wheels of a toy car and watch how great it works as a toy, toy cars racing down two tracks with out using springs or batteries great for the kids.
umm now there is an idea to try for a sleepy Sunday ;D
Quote from: sm0ky2 on February 24, 2008, 02:16:32 AM
- i have found that removing those two angled magnets at the gate exit makes for a much smoother exit, and subsequent transition into the next gate.
I've posted a video on YouTube of 4 Extended gates.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gzNyzSS3BYs (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gzNyzSS3BYs)
Excellent Video Sm0ky2
Wish I had some wooden floors in the house, save me having too use bits of wood.
Cheers
Sean.
Hi Sean
Thanks for adding that video to your site it makes things easier, I havn't tried a closed loop because I don't beleave you can make a magnetic motor with a closed loop, I beleave you must have a starting and ending point to get continues rotation for instance an electromagnetic motor doesn\t have a closed loop yet by changing the fields the rotation is great, if you can come into my gate you would get I beleave a working magnetic motor and to do this I feel using the extended trigate past the rotation arc of your rotor will enable the rotor to attract in, I feel you need both poles of a rotor to make a working motor thats why I use two triangle instead of one this means both poles are working on each side of the trigate and the flux is not leaking.
Thanks again and take care Sean
Graham
Question for the experimenters: how far around the first gate does the repulsion field extend? Is it possible to loop the path back to the first gate and 'deliver' the roller to a part of the first gate that is not in repulsion?
When starting the roller a bit before the resting point, in a one track TriForce gate, you feel the strong repel force. After passing that repel force, the roller is somewhere between the repel and attract forces and therefore it seems to start with 0 energy. But the repelling point is still there and even with more and more gates, the repelling point is maintained. When you finally close the loop, it's paying time and you NEED to overcome that repelling point, in order to come around.
We have to find a way to reduce the repelling point before the first gate, but reducing the repelling force before the gate will result in a reduction of the repelling force behind the gate and the roller will not be launched so far anymore.
Eric
Hi guys.
My latest experiment:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCW6T7oKq2c
Quite successful I think. ;)
Frenky
so adding 3 magnets to the rotor at 120 degree separation should work right? Or is the launch of the pendulum in the null zone after the repulsion zone. . The art is getting enough of a gain to be able to push a preceeding magnet into the track..Nice video..
Lets do some basic math. to calculate the potential energy before the drop .. What is the hieght of the drop and wieght of the magnet , and what is the highest point of swing? From that we can work out how much excess energy is shown..Pe=mgh
Quote from: AquariuZ on February 23, 2008, 09:01:16 PM
@Lakes: Close!
Well here goes my idea for a toy, sorry I?m terrible with drawings but I can blame Paint.
The idea is that the roller will accelerate and rotate at the end of the track by the momentum, and start accelerating all over again etc.etc.
Looking for something to build such a track, needs to be simple and non conductive
Could this work?
This? http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/HORNBY-ERTL-Orange-1-Plastic-Train-Track-x-31-Thomas_W0QQitemZ200201241399QQihZ010QQcategoryZ2629QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem
Height difference is 5mm so energy gain is not so big.
I don't have a scale for measuring so small weight.
what are the measurements of the neo on the pendulum?,Although the weight is artificially high because the wooden pendulum arm is not balanced. Therefore the starting energy is considerable , it is the wieght of the arm plus magnet. If the arm were balanced ie, just a circle with the magnet stuck to the perimeter then i suspect it would not drop into the track so easily, perhaps positioning the drop so that the magnet falls into the null would aid that..
Magnets are 6x6x6 mm.
(https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww4.slikomat.com%2F08%2F0224%2Fm9o-IMG-09.jpg&hash=ce5a4cb4c1559c8d753b4a04893b01facaeb9d42)
I agree that starting energy is considerable, but magnet still swings higher with trigate rail than without it. And this is important.
Quote from: futuristic on February 24, 2008, 09:47:39 AM
Hi guys.
My latest experiment:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCW6T7oKq2c
Quite successful I think. ;)
Frenky
This experiment proves nothing of importance. The conditions with and without the stations are different and therefore, obviously, the behavior of the pendulum differs. That's trivial.
The important thing to prove is that when exiting the stations the piece can smoothly (won't need to fall from a height as in SMOT) start rolling down a slope leading to the entrance of the stations and that the gained height at the exit will provide enough energy to overcome the repulsion at the entrance. If that occurs we're there. That's the only hope with this device. Like I said, I'm not optimistic regarding its horizontal variant but I may be proven wrong.
using 1-6 gates the repulsion zone is from about 1" to 3.5 inches. give or take, the stength of the gates, closeness, connecting bars, and several other misc. factors.
Also, remember that the strength of the repulsion field decreases exponentially with distance.
so there theres a "maximum" repulsion force at a certain distance, after you enter the weak end of the field traveling towards the gates.
once youu pass this max, the field diminishes to 0, before the attraction field starts.
they key is to have enough momentum to pass trough the max repulsion zone, through the dead-zone, and into the atraction zone.
you cannot do this more than 1-2 times from the repulsion at the gate exist alone.
we must accummulate energy during the track-distance, and then transfer that energy into te roller to give it enough power to re-enter the gate.
Normally i would agree with the critics on this point - that it is not possible.
However - with the Tri-Force, i notice that the attraction zone, amplifies the energy of the roller, regardless of the energy input or taken out of the system at the entrance/exit.
Hence - we get a gain.
I am not sure if this is actually to be considered "overunity".
Energy in , IS greater than Energy out - however the experiment is consistent with the math.
the gate distance, is essentially a variable independent of the energy in/out.
example:
IF you had a Tri-Force array of x number of gates. that equated to a 1T field strength.
meaning 1 Tesla of repulsion force at both ends.
the roller would accumulate an additional 1/2 Tesla, during its travel, 1/4th of which is consumed in between the pairs of gates, such that the roller exits with approx. = 1.25T
This is a 25% gain over the energy input into the system, no doubt. This is caused by the linear distortion of the magnetic field - essentially we have the magnetic equivalent of two Bar Magnets facing opposite directions, but parallel to one another.
this creates a linear action on the roller - THROUGH the space between the magnets
With the Tri-Force, the forces poles in the end amplify this field - but it is essentially the same.
This principle was demonstrated by Howard Johnson as far back as 1938 in his "linear motor"
May he rest in peace. (Jan 2. 2008)
Here's a YouTube demonstration.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=o6F9I5OiSTE (http://youtube.com/watch?v=o6F9I5OiSTE)
@ OMNI --------------
<--- Insert SMOT here.
the advantage given by the Tri-Force is that is gives a "power boost" by reinforcing the gate with opposing, fields behind it.
and apparently we can change that angle by making "not-so triangles".
im working on a rotating thingy, but my "larger" balls are too big, and make a tiny circle (7")
with the roller.
and i cant' do much with that size.......
triyng to find a "medium sized" ball to do what Clanzer was doing....
perhaps the objective here is to have "sections" providing rotational force in arcs in the horizontal plane.
i think that may allow us to continue a rotational motion.
I've been following this idea and I keep thinking about how most all the testing is done in the 'flat' or 2D. This is probably because it's easiest to test this way and results are achieved. I don't have any parts to play with, but if I did, I'd start looking at decreasing the repulsion zone and increasing the acceleration zones by elevation changes of the gates and roller. Just something to think about.
tak
@smOky2,
If what you?re saying is true and there?s indeed 25% greater energy out, exiting the set of stations, than in (that is, the energy to overcome the repulsion barrier at the entrance) then it is OU and we have made it even in the horizontal variant. That has to be demonstrated experimentally, though, because it isn?t at all evident theoretically in this case.
can't you have something that mechanically or electronically flips the magnetic poles from the swinging pendulum's torque (better use a Milkovic system http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,1763.0/topicseen.html)? this torque somehow mechanically or electronically flips the magnet's poles for every swing that goes in/out.
just a thought.
peace
Quote from: Omnibus on February 24, 2008, 04:33:54 PM
@smOky2,
If what you?re saying is true and there?s indeed 25% greater energy out, exiting the set of stations, than in (that is, the energy to overcome the repulsion barrier at the entrance) then it is OU and we have made it even in the horizontal variant. That has to be demonstrated experimentally, though, because it isn?t at all evident theoretically in this case.
thats somewhat is a mosgnomer.. there is not always "25% more energy out".
there is 25% more energy generated while transversing the gates. - meaning, sometimes this must be extracted inbetween the entrance and exit of the gates -
i.e.- by work, such as when Clanzer's set-up transported the firetruck through the gates.
the repulsion force at the gate exit is identicle to the force at the entrance, on a "balanced" gate..
Hi sm0ky2
I felt my trigate was OU but I wouldn't say it until it was confirmed by other sources and your maths sound good, I would like to say that to make a magnet move along a plan you need repultion, magnets move from repultion to attraction if you remove the repultion the magnet has nowhere to go and will just sit there, the best you can do is move the repultion so its easier for the magnet comming in which I have done with the extended magnets, this give a bigger area to come into and has more kick going out.
I'm not saying a working motor will come from this but if you can enter the extended gate at the dead zone this takes you past the repultion and you will travel along the gate and kick out a working motor maybe like this, you have a rotor arm with a bearing in the centre at each end you have a bar magnet standing upright as the stator you have two Trigate setup so the rotor magnets come in at the dead zone and they are opposite each other now the rotor arm is attract at both sides by the Trigate moves along the Trigate then kicks out crosses the air gap and again is attracted in by the Trigate opposite and the rotation continues no repultion comming in because your moving in at the dead zone and repultion going out to cross the air gap.
I havn't tested this but in theory it looks good, I have one rotor and two Trigates because I always find with magnets that less is alway better.
Take Care All
Graham
if anyone knows a way a roller can also role sideways let me know or show me an example.
because if we can have the roller role up a ramp then role sideways it can go back to its initial starting zero point.
Quote from: sm0ky2 on February 24, 2008, 05:33:20 PM
Quote from: Omnibus on February 24, 2008, 04:33:54 PM
@smOky2,
If what you?re saying is true and there?s indeed 25% greater energy out, exiting the set of stations, than in (that is, the energy to overcome the repulsion barrier at the entrance) then it is OU and we have made it even in the horizontal variant. That has to be demonstrated experimentally, though, because it isn?t at all evident theoretically in this case.
thats somewhat is a mosgnomer.. there is not "25% more energy out".
there is 25% more energy generated while transversing the gates. - meaning this must be extracted inbetween the entrance and exit of the gates -
i.e.- by work, such as when Clanzer's set-up transported the firetruck through the gates.
the repulsion force at the gate exit is identicle to the force at the entrance.
If what you?re saying now, which contradicts what you said before, is the case then the horizontal variant is hopeless. That 25% was thrown in for no reason. The only hope then remains the sloping one which is a variant of the SMOT.
@Rusty_Springs,
Read my analysis of the Johannes Taisnierius device (contemporary SMOT) and try to understand it. That?s the only analysis so far conclusively proving overunity. Most likely your device is a variation of the SMOT seemingly a better construction because probably the piece can exit the system smoothly and proceed on a reverse sloping plane unlike the piece in SMOT whereby it has to fall at a distance to escape being stuck at the sticky spot. If this is confirmed to be the case then traveling of the piece along a closed loop will only be a matter of not so difficult tune-up.
As for the possibility to build a self-sustaining device when all the stations are on a horizontal plane, that?s highly doubtful because of the explanation you give above. Unless, the energy out is greater than the energy in as @ClaNZeR?s fifth video seems to suggest. Like I said, all that has to be confirmed experimentally and before doing that all speculations don?t hold much water.
perhaps i was confusing when i said that "it exits with"
i mean over the entire system loop, from begining to the otherend, extra energy is gained. Wether or not we extract this does not seem to effect the exit force on a balanced gate.
[ not saying that using this energy "cant" effect it, just that it doesnt always], which to me is a pretty clear demonstration of overunity. though to be absolutely sure, more accurate measurements of the input energy vs the output must be made.
i dont think that "hopeless" is the right term here., as we can easily shape the flux-distortion
so that (part of) this 25% is directed towards the gate exit - as in the "Extended Force Gate"
and a few other variants we have seen,
The extended gate being uni-directional, is imbalanced - and therefore causes the attraction zone to be larger on one end than the other. conversly the repulsion zone is shorter on one end than the other.
Important to note that a shorter distance through the repulsion field means there are more lines of flux per meter, and thus the field is "stronger", but their total energy value is the same.
albeit spread over a larger area on one end. This is why the rollers speed increases at it nears the end of the extended gates.
and Clanzer has already demonstrated one method of extracting the energy, between the gates in his FireTruck demonstration. the gates are performing work, by moving a mass.
Quote from: sm0ky2 on February 24, 2008, 06:08:01 PM
perhaps i was confusing when i said that "it exits with"
i mean over the entire system loop, from begining to the otherend, extra energy is gained. Wether or not we extract this does not seem to effect the exit force on a balanced gate.
[ not saying that using this energy "cant" effect it, just that it doesnt always], which to me is a pretty clear demonstration of overunity. though to be absolutely sure, more accurate measurements of the input energy vs the output must be made.
i dont think that "hopeless" is the right term here., as we can easily shape the flux-distortion
so that (part of) this 25% is directed towards the gate exit - as in the "Extended Force Gate"
and a few other variants we have seen,
The extended gate being uni-directional, is imbalanced - and therefore causes the attraction zone to be larger on one end than the other. conversly the repulsion zone is shorter on one end than the other.
Important to note that a shorter distance through the repulsion field means there are more lines of flux per meter, and thus the field is "stronger", but their total energy value is the same.
albeit spread over a larger area on one end. This is why the rollers speed increases at it nears the end of the extended gates.
and Clanzer has already demonstrated one method of extracting the energy, between the gates in his FireTruck demonstration. the gates are performing work, by moving a mass.
That will be interesting to demonstrate experimentally. So far what appears as acceleration within the stations is compensated therein and whether or not there's more energy out than in isn't clear.
@ OMNI
the inclined Tri-Gates are nothing like the smot, except for the fact that it goes up an incline.
If i had to compare the Tri-Force Gate to anything, it would be the Howard Johnson Linear Motor, Like in the You-Tube video i linked above.
as you can see in the video, their actions are identicle. as are their magnetic fields when observed through the gaussviewer.
the magnetic field of the Smot looks nothing like this.
Quote from: sm0ky2 on February 24, 2008, 06:16:03 PM
@ OMNI
the inclined Tri-Gates are nothing like the smot, except for the fact that it goes up an incline.
If i had to compare the Tri-Force Gate to anything, it would be the Howard Johnson Linear Motor, Like in the You-Tube video i linked above.
as you can see in the video, their actions are identicle. as are their magnetic fields when observed through the gaussviewer.
the magnetic field of the Smot looks nothing like this.
The inclined version is just like SMOT in that there are two conservative fields properly overlaid--magnetic and gravitational. That's what the SMOT principle is, nothing else. Like I said, this version we're discussing now may be better than the original Taisnierius (SMOT) idea because it doesn't need the ball to drop from a height to escape the sticky spot. That may be a major advantage over Taisnierius' device when continuous traversing of a closed loop is sought. However, like I said, it must be understood as to whether that energy acquired at the apex would be enough to overcome the entrance repelling barrier.
@All,
I'm ordering these: http://www.supermagnetman.net/product_info.php?cPath=42&products_id=430%3Cbr . Does anyone have experience with them, seem the right ones, neos at that?
Hi All
I totally agree my trigate is more like Howard Johnson Linear Motor and the only thing SMOT like is it has parallel magnets for a runner, I can do the same with overlapping magnets but they don't kick the runner away, I also have what I call a corner gate this attracts in and kicks out but the force isn't as strong and the trigate.
With both the corner gate and Trigate I change the flux to work for me using the principle that magnets move from repultion to attraction and if you draw a square around a magnet to represent its field and you will find that the corners are the opposite poles to the pole there comming from so if you have two south pole magnets comming towards each other when one reaches the corner of the other they will attract before they repel and the opposite for attracting poles, I showed this with a experiment I did were I floated one magnet above another magnet both with attracting poles before the corner they attracted after the corner they attracted but at the corrner they repel causing the one above to float.
I also notice that magnets work in halves and not two poles which means at the attracting pole at both ends of the magnet the flux runs into the middle so what ever end of the magnet you put another magnet it will attract towards the centre and with repelling it repels away from the centre in both directions so I angle the magnets so when the other magnet is comming in its follows the path to the middle of the attracting magnet then it follows the path of the repeling magnet which is away from the middle repelling it away giving you a gate that attracts in and repels out the only thing I havn't stopped is the repel comming in and attract going out and that comes from the corner as I was saying earlier, take a look at the corner gate and you will see the principle I talk about, again that is at http://www.fdp.nu/shared .
As I have said maybe nothing will come from this but it does show with the firetruck and experiments I have done that magnets do work.
Take Care All
Graham
@Rusty_Springs,
That's incorrect. According to the scientifically most rigorous proof so far for violation of CoE. yours would violate CoE only if an additional field (gravitational) is properly superimposed on the existing magnetic field of your stations.The principle of SMOT is nothing else but such proper superposition of mutually assisting conservative fields. Like I said, yours may be more advantageous compared to SMOT, however, because of the probable possibility for a smooth transition to a reverse sloping plane at the exit. That remains to be confirmed, though. Also, what remains to be confirmed is that the gravitational potential energy gained at the apex (at the exit) will be enough, together with the kinetic energy gained at the apex, to overcome the repulsive barrier at the entrance of the stations so that a self-sustaining motion can be achieved.
As for the horizontal variant, I've said many times that I have serious doubts which may be shown to be unfounded if indeed the energy out turns out to be greater than the energy in. That's still not evident despite some indications to that effect in @CLaNZeR's fifth video.
Quote from: Omnibus on February 24, 2008, 06:24:36 PM
Quote from: sm0ky2 on February 24, 2008, 06:16:03 PM
@ OMNI
the inclined Tri-Gates are nothing like the smot, except for the fact that it goes up an incline.
If i had to compare the Tri-Force Gate to anything, it would be the Howard Johnson Linear Motor, Like in the You-Tube video i linked above.
as you can see in the video, their actions are identicle. as are their magnetic fields when observed through the gaussviewer.
the magnetic field of the Smot looks nothing like this.
The inclined version is just like SMOT in that there are two conservative fields properly overlaid--magnetic and gravitational. That's what the SMOT principle is, nothing else. Like I said, this version we're discussing now may be better than the original Taisnierius (SMOT) idea because it doesn't need the ball to drop from a height to escape the sticky spot. That may be a major advantage over Taisnierius' device when continuous traversing of a closed loop is sought. However, like I said, it must be understood as to whether that energy acquired at the apex would be enough to overcome the entrance repelling barrier.
@ OMNI - could you shed some light on this? i do not understand how/if hte gravitational field is effecting this device in ANY way, except when the angle is to great to allow travel through the gates - and in that instance, gravity is working against you.
in the SMOT - the gravitational field works to pull the magnet out of hte attraction zone at the end of the track. in the Tri-Force this attraction zone in completely inside the track, leaving a repulsion at the end. Much Different.
Also to note in the SMOT, the two magnetic fields are off-set. this is the working principle. for without this, the SMOT is inoperable.
I have not yet read your description of the working principle of the SMOT device, i will eventually find your postings on this and give it a thorough reading.
::::::::However, it is my opinion that the SMOT works because of the magnetic induction in the ferromagnetic sphere. - the two field being off-set - causes a rotational motion in the ball.
This is not the same as the linear force produced by the Howard Johnson Linear Motor, and the Tri-Forge Gate.
Quote
I'm ordering these: http://www.supermagnetman.net/product_info.php?cPath=42&products_id=430%3Cbr . Does anyone have experience with them, seem the right ones, neos at that?
--- Yes those should work perfectly, and they will be considerably stronger than the GeoMags, because of their higher gauss rating (more Teslas !!!)
@smOky2,
Yes, there are these differences but if you want violation of CoE you'd necessarily need a proper superposition of assisting conservative field in this case too. Don't get confused by the fact that this device propagates the piece (the dumbbell). There are many other ways to do that (I've already given you the link to Adsitt's experiments, for instance; take a look and Gauss gun also). That well understood propagation is not enough for CoE to be violated.
Of course, and I am always adding this, despite my skepticism, if the horizontal variant demonstrates more energy out than in (something it hasn't yet although there maybe some indications to that effect probably) then it will be a very interesting development and yet another possibility to achieve self-sustaining run. All that remains to be seen,
Quote from: Omnibus on February 24, 2008, 06:47:51 PM
@All,
I'm ordering these: http://www.supermagnetman.net/product_info.php?cPath=42&products_id=430%3Cbr . Does anyone have experience with them, seem the right ones, neos at that?
@Omni
RE SupermagnetMan Erector SetI've been working with these for a few days. Great price! Amazing acceleration through the gates. The magnets, however, are not marked so plan on 15 minutes of additional work.
I plugged the dimensions of the balls and neos into a CAD program and created circular arrays for the stator gates, from which I printed patterns, fabricated, and then added a Lego rotor. Voila'. Very easy.
I'll post a video tonight.
Cheers :)
Yada..
.
@ OMIN
I have to disagree. the working principle behind the SMOT and the Tri-Force Gate are not the same.
in fact, i offer an example::
im sure that you actually OWN a smot?? as much as to love to promote it, you MUST own one right??
take your SMOT - and arrange it so that it moves a Magnet - not a steel ball.
if you can create this effect with a magnetic roller, such as the one used in the tri-force, then you can demonstrate Linear Force.
vs. the rotational-magnetic-induction force that makes the steel SMOT balls move along the track.
I think what you will find is that what makes the Smot work, is the more along the lines of the David Hammell spinner. + the superimposed gravitational field.
the magnetic flux-lines in the SMOT device are not only off-set, but also perpendicular to the lines of Flux in the Tri-Force, and the Howard Johnson Linear Motor.
Once you get your magnetic constructor set you can compare the forces between the SMOT and the Tri-Force directly, i think that will shed some light on the confusion about this.
@smOky2,
I already agreed there is this difference but that's not the substantial part that would make this a violator of CoE as the SMOT is. If we're interested in violation of CoE and not of the mechanism of linear propagation, then both machines must have an additional, properly superimposed gravitational field. Otherwise, just the peculiar way of linear propagation of this device doesn't make it one bit interesting.
How any Why would an additional superimposed field be neccessary for COE demonstration?
i dont follow this line of logic.
yes i agree with your point that the SMOT needs this extra field.
but i dont see how that relates in any way to the device we are discussing here.
Quote from: sm0ky2 on February 24, 2008, 09:10:47 PM
How any Why would an additional superimposed field be neccessary for COE demonstration?
i dont follow this line of logic.
yes i agree with your point that the SMOT needs this extra field.
but i dont see how that relates in any way to the device we are discussing here.
An illustration is the horizontal variant of this device. As far as I can see so far the energy needed to make the piece enter the zone of attraction is the same as the energy gained when the piece exits the stations. This can be easily demonstrated when a closed loop of stations is assembled as Butch LaFonte has already done. As you can see in his experiment, the rotor stalls in the trough in between two potential peaks. That'll always be the case unless there's a properly superimposed additional field to assist overcoming the follow up barrier. .
This kind of solution is applied by @xpenzif, applying additionally the independent field of a stepper motor, something which was missed by everyone trying to replicate his motor. I guess something like this has to be applied here as well in the horizontal variant.
See, this repulsion at the entrance here bothers me, compared to SMOT where there is none. In this case, however, there's an advantage over SMOT--the exit doesn't necessarily require gravitational pull which allows the delivery back at the entrance straightforward. There's this nasty barrier at the entrance, however. Will it be able to overcome it to become self-sustaining? Judging from Butch LaFonte's experiment, the answer is in the negative. There are other designs, though, which may offer a different outcome, who knows. By the way, Butch LaFonte's experiment is exactly as @xpenzif's without the superimposed additional field from the stepper motor.
i found that the repulsion at the entrance is easily overcome by a 45-degree decline of about 2 inches in height (down ramp) placed in front of the gates. This gives us an inertial reference point, outside the magnetic influence field - (mgh).
the roller then travels through the repulsion zone, into the gates, through the gates UP an incline and out of the gates to a point HIGHER than 2 inches.
im going to see how far i can take this thing, and clean it up a little. The pure fact that it ends up higher than it started shows this has potential. This method simply "gets around" the repulsion field. leaving us with pure linear amplification.
another video comming soon :)
@smOky2,
Will wait for this video with great interest. Good luck.
Hi sm0ky2
The entrance is easy to over come if I remember right you had a setup with extended sections and you sent the roller through about 3 gates, if you take the extentions off the second gate this gives you a distance between the first and second gate that makes the second gate inderpendent of the first, if the roller starting from the first extended gate doesn't go through the second gate then use a heavier roller and it should run past the repultion comming in and go through the second gate, if you can't do it I will show a video showing what I mean, the expultion comming in is so weak with momentum the roller can break though and the extentions on the first gate give enough force to break the repultion comming into the second gate.
Take Care sm0ky2
Graham
Hi All
I can't send the video I wanted to here so I am posting it in the file section of the Minato Wheel Group at Yahoo its called CrossingAirGap.wmv.
Take Care All
Graham
@ Graham
If you take another gate - like the one you're launching it from in the video, and place it where the Tri-Force Gate is,the roller wont make it into the gate.
sending it through a weaker gate will not get you back through the original repulsion field.
There are some variations that seem just as strong the 'launching' gate, but dont have that enormous "V" field to pas through. -
@Rusty_Springs,
I'm having trouble accessing the Yahoo! Minato Group file section. Is it possible to upload it to another server? Thanks.
@smOky2,
It has to be understood once an for all that one stationary field, no matter how elaborate its form, cannot create conditions for overunity. There must be another independent field, superimposed properly, to assist for that purpose. These are basic things that have to be understood first before we proceed. That lack of understanding is the underlying problem in every one of the devices we're discussing and trying to reproduce. I see what confusion @Harvey is getting himself into with his shuttle example and others such as @pcstru4 are in no better position trying to replace one confusion with another. That's not an unusual situation, however. Confusion regarding even such elementary concepts as energy, work and force is stunning and exists even at the highest levels of academia.
In order for these efforts to build self-sustaining devices to be fruitful not only clarity regarding the elementary notions has to be established but some more subtle issues have to sorted out. It must be understood very well what is that mechanical construction that can provide, through proper superposition of two independent fields, conditions such that a full turn of the rotor (that is, traveling along a closed loop in this combination of fields) will result in non-zero energy gain. Producing such gain discontinuously is already well understood. How is this to be done continuously, what is that concrete construction that will result in continuous production of excess energy, that is to be understood. All these devices by alsetalokins, torbays and xpenzifs are just different renditions of the same principle for continuous production of excess energy which isn't understood at all at this point. The most one can do today is to hit accidentally onto something, as the likes of @alsetalokin have done, not being able either to explain what he's done or to reproduce it.
It will be very interesting if it turns out that producing excess energy continuously is principally impossible and we?re only left with producing energy out of no source only discontinuously, the possibility for which has already been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. Are we going to snub that possibility and not develop it for practical purposes? That?ll be pretty foolish I think.
Quote from: Rusty_Springs on February 27, 2008, 12:04:34 AM
Hi All
I can't send the video I wanted to here so I am posting it in the file section of the Minato Wheel Group at Yahoo its called CrossingAirGap.wmv.
Take Care All
Graham
Managed to upload the video file.
Gyula
@gyulasun,
Thanks. Unforunately, that video adds nothing new. We already know that. @CLaNZeR and others have shown it in a number of videos for this particular setup. It can also be shown in numerous other ways. How does the piece get at the initial position, that's the question? Will the energy it exits be enough to overcome that initial barrier which the researcher overcomes (obviously tending to ignore it) to put it there?
Stack a bunch of rollers in a chute above the entrance to the first gate. When the weight of them is enough it will overcome the repulsion and a roller will get through, roll along the array of gates, up a slope, and then roll down a ramp back to the chute. Its weight will add to the weight of the rollers and another roller will get through the repulsion. There you have it: OU.
Quote from: couldbe on February 27, 2008, 12:36:05 PM
Stack a bunch of rollers in a chute above the entrance to the first gate. When the weight of them is enough it will overcome the repulsion and a roller will get through, roll along the array of gates, up a slope, and then roll down a ramp back to the chute. Its weight will add to the weight of the rollers and another roller will get through the repulsion. There you have it: OU.
Correct. Something along this line. That was mentioned before but still remains to be demonstrated.
Quote from: Omnibus on February 27, 2008, 10:44:31 AM
@smOky2,
It has to be understood once an for all that one stationary field, no matter how elaborate its form, cannot create conditions for overunity. There must be another independent field, superimposed properly, to assist for that purpose. These are basic things that have to be understood first before we proceed. That lack of understanding is the underlying problem in every one of the devices we're discussing and trying to reproduce. I see what confusion @Harvey is getting himself into with his shuttle example and others such as @pcstru4 are in no better position trying to replace one confusion with another. That's not an unusual situation, however. Confusion regarding even such elementary concepts as energy, work and force is stunning and exists even at the highest levels of academia.
In order for these efforts to build self-sustaining devices to be fruitful not only clarity regarding the elementary notions has to be established but some more subtle issues have to sorted out. It must be understood very well what is that mechanical construction that can provide, through proper superposition of two independent fields, conditions such that a full turn of the rotor (that is, traveling along a closed loop in this combination of fields) will result in non-zero energy gain. Producing such gain discontinuously is already well understood. How is this to be done continuously, what is that concrete construction that will result in continuous production of excess energy, that is to be understood. All these devices by alsetalokins, torbays and xpenzifs are just different renditions of the same principle for continuous production of excess energy which isn't understood at all at this point. The most one can do today is to hit accidentally onto something, as the likes of @alsetalokin have done, not being able either to explain what he's done or to reproduce it.
@ OMNI - there are very few people in this world that fully understand a magnetic field. And judging from some of the things you post, it is quite clear that you are not one of them. I cannot, therefore assume you know everything about the magnetic field, and how it functions. To claim that there is "no way" to provide overunity conditions from a single (or complex) magnetic field, without supreme knowledge of the force in question - is absolutely rediculous.
Scroll back a few pages and you will see a Pendulum Experiment. this, for all intensive purposes 'proves' your statement to be false. - That is assuming that the video is authentic, heights measured properly, ect. i haven't performed that test myself, but it seems easily replicated - if you think there will be different results.
This would co-incide with the ramp experiment, in which the roller exits at a higher altitude than it entered from.
There are thousands of magnetic anomolies, most of which have not been thoroughly explored. The Tri-Force was new to many of us, and im sure there will be more to come.
I found a new one myself just the other day!
personally, i think we should put the superimposed -field theory on hold for now, and work on adjusting the magnetic imbalance we are ALREADY achieving. - if we need a secondary field after we've exhausted all other options, i'd be willing to try. and if you have any suggestions as how to "apply" this secondary field - by all means post them up here so we may give it a go.
otherwise, its just "smot-spam" distracting us from our goal - which is ultimately a better understanding of the phenomena presented with Graham's Tri-Force.
@smOky2,
The misunderstanding isn't regarding the magnetic field only. The misunderstanding I'm referring to concerns conservative fields in general and what I'm saying is exactly right. You'd better learn it before going further. You are the one lacking understanding as numerous others. I already gave an example with @Harvey ans @pcstru4 and they are some of the brightest around here. Since such bright people are confused about elementary things what can we expect from the @overconfidents, the @alsetalokins and the Grahams. One thing which is absolutely essential to understand once and for all is that a magnetic field in itself cannot lead to OU. That's out of the question and that's not because of some subtleties of the magnetism but because of the mere fact that it is a conservative field. So, don't get confused on that and restrain from labeling as spam something which is absolutely essential to be understood.
Oh, and by the way, that pendulum experiment in no way proves OU. I already explained that over there.
Quote from: Omnibus on February 24, 2008, 11:52:11 AM
Quote from: futuristic on February 24, 2008, 09:47:39 AM
Hi guys.
My latest experiment:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCW6T7oKq2c
Quite successful I think. ;)
Frenky
This experiment proves nothing of importance. The conditions with and without the stations are different and therefore, obviously, the behavior of the pendulum differs. That's trivial.
@ OMNI
This hardly explains anytihng. Gravity IS a convservative field. The pendulum starts above the gates, at a set level - travels INTO the repulsion zone, THROUGH the gates, OUT the repulsion on the end and swings to a higher position. - if you remeove the gates while the pendulum is outside of its influence the pendulum will then swing to that new height.
"The conditions are different".. yes i would say they are....
But why? is it because of the gravitational field? which is constant on both ends?
if so, How.?
Have you performed this experiment yourself?
My interest is not in the "conservative" field on the outsides of the gates. that was a given at the begining of the discussion. My interest lies in the non-uniform linear field that is created in the middle. I'm not going to even get into wether or not that non-uniform field is conservative , but being non-uniform presents somewhat of an interesting aspect of this device - which is what makes it "do" what it does.
Generalizing this with some grandiose theory, and blurring the details with vagueness does not resolves the issue, what concerms me is Energy in, vs. Energy out. When we resolve this from that standpoint - then we are getting somewhere. Without that there is nothing to tie this theory to "overunity".
do you know how much magnetic energy ( in Teslas) is consumed when 2 standard Geomags connect to a Sphere and conform the molecules of the stainsteel-alloy to the cummulative magnetic field-influence? at 60-degree angles, what is the vector direction of the field meridian, with a N/S on that sphere?
Quote from: sm0ky2 on February 27, 2008, 02:28:08 PM
Quote from: Omnibus on February 24, 2008, 11:52:11 AM
Quote from: futuristic on February 24, 2008, 09:47:39 AM
Hi guys.
My latest experiment:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCW6T7oKq2c
Quite successful I think. ;)
Frenky
This experiment proves nothing of importance. The conditions with and without the stations are different and therefore, obviously, the behavior of the pendulum differs. That's trivial.
This hardly explains anytihng. Gravity IS a convservative field. The pendulum starts above the gates, at a set level - travels INTO the repulsion zone, THROUGH the gates, OUT the repulsion on the end and swings to a higher position. - if you remeove the gates while the pendulum is outside of its influence the pendulum will then swing to that new height.
"The conditions are different".. yes i would say they are....
But why? is it because of the gravitational field? which is constant on both ends?
if so, How.?
Have you performed this experiment yourself?
The point I'm strongly emphasizing is that the pendulum experiment in no way can be used to demonstrate OU. Even the most mediocre critic with basic high school knowledge will knock it down as a trivial demonstration, not OU. Yes, indeed, there is gravitational field involved, superimposed over the magnetic field. However, the concept is such that it can be easily shot down. To make it bullet proof you must demonstrate a closed A-B-C-A loop as I have demonstrated in SMOT and in the magnetic propulsor. Otherwise, still Naudin's experiment proves OU. Not convincingly enough, though.
So far, the only experiments categorically proving OU are the Taisnierius device (contemporary SMOT) and the magnetic propulsor (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5163427245750490858&q=magnetic_propulsor), a variant of which is that device with the triangular stations. Sadly, nothing else. The triangular-station device has one basic shortcoming--the input barrier--and it still remains to be seen whether or not it can be used as a convincing experiment proving OU.
That?s the whole point. Energy in vs. energy out can never be OU when only one stationary conservative field is involved, homogeneous or not. That?s one of those laws of Nature which will never be shaken. To try to fight that is a sheer waste of time. That has to be understood well to make the efforts more efficient and not bump into dead ends continuously.
Energy out can be more than energy in only if there are additional fields properly superimposed to assist, as SMOT and the magnetic propagator prove conclusively. These fields may be of different types as in SMOT (gravitational and magnetic) or probably of the same type, as in these devices we?re discussing.
So far, however, it is unclear how the same type of fields (say, magnetic) can be constructively superimposed to assist each so that continuous production of excess energy can be achieved. Of all I?ve seen, the only possibility to explain such a self-sustaining run due to production of energy out of no source is to use @Grimers idea for the non-conventional H-B loop and to imagine that the mutually induced H-B loops of the rotor and stator have different surface areas which means need different energy to be produced. That energy difference is an inherent property of the two magnets (notice, we?re again talking about two superimposed fields) because the way it is obtained comes from the inherent properties of the magnets. Now, all that seems to remain is to find the proper conditions to achieve that difference. This view, however, is so speculative that before measurements are carried out to prove that these non-conventional H-B loops do indeed differ one cannot vow that the explanation for the self-sustaining run has been found.
Other than that, I haven?t seen one single proposal, even most speculative, which is worth paying attention to as to what might be the nature of the purported excess energy in devices such as that of @alsetalokin.
Hi All
First I would like to thank Gyula for posting the video and I wanted to say the only reason I was showing that video was to show using a extended Trigate and adding wieght to your roller you can cross a airgap and re-enter a second Trigate, all other videos show more then one gate but all gates are still connected by the magnetic field between them where this setup the second gate is inderpendent of the first giving you a true airgap, to me the only way you could make a working pmm is by crossing a airgap and comming back into the system or by changing the field in the rotation you will never close a magnetic loop and get motion so as I have said I don't even look to close a magnetic loop to get a pmm and I think to progress we should all forget about trying to close a magnetic loop and work on a way of ever crossing a airgap with a system that will attract in and repel out or change the poles of a permanent magnet as its moving.
The Trigate inceases the force going out but is not a true gate because it still has a problem comming in, my corner gate is a true gate because it attracts in a repels out but to keep the rotation going it must use a bar magnet rotor meaning the gates field has to change on every half rotaion. if you had a good shield you could have a iron rotor with 3 prongs and two overlapping magnets as the stator one north and the opposite south this would work like an electromagnetic motor the iron will attract into the overlapping stator and move to the end of it where the shield stops the pull back comming out as its moving out the other prongs will be in the middle of the overlapping magnets opposite and comming in to the overlapping magnets were the prong is moving out so at all times you have two prongs attracting along the overlapping magnets and helping push the one prong out of the overlapping magnets and across the airgap, I can't see why this woldn\t work if your shield is good enough, you have the field changing all the time because your using soft iron and because your using overlapping magnets all the prongs once in the magnetic field want to move to the end of that field, the principle is the same as an electromagnetic motor except it usings permanent magnets and doesn't repel out.
Take Care All
Graham
Quote from: Rusty_Springs on February 27, 2008, 05:52:44 PM
Hi All
First I would like to thank Gyula for posting the video and I wanted to say the only reason I was showing that video was to show using a extended Trigate and adding wieght to your roller you can cross a airgap and re-enter a second Trigate, all other videos show more then one gate but all gates are still connected by the magnetic field between them where this setup the second gate is inderpendent of the first giving you a true airgap, to me the only way you could make a working pmm is by crossing a airgap and comming back into the system or by changing the field in the rotation you will never close a magnetic loop and get motion so as I have said I don't even look to close a magnetic loop to get a pmm and I think to progress we should all forget about trying to close a magnetic loop and work on a way of ever crossing a airgap with a system that will attract in and repel out or change the poles of a permanent magnet as its moving.
The Trigate inceases the force going out but is not a true gate because it still has a problem comming in, my corner gate is a true gate because it attracts in a repels out but to keep the rotation going it must use a bar magnet rotor meaning the gates field has to change on every half rotaion. if you had a good shield you could have a iron rotor with 3 prongs and two overlapping magnets as the stator one north and the opposite south this would work like an electromagnetic motor the iron will attract into the overlapping stator and move to the end of it where the shield stops the pull back comming out as its moving out the other prongs will be in the middle of the overlapping magnets opposite and comming in to the overlapping magnets were the prong is moving out so at all times you have two prongs attracting along the overlapping magnets and helping push the one prong out of the overlapping magnets and across the airgap, I can't see why this woldn\t work if your shield is good enough, you have the field changing all the time because your using soft iron and because your using overlapping magnets all the prongs once in the magnetic field want to move to the end of that field, the principle is the same as an electromagnetic motor except it usings permanent magnets and doesn't repel out.
Take Care All
Graham
Like I said, this is a useless video. It doesn't matter what the follow-up stations do and where they are located. The problem is the unaccounted for overcoming of the initial repelling barrier.
@ OMNI-
so where is the video of your "working" SMOT loop??
Abou the pendulum -- if its so "easy" to debunk the energydifference input/output of a free swinging pendulum, then lets see it.
De-Bunk this - show me where this energy is comming from.
Hi sm0ky2
I have to agree I would love seeing the working SMOT closed loop.
Take Care sm0ky2
Graham
Quote from: sm0ky2 on February 27, 2008, 08:17:45 PM
@ OMNI-
so where is the video of your "working" SMOT loop??
Abou the pendulum -- if its so "easy" to debunk the energydifference input/output of a free swinging pendulum, then lets see it.
De-Bunk this - show me where this energy is comming from.
What energy in the pendulum experiment? Like I said, with the stations the conditions are completely different from the conditions without stations. These two situations cannot be compared. Do you realize that?
As for the closed -B-C-A loop, I gave you a link--the link to the magnetic propagator.
@ Graham
here's what i've been playing with, its a sort of "tri-force" variant of the corner gate.
i call it the Quad-Force
it's basically 2 tri-force (without the back bars) on the same ball.
orient it left to right like you do the tri-force.
;)Omnibus, the video of @smOky2 is the definitive proof that there is a net gain of energy when the magnet passes through the gate. If there was no a increase of energy when the magnet bar cross the first gate, the bar will stop in the same position that the departure but in the second gate. That is the motive of if we release a pendulum with an angle with vertical position, pendulum velocity reaches zero at the same angle but at the opposite and symmetrical position. And this is the reason because all orbits in a gravitational field are symmetrical and have two points with zero velocity, at these points kinetic energy is zero and potential energy with respect to the field is maximal. Into a conservative field, if we not add energy as per example pulled the spaceship with a rocket, the sum of kinetic an potential energy is constant.
Quote from: del_toro_es on February 28, 2008, 10:06:14 AM
;)Omnibus, the video of @smOky2 is the definitive proof that there is a net gain of energy when the magnet passes through the gate.
I think the roller is started too far into the first gate. Letting it start after it has passed to repelling bump, is actually adding enery to the roller. When one should try to start the roller 30 cm's earlier, you'll have to overcome a force, there after the roller is in rest (between repelling and attracting) so a start from the rest point is not giving the whole picture.
Eric.
Quote from: del_toro_es on February 28, 2008, 10:06:14 AM
;)Omnibus, the video of @smOky2 is the definitive proof that there is a net gain of energy when the magnet passes through the gate. If there was no a increase of energy when the magnet bar cross the first gate, the bar will stop in the same position that the departure but in the second gate. That is the motive of if we release a pendulum with an angle with vertical position, pendulum velocity reaches zero at the same angle but at the opposite and symmetrical position. And this is the reason because all orbits in a gravitational field are symmetrical and have two points with zero velocity, at these points kinetic energy is zero and potential energy with respect to the field is maximal. Into a conservative field, if we not add energy as per example pulled the spaceship with a rocket, the sum of kinetic an potential energy is constant.
That's incorrect.
Quote from: eavogels on February 28, 2008, 10:14:41 AM
Quote from: del_toro_es on February 28, 2008, 10:06:14 AM
;)Omnibus, the video of @smOky2 is the definitive proof that there is a net gain of energy when the magnet passes through the gate.
I think the roller is started too far into the first gate. Letting it start after it has passed to repelling bump, is actually adding enery to the roller. When one should try to start the roller 30 cm's earlier, you'll have to overcome a force, there after the roller is in rest (between repelling and attracting) so a start from the rest point is not giving the whole picture.
Eric.
Correct.
With this concept using the triangular station is impossible to defend even an analysis of the type I'm presenting of the SMOT and of the magnetic propagator exactly because of the repulsion barrier at the entrance which is lacking in Jonannes Taisnierius' device (SMOT).
The repelling bump is the same in the first gate than in the second gate. If you put the roller at a start in a position than avoid the repelling bump of the first gate you do not need spent this energy in the first gate, but you need spend this energy to pass the repelling bump of the second gate. This is the reason because if you drop a pendulum with and angle, the pendulum achieve the same angle at the opposite side, because gravitation is conservative field.
Quote from: del_toro_es on February 28, 2008, 11:09:19 AM
The repelling bump is the same in the first gate than in the second gate. If you put the roller at a start in a position than avoid the repelling bump of the first gate you do not need spent this energy in the first gate, but you need spend this energy to pass the repelling bump of the second gate. This is the reason because if you drop a pendulum with and angle, the pendulum achieve the same angle at the opposite side, because gravitation is conservative field.
However, putting "the roller at a start in a position than avoid the repelling bump of the first gate" does require spending of energy which you like to ignore.
Hi All
First I want to say Im interested in how your setup goes sm0ky2, I have uploaded a experiment doing the same with the Trigate as the SMOT that is having it go slightly uphill falling of the edge and going through the second gate you can find that at the file section of Erics Minato Group the name of the file is TriGateDoingSmot.wmv.
I'm interested in knowing does it take more energy to pick something up and move it into the extentions of the gate to start it or move it to the extentions infront of the gate to start it or how much extra energy does it take to place it 30cm infront of the gate instead of in the extentions of the gate.
Take Care all
Graham
why not have some ramps with the tri-force magnets that over lap each other. have ramps over lap to bypass the opposing entrance of the gate.
Hi All
I added one more movie with the same setup as the Trigate Smot experiment showing what happens with out the second Trigate you can find the video at the file section of Erics Minato Group the name of the file is TriGateWithOutSecond.wmv.
Tanke Care all
Graham
Quote from: Omnibus on February 27, 2008, 09:06:36 PM
Quote from: sm0ky2 on February 27, 2008, 08:17:45 PM
@ OMNI-
so where is the video of your "working" SMOT loop??
Abou the pendulum -- if its so "easy" to debunk the energydifference input/output of a free swinging pendulum, then lets see it.
De-Bunk this - show me where this energy is comming from.
What energy in the pendulum experiment? Like I said, with the stations the conditions are completely different from the conditions without stations. These two situations cannot be compared. Do you realize that?
As for the closed -B-C-A loop, I gave you a link--the link to the magnetic propagator.
with or without the stations - it requires (mhg)some ammount of energy to lift the mass of the pendulum to height x. this is your input energy.
the pendulum swings through the gate and ends up at height y (which is greater than x) this is your output energy - if you stop the experiment at this point- you have more energy out than in.
you can then use the pendulum at this new height to perform work of energy value=
[(mg*x) - (mg*y)] and the pendulum will end up exactly where you started to swing through the gates again, AND having had performed work.
You aren't going to dodge this one, i want an explanation.
This to me is more evidence of OU, than any SMOT device i have seen in operation.
Quote from: sm0ky2 on February 28, 2008, 10:45:40 PM
Quote from: Omnibus on February 27, 2008, 09:06:36 PM
Quote from: sm0ky2 on February 27, 2008, 08:17:45 PM
@ OMNI-
so where is the video of your "working" SMOT loop??
Abou the pendulum -- if its so "easy" to debunk the energydifference input/output of a free swinging pendulum, then lets see it.
De-Bunk this - show me where this energy is comming from.
What energy in the pendulum experiment? Like I said, with the stations the conditions are completely different from the conditions without stations. These two situations cannot be compared. Do you realize that?
As for the closed -B-C-A loop, I gave you a link--the link to the magnetic propagator.
with or without the stations - it requires (mhg)some ammount of energy to lift the mass of the pendulum to height x. this is your input energy.
the pendulum swings through the gate and ends up at height y (which is greater than x) this is your output energy - if you stop the experiment at this point- you have more energy out than in.
you can then use the pendulum at this new height to perform work of energy value=
[(mg*x) - (mg*y)] and the pendulum will end up exactly where you started to swing through the gates again, AND having had performed work.
You aren't going to dodge this one, i want an explanation.
This to me is more evidence of OU, than any SMOT device i have seen in operation.
Not so. With stations the energy to lift the mass of the pendulum to the given height h differs from that energy in absence of stations. Your mistake consists in forgetting about this difference.
Accounting for this difference in the case of SMOT is straightforward. Not so here.
Please understand, I'm not saying that excess energy isn't produced in the pendulum experiment. All I'm saying is that it's more difficult to sustain a definitive conclusion.
Hi All
All I want to say is I'm enjoying this site it makes for a good day waiting to see what will be said next.
Take Care All
Graham
If you place the pendulum into the gate, and force it to sit at bottom-dead-center
(this takes energy) - then slightly-offset the gate, sending it to the end of the repelling zone
(this takes that energy back out) - then from the outside of the repelling zone, you then lift the pendulum to its 'starting' height - all energy is accounted for.
so, why when we let it go is there an 'observed' gain? Maybe this isn't overunity, but there is i feel, an unexplained action occuring here, that deserved a little more attention.
@ Everyone - My Extended Gate example is nothing near overunity. the repulsion field is enourmous. That gate would have to extend several meters to show signs of "OU".
@ Graham
i dont know what the extra energy is required to start it there. and honestly i dont know where this "30cm" came from.. that was one of many tries, it took until the roller traveled through without sticking to the sides.
I made that video just to demonstrate the increased linear-force presented in your:
"Extended Tri-Force".
The field created by that type of gate is over-powered in one direction, and thus the frontal gate repulsion is equally overpowered to balance it out.
i wasnt paying much attention to how far/close i started it, that wasnt an experiment, it was just a demonstration.
i got it past the repulsion, and held it in place long enough to get the camera rolling...
QuoteIf you place the pendulum into the gate, and force it to sit at bottom-dead-center
(this takes energy) - then slightly-offset the gate, sending it to the end of the repelling zone
(this takes that energy back out) - then from the outside of the repelling zone, you then lift the pendulum to its 'starting' height - all energy is accounted for.
so, why when we let it go is there an 'observed' gain? Maybe this isn't overunity, but there is i feel, an unexplained action occuring here, that deserved a little more attention.
This deserves attention, no doubt. However, it isn?t as clear cut as you put it. It isn't obvious that the accounting of energy is as simple as you're stating above. In SMOT and in the magnetic propulsor I gave you a link to it is clear cut.
Another thing that isn't obvious is your implication that if you extend that several meters the input repulsion will be overcome. Overcoming that repulsion (that's the sticky spot per se) is the gist of the matter in these experiments in trying to achieve self-sustaining run. Not solved until now in a continuous variant--the only solution so far is the overcoming of the sticky spot in SMOT thus causing it to produce excess energy discontinuously (violating CoE).
Quote from: Omnibus on February 29, 2008, 01:10:45 AM
Another thing that isn't obvious is your implication that if you extend that several meters the input repulsion will be overcome. Overcoming that repulsion (that's the sticky spot per se) is the gist of the matter in these experiments in trying to achieve self-sustaining run. Not solved until now in a continuous variant--the only solution so far is the overcoming of the sticky spot in SMOT thus causing it to produce excess energy discontinuously (violating CoE).
no the "gist" of the experiment is verifying that energy IN, is greater than energy OUT.
while looping the system would verify this, this is not the only way it can be done. nor the only way it should be done, to understand where the excess energy is comming from.
now - to move a mass, across a horizontal distance requires some ammount of energy.
mass-gravity-surfacearea....
so i would say that the length of the gates matters a good deal. there is a distance at which the work done by the array of gates has performed more work than was required to overcome the initial repulsion field. If the gates can possibly reach this distance - then "OU" would be established.
Wether or not the repulsion force at the END of the gate can overcome the force at the BEGINING is frankly irrelevant from this perspective.
@SMOT-ientists
The SMOT requires energy "input" at both ends.
1) to lift the ball and place it into position for SMOTing
and
2) to remove the ball FROM the other end of the SMOT
This Energy is NOT overcome after applying a gravitational field to remove the ball.
You must STILL input MORE energy into the system to LIFT the ball back up against that same gravitational field, to get the ball to where it started.
SMOT = not CoE.
Quote from: sm0ky2 on February 29, 2008, 01:33:55 AM
Quote from: Omnibus on February 29, 2008, 01:10:45 AM
Another thing that isn't obvious is your implication that if you extend that several meters the input repulsion will be overcome. Overcoming that repulsion (that's the sticky spot per se) is the gist of the matter in these experiments in trying to achieve self-sustaining run. Not solved until now in a continuous variant--the only solution so far is the overcoming of the sticky spot in SMOT thus causing it to produce excess energy discontinuously (violating CoE).
no the "gist" of the experiment is verifying that energy IN, is greater than energy OUT.
while looping the system would verify this, this is not the only way it can be done. nor the only way it should be done, to understand where the excess energy is comming from.
now - to move a mass, across a horizontal distance requires some ammount of energy.
mass-gravity-surfacearea....
so i would say that the length of the gates matters a good deal. there is a distance at which the work done by the array of gates has performed more work than was required to overcome the initial repulsion field. If the gates can possibly reach this distance - then "OU" would be established.
Wether or not the repulsion force at the END of the gate can overcome the force at the BEGINING is frankly irrelevant from this perspective.
I can't agree more. To prove violation of CoE it isn't necessarily needed to construct a self-sustaining device. The only thing needed is to prove that the energy in is less than the energy out. Like I said, so far that's clear cut only in the Taisnierius' device (SMOT) and in the magnetic propulsor which I gave a link to several postings back. In this case what you're saying is only qualitative and cannot be proven rigorously because the values of the magnetic potential energy can be easily disputed. Therefore, the energy balance isn't as clear cut as you present it.
Quote from: sm0ky2 on February 29, 2008, 01:37:25 AM
@SMOT-ientists
The SMOT requires energy "input" at both ends.
1) to lift the ball and place it into position for SMOTing
and
2) to remove the ball FROM the other end of the SMOT
This Energy is NOT overcome after applying a gravitational field to remove the ball.
You must STILL input MORE energy into the system to LIFT the ball back up against that same gravitational field, to get the ball to where it started.
SMOT = not CoE.
Of course, this is ridiculous. It's not worth even commenting on. You haven't understood what SMOT is.
Quote from: Omnibus on February 29, 2008, 02:17:05 AM
Quote from: sm0ky2 on February 29, 2008, 01:37:25 AM
@SMOT-ientists
The SMOT requires energy "input" at both ends.
1) to lift the ball and place it into position for SMOTing
and
2) to remove the ball FROM the other end of the SMOT
This Energy is NOT overcome after applying a gravitational field to remove the ball.
You must STILL input MORE energy into the system to LIFT the ball back up against that same gravitational field, to get the ball to where it started.
SMOT = not CoE.
Of course, this is ridiculous. It's not worth even commenting on. You haven't understood what SMOT is.
so where is your working, closed-loop smot video?? post it in the SMOT thread, so we can all see this "proven CoE"
or is YOUR smot, not "built properly"..? perhaps your superimposed field isn't quite "adjusted" correctly, to raise the ball back up to the original height?
Can we keep any SMOT discussion out of this thread please?
Hi everyone, I thought it was about time I introduced myself to this thread.
I first saw the Triforce gate when Clanzer posted on YouTube, and it
caught my interest because I'd just started playing with the "Wave
Gate". It seemed logical to join the Wave Gate base and make the
Triforce and carry out the same tests. I was pleasantly surprised to
find the Triforce seems to be stronger.
Obviously the stuff that I posted in my videos is scratching the
surface of the tests that I've carried out, I hope you found them useful.
Any how, I'm uploading another video regarding shielding at the start of the gate.
I'd also like to say thanks to Graham for sharing your discovery.
Cheers,
KLiCuk
Quote from: klicUK on February 29, 2008, 09:20:09 AM
Hi everyone, I thought it was about time I introduced myself to this thread.
I first saw the Triforce gate when Clanzer posted on YouTube, and it
caught my interest because I'd just started playing with the "Wave
Gate". It seemed logical to join the Wave Gate base and make the
Triforce and carry out the same tests. I was pleasantly surprised to
find the Triforce seems to be stronger.
Obviously the stuff that I posted in my videos is scratching the
surface of the tests that I've carried out, I hope you found them useful.
Any how, I'm uploading another video regarding shielding at the start of the gate.
I'd also like to say thanks to Graham for sharing your discovery.
Cheers,
KLiCuk
Hi klicUK,
I am liking your videos of the tri-gate stuff. Very informative and intresting. Thanks.
Quote from: Rusty_Springs on February 28, 2008, 10:44:58 PM
Hi All
I added one more movie with the same setup as the Trigate Smot experiment showing what happens with out the second Trigate you can find the video at the file section of Erics Minato Group the name of the file is TriGateWithOutSecond.wmv.
Tanke Care all
Graham
no such group. You will mean minatowheel, Graham? i.e.
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/minatowheel/
Quote from: Paul-R on February 29, 2008, 10:09:11 AM
Quote from: Rusty_Springs on February 28, 2008, 10:44:58 PM
Hi All
I added one more movie with the same setup as the Trigate Smot experiment showing what happens with out the second Trigate you can find the video at the file section of Erics Minato Group the name of the file is TriGateWithOutSecond.wmv.
Tanke Care all
Graham
no such group. You will mean minatowheel, Graham? i.e.
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/minatowheel/
@Paul-R
yes, thats it, join the group and you will have access to the files section.
Quote from: Lakes on February 29, 2008, 04:57:03 AM
Can we keep any SMOT discussion out of this thread please?
No. SMOT discussion is the very essence of this research.
Quote from: klicUK on February 29, 2008, 09:20:09 AM
Hi everyone, I thought it was about time I introduced myself to this thread.
I first saw the Triforce gate when Clanzer posted on YouTube, and it
caught my interest because I'd just started playing with the "Wave
Gate". It seemed logical to join the Wave Gate base and make the
Triforce and carry out the same tests. I was pleasantly surprised to
find the Triforce seems to be stronger.
Obviously the stuff that I posted in my videos is scratching the
surface of the tests that I've carried out, I hope you found them useful.
Any how, I'm uploading another video regarding shielding at the start of the gate.
I'd also like to say thanks to Graham for sharing your discovery.
Cheers,
KLiCuk
Could you post the links to yor videos here? Thanks.
Quote from: sm0ky2 on February 29, 2008, 04:20:00 AM
Quote from: Omnibus on February 29, 2008, 02:17:05 AM
Quote from: sm0ky2 on February 29, 2008, 01:37:25 AM
@SMOT-ientists
The SMOT requires energy "input" at both ends.
1) to lift the ball and place it into position for SMOTing
and
2) to remove the ball FROM the other end of the SMOT
This Energy is NOT overcome after applying a gravitational field to remove the ball.
You must STILL input MORE energy into the system to LIFT the ball back up against that same gravitational field, to get the ball to where it started.
SMOT = not CoE.
Of course, this is ridiculous. It's not worth even commenting on. You haven't understood what SMOT is.
so where is your working, closed-loop smot video?? post it in the SMOT thread, so we can all see this "proven CoE"
or is YOUR smot, not "built properly"..? perhaps your superimposed field isn't quite "adjusted" correctly, to raise the ball back up to the original height?
I already gave you the link to the closed A-B-C-A magnetic propagator video, several posts back, which suits this discussion even better than SMOT.
Quote from: Paul-R on February 29, 2008, 10:09:11 AM
Quote from: Rusty_Springs on February 28, 2008, 10:44:58 PM
Hi All
I added one more movie with the same setup as the Trigate Smot experiment showing what happens with out the second Trigate you can find the video at the file section of Erics Minato Group the name of the file is TriGateWithOutSecond.wmv.
Tanke Care all
Graham
no such group. You will mean minatowheel, Graham? i.e.
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/minatowheel/
Any chance this could be put on Youtube for easier access please?
@Omnibus:
Here are the links to my videos on YouTube.
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=Euc_sHVq4Y0
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=ce4KkyZMvXI
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=YeN9c2XiGeE
Quote from: klicUK on February 29, 2008, 11:12:18 AM
@Omnibus:
Here are the links to my videos on YouTube.
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=Euc_sHVq4Y0
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=ce4KkyZMvXI
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=YeN9c2XiGeE
Excellent research. Thanks very much for sharing it. Now, what's the shielding material, I didn't catch? As already discussed, the problem is the spontaneous overcoming of the barrier prior to the initial neutral spot. That's somehow the opposite problem SMOT has. The shielding you're exploring really brings hope that said barrier can be overcome. Will be waiting with great interest to see if bringing the roller back to the input, properly shielded, would allow it to reach beyond the neutral point.
Quote from: Omnibus on February 29, 2008, 11:28:50 AM
Quote from: klicUK on February 29, 2008, 11:12:18 AM
@Omnibus:
Here are the links to my videos on YouTube.
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=Euc_sHVq4Y0
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=ce4KkyZMvXI
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=YeN9c2XiGeE
Excellent research. Thanks very much for sharing it. Now, what's the shielding material, I didn't catch? As already discussed, the problem is the spontaneous overcoming of the barrier prior to the initial neutral spot. That's somehow the opposite problem SMOT has. The shielding you're exploring really brings hope that said barrier can be overcome. Will be waiting with great interest to see if bringing the roller back to the input, properly shielded, would allow it to reach beyond the neutral point.
@Omnibus:
The shielding is called GIRON. Apparently it is "anisotropic" which means "...permeability is not the same in all directions. Permeability along the long axis are excellent, across the long axis are good and perpendicular to the surface it is slight. Thus the magnetic shielding effect can be turned on/off by merely rotating the orientation of the shield..." according to the write up. In practice I haven't really noticed any difference between this and standard Nickel Mu metal.
I'm in the middle of two sets of experiments with this gate. With regard to the shielded stack, I will be setting up a line of shielded gates to observe if the rollers escape distance increases through each gate. The conjecture at this point being that entry to each successive gate may have progressively more kinetic energy. If this is the case then building a ramp and closing the loop in a SMOT type setup should be a realistic possibility.
KLiCuk
Nice idea KlicUK and great video's
I know what I will be trying next!
Oh coupla new videos from me, again I know I got to get a Tripod, so excuse the shaking LOL
New GeoMag kit arrived.
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=OQRZizuparw
Going for 24 gates.
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=SMXN8WyWOBc
Ramps
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=TTOrYSI4cpY
Cheers
Sean.
Quote from: CLaNZeR on February 29, 2008, 12:41:07 PM
Nice idea KlicUK and great video's
I know what I will be trying next!
Oh coupla new videos from me, again I know I got to get a Tripod, so excuse the shaking LOL
New GeoMag kit arrived.
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=OQRZizuparw
Going for 24 gates.
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=SMXN8WyWOBc
Ramps
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=TTOrYSI4cpY
Cheers
Sean.
Thanks for that CLaNZeR. Looking forward to more of your stuff.
just seen Clanzers latest video at http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=o2MzoUv8trU
Excelent variation.
However, I can not post comments to YouTube, not even on my own channel !. Should I be getting worried!!!
Quote from: klicUK on February 29, 2008, 01:17:59 PM
Thanks for that CLaNZeR. Looking forward to more of your stuff.
Same to you mate, keep them coming, we got to hit on something ;D
I tried your shielding idea with magnets.
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=o2MzoUv8trU
Good stuff
Cheers
Sean.
klickUK,
Great videos. I have to admit that I saw these a few days ago, but didn't notice that you took the "common ball" approach. I think this is an excellent configuration, because it not only improves strength, but also conserves balls for additional gate construction. My erector set has far fewer balls than magnets, and your approach has allowed me to recover unused magnets. ;D
Keep up the very excellent work. ;)
Cheers :)
Yada..
.
Quote from: Yadaraf on February 29, 2008, 03:20:55 PM
klickUK,
Great videos. I have to admit that I saw these a few days ago, but didn't notice that you took the "common ball" approach. I think this is an excellent configuration, because it not only improves strength, but also conserves balls for additional gate construction. My erector set has far fewer balls than magnets, and your approach has allowed me to recover unused magnets. ;D
Keep up the very excellent work. ;)
Cheers :)
Yada..
.
cheers yada,
I'll be posting more videos as soon as the problems I'm having with YouTube are sorted out.
regards,
klicuk
Here is a quick question for the SMOT experts in here. Is a good test for a smot type ramp a steel ball that climbs an incline and then rolls away free to restart the cycle?
Hi All
Thanks for the great work Sean, klickUK I am enjoying your videos very much and I can't wait to see more.
Take Care All
Graham
Quote from: Omnibus on February 29, 2008, 10:54:09 AM
I already gave you the link to the closed A-B-C-A magnetic propagator video, several posts back, which suits this discussion even better than SMOT.
i dont have RealPlayer to see the Adsitt in action, but rectangle magnets on a level plane, opposite poles. ive seen this many times, creating things myself, or watching other people do the same. I did not observe "OU" in those. perhaps the Adsitt is 'better' is some way.
Tri-Force most easily compares to Bendini, or TOMI-Track, in its operation.
The main important difference here is that we can angle the magnetic meridian, giving the gate
litterall 'adjustable' features. the operation of the roller traveling through the fields, is identicle to the motion in the TOMI, and Bendini gates
Hi All
I have made a little video showing the trade off if you need to attract in as you will see I can make a magnet attract in but I loose my big kick out, with slight gravity assist it leaves the gate, I would rather the kick out then the attract in if I had to make a trade off.
Take Care All
Graham
24 Gates cleared :)
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=gITEj7VdQFk#GU5U2spHI_4
Cheers
Sean.
Hey guys, do you think this kind of magnetic toy will do the job, they are called MagneStix and they are the cheaper I found so far, 400 pieces for 25$.
http://www.magnestixtoys.com/home
They say the ball is 2/3 of the magnetix one, compared to geomag I cannot tell, anyone having experience with MagneStix?
Thanks
33 gates with new rail system
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hn0CWXVw1ic
33 gates again this time Closed tope gate test as requested, which is smoother and faster but seems bigger Sticky Spot on the end.
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=KlhA5YECHm4
Hi All
I just thought my attractin gate will let the roller keep going with gravity assist my repel out Trigate will let the roller comein with gravity assist so why not put the both together the Trigate at the bottom of a loop to kick a roller up and the attractin at the top to attract the same roller up, you have a airgap between both gates.
What happens if the theories right the roller goes through the bottom Trigate kicks up the hill where the attractin gate grabs it and helps it up the hill then it releases the roller just past the apex it drops down goes through the Trigate and starts the process again, I would have two rollers on the rotating arm so as one is going up the other is comming down.
Take Care All
Graham
Hi All
I forgot to mention the smaller your Trigate is the stronger the kicking force is but that makes sence because the lines of flux are closer together the smaller it is.
Take Care All
Graham
Hi all
Look at this vid?o http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rb1Lr3s2-Bk
regards,
So are you going to use your magnetic field balance thing at the ends of the acceleration system? Raise the system into a ramp, put the magnet chains at both ends, then have a rail channel the roller back down to the beginning. Might not work, but worth a try in my book.
Hi All
What I have in mind is a balance system with the repel and attract bring the roller up and gravity taking it down to its starting point again.
Take Care All
Graham
Hi All
I'm Just showing a video of how I would join the gates and I was wondering how many gates can be joined this way Sean and still have the kick at the end.
Take Care All
Graham
Hi All
I just wanted to say with the bridge setup you can start it anywhere in the gate and the further from the exit the greater the kick, to set it up right on the row closest to the roller the first steelball repels and every steelball after is neutreal, I ran out of magnets when I tested this but sofar with this setup the more gates I add the better the kick out, the table I use to make the video is a little uneven so this setup is going slightly uphill.
Take Care All
Graham
Quote from: Rusty_Springs on March 01, 2008, 08:21:22 PM
Hi All
I just wanted to say with the bridge setup you can start it anywhere in the gate and the further from the exit the greater the kick, to set it up right on the row closest to the roller the first steelball repels and every steelball after is neutreal, I ran out of magnets when I tested this but sofar with this setup the more gates I add the better the kick out, the table I use to make the video is a little uneven so this setup is going slightly uphill.
Take Care All
Graham
The more the gates the greater the kick out, however, is the initial barrier also increasing at that? If it isn't there is hope for this construction.
Okay started on the Tri-Force Gate Rotor
Part1 here
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8qNOdyZDfWs
More later
Cheers
Sean.
Quote from: TheOne on March 01, 2008, 01:05:35 PM
Hey guys, do you think this kind of magnetic toy will do the job, they are called MagneStix and they are the cheaper I found so far, 400 pieces for 25$.
http://www.magnestixtoys.com/home
They say the ball is 2/3 of the magnetix one, compared to geomag I cannot tell, anyone having experience with MagneStix?
I can't see these items being neodymiuim. They would be
too dangerous for children. The magnets might be very
simple ferrous jobs, a bit like those horseshoe magnets
that pick up a handful of paper clips.
Try putting "neodymium" into Ebay:
http://search.ebay.com/search/search.dll?from=R40&_trksid=m37&satitle=neodymium&category0=
Paul.
Quote from: Rusty_Springs on March 01, 2008, 07:52:45 PM
Hi All
I'm Just showing a video of how I would join the gates and I was wondering how many gates can be joined this way Sean and still have the kick at the end.
Take Care All
Graham
How about introducing a graduated upward ramp at the output
of the system, and see how high up the ramp the roller will
go?
Obviously, the MxGxH measurement will give the energy gained
by the roller.
(N.B. some people cannot see youtube stuff).
Paul.
Quote from: CLaNZeR on March 02, 2008, 09:38:17 AM
Okay started on the Tri-Force Gate Rotor
Don't forget that at least something must be different from Butch Lafonte's Tri-Force Gate Rotor experiment, that he showed in the beginning of this thread. We know what happened when he inserted the last gate.
Eric.
Quote from: CLaNZeR on March 02, 2008, 09:38:17 AM
Okay started on the Tri-Force Gate Rotor
Part1 here
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8qNOdyZDfWs
More later
Cheers
Sean.
Thanks, mate. Waiting with great interest the development.
Quote from: eavogels on March 02, 2008, 11:26:13 AM
Quote from: CLaNZeR on March 02, 2008, 09:38:17 AM
Okay started on the Tri-Force Gate Rotor
Don't forget that at least something must be different from Butch Lafonte's Tri-Force Gate Rotor experiment, that he showed in the beginning of this thread. We know what happened when he inserted the last gate.
Eric.
Butch LaFonte's was doomed from the get go. It's well established already that a thick circular arrangement of stations causes them to cooperate and create a symmetric set of magnetic potential energy troughs and hills such that starting from a given hill overcoming of the follow up one isn't possible. Here, in @CLaNZeR's design there are options to create asymmetries. Recall @clikUK's shielding or assembling occasional stations in various ways along the circular path.
Ended up being a rushed day as I had to contend with Mothers Day and my Daughters Birthday.
But got a extra 10 minutes for part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bXY0CKPTMss
And for people that cannot access YouTube and better resolution anyway
http://www.overunity.org.uk/tri-gate/CLaNZeRSTri-ForceGate-Rotor2.wmv
Cheers
Sean.
Quote from: eavogels on March 02, 2008, 11:26:13 AM
Quote from: CLaNZeR on March 02, 2008, 09:38:17 AM
Okay started on the Tri-Force Gate Rotor
Don't forget that at least something must be different from Butch Lafonte's Tri-Force Gate Rotor experiment, that he showed in the beginning of this thread. We know what happened when he inserted the last gate.
Eric.
Yep and a good video as well, this is why we have to take different approaches.
The Sticky spot is always going to be there, we should all know that by now after all these years playing.
It is finding something that lets us get past that Sticky Spot a little bit easier than before that is a step towards our goal.
The Tri-Gate is certainly different, but still alot of tweaks and testing to do.
Cheers
Sean.
Quote from: Paul-R on March 02, 2008, 10:11:53 AM
How about introducing a graduated upward ramp at the output
of the system, and see how high up the ramp the roller will
go?
Obviously, the MxGxH measurement will give the energy gained
by the roller.
(N.B. some people cannot see youtube stuff).
Hi Paul
Direct link for you on ramps and the Tri-Force Gate
http://www.overunity.org.uk/tri-gate/CLaNZeRSTri-ForceGate13.wmv
Cheers
Sean.
Quote from: Omnibus on March 02, 2008, 12:59:10 PM
Thanks, mate. Waiting with great interest the development.
No probs mate.
Ran out of time quickly this weekend, but will do more next weekend.
More to come yet!
Cheers
Sean.
Quote from: Paul-R on March 02, 2008, 10:00:25 AM
Quote from: TheOne on March 01, 2008, 01:05:35 PM
Hey guys, do you think this kind of magnetic toy will do the job, they are called MagneStix and they are the cheaper I found so far, 400 pieces for 25$.
http://www.magnestixtoys.com/home
They say the ball is 2/3 of the magnetix one, compared to geomag I cannot tell, anyone having experience with MagneStix?
I can't see these items being neodymiuim. They would be
too dangerous for children. The magnets might be very
simple ferrous jobs, a bit like those horseshoe magnets
that pick up a handful of paper clips.
Paul.
actually paul, those stix are made with tiny N48's. They are seperated by the plastic stem.
(not connected like the GeoMags) and therefore make very poor quality Tri-force Gates.
Their gauss rating is intentionally low as well, to make them safe for kids.
(not pinching fingers ect).
If you want to use neos, i would suggess a stack of small round disk-neos - with steel spheres on the ends.
or cylinders with spheres, like in the errector kit.
Quote from: sm0ky2 on March 02, 2008, 05:41:36 PM
Quote from: Paul-R on March 02, 2008, 10:00:25 AM
Quote from: TheOne on March 01, 2008, 01:05:35 PM
Hey guys, do you think this kind of magnetic toy will do the job, they are called MagneStix and they are the cheaper I found so far, 400 pieces for 25$.
http://www.magnestixtoys.com/home
They say the ball is 2/3 of the magnetix one, compared to geomag I cannot tell, anyone having experience with MagneStix?
I can't see these items being neodymiuim. They would be
too dangerous for children. The magnets might be very
simple ferrous jobs, a bit like those horseshoe magnets
that pick up a handful of paper clips.
Paul.
actually paul, those stix are made with tiny N48's. They are seperated by the plastic stem.
(not connected like the GeoMags) and therefore make very poor quality Tri-force Gates.
Their gauss rating is intentionally low as well, to make them safe for kids.
(not pinching fingers ect).
If you want to use neos, i would suggess a stack of small round disk-neos - with steel spheres on the ends.
or cylinders with spheres, like in the errector kit.
Ok thanks, hum I buy some on ebay, lol, anyway, I just found unimag, they are like geomag but a little cheaper, I will prob order some unimag
Hi All
I just posted one last Trigate video this setup attracts in a repels out ofcause I loose alot of the repel out I have with my other systems but that can't be helped to have it work both ways.
You maybe able to increase the kick out by removing the first Trigates anteni and joining the two gates, I havn't tried that yet so I don't know.
I'm not able to upload the file yet again so I have posted it in the file section of the Minato Wheel Group on yahoo the files name is TrueGate.wmv.
Take Care All
Graham
Hi All
I will see if it uploads now.
Take Care all
Graham
Quote from: Rusty_Springs on March 02, 2008, 10:39:19 PM
Hi All
I will see if it uploads now.
Take Care all
Graham
Hi Graham,
I've also been playing with configurations and have achieved a similar result. In my setup the roller is attracted in and there doesn't seem to be any repulsion at all on entry. The roller goes all the way through the gate by about 2 lengths of the roller but the attraction force then kicks in and the roller is dragged back. I notice that there seems to be slowing of your roller on entry to the second gate, so are you getting the same effect? (I'll try your configuration myself when I have access to my magnets).
cheers,
Klic
ps going to work now so I won't be able to reply for a while.
Hi Klic
Yes I had the same effect the anteni's are to cut that effect down and let the roller leave, its all a trade off I love the kick I get from my joined gates but theres still that problem of comming in, this lets you comein and go out but the kick is very weak, I think with my joined gates if you can come in right at the neutral point you will have one hell of a kick out and to do that in a circle formation you would have the agtes start on the corner rather then in the centre.
Take Care Klic
Graham
Quote from: Rusty_Springs on March 02, 2008, 10:39:19 PM
Hi All
I will see if it uploads now.
Take Care all
Graham
very nice! :o
Hi All
I just thought I would tell you the setup, with the other Trigates it was neutral at the front repel to attract behind, with this its neutral to attract at the front repel behind.
Take Care All
Graham
Hi All
If anyones interested I forget to mention that you can set the triangle up to be a monopole magnet or neutral magnet giving you a magnet that attracts to both sides of other magnets just by having all corners attract to each other and then placing the steelballs on each corner so it would go north south north south north south in a triangle.
Take Care All
Graham
Quote from: Rusty_Springs on March 02, 2008, 10:39:19 PM
Hi All
I will see if it uploads now.
Take Care all
Graham
There is No repulsion at the start of track ?
wiz
All of this is very interesting but I can't see this gate being strong enough to deliver overunity torque.
The air gap between the magnets is very large and this waste the potential energy.
What happens if you bring the gates and moving magnet closer together?
I'll bet it won't work. You must have torque besides movement to produce real output.
Quote from: Rusty_Springs on March 02, 2008, 10:39:19 PM
Hi All
I will see if it uploads now.
Take Care all
Graham
Interesting video (but my computer gives no soundtrack)
I am not really up on this thread, but it seems that the first
system accelerates the roller and it then receives a moment
of repulsion as it approaches the second from the second
system. Why does the second system not attract it as the
first system does?
If the second system was separated by an extra two inches,
would this repulsion disappear, and would the second system
attract in the way the first system attracts?
Would mounting the project vertically allow gravity to assist?
Paul.
Quote from: Rusty_Springs on March 02, 2008, 10:39:19 PM
Hi All
I will see if it uploads now.
Take Care all
Graham
Continuing with this type of experiments is to repeat something well established already. Overcoming of follow up barriers in this way can be achieved in many ways. For these types of stations @CLaNZeR, for instance, has shown a very long run. As mentioned many times, the real problem is overcoming of the barrier prior to the initial neutral spot.For this kind of stations this problem can be seen clearly in @CLaNZeR's last videos where he tries to construct a motor. Therefore, the emphasis has to be directed towards solving that problem which, as a matter of fact, has always been central to this field of research. One possible solution may be screening as @klicUK has shown in his video although still not addressing that initial barrier.
Quote from: Paul-R on March 03, 2008, 07:49:47 AM
Quote from: Rusty_Springs on March 02, 2008, 10:39:19 PM
Hi All
I will see if it uploads now.
Take Care all
Graham
Interesting video (but my computer gives no soundtrack)
I am not really up on this thread, but it seems that the first
system accelerates the roller and it then receives a moment
of repulsion as it approaches the second from the second
system. Why does the second system not attract it as the
first system does?
If the second system was separated by an extra two inches,
would this repulsion disappear, and would the second system
attract in the way the first system attracts?
Would mounting the project vertically allow gravity to assist?
Paul.
i think that concept was a bit misconstrued. there IS repulsion, it doesnt get rid of it, it pushes it out further., giving you a larger "null zone" in which to start your roller - where it then attracts into the gate.
if you seperate them too much more the roller wont make it into the 2nd one.
@ OMNI,
Clanzer's latest vides have demonstrated that there is enough excess energy during the Transition Phase (after initial repulsion< -> before final repulsion) to overcome the initial repulsion of another independent, identicle gate. We are currently examining several possible ways of harnessing this power, and utilizing it. This opens a whole other realm of possibilities, and things to experiment with.
Quote from: sm0ky2 on March 03, 2008, 03:07:03 PM
@ OMNI,
Clanzer's latest vides have demonstrated that there is enough excess energy during the Transition Phase (after initial repulsion< -> before final repulsion) to overcome the initial repulsion of another independent, identicle gate. We are currently examining several possible ways of harnessing this power, and utilizing it. This opens a whole other realm of possibilities, and things to experiment with.
Notice, I don't doubt that excess energy is produced. This I've proven beyond any doubt for such types of devices. Unfortunately, it is yet to be seen how that initial barrier in question is to be overcome so that the excess energy which undoubtedly is produced can be harnessed to build a magnetic motor. @CLaNZeR's last videos are a good step in this direction but the main problem remains--overcoming that nasty initial barrier. Overcoming that barrier is the jist of the problem in all constructions studied so far.
@klicUK's videos should be mentioned as well because they demonstrate a very good systematic approach in studying this design. Especially important is his finding of the shielding effect. Unfortunately, he used the shielding so far only at the follow up barrier. Now it has to be studied for the culprit--that barrier that prevents the rotor to complete the full turn.
Hi All
The point must be made that you can not remove the repel nor can you remove the attract you can only divert it to give you the best result for what you need to do, people talk about attracting in so I showed you how to attractin and still have enoth energy to break the attract back section leaving the gate, to get the most energy leaving then use the way I join the gates, as I said this increases the force leaving as you add a gate, well it shows it does upto the 6 gates I used I don't know how much further you can go and keep increasing the leaving force that I would like to see and Clanzer is the only one I have seen that has the magnets to test this, it would be interesting to see if my setup keeps increase over 32 joins.
For a setup like Clanzer's had I wouldn't be using my Trigate but trying my Corner gate which was made for circler motion, this will attract in and repel out with more force then the Trigate infact the Corner gate is the closest to a perfect gate I have seen, in other words if you want a train type system use my Trigate joined the way I have them joined, if you want a rotating system try my Corner gate but remember everything is a trade off you can't take attract back or repel in away you can only divert them to give you the best result for what you need.
Take Care all
Graham
Quote from: Rusty_Springs on March 03, 2008, 04:47:45 PM
Hi All
The point must be made that you can not remove the repel nor can you remove the attract you can only divert it to give you the best result for what you need to do, people talk about attracting in so I showed you how to attractin and still have enoth energy to break the attract back section leaving the gate, to get the most energy leaving then use the way I join the gates, as I said this increases the force leaving as you add a gate, well it shows it does upto the 6 gates I used I don't know how much further you can go and keep increasing the leaving force that I would like to see and Clanzer is the only one I have seen that has the magnets to test this, it would be interesting to see if my setup keeps increase over 32 joins.
For a setup like Clanzer's had I wouldn't be using my Trigate but trying my Corner gate which was made for circler motion, this will attract in and repel out with more force then the Trigate infact the Corner gate is the closest to a perfect gate I have seen, in other words if you want a train type system use my Trigate joined the way I have them joined, if you want a rotating system try my Corner gate but remember everything is a trade off you can't take attract back or repel in away you can only divert them to give you the best result for what you need.
Take Care all
Graham
Again, if no way is found to overcome the initial barrier no success in building a magnetic motor can be claimed (not to be forgotten that violation of CoE has already been proved beyond any doubt). The rest is trivial.
Quote from: Omnibus on March 03, 2008, 03:28:26 PM
Quote from: sm0ky2 on March 03, 2008, 03:07:03 PM
@ OMNI,
Clanzer's latest vides have demonstrated that there is enough excess energy during the Transition Phase (after initial repulsion< -> before final repulsion) to overcome the initial repulsion of another independent, identicle gate. We are currently examining several possible ways of harnessing this power, and utilizing it. This opens a whole other realm of possibilities, and things to experiment with.
Notice, I don't doubt that excess energy is produced. This I've proven beyond any doubt for such types of devices. Unfortunately, it is yet to be seen how that initial barrier in question is to be overcome so that the excess energy which undoubtedly is produced can be harnessed to build a magnetic motor. @CLaNZeR's last videos are a good step in this direction but the main problem remains--overcoming that nasty initial barrier. Overcoming that barrier is the jist of the problem in all constructions studied so far.
the video i was referring to, actually shows it overcomming the initial repulsion barrier.
the problem i have accepting the "impossible to loop" theory is - we have already proven CoE.
therefore it MUST be loopable. we just have to figure out a way.
Quote from: sm0ky2 on March 03, 2008, 08:14:47 PM
Quote from: Omnibus on March 03, 2008, 03:28:26 PM
Quote from: sm0ky2 on March 03, 2008, 03:07:03 PM
@ OMNI,
Clanzer's latest vides have demonstrated that there is enough excess energy during the Transition Phase (after initial repulsion< -> before final repulsion) to overcome the initial repulsion of another independent, identicle gate. We are currently examining several possible ways of harnessing this power, and utilizing it. This opens a whole other realm of possibilities, and things to experiment with.
Notice, I don't doubt that excess energy is produced. This I've proven beyond any doubt for such types of devices. Unfortunately, it is yet to be seen how that initial barrier in question is to be overcome so that the excess energy which undoubtedly is produced can be harnessed to build a magnetic motor. @CLaNZeR's last videos are a good step in this direction but the main problem remains--overcoming that nasty initial barrier. Overcoming that barrier is the jist of the problem in all constructions studied so far.
the video i was referring to, actually shows it overcomming the initial repulsion barrier.
the problem i have accepting the "impossible to loop" theory is - we have already proven CoE.
therefore it MUST be loopable. we just have to figure out a way.
Could you please post again a link to that video?
@all,
i wont be posting for a while. Serious personal stuff going on at the moment.
good luck to all
@klicUK,
Sorry to hear that. Hope everything will be OK with you and we'll have you back soon with your insightful experiments.
Hi all,
I'm from Conspirovniscience.com.
Quartz has posted few pages ago my video, demonstrating tri-force overunity.
However this video was ambiguous, since the magnet appeared to be trapped by the gate.
So I made another more explicit video :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZEwgZutFlGc (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZEwgZutFlGc)
I can say now that this system works. I repeated this test (with different configurations, and ~thirty measures for each case) many times to be sure. The gain is small, but it exists. I tested with two consecutive gates : the gain is better. But I think that each gate MUST be isolated from others. When you connect them you kill the effect..
The rotor I built is not running because friction easily offset the gain (there is only one gate on the stator). But with several gates I hope it works.
Sorry for my bad English !
More informations, look at : "conspirovniscience.com > forum > Energie libre > rassemblement autour du MP"
Quote from: mpavenir on March 04, 2008, 07:27:20 AM
Hi all,
I'm from Conspirovniscience.com.
Quartz has posted few pages ago my video, demonstrating tri-force overunity.
However this video was ambiguous, since the magnet appeared to be trapped by the gate.
So I made another more explicit video :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZEwgZutFlGc (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZEwgZutFlGc)
I can say now that this system works. I repeated this test (with different configurations, and ~thirty measures for each case) many times to be sure. The gain is small, but it exists. I tested with two consecutive gates : the gain is better. But I think that each gate MUST be isolated from others. When you connect them you kill the effect..
The rotor I built is not running because friction easily offset the gain (there is only one gate on the stator). But with several gates I hope it works.
Sorry for my bad English !
More informations, look at : "conspirovniscience.com > forum > Energie libre > rassemblement autour du MP"
That this kind of devices produce excess energy and violate CoE is already well understood. I have made an analysis of Taisnierus' device (SMOT) and of a magnetic propagator and have proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that excess energy can be produced discontinuously. I'd like to point out also that the device you're using provides critics with arguments against it violating CoE mainly because of the barrier which exists prior to the starting neutral point. Therefore, in order to prove violation of CoE with iron clad arguments you must use the Taisnierius' device (SMOT) or, even easier, the magnetic propagator I have already analyzed. Thus, violation of CoE is a done deal by now.
The current efforts are directed towards constructing a device producing excess energy continuously and that isn't an easy engineering task.
Quote from: Omnibus on March 04, 2008, 07:38:21 AM
Quote from: mpavenir on March 04, 2008, 07:27:20 AM
Hi all,
I'm from Conspirovniscience.com.
Quartz has posted few pages ago my video, demonstrating tri-force overunity.
However this video was ambiguous, since the magnet appeared to be trapped by the gate.
So I made another more explicit video :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZEwgZutFlGc (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZEwgZutFlGc)
I can say now that this system works. I repeated this test (with different configurations, and ~thirty measures for each case) many times to be sure. The gain is small, but it exists. I tested with two consecutive gates : the gain is better. But I think that each gate MUST be isolated from others. When you connect them you kill the effect..
The rotor I built is not running because friction easily offset the gain (there is only one gate on the stator). But with several gates I hope it works.
Sorry for my bad English !
More informations, look at : "conspirovniscience.com > forum > Energie libre > rassemblement autour du MP"
That this kind of devices produce excess energy and violate CoE is already well understood. I have made an analysis of Taisnierus' device (SMOT) and of a magnetic propagator and have proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that excess energy can be produced discontinuously. I'd like to point out also that the device you're using provides critics with arguments against it violating CoE mainly because of the barrier which exists prior to the starting neutral point. Therefore, in order to prove violation of CoE with iron clad arguments you must use the Taisnierius' device (SMOT) or, even easier, the magnetic propagator I have already analyzed. Thus, violation of CoE is a done deal by now.
The current efforts are directed towards constructing a device producing excess energy continuously and that isn't an easy engineering task.
That is the purpose of the ramps at both the entrance and exit - this eliminates the repulsion at the entrance of the gate and allows us to compare input and output directly within the gravitational constant.
E=mhg applied in both directions proves more out than in. a simple down/up-ramp staircase could give you a considerable increase in altitude, from which looping would no longer be an issue.
Quote from: sm0ky2 on March 04, 2008, 09:37:59 AM
That is the purpose of the ramps at both the entrance and exit
So he has to check if the roller can reach the same height on the exit ramp as it receives as starting point from the entry ramp.
Eric.
Quote from: mpavenir on March 04, 2008, 07:27:20 AM
...
So I made another more explicit video :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZEwgZutFlGc (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZEwgZutFlGc)
...
Interesting movie!
And one bold statement you make in its title: ?syst?me non conservatif?!
Why do you consider it is not conservative?
I?m asking about the shift in magnetic potential energy of the system when you rotate the mobile, shift that is done either at the expense of your own energy or spontaneously (at the expense of potential energy stored into the configuration) but a certain amount of work (positive or negative) is always involved. Isn?t it then naturally to see this amount of added or extracted energy reflected into the length of the traveling path, as the movie clearly shows?
Welcome here,
Tinu
Quote from: sm0ky2 on March 04, 2008, 09:37:59 AM
Quote from: Omnibus on March 04, 2008, 07:38:21 AM
Quote from: mpavenir on March 04, 2008, 07:27:20 AM
Hi all,
I'm from Conspirovniscience.com.
Quartz has posted few pages ago my video, demonstrating tri-force overunity.
However this video was ambiguous, since the magnet appeared to be trapped by the gate.
So I made another more explicit video :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZEwgZutFlGc (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZEwgZutFlGc)
I can say now that this system works. I repeated this test (with different configurations, and ~thirty measures for each case) many times to be sure. The gain is small, but it exists. I tested with two consecutive gates : the gain is better. But I think that each gate MUST be isolated from others. When you connect them you kill the effect..
The rotor I built is not running because friction easily offset the gain (there is only one gate on the stator). But with several gates I hope it works.
Sorry for my bad English !
More informations, look at : "conspirovniscience.com > forum > Energie libre > rassemblement autour du MP"
That this kind of devices produce excess energy and violate CoE is already well understood. I have made an analysis of Taisnierus' device (SMOT) and of a magnetic propagator and have proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that excess energy can be produced discontinuously. I'd like to point out also that the device you're using provides critics with arguments against it violating CoE mainly because of the barrier which exists prior to the starting neutral point. Therefore, in order to prove violation of CoE with iron clad arguments you must use the Taisnierius' device (SMOT) or, even easier, the magnetic propagator I have already analyzed. Thus, violation of CoE is a done deal by now.
The current efforts are directed towards constructing a device producing excess energy continuously and that isn't an easy engineering task.
That is the purpose of the ramps at both the entrance and exit - this eliminates the repulsion at the entrance of the gate and allows us to compare input and output directly within the gravitational constant.
E=mhg applied in both directions proves more out than in. a simple down/up-ramp staircase could give you a considerable increase in altitude, from which looping would no longer be an issue.
This isn't at all obvious specifically because you're ignoring the barrier prior to the starting point. You tend to ignore that barrier but it is hte gist of the problem. @CLaNZeR has already demonstrated that in his last videos. You said you know of a video that shows otherwise but you never gave a link to it.
Quote from: tinu on March 04, 2008, 11:19:51 AM
Quote from: mpavenir on March 04, 2008, 07:27:20 AM
...
So I made another more explicit video :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZEwgZutFlGc (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZEwgZutFlGc)
...
Interesting movie!
And one bold statement you make in its title: ?syst?me non conservatif?!
Why do you consider it is not conservative?
I?m asking about the shift in magnetic potential energy of the system when you rotate the mobile, shift that is done either at the expense of your own energy or spontaneously (at the expense of potential energy stored into the configuration) but a certain amount of work (positive or negative) is always involved. Isn?t it then naturally to see this amount of added or extracted energy reflected into the length of the traveling path, as the movie clearly shows?
Welcome here,
Tinu
As I said, the device in this video is prone to criticism when claiming that the resultant field due to the overlay of the magnetic and gravitational field is non-conservative. Such criticism is unavoidable, provided the fact that a repulsion barrier exists at the input of the device. Iron clad argument that there can be a proper overlay of magnetic and gravitational field that can result in a non-conservative field is only the argument based on Taisnierius' device (SMOT) and even easier, the magnetic propulsor. Not only that these are the devices that must be used for the purposes of definitive proving that the overlaid fields are non-conservative but they must be used in a closed A-B-C-A loop, as I've shown many, many times. For a field to be conservative the energy imparted must not be less than the energy lost when the closing the loop. In other words, for a field to be conservative there must be no gain or loss of energy when closing the loop in that field. That isn't the case in Taisnierius' device or in the magnetic propulsor. In these devices, where the magnetic and gravitational potential energies are clearly defined, unlike the case in the discussed video, the energy imparted to the ball is always less than the energy the ball loses when completing the loop.
If one wants to do the experiment in the video one must use the setup used by Naudin which is also based on the well-understood gravitational and magnetic potential energies of Taisnierius' device, avioning the uncertainties in this respect in the device shown here. Although not as definitive as the above proof, Naudin's experiment shows that despite that fact that
Quotecertain amount of work (positive or negative) is always involved
the opposite of what is expected:
QuoteIsn?t it then naturally to see this amount of added or extracted energy reflected into the length of the traveling path, as the movie clearly shows?
is observed, namely, adding less energy than in the control experiment, leads to greater length of the traveling path. This fact is clear cut in Naudin's experiment while here it can be disputed mainly based on the unknown value of the initial barrier.
@ Omnibus,
Naudin?s experiment was shown to have at least two systematic errors that were not accounted for. Total error may or may not be significant but until it is properly estimated, one can invoke methodological reasons to let Naudin out of current discussion. That person would be me. No offense; replace my name with anyone?s.
Also, I would be interested in hearing mpavenir?s interpretation. He came here with something and I?d like to kindly ask you let his voice be heard. We already know each other?s views maybe more than we wish. Moreover, mpavenir does obviously need some time to write in English, so please give him a slow pace, at least for a while.
Many thanks,
Tinu
Quote from: tinu on March 04, 2008, 05:03:10 PM
@ Omnibus,
Naudin?s experiment was shown to have at least two systematic errors that were not accounted for. Total error may or may not be significant but until it is properly estimated, one can invoke methodological reasons to let Naudin out of current discussion. That person would be me. No offense; replace my name with anyone?s.
Also, I would be interested in hearing mpavenir?s interpretation. He came here with something and I?d like to kindly ask you let his voice be heard. We already know each other?s views maybe more than we wish. Moreover, mpavenir does obviously need some time to write in English, so please give him a slow pace, at least for a while.
Many thanks,
Tinu
No, Naudin's video hasn't been shown to contain systematic errors. You're wrong.
Second, because we're searching for the truth and not just to listen to this or that presentation what I said above must be considered seriously and attempts to replace it with other vulnerable experiments will not pass. Simple as that.
Quote from: eavogels on March 04, 2008, 11:13:33 AM
Quote from: sm0ky2 on March 04, 2008, 09:37:59 AM
That is the purpose of the ramps at both the entrance and exit
So he has to check if the roller can reach the same height on the exit ramp as it receives as starting point from the entry ramp.
Eric.
it goes higher than its starting position.
just as it did in the pendulum experiment.
@ OMNI - the ramp accounts for the entrance repulsion - noones ignoring this field, we're simply going around it, by neccessity.
Quote from: sm0ky2 on March 04, 2008, 08:47:35 PM
Quote from: eavogels on March 04, 2008, 11:13:33 AM
Quote from: sm0ky2 on March 04, 2008, 09:37:59 AM
That is the purpose of the ramps at both the entrance and exit
So he has to check if the roller can reach the same height on the exit ramp as it receives as starting point from the entry ramp.
Eric.
it goes higher than its starting position.
just as it did in the pendulum experiment.
@ OMNI - the ramp accounts for the entrance repulsion - noones ignoring this field, we're simply going around it, by neccessity.
Doesn't matter. As I've told you many times you're not taking into account the energy to overcome the initial repulsion barrier. That barrier is an unknown and every critic will hold on to it as the last straw.You think you're not ignoring it but you are.
There are two possible solutions to demonstrate that the initial repulsion barrier doesn't count--to shile the entrance as @klicUK did or have some kind of sideways additions as in @CLaNZeR's 14th video. Something along that line. I'm not saying it isn't doable, all I'm saying is that in its current design production of excess energy is prone to obvious, seemingly deserved attacks..
Quote from: Omnibus on March 04, 2008, 08:54:54 PM
Quote from: sm0ky2 on March 04, 2008, 08:47:35 PM
Quote from: eavogels on March 04, 2008, 11:13:33 AM
Quote from: sm0ky2 on March 04, 2008, 09:37:59 AM
That is the purpose of the ramps at both the entrance and exit
So he has to check if the roller can reach the same height on the exit ramp as it receives as starting point from the entry ramp.
Eric.
it goes higher than its starting position.
just as it did in the pendulum experiment.
@ OMNI - the ramp accounts for the entrance repulsion - noones ignoring this field, we're simply going around it, by neccessity.
Doesn't matter. As I've told you many times you're not taking into account the energy to overcome the initial repulsion barrier. That barrier is an unknown and every critic will hold on to it as the last straw.You think you're not ignoring it but you are.
There are two possible solutions to demonstrate that the initial repulsion barrier doesn't count--to shile the entrance as @klicUK did or have some kind of sideways additions as in @CLaNZeR's 14th video. Something along that line. I'm not saying it isn't doable, all I'm saying is that in its current design production of excess energy is prone to obvious, seemingly deserved attacks..
Omnibus, apparently you have some conceptual problem understanding the physics of gravity.
allow me to explain::
When you lift an object against gravity you are putting potential energy into that object.
This energy is a function of : the gravitational constant, the mass of the object, and the height the object is lifted.
For example: if you have a 2gr roller lifted 1cm the potential energy would be .000196 Joules.
The energy consumed by the initial repulsion into the gate - is input into the system by lifting the roller to the starting point:: E = mhg
By allowing the roller to roll down the ramp, we are using this "input energy" to enter the gate.
the roller travels through the gate, gains energy during the transition phase, and momentum is maintained, minus the entrance repulsion.
It then travels out of the gate, recieves a 'push out' - (which is equivallent and opposite to the entrance repulsion in a balanced gate)
The roller then rolls up the ramp on the other side to its maximum height,
At this point the roller is at a new height, resulting from the height dropped from + the energy gained during the transition phase.
And has a new energy value: E = mhg
All energy is accounted for, including that to enter the gate, and that which is used to 'push out'.
the difference in height between the entrance and exit (E= mhg) is the Potential Energy gained by the gate during the transition pase.
Any Questions?
Quote from: sm0ky2 on March 04, 2008, 09:41:07 PM
Quote from: Omnibus on March 04, 2008, 08:54:54 PM
Quote from: sm0ky2 on March 04, 2008, 08:47:35 PM
Quote from: eavogels on March 04, 2008, 11:13:33 AM
Quote from: sm0ky2 on March 04, 2008, 09:37:59 AM
That is the purpose of the ramps at both the entrance and exit
So he has to check if the roller can reach the same height on the exit ramp as it receives as starting point from the entry ramp.
Eric.
it goes higher than its starting position.
just as it did in the pendulum experiment.
@ OMNI - the ramp accounts for the entrance repulsion - noones ignoring this field, we're simply going around it, by neccessity.
Doesn't matter. As I've told you many times you're not taking into account the energy to overcome the initial repulsion barrier. That barrier is an unknown and every critic will hold on to it as the last straw.You think you're not ignoring it but you are.
There are two possible solutions to demonstrate that the initial repulsion barrier doesn't count--to shile the entrance as @klicUK did or have some kind of sideways additions as in @CLaNZeR's 14th video. Something along that line. I'm not saying it isn't doable, all I'm saying is that in its current design production of excess energy is prone to obvious, seemingly deserved attacks..
Omnibus, apparently you have some conceptual problem understanding the physics of gravity.
allow me to explain::
When you lift an object against gravity you are putting potential energy into that object.
This energy is a function of : the gravitational constant, the mass of the object, and the height the object is lifted.
For example: if you have a 2gr roller lifted 1cm the potential energy would be .000196 Joules.
The energy consumed by the initial repulsion into the gate - is input into the system by lifting the roller to the starting point:: E = mhg
By allowing the roller to roll down the ramp, we are using this "input energy" to enter the gate.
the roller travels through the gate, gains energy during the transition phase, and momentum is maintained, minus the entrance repulsion.
It then travels out of the gate, recieves a 'push out' - (which is equivallent and opposite to the entrance repulsion in a balanced gate)
The roller then rolls up the ramp on the other side to its maximum height,
At this point the roller is at a new height, resulting from the height dropped from + the energy gained during the transition phase.
And has a new energy value: E = mhg
All energy is accounted for, including that to enter the gate, and that which is used to 'push out'.
the difference in height between the entrance and exit (E= mhg) is the Potential Energy gained by the gate during the transition pase.
Any Questions?
This is as clear cut as you present it only with regard to Taisnierius' device (SMOT) and the magnetic propulsor, as I've explained many, many times already. In this case, the critic will grasp at that initial barrier as the last straw claiming that the magnetic potential energy at the input isn't as much as you claim and no matter what you say he'll insist otherwise and you won't be able to tell him one thing.. Such argument is immediately killed in the SMOT and magnetic propulsion case because there both the gravitational and the magnetic potential energies are very well defined at every point of the trajectory. I'm saying that for the umptieth time and I think it's time for it to sink in.
Understand, in the present case the only way to prove excess energy is by constructing a device spontaneously making full turns. Not so with SMOT and the magnetic propulsor. There the production of excess energy is proved beyond any doubt even in the discontinuous case.
Letr me add, you're confused by accounting for only the gravitational potential energy. The ball (the dumbbell), however travels in two overlaid fields and when you carry out the energy balance you must account both for the gravitational and for the magnetic potential energy at every point of the trajectory.
Accounting for the gravitational potential energy is the easier part. The problems kick in in this device (while in SMOT and the magnetic propagator there are no such problems) when trying to account for the magnetic potential energy,
thus far you haven't "explained" anything, all i hear from you is ranting about someone elses device that frankly has nothing to do with the Tri-Force Gate.
and this random "critic" you keep refering to has YET to present himself to tell me why/how the repulsion field effects anything beyond its reach.
regardless of the transitional energy values for each point along the trajectory, the plain simple matter is the potential energy of the roller - at point B outside the gate's influence after leaving point A outside the gate's influence is greater than when it started.
MUCH unlike a SMOT ramp - whos potential energy is decreased by the attracting force holding the ball at the end of the ramp.
gravitational potential energy has nothing to do with the magnetic field in the double-ramp set-up
- as both points are outside of the magnetic field. This energy value is constant, because gravity is constant.
Now, if you can show me how a static-magnetic field can intefere with the gravitational constant -
AT ALL!! much less at a distance outside its influence,
then that line of reasoning may have substance, otherwise, this 'critic' is just blowing wind up his own tailpipe.
We dont care about the magnetic potential energy - its proportional at the entrance and exit.
and in the case of most gate designs, the roller kicks itself out of the field influence.
if you start before the field influence - its a black box system. energy in energy out.
it doesnt get any simpler than that.
i have YET to see a SMOT demonstrate that kind of black-box OU demonstration.
as at the end of the SMOT cycle - you still have negative energy stored in the ball, which you must account for when removing the ball from the ramp. - gravity does this, but you cant get that energy back, thus your ball ends up lower than it started. - if YOUR smot works differently, than by all means post the video and blab on about the "overlaid fields".
For some reason yo uhave it stuck in your head that EVERYTHING must be constructed using SMOT-Theory, because this is the ONLY "ou" you have ever percieved. you are gravely misled, and are propegating this absurdness in a foul manner.
Perhaps a more constructive effort on your be-half would be more beneficial to this thread.
Didnt you say you were ordering the constructor-set? where are your Tri-Force videos??
or better yet, where is the video of your SMOT-Like Tri-Force with a properly superimposed gravitational field ??
Quote from: sm0ky2 on March 04, 2008, 10:36:01 PM
thus far you haven't "explained" anything, all i hear from you is ranting about someone elses device that frankly has nothing to do with the Tri-Force Gate.
and this random "critic" you keep refering to has YET to present himself to tell me why/how the repulsion field effects anything beyond its reach.
regardless of the transitional energy values for each point along the trajectory, the plain simple matter is the potential energy of the roller - at point B outside the gate's influence after leaving point A outside the gate's influence is greater than when it started.
MUCH unlike a SMOT ramp - whos potential energy is decreased by the attracting force holding the ball at the end of the ramp.
gravitational potential energy has nothing to do with the magnetic field in the double-ramp set-up
- as both points are outside of the magnetic field. This energy value is constant, because gravity is constant.
Now, if you can show me how a static-magnetic field can intefere with the gravitational constant -
AT ALL!! much less at a distance outside its influence,
then that line of reasoning may have substance, otherwise, this 'critic' is just blowing wind up his own tailpipe.
We dont care about the magnetic potential energy - its proportional at the entrance and exit.
and in the case of most gate designs, the roller kicks itself out of the field influence.
if you start before the field influence - its a black box system. energy in energy out.
it doesnt get any simpler than that.
i have YET to see a SMOT demonstrate that kind of black-box OU demonstration.
as at the end of the SMOT cycle - you still have negative energy stored in the ball, which you must account for when removing the ball from the ramp. - gravity does this, but you cant get that energy back, thus your ball ends up lower than it started. - if YOUR smot works differently, than by all means post the video and blab on about the "overlaid fields".
For some reason yo uhave it stuck in your head that EVERYTHING must be constructed using SMOT-Theory, because this is the ONLY "ou" you have ever percieved. you are gravely misled, and are propegating this absurdness in a foul manner.
Perhaps a more constructive effort on your be-half would be more beneficial to this thread.
Didnt you say you were ordering the constructor-set? where are your Tri-Force videos??
or better yet, where is the video of your SMOT-Like Tri-Force with a properly superimposed gravitational field ??
No, this has to stop. I don't have the time for this. These questions have been discussed at length in thousands of postings and I don't want to repeat it. Read what I write and try to understand it. If you can't, leave it at that for better times when I'll have the time to discuss it with you.
i accept your surrender. Until you have the time to actually experiment with the Tri-Force, then perhaps you should postpone judgement on your misconcieved idea of how it functions.
Quote from: sm0ky2 on March 04, 2008, 11:03:37 PM
i accept your surrender. Until you have the time to actually experiment with the Tri-Force, then perhaps you should postpone judgement on your misconcieved idea of how it functions.
No, this is your surrender, not mine. You don't understand the problem.
Quote from: Omnibus on March 04, 2008, 11:07:00 PM
Quote from: sm0ky2 on March 04, 2008, 11:03:37 PM
i accept your surrender. Until you have the time to actually experiment with the Tri-Force, then perhaps you should postpone judgement on your misconcieved idea of how it functions.
No, this is your surrender, not mine. You don't understand the problem.
the problem is very simple:
How much energy is required to lift a mass to a given height.
Quote from: sm0ky2 on March 04, 2008, 11:44:20 PM
Quote from: Omnibus on March 04, 2008, 11:07:00 PM
Quote from: sm0ky2 on March 04, 2008, 11:03:37 PM
i accept your surrender. Until you have the time to actually experiment with the Tri-Force, then perhaps you should postpone judgement on your misconcieved idea of how it functions.
No, this is your surrender, not mine. You don't understand the problem.
the problem is very simple:
How much energy is required to lift a mass to a given height.
Well, to lift a mass to a given height h1 in absence of magnetic field, the energy is ngh1. However, if at point A the mass has magnetic potential energy Ma while at point B the mass has magnetic potential energy Mb, where Ma > Mb then the energy to lift this same mass to the same height h1 is (mfg1 - (Ma - Mb)). Thus, you see in absence of magnetic field you have to spend more energy that in the presence of such field, correct? This can be defended easily in the case of SMOT and in the case of the magnetic propulsor..
The above cannot be defended easily in the present case because immediate speculations begin as to whether Ma > Mb or Ma < Mb and there's no way for you to sustain a theoretical argument one way or the other (of course, measurements can be made but why not resolve the question at once with the SMOT and the magnetic propulsor). This possibility for dishonest speculations also applies to other points from the trajectory.
Therefore, in order to pin the completely dishonest critics (and they are dishonest, believe me--one blatant example is the politely arrogant @modervador, probably also a lackey of some of these puppeteers I was mentioning above) down you must use SMOT or magnetic propulsor because everything is so clear cut that the only resort these critics have is to blabber incoherent nonsense. And that's no resort at all, correct?
Understand, the principle these devices are based on is the same but the difference in design makes SMOT and the magnetic propulsor real killers in theoretical discussion.
Quote from: Omnibus on March 05, 2008, 12:15:03 AM
the problem is very simple:
How much energy is required to lift a mass to a given height.
Quote
Well, to lift a mass to a given height h1 in absence of magnetic field, the energy is ngh1. However, if at point A the mass has magnetic potential energy Ma while at point B the mass has magnetic potential energy Mb, where Ma > Mb then the energy to lift this same mass to the same height h1 is (mfg1 - (Ma - Mb)). Thus, you see in absence of magnetic field you have to spend more energy that in the presence of such field, correct? The above cannot be defended easily in the present case because immediate speculations begin as to whether Ma > Mb or Ma < Mb and there's no way for you to sustain a theoretical argument one way or the other
--- First:: (Ma-Mb) is essentially 0. These two fields are equal and opposite in the triangle gate.
By using 3x 60-degree angles, joining spherical nodes- we create a perpendicular flux-meridian.
In case you havent been paying attention.
Second h1 and h2 are outside of the field influence, and therefore Ma AND Mb at both those locations ARE in fact 0.
and 3rd you are completely ignoring field M[a<->b] which is the source of linear gain, and as such the focus of our investigation.
Quote from: sm0ky2 on March 05, 2008, 01:28:00 AM
Quote from: Omnibus on March 05, 2008, 12:15:03 AM
the problem is very simple:
How much energy is required to lift a mass to a given height.
Quote
Well, to lift a mass to a given height h1 in absence of magnetic field, the energy is ngh1. However, if at point A the mass has magnetic potential energy Ma while at point B the mass has magnetic potential energy Mb, where Ma > Mb then the energy to lift this same mass to the same height h1 is (mfg1 - (Ma - Mb)). Thus, you see in absence of magnetic field you have to spend more energy that in the presence of such field, correct? The above cannot be defended easily in the present case because immediate speculations begin as to whether Ma > Mb or Ma < Mb and there's no way for you to sustain a theoretical argument one way or the other
--- First:: (Ma-Mb) is essentially 0. These two fields are equal and opposite in the triangle gate.
By using 3x 60-degree angles, joining spherical nodes- we create a perpendicular flux-meridian.
In case you havent been paying attention.
Second h1 and h2 are outside of the field influence, and therefore Ma AND Mb at both those locations ARE in fact 0.
and 3rd you are completely ignoring field M[a<->b] which is the source of linear gain, and as such the focus of our investigation.
This you may state qualitatively and i will agree with that. The critic, who is also dishonest, won't. Unfortunately, you cannot sustain that firmly quantitatively unless you carry out measurements. In SMOT and the magnetic propulsor no additional measurements are needed to definitively claim the magnetic and, of course, the gravitational potential values. Like I said, the only tactic the dishonest critic may resort in such a case is to spew nonsense. Not all people are fools, however, which is what the dishonest critic relies upon, and many see through it. In the present case these things are not so clear cut and this provides a wonderful leeway for the dishonest critic I don't think we should enable the dishonest critics in this way. I'm trying to tell you this in various ways already in a number of posts but somehow it doesn't get across.
I have a lot of experience in discussing this and you shouldn't wonder why I am so adamant that certain approaches work while others not quite.
Draw a picture and indicate on it what's A and what's B and this may help you understand my point. Notice that statements such as Ma - Mb is essentially zero are just qualitative statements and, in addition, they may not be true, depending on where A and B are.
Yup...verbal diarrhea always comes from some asshole. Jesus H fucking Christ contribute something or shut up...like a broken record...
Hi,
I approximately understood the ideas you develop. I agree rather with Smoky2's theory, but I realized that my video is questionable. I think the contact between the roller and its runway, which engenders its rotation, is important and could distort the interpretation. This week-end I'm going to work on my rotor and if it doesn't turn with several gates, I will try it in vertical position (pendulum-like), to introduce gravitationnal field.
I keep you aware of my work.
Quote from: tinu on March 04, 2008, 11:19:51 AM
Quote from: mpavenir on March 04, 2008, 07:27:20 AM
...
So I made another more explicit video :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZEwgZutFlGc (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZEwgZutFlGc)
...
Interesting movie!
And one bold statement you make in its title: ?syst?me non conservatif?!
Why do you consider it is not conservative?
I?m asking about the shift in magnetic potential energy of the system when you rotate the mobile, shift that is done either at the expense of your own energy or spontaneously (at the expense of potential energy stored into the configuration) but a certain amount of work (positive or negative) is always involved. Isn?t it then naturally to see this amount of added or extracted energy reflected into the length of the traveling path, as the movie clearly shows?
Welcome here,
Tinu
Hi,
I consider It's not conservative because if it was, the roller would reach the same point whatever the side he crosses the gate. Here, you can see that with the first orientation, the roller gains energy, and with the second, it loses energy (compared to the reference given by the point reached without gate).
This fact answers directly your second question (if I understood it well) : the increase of travelled distance with gates is not caused by a drain of the rotating work, otherwise this increase would also be found with second roller polarization.
GeoMag Tri-Force Wheel (with standard tomi-track like run-down problems)
http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=bXY0CKPTMss (http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=bXY0CKPTMss)
GeoMag Tri-Force Track (very promising, some have built-in inclines)
http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=KlhA5YECHm4 (http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=KlhA5YECHm4)
Clanzer;
Good work so far.
I would like to suggest that the GeoMag runner should be rotating and have friction against
a drive surface below the wheel rotor. Some kind of yoke or harness assembly may be required to
attach the runner to the rotor. Also, it may be desirable not to have the rotor wheel momentum
overrun the runner's motion. Wobble in the runners appears not to self damp, so constricting them
by hard attaching them to the rotor it will probably only waste energy.
---->Theory; Here is how a GeoMag Tri-Force runner functions;
I believe that to couple mechanical energy out of a static energy field, one has to have
a finite 'restricting phase delay' in a cycle (like a time delay).
I think this happens in a standalone GeoMag runner inside the metallic spheres. What happens
is the magnetic-pole-center is separated from the center-of-mass of the runner by Lenz's Law
eddy currents due the forward motion of runner. This offset allows a mechanical lever arm to
be form between the magnetic pole center and the center of mass and it is at end of this
lever arm on which the magnetic field net pulls, while gravity net pulls downward on the runner's
center of mass. This causes a force to form on the lever arm.
The force on the lever arm then operates through the radius of the runners 'wheels' - the radius
of the spheres - to transmit a rotational force to the driving surface, causing the runner to be
able to achieve acceleration.
The phase-delay is in the magnetic remnance of steel spheres which is such that the magnetic
pole always *tries* to play catch-up away from the wheel's rotation constantly forming the lever
arm between the center of gravity of the runner and the magnetic pole center. The attracting
force operates on the lever arm represented by the radius of the wheel.
So...an axial runner really does accelerate.
In the above the 'centers' referred to are the virtual mathematical summation points for mechanical
forces of particular types as well as the Lenz's Law induced electrical currents.
MarkSCoffman
Quote from: Omnibus on March 05, 2008, 01:53:04 AM
I have a lot of experience in discussing this and you shouldn't wonder why I am so adamant that certain approaches work while others not quite.
Draw a picture and indicate on it what's A and what's B and this may help you understand my point. Notice that statements such as Ma - Mb is essentially zero are just qualitative statements and, in addition, they may not be true, depending on where A and B are.
the statement was given in the context of the Tri-Force gate - in which the two forces are essentially equivalent* (see note).
also was given that points A and B are both higher than the field of magnetic influence.
B being some value higher than A.
Assuming those 2 things - the statement holds true. the magnetic field does not have an effect on the gravitational potential energy at the start and end of the cycle.
some time after leavig point A, it may have an effect of the gravitational energy during gate entrance - However this is OPPOSING entrance into the gate, and therefore EXTRACTS from the gravitational energy.
The roller reaches a final position (outside of the magnetic field) with more gravitational potential energy than it started with.
im not concerned with a "dishonest critic". his dishonesty will reveal itself upon examination.
What i am concerned with here is valid reproducable tests that demonstrate CoE.
So far we have seen two of these, to which noone has yet presented valid evidence to the contrary.
hopefully with as many creative minds as we have currently on this project - there will be more tests like these, from different perspectives. I would LOVE to actually measure that repulsion field,
but with what would one compare it to? the exit field? the transitional field?
or more accurately:: a combination of exit field + (transitional gradient * distance)
This is why i am a proponant for tests that use independent energy values - such as the gravitational potential from outside of the field. Thats the closest thing we have to a meter on both ends of the "circuit".
I'm sure there are other types of tests that could be just as applicable here, that we havent thought of yet.
[*note here i am not taking into consideration - the minor varyances from magnet to magnet - as they are not perfectly identicle - and this does alter gate symmetry to some unknown degree.
But for the purpose of this discussion - i am assuming that the average cummulative field of the individual gates are essentiually the same.]
@ Mark
put a center-axle on the roller , you may then have a different perspective on that :P
@smOky2,
I have a bad feeling that you don't make a distinction between force and energy. This is the sentence that gives me that feeling:
Quotealso was given that points A and B are both higher than the field of magnetic influence.
That's one of the most common mistakes around. You think you make this distinction but you actually don't.
Quote from: Omnibus on March 05, 2008, 11:06:33 PM
@smOky2,
I have a bad feeling that you don't make a distinction between force and energy. This is the sentence that gives me that feeling:
Quotealso was given that points A and B are both higher than the field of magnetic influence.
That's one of the most common mistakes around. You think you make this distinction but you actually don't.
the magnetic field decreases with distance - to a point after which its effect is so small that is become negligible. THIS IS THE POINT where the influence field ends. - a point further out than this is not affected by the magnetic influence.
Can you explain how this is a mistake?
Quote from: sm0ky2 on March 05, 2008, 11:45:49 PM
Quote from: Omnibus on March 05, 2008, 11:06:33 PM
@smOky2,
I have a bad feeling that you don't make a distinction between force and energy. This is the sentence that gives me that feeling:
Quotealso was given that points A and B are both higher than the field of magnetic influence.
That's one of the most common mistakes around. You think you make this distinction but you actually don't.
the magnetic field decreases with distance - to a point after which its effect is so small that is become negligible. THIS IS THE POINT where the influence field ends. - a point further out than this is not affected by the magnetic influence.
Can you explain how this is a mistake?
This is an obvious mistake. The fact that at a certain distance from the magnet the force of attraction is already intangible doesn't mean in any way that the magnetic potential energy at that point is zero. You don't understand this and now I know where your problem is.
a "bad feeling"?? have you even examined this phenomena? other than speculation from videos and other peoples text? dont jump to conclusions with me. i'll spell it out for you if you need that, but you have stated in the past that you are a scientist, and thus should be adequately equipped to perform these calculations yourself. BUT - since you want to be argmentative, and attempt to steer people away from what may be the most promising device in this Forum -- I'll make it clear,cut and dry. Fasten your safety belts and make sure your tray tables are in their upright position.
The Force of the repulsion zone is given as a vector acceleration on the mass of the roller in the direction of the Ramp angle (from a prepositioned horizontal plane) which is inversly proportional to the distance squared.
outwardly from the "null zone" between repulsion and transition, through the distance of the repulsion field (and subsequent time) this equates to a velocity/momentum imparted onto the roller.
Which equates to the "energy" involved in crossing into the repulsion field.
Subsequently this Energy value can be found using another well known FORCE, with a verticle aceleration. The cummulative force interacting between the two fields is the cross product of the two, using the angle of the ramp and 90 degrees.
angle the ramp to the limits of the repulsion field, such that the roller is repulsed to the outer edge of the magnetic field, and the ramp is at the maximum height while still maintaining repulsion to that field limit. The gate angle must match the ramp angle. This is a given, but some people need this explained. The roller should also be ejected out the top of the gates when you push it into the repulsion field to ensure proper gate function before the experiment can begin.
Measure the verticle height of the roller at this point of maximum repulsion on the ramp, prior to gate entry. [insert Pythagoras here].
The Energy value of this field is thus represented by the equivalent energy value of the gravitational field: E = mgh ,
whereas in the magnetic field E = -mBd - where d is the length of the ramp, and B is the vector force of the opposing magnetic fields at the ramp angle.
At this angle the magnetic field is resisting the gravitational field completely, as the outer "edge" of the field is at the same radial- distance as it was when placed horizontally.
the force between the 2 magnets is = (1.256 x 10-6 A/m^2)(m1)(m2) / 4(Pi) (d)^2 at the vector angle of the ramp.
------- where m1 & m2 are the strengths of the two di-poles in A/m and d is the distance of the ramp.
E = E in both cases, and thus can be estimated using the gravitational potential at the height of maximum repulsion.
When you change the angle of the ramp you change the vector force interaction between the magnetic and gravitational fields, and thus the cumulative force vector between them must be recalculated. Also,to note that at ANY angle other than this angle, the "resting point" of the roller will be inside the magnetic field.
Regardless of the angle, the maxumim repulsion of the magnetic field remains along the radial arc.
There is still magnetic potential beyond this point, this is true. It extends infinitely, decreasing in strength with distance. However this does not affect the mass of the roller at great distances, even in the horizontal plane.
This is verified by placing a barrier slightly outside this boundary point -
put the roller at a starting point further up the ramp at a distance and time the roller with and without the magnetic field. Gravitational acceleration remains constant at this point.
The force involved in entering through the repulsion zone at the front of the gate is countered by a function of the mass of the roller, moving at a given velocity down the ramp (momentum), OR by increasing the ramp angle enough that the vector force of the gravitational field becomes dominant and forces the roller into the field. (we want to use the first option for this experiment)
Maintaining the angle of maximum repulsion from the initial measurements, place the roller high enough that the momentum from the gravitational field causes the roller to enter into the gate and pass through to the other side. The roller recieves momentum from the gravitational field, loses some to the repulsion field, gains an unknown value from the transitional field,loses some to friction/ect, and gains back exactly what it lost to repulsion in the form of repulsion at the gate exit. Ending up with a measurable quantity of excess Gravitational Potential Energy represented
as E(transitional) = m*h[b-a]*g where m is the mass of the roller w/ balls, b-a is the difference between the starting and end points, and g is the gravitational constant.
We have now reached maximum altitude, you are free to move about the cabin.
QuoteThere is still magnetic potential beyond this point, this is true. It extends infinitely, decreasing in strength with distance.
That's incorrect. Like I said, you're confusing force with energy.
CLaNZeR
You have done a great thing
You folks that did the SMOT like me remember that it worked linear but not in An Arc THE TRI GATE AND THE DUAL GATE DOES.
I tested it last night.
Go vertical
The sticky point on the rear end has been solved with the configuration of the magnets the but the sticky point on the entrance is still an issue.
The sticky point at the entrance still exists BUT if you enter the magnet array beyond the end where the sticky point exists NO WORRIES. but this i think is best achieved with a vertical wheel.
The sticky point is no longer an issue it is litterally behind us.
I Just spent 5 hours cutting out a circular wheel with my DREMEL tool
(battery charge).
Feel Free to accept or reject this information, I will post more when I know more.
Tinker
@Tinker,
That the initial sticky spot isn't an issue any more sounds very encouraging but give us more details. Maybe you can post something which @CLaNZeR may try when he does his experiments this weekend. That particular nasty sticky spot which is the central problem in every known attempt to build a magnetic motor is showing its ugly head here as well, as we see in his video. So far there hasn't been anything else stalling the construction of a working pmm but that very sticky spot. How could you solve the problem?
Quote from: Omnibus on March 06, 2008, 02:26:23 AM
QuoteThere is still magnetic potential beyond this point, this is true. It extends infinitely, decreasing in strength with distance.
That's incorrect. Like I said, you're confusing force with energy.
read my post, i explained the difference between force and energy.
force in this experiment only relates to the acceleration force ON THE ACTIVE ROLLER.
wether or not there is magnetic potential between the field and a theoretically charged particle somewhere off in space is irrelevant in this experiment. Because the mass of the roller is litterally millions of times greater, and thus the excess energy is not accounted for given that kind of analogy.
stop dodging the issue and build yourself a Tri-Force Gate.
Then you can prove this excess energy for yourself.
Quote from: sm0ky2 on March 06, 2008, 02:58:44 AM
Quote from: Omnibus on March 06, 2008, 02:26:23 AM
QuoteThere is still magnetic potential beyond this point, this is true. It extends infinitely, decreasing in strength with distance.
That's incorrect. Like I said, you're confusing force with energy.
read my post, i explained the difference between force and energy.
force in this experiment only relates to the acceleration force ON THE ACTIVE ROLLER.
wether or not there is magnetic potential between the field and a theoretically charged particle somewhere off in space is irrelevant in this experiment. Because the mass of the roller is litterally millions of times greater, and thus the excess energy is not accounted for given that kind of analogy.
stop dodging the issue and build yourself a Tri-Force Gate.
Then you can prove this excess energy for yourself.
Building I'll do but you have to understand that it isn't true that the magnetic potential energy decreases as you go away from the magnet. That's important to understand because the excess energy is closely related to the magnetic potential energy, not only to the gravitational potential energy as you seem to think. You think you've explained the difference between force and energy but in fact it's obvious from what you write that you're confusing the two.
HEY OMNIBUS
If you you use a vertical wheel and extend the magnet array beyond the entrance of the rotating magnets they should not be affected by the repulsion force created at the end of the magnet array.
This will take some tuning but is doable.
But that is what I Think.
Tinker
@Tinker,
I don't quite get it. Can you draw a little sketch and show how this can be applied to this construction here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bXY0CKPTMss
Quote from: Omnibus on March 06, 2008, 03:05:40 AM
Quote from: sm0ky2 on March 06, 2008, 02:58:44 AM
Quote from: Omnibus on March 06, 2008, 02:26:23 AM
QuoteThere is still magnetic potential beyond this point, this is true. It extends infinitely, decreasing in strength with distance.
That's incorrect. Like I said, you're confusing force with energy.
read my post, i explained the difference between force and energy.
force in this experiment only relates to the acceleration force ON THE ACTIVE ROLLER.
wether or not there is magnetic potential between the field and a theoretically charged particle somewhere off in space is irrelevant in this experiment. Because the mass of the roller is litterally millions of times greater, and thus the excess energy is not accounted for given that kind of analogy.
stop dodging the issue and build yourself a Tri-Force Gate.
Then you can prove this excess energy for yourself.
Building I'll do but you have to understand that it isn't true that the magnetic potential energy decreases as you go away from the magnet. That's important to understand because the excess energy is closely related to the magnetic potential energy, not only to the gravitational potential energy as you seem to think. You think you've explained the difference between force and energy but in fact it's obvious from what you write that you're confusing the two.
@ OMNI
i have no confusion between the two, the FACT that the magnetic potential decreases with distance is WHY the gravitational potential is constant between to points outside of the field at the same height.
I think your confusion lies in your conception of the magnetic field in this set-up.
The uniform, magnetic di-pole only exists on the two outer ends of the Tri-Force Gate.
The Transitional Field in the middle of the gates is an independent field - it is partially composed of the inverse magnetic component of the outer field, but also contains part of the secondary magnetic component from the back row of magnets, making it a much different field all together.
the area in the middle merges together to form a pair of assymetrical 'pulsed' di-poles that run along the length of the gate array.like a 'super' -Howard Johnson Linear Motor.
the repulsing 'rotor' becomes inbalanced by the attraction force oposite the repulsion zone, when it enters into the gate. this causes the roller to be imparted into by a linear motion along the length of the gate -the force of which is a function of the flux density of the cummulative (transitional) field and the flux density of the 'rotor' magnets. This equation would be probably take a team of people to tackle..... i dont fully understand it, clanzer doesnt fully understand it,
and from what im hearing -you, up to this point haven't even seen what we are talking about first hand to even TRY to understand it.
the "in/out repulsion fields in this device are symmetrical.
the in/out attraction fields are symmetrical, but NOT proportional to the repulsion fields which is WHY it 'kicks' out.
the transitional field is a linear field running in both directions, up one side, down the other between the ends. they converge at the magnetic meridian at the edge of the attraction zones.
It is in this Transitional Field that the energy of the Tri-Force lies. When you place the roller in so that the poles are repulsing, and 'off-set' it beyond the meridian at the edge of the attraction zone, (which it does itself from momentum attracting TO the meridian) the roller travels to the meridian at the other side - it easily overcomes the end attraction zone, and gets 'kicked' out by the final repulsion zone.
you must understand that these are 2 seperate fields.
they interact to create multiple magnetic moments.
the equation for the interaction force between two magnets is the inverse of the distance., i gave you the math above.
Omnibus
It's pretty simple if you think about it you got this big wad of magnets all heading in the same direction. But for every action there is a reaction The minus side of the array. Plus/Minus if you land your magnet on the plus side you go forward if you land on the minus side you go backwards.
Where would you like to go?
Tinker
Again, this is incorrect:
Quotethe FACT that the magnetic potential decreases with distance
Try to understand it before proceeding further.
Quote from: Tinker on March 06, 2008, 03:37:48 AM
Omnibus
It's pretty simple if you think about it you got this big wad of magnets all heading in the same direction. But for every action there is a reaction The minus side of the array. Plus/Minus if you land your magnet on the plus side you go forward if you land on the minus side you go backwards.
Where would you like to go?
Tinker
Will be most curious to see a demonstrations of this, if you can. Don't get it.
Quote from: Omnibus on March 06, 2008, 03:45:13 AM
Again, this is incorrect:
Quotethe FACT that the magnetic potential decreases with distance
Try to understand it before proceeding further.
@ OMNIBUS
look, i didnt come here to argue over the validity of the science concerning the Force between two magnetic poles.
If you do not agree with the commonly accepted scientific equation i posted, then please post your alternative equation for handling the forces, that would NOT decrease with distance, and still conform to observed experiment.
Otherwise, your just spouting nonsense. read what i wrote before you batently object to it.
That equation is used in ALL interactions between two magnetic forces - if it were incorrect then things like Motors, alternators, solenoids, relays, would simple FAIL to work.
I don't understand your objection to this device, you are pulling at every last string trying to convince whoever is still listening to you, that "things are not what they seem, this isnt ou, but i wont bother to tell you why i think that." - you keep re-uttering this garbage and have YET to provide ANY valid argument to the contary.
i have proven above, using accepted scientific methods and principals that this device is CoE.
If the force does not decrease with distance, then tell me -- Why does the roller stop repelling at that barrier?? if the force was present beyond that barrier (with respect to the magnetic field of the roller) then the roller would continue to repel.
I often do not agree with you but you have shown some common sense and reality
If you use a Wheel to enter the magnetic field based on what I have experienced there will not be an issue with the entry gate as the moving magnet will enter the array under attraction as the repulsion is encountered only at the front end of the array. IE enter the array before the end.
I offer no truths or data
@smOky2,
Read carefully what I write. I said you're confusing energy with force and I'm not objecting to the fact that the force decreases with distance.
Your confusion about force and energy stands in the way of proper understanding of the issues at hand.
Quote from: Tinker on March 06, 2008, 04:03:42 AM
I often do not agree with you but you have shown some common sense and reality
If you use a Wheel to enter the magnetic field based on what I have experienced there will not be an issue with the entry gate as the moving magnet will enter the array under attraction as the repulsion is encountered only at the front end of the array. IE enter the array before the end.
I offer no truths or data
This is true, only in a partial circle. To gain full passage through the gate and utilize its force, you must enter at or near the meridian between the attraction zone and the transitional zone.
unfortunately, the repulsion zone, being spherical - passes through the circumferance made by this complete circle, further out. you'll hit it when it circles aorund and comes back through.
toying with various diameters, i found that to completely "avoid" the repulsion zone, you're only passing through the gate at tiny intervals, and at least in my designs, that was not enough.
Quote from: sm0ky2 on March 06, 2008, 04:09:43 AM
Quote from: Tinker on March 06, 2008, 04:03:42 AM
I often do not agree with you but you have shown some common sense and reality
If you use a Wheel to enter the magnetic field based on what I have experienced there will not be an issue with the entry gate as the moving magnet will enter the array under attraction as the repulsion is encountered only at the front end of the array. IE enter the array before the end.
I offer no truths or data
This is true, only in a partial circle. To gain full passage through the gate and utilize its force, you must enter at or near the meridian between the attraction zone and the transitional zone.
unfortunately, the repulsion zone, being spherical - passes through the circumferance made by this complete circle, further out. you'll hit it when it circles aorund and comes back through.
toying with various diameters, i found that to completely "avoid" the repulsion zone, you're only passing through the gate at tiny intervals, and at least in my designs, that was not enough.
One possible way out of this is probably what @klicUK did, using GIRON shields. Also, how about that idea with the antennae?
Omnibus
When I have more data I will Post it, until then feel free to speculate.
Tinker
Quote from: Omnibus on March 06, 2008, 04:08:23 AM
@smOky2,
Read carefully what I write. I said you're confusing energy with force and I'm not objecting to the fact that the force decreases with distance.
Your confusion about force and energy stands in the way of proper understanding of the issues at hand.
im not confusing force with energy. - i dont think you are understanding the process of determining the two values, and therefore are percieving some confusion on my behalf, which is simply not true.
repulsion force is overcome by the input energy (i.e. gravitational potential converted to kenetic energy over a distance) with a FORCE of -9.81 m/s/s which, equates to a momentum (v*m) at the time it hits the repulsion force. If this energy is greater than the energy value i described in the above equations (which is a function of the force of the repulsion field over the distance/time, at the vector angle of the ramp) then the roller will pass through the repulsion field and INTO the gate. This is not a complicated process. There is no force/energy confusion here.
quit trying to smear the issue.
Quote from: sm0ky2 on March 06, 2008, 04:24:33 AM
Quote from: Omnibus on March 06, 2008, 04:08:23 AM
@smOky2,
Read carefully what I write. I said you're confusing energy with force and I'm not objecting to the fact that the force decreases with distance.
Your confusion about force and energy stands in the way of proper understanding of the issues at hand.
im not confusing force with energy. - i dont think you are understanding the process of determining the two values, and therefore are percieving some confusion on my behalf, which is simply not true.
repulsion force is overcome by the input energy (i.e. gravitational potential converted to kenetic energy over a distance) with a FORCE of -9.81 m/s/s which, equates to a momentum (v*m) at the time it hits the repulsion force. If this energy is greater than the energy value i described in the above equations (which is a function of the force of the repulsion field over the distance/time, at the vector angle of the ramp) then the roller will pass through the repulsion field and INTO the gate. This is not a complicated process. There is no force/energy confusion here.
quit trying to smear the issue.
This is not where you're confused. You're confused when asserting that the potential (energy) decreases with distance.
As for the above explanation, how does it prove violation of CoE?
Omnibus
Where did he close the loop?
PAY ATTENTION
ATTRACTION OR REPULSHION
ITS JUST THAT SIMPLE
I HAVE NO OBLIGATION TO OFFER YOU PROFF
Tinker
Quote from: Tinker on March 06, 2008, 05:19:46 AM
Omnibus
Where did he close the loop?
PAY ATTENTION
ATTRACTION OR REPULSHION
ITS JUST THAT SIMPLE
I HAVE NO OBLIGATION TO OFFER YOU PROFF
Tinker
This is a conversation. When you claim something you have to prove it. Otherwise it will fade away unnoticed. It's not a matter of obligation. It's for your own benefit to clarify the issue. At the area where the loop has to be closed the rotor feels repulsion. So, what's your point?
Quote from: Omnibus on March 06, 2008, 04:30:30 AM
Quote from: sm0ky2 on March 06, 2008, 04:24:33 AM
Quote from: Omnibus on March 06, 2008, 04:08:23 AM
@smOky2,
Read carefully what I write. I said you're confusing energy with force and I'm not objecting to the fact that the force decreases with distance.
Your confusion about force and energy stands in the way of proper understanding of the issues at hand.
im not confusing force with energy. - i dont think you are understanding the process of determining the two values, and therefore are percieving some confusion on my behalf, which is simply not true.
repulsion force is overcome by the input energy (i.e. gravitational potential converted to kenetic energy over a distance) with a FORCE of -9.81 m/s/s which, equates to a momentum (v*m) at the time it hits the repulsion force. If this energy is greater than the energy value i described in the above equations (which is a function of the force of the repulsion field over the distance/time, at the vector angle of the ramp) then the roller will pass through the repulsion field and INTO the gate. This is not a complicated process. There is no force/energy confusion here.
quit trying to smear the issue.
This is not where you're confused. You're confused when asserting that the potential (energy) decreases with distance.
As for the above explanation, how does it prove violation of CoE?
Look,. at distance X - which is OUTSIDE of the field of magnetic influence - there is not magnetic potential capable of altering the course of the roller IN ANY WAY. until it gets CLOSE ENOUGH for the field to be strong enough to affect it.
AT THIS POINT - the magnetic potential energy begins - and continues through to the other side of the repulsion field. PRIOR to this point there IS NOT magnetic potential with respect to the two magnets. they are TOO FAR APART TO AFFECT ONE ANOTHER. the experiment mentioned proves this by the fact that the gravitational constant - remains constant at that distance from the field.
the Force decreases with distance - from this force - over the width of the repulsion zone composes the magnetic potential energy of that repulsion zone. While this value is a finite number, and remains constant - within the particular gate structure - there is a DISTANCE at which the force is no longer prevelant - thus the magnetic potential approaches 0 at this point.
the magnetic potential through the repulsion zone remains constant - that is a given we cant be at a distance from it and still be inside of it. We are talking about the area OUTSIDE of the influence field. - The area which your Gravitational Potential Energy is input AND extracted from.
entirely independent of the gate.
i think you have some conceptual error here, but you have not been explicit enough for me to determine what exactly that is,. re-read my posts, i have included everything you need to know to verify this CoE.
Quotethe Force decreases with distance - from this force - over the width of the repulsion zone composes the magnetic potential energy of that repulsion zone. While this value is a finite number, and remains constant - within the particular gate structure - there is a DISTANCE at which the force is no longer prevelant - thus the magnetic potential approaches 0 at this point.
This is incorrect and proves again you don't understand the matter and are confusing force with energy as I suspected. As I told you before, it isn't true that because there is a distance at which the force is no longer prevalent the magnetic potential approaches 0 at this point.
Quote from: Omnibus on March 06, 2008, 05:31:02 AM
Quote from: Tinker on March 06, 2008, 05:19:46 AM
Omnibus
Where did he close the loop?
PAY ATTENTION
ATTRACTION OR REPULSHION
ITS JUST THAT SIMPLE
I HAVE NO OBLIGATION TO OFFER YOU PROFF
Tinker
This is a conversation. When you claim something you have to prove it. Otherwise it will fade away unnoticed. It's not a matter of obligation. It's for your own benefit to clarify the issue. At the area where the loop has to be closed the rotor feels repulsion. So, what's your point?
Yes this is a conversation
Remember this
I offer no truths or data
When you claim something you have to prove it.
No I don't, I am sharing knowledge with the group for anyone that might find it useful. It is up to the individual to accept or reject my postings, I am not selling anything here.
Otherwise it will fade away unnoticed
You are correct I AGREE
But we have a saying here
Frankly my dear I don't give a DAMN
I will continue to post information as I find it, with luck I will have something built by the week end but my Redneck Workshop limits my ability's.
Be well
Tinker
Quote from: Tinker on March 06, 2008, 02:34:06 PM
Quote from: Omnibus on March 06, 2008, 05:31:02 AM
Quote from: Tinker on March 06, 2008, 05:19:46 AM
Omnibus
Where did he close the loop?
PAY ATTENTION
ATTRACTION OR REPULSHION
ITS JUST THAT SIMPLE
I HAVE NO OBLIGATION TO OFFER YOU PROFF
Tinker
This is a conversation. When you claim something you have to prove it. Otherwise it will fade away unnoticed. It's not a matter of obligation. It's for your own benefit to clarify the issue. At the area where the loop has to be closed the rotor feels repulsion. So, what's your point?
Yes this is a conversation
Remember this
I offer no truths or data
When you claim something you have to prove it.
No I don't, I am sharing knowledge with the group for anyone that might find it useful. It is up to the individual to accept or reject my postings, I am not selling anything here.
Otherwise it will fade away unnoticed
You are correct I AGREE
But we have a saying here
Frankly my dear I don't give a DAMN
I will continue to post information as I find it, with luck I will have something built by the week end but my Redneck Workshop limits my ability's.
Be well
Tinker
OK, good luck. Will be waiting with interest to see what your idea is.
Quote from: Omnibus on March 06, 2008, 11:53:54 AM
Quotethe Force decreases with distance - from this force - over the width of the repulsion zone composes the magnetic potential energy of that repulsion zone. While this value is a finite number, and remains constant - within the particular gate structure - there is a DISTANCE at which the force is no longer prevelant - thus the magnetic potential approaches 0 at this point.
This is incorrect and proves again you don't understand the matter and are confusing force with energy as I suspected. As I told you before, it isn't true that because there is a distance at which the force is no longer prevalent the magnetic potential approaches 0 at this point.
of course it does. How are you measuring the potential energy of the field?
it is a function of force over time/distance.
if you measure the point-to-point potential energy of the field in 0.5mm increments you can clearly see that the potential energy of the magnetic field DOES in fact decrease with distance, outside the of field influence. To a point approaching 0 - the effect on the roller is diminished to nothing long before it nears 0.
Your analogy of the system in quesion is flawed on a fundamental level. I am making the apropriate distinction between energy and force here. Where there is no force between the magnetic fields, there is no potential energy between them.
You are asserting that there is, i am showing you that you are incorect. If you choose to continue this FALSE assertion - then you must now demonstrate this energy value, outside the field influence, and how it affects the force imparted on the roller by the gravitational constant.
When/If you can do this, then you may substantiate a valid argument, until then - no ammount of denial, or diversion is going to validly dispute the scientific evidence i have laid out.
If you feel that i am incorrect in the handling of the equations, then please- demonstrate this.
Claiming that i am wrong here does not make it so. You must demonstrate this.
This is ridiculous, magnetic potential energy does not decrease with distance from the magnet despite the fact that the force does. You are confusing force with energy. Hate to say it but you need to refresh some basic physics,
Quote from: Omnibus on March 06, 2008, 03:22:04 PM
This is ridiculous, magnetic potential energy does not decrease with distance from the magnet despite the fact that the force does. You are confusing force with energy. Hate to say it but you need to refresh some basic physics,
Then show me the equation you use to calculate the Magnetic Potential Energy between two points along the distance of the field. - that is independent of Force.
I dont think you understand what energy is. You're error is a conceptual one - you are examing the total potential energy of the field, and trying to compare that to a finite distance outside of the field of influence. This problem cannot be handled in this manner.
again claiming that i am wrong does not make it so, i have already demonstrated this using commonly accepted physics. perhaps YOU should go refresh on your physics, then come back to this discussion prepared.
Quote from: sm0ky2 on March 06, 2008, 03:30:16 PM
Quote from: Omnibus on March 06, 2008, 03:22:04 PM
This is ridiculous, magnetic potential energy does not decrease with distance from the magnet despite the fact that the force does. You are confusing force with energy. Hate to say it but you need to refresh some basic physics,
Then show me the equation you use to calculate the Magnetic Potential Energy between two points along the distance of the field. - that is independent of Force.
I dont think you understand what energy is.
Magnetic potential energy is in fact a definite integral of force times distance. Write the integral from point A, away from the surface, to point B at the surface for a decreasing force and compare it with the integral from a point A' closer to the surface to the point B at the surface and you'll immediately understand what I mean and where you error is.
Quote from: Omnibus on March 06, 2008, 03:34:59 PM
Quote from: sm0ky2 on March 06, 2008, 03:30:16 PM
Quote from: Omnibus on March 06, 2008, 03:22:04 PM
This is ridiculous, magnetic potential energy does not decrease with distance from the magnet despite the fact that the force does. You are confusing force with energy. Hate to say it but you need to refresh some basic physics,
Then show me the equation you use to calculate the Magnetic Potential Energy between two points along the distance of the field. - that is independent of Force.
I dont think you understand what energy is.
Magnetic potential energy is in fact a definite integral of force times distance. Write the integral from point A, away from the surface, to point B at the surface for a decreasing force and compare it with the integral from a point A' closer to the surface to the point B at the surface and you'll immediately understand what I mean and where you error is.
and you are leading people to believe that the integral of a force, that decreases with distance, remains constant with distance? Who taught you calculus?
Quote from: sm0ky2 on March 06, 2008, 03:39:14 PM
Quote from: Omnibus on March 06, 2008, 03:34:59 PM
Quote from: sm0ky2 on March 06, 2008, 03:30:16 PM
Quote from: Omnibus on March 06, 2008, 03:22:04 PM
This is ridiculous, magnetic potential energy does not decrease with distance from the magnet despite the fact that the force does. You are confusing force with energy. Hate to say it but you need to refresh some basic physics,
Then show me the equation you use to calculate the Magnetic Potential Energy between two points along the distance of the field. - that is independent of Force.
I dont think you understand what energy is.
Magnetic potential energy is in fact a definite integral of force times distance. Write the integral from point A, away from the surface, to point B at the surface for a decreasing force and compare it with the integral from a point A' closer to the surface to the point B at the surface and you'll immediately understand what I mean and where you error is.
and you are leading people to believe that the integral of a force, that decreases with distance, remains constant with distance? Who taught you calculus?
Doesn't remain constant. Who told you it remains constant? Give it some more thought.
Quote from: Omnibus on March 06, 2008, 03:41:32 PM
Quote from: sm0ky2 on March 06, 2008, 03:39:14 PM
Quote from: Omnibus on March 06, 2008, 03:34:59 PM
Quote from: sm0ky2 on March 06, 2008, 03:30:16 PM
Quote from: Omnibus on March 06, 2008, 03:22:04 PM
This is ridiculous, magnetic potential energy does not decrease with distance from the magnet despite the fact that the force does. You are confusing force with energy. Hate to say it but you need to refresh some basic physics,
Then show me the equation you use to calculate the Magnetic Potential Energy between two points along the distance of the field. - that is independent of Force.
I dont think you understand what energy is.
Magnetic potential energy is in fact a definite integral of force times distance. Write the integral from point A, away from the surface, to point B at the surface for a decreasing force and compare it with the integral from a point A' closer to the surface to the point B at the surface and you'll immediately understand what I mean and where you error is.
and you are leading people to believe that the integral of a force, that decreases with distance, remains constant with distance? Who taught you calculus?
Doesn't remain constant. Who told you it remains constant? Give it some more thought.
ok, well you didnt exactly come out and say that it remains constant, but you addimantly refuse to accpt that it decreases.. What then are you suggesting? that the magnetic potential energy INCREASES with distance outside of the field influence?
and if so, How can this be demonstrated? and why does it not affect the gravitational constant?
Quote from: sm0ky2 on March 06, 2008, 03:47:23 PM
Quote from: Omnibus on March 06, 2008, 03:41:32 PM
Quote from: sm0ky2 on March 06, 2008, 03:39:14 PM
Quote from: Omnibus on March 06, 2008, 03:34:59 PM
Quote from: sm0ky2 on March 06, 2008, 03:30:16 PM
Quote from: Omnibus on March 06, 2008, 03:22:04 PM
This is ridiculous, magnetic potential energy does not decrease with distance from the magnet despite the fact that the force does. You are confusing force with energy. Hate to say it but you need to refresh some basic physics,
Then show me the equation you use to calculate the Magnetic Potential Energy between two points along the distance of the field. - that is independent of Force.
I dont think you understand what energy is.
Magnetic potential energy is in fact a definite integral of force times distance. Write the integral from point A, away from the surface, to point B at the surface for a decreasing force and compare it with the integral from a point A' closer to the surface to the point B at the surface and you'll immediately understand what I mean and where you error is.
and you are leading people to believe that the integral of a force, that decreases with distance, remains constant with distance? Who taught you calculus?
Doesn't remain constant. Who told you it remains constant? Give it some more thought.
ok, well you didnt exactly come out and say that it remains constant, but you addimantly refuse to accpt that it decreases.. What then are you suggesting? that the magnetic potential energy INCREASES with distance outside of the field influence?
and if so, How can this be demonstrated? and why does it not affect the gravitational constant?
How come it decreases? Think again and don't waste more time. I want you to say loud and clear that you were wrong and now you understand that magnetic potential energy increases with distance despite the fact that the force decreases. I want to hear it from you.
I won't allow anyone to play these games and get away without admitting elementary errors he makes. It's not a crime to make mistakes, everyone makes them. It's wrong to try to conceal your errors and try to make it appear as if you've never made them. This is a game @alsetalokin is playing and he has to be held accountable for it.
i can furthermore demonstrate the decrease in the potential energy by
adjusting the ramp such that the magnetic force against the roller is greater than the gravitational force at the vector angle of the ramp.
The roller entering into the field has a finite energy value (momentum) after having dropped down the ramp from point A to a point approaching the influence field. At this point, there is no magnetic potential between the two opposing field. As the roller gets closer to the outermost (effective) lines of flux, the force of the magnetic field begins to play a part on the movement of the roller, as it moves more into the field it reaches the energy value of the moving roller (imparted onto it by gravity E=mhg), and the roller stops at this point. - the vector angle at this point is based on a completely different ramp angle than the first experiment. and thus the data obtained in two experiments are not cross-comparable without taking that into account.
the derrivitave of this energy over the distance is the increasing Force value of the magnetic field (in the inward direction) - exactly the same value derrived by the original equation a few posts back.
as you move further into the repulsion zone the magnetic potential energy increases.
This is exactly like lifting something through the gravitational field.
the potential energy now includes the greater distance of the repulsion field from the new point of the roller to the outer edge of the influence field. the further you move into the repulsion zone, the greater the potential energy is. This is easily demonstrated - but it somewhat unimportant as it only applies to the pole-switch interchange between the repulsion and attraction zones, at the entrance and exit of the gate. These two forces are interchangable, and cancel each other out.
What matters here is the region of the field outside of the magnetic influence the magnetic potential is essentially 0.
( ok, ok fine, it isnt 0, its more like 0.00000000000000000000000001 - happy now?)
The difference with gravity, is that it is attracting, rather than repulsing.
were gravity to repel us out into space from the surface of the earth (inverse of gravity) - the 2 fields would be in parallel alignment, and would thus be proportional to one another at any distance X from the source of the fields respectively.
[also to note is that in the measurement of these two energy values the gravitational field utilizes time in the equation, whereas magnetism uses distance.
Now - from the force value you can calculate the time.
But the magnetic field is actually independent of time, thus time cannot be used to derrive the energy value of the magnetic potential.][ it "can" but time is adjusted by a scalar factor of the magnetic moment, where-as time remains constant within the gravitational field. - thats a little deep and isnt important here, just know that you should not derrive the distance from the time the roller takes to travel through the gate - this leads to inconsistencies because of a fundamental error]
i suppose you can view this as :: The magnetic potential is incrementative as it approaches the source of the field, and decrementative as it departs. - this is exactly what i said, just from the other perspective. the ammount of incrementation depends on your unit of measurement.
commonly accepted is the Meter.
however we are dealing with a much smaller field, so we use 0.5 millimeter.
So to say that at 1mm inside the field :
you now have the magnetic potential energy of 2x (0.5mm) - this is not exact because the force is greater during the 2nd half-mm, but this gives a basic description of how the energy accumulates as you approach the influence field, and pass into it.
i'm only taking you up to the inner edge of the repulsion field - as the pole-switch would take several pages to accurately portray - i'll just sum that up with a flying trapeeze-man when he grabs onto a swinging bar in mid-air and flips himself around.. imagine all the little flux-lines doing this in procession as they reach their maximum point of compression and snap back to their 'natural' position. i have not seen an accurate/consistent depiction of the energy values even in a pair of single-dipole interactions. Much less in something as complicated as the Tri-Force. at this inner barrier when it switches poles you have +3 and -1 + the effects of the cummulative repulsion barrier you just passed through, which is also mishapen by the roller moving through it. <- we're just gonna skip that, it occurs so fast its hard to even see it happen.
Outside of the field of influence - moving inwards towards the gate, there is a distance through which there is (almost) 0 magnetic potential between the roller and gate up to the edge of the influence field. In this region or even further out if neccessary for emphasis - the gravitational potential is constant. This is verified by repeated tests. <<--- Try it.
Quote from: Omnibus on March 06, 2008, 04:17:04 PM
How come it decreases? Think again and don't waste more time. I want you to say loud and clear that you were wrong and now you understand that magnetic potential energy increases with distance despite the fact that the force decreases. I want to hear it from you.
I won't allow anyone to play these games and get away without admitting elementary errors he makes. It's not a crime to make mistakes, everyone makes them. It's wrong to try to conceal your errors and try to make it appear as if you've never made them. This is a game @alsetalokin is playing and he has to be held accountable for it.
Do you understand now?? you were looking at it backwards. The direction of the force-vector is OUTWARD - up the ramp.
i dont care if you admit that you are wrong here, physics stands on its own feet. but i will not allow you to steer people away from this device. there is a clear anomaly here that needs to be understood. So get in line and start being the scientist that you say you are, instead of dismissing everything posted in this thread, and claiming SMOT-victory. This is not healthy behavior.
No, admit your error. We can't proceed with this kind of misunderstanding.
Quote from: Omnibus on March 06, 2008, 04:39:29 PM
No, admit your error. We can't proceed with this kind of misunderstanding.
i have made no error everything i have said can be verified by your own eyes in the experiments you have elready seen.
the increasing magnetic potential in a repulsion field is in the indward direction, not the outward direction.
Quote from: sm0ky2 on March 06, 2008, 04:40:35 PM
Quote from: Omnibus on March 06, 2008, 04:39:29 PM
No, admit your error. We can't proceed with this kind of misunderstanding.
i have made no error everything i have said can be verified by your own eyes in the experiments you have elready seen.
the increasing magnetic potential in a repulsion field is in the indward direction, not the outward direction.
So, is the potential energy decreasing with distance when the force is decreasing with distance?
This question you won't be able to elude.
Admit your error because with it we cannot continue the discussion properly.
Attention omnibus and others. I have created a thread for the CoE talk. Please redirect CoE arguments and comments to this thread. They still must relate to smot and magnet motor stuff. This can also include mathematics relating to CoE.
http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,4235.msg80979.html#new (http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,4235.msg80979.html#new)
Have a happy day! :D
i don't give a flying f**K who's right or wrong. just show a working model already!
other than that, good job guys :P
peace
Quote from: Omnibus on March 06, 2008, 04:48:45 PM
Quote from: sm0ky2 on March 06, 2008, 04:40:35 PM
Quote from: Omnibus on March 06, 2008, 04:39:29 PM
No, admit your error. We can't proceed with this kind of misunderstanding.
i have made no error everything i have said can be verified by your own eyes in the experiments you have elready seen.
the increasing magnetic potential in a repulsion field is in the indward direction, not the outward direction.
So, is the potential energy decreasing with distance when the force is decreasing with distance?
This question you won't be able to elude.
Admit your error because with it we cannot continue the discussion properly.
i dont understand what "error" you are trying to say that i have made.
The potential energy (between 2 points within the field) decreases with distance.
It is a function of the Force, they are not equivallent. Force deals with the acceleration.
the energy deals with the potential for the roller to be accelerated across the measured distance.
The further away from the source you get, the less potential energy there is between the two points. i cannot make it any clearer than this if you dont understand that then you are truly lost and should just go seek another device, because you are not helping here.
Quote from: HopeForHumanity on March 06, 2008, 06:37:29 PM
Attention omnibus and others. I have created a thread for the CoE talk. Please redirect CoE arguments and comments to this thread. They still must relate to smot and magnet motor stuff. This can also include mathematics relating to CoE.
http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,4235.msg80979.html#new (http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,4235.msg80979.html#new)
Have a happy day! :D
the CoE represented in the context of this thread applies only to the Tri-Force Gate, and Tri-Force Gate-arrays.
Quote from: sm0ky2 on March 06, 2008, 08:17:11 PM
Quote from: HopeForHumanity on March 06, 2008, 06:37:29 PM
Attention omnibus and others. I have created a thread for the CoE talk. Please redirect CoE arguments and comments to this thread. They still must relate to smot and magnet motor stuff. This can also include mathematics relating to CoE.
http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,4235.msg80979.html#new (http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,4235.msg80979.html#new)
Have a happy day! :D
the CoE represented in the context of this thread applies only to the Tri-Force Gate, and Tri-Force Gate-arrays.
Look, be mature and take your big argument to this thread. You can talk about anything related to magnet acceleration devices, including the tri force gate. Surley you understand BIG argument. You know that arguments are dry with omnibus. Your argument hasn't helped out this thread at all; it's already taken up multiple pages. Please, I beg of you. When the fishermen yell and fight over the good spot on the boat, they scare the fish, and nobody gets any. :(
EDIT: And to clarify, the argument has morphed into a battle over whether eachothers ou math is right. Come on, it's just not right...(the battle itself not your ideas)
Quote from: HopeForHumanity on March 06, 2008, 08:28:13 PM
Quote from: sm0ky2 on March 06, 2008, 08:17:11 PM
Quote from: HopeForHumanity on March 06, 2008, 06:37:29 PM
Attention omnibus and others. I have created a thread for the CoE talk. Please redirect CoE arguments and comments to this thread. They still must relate to smot and magnet motor stuff. This can also include mathematics relating to CoE.
http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,4235.msg80979.html#new (http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,4235.msg80979.html#new)
Have a happy day! :D
the CoE represented in the context of this thread applies only to the Tri-Force Gate, and Tri-Force Gate-arrays.
Look, be mature and take your big argument to this thread. You can talk about anything related to magnet acceleration devices, including the tri force gate. Surley you understand BIG argument. You know that arguments are dry with omnibus. Your argument hasn't helped out this thread at all; it's already taken up multiple pages. Please, I beg of you. When the fishermen yell and fight over the good spot on the boat, they scare the fish, and nobody gets any. :(
EDIT: And to clarify, the argument has morphed into a battle over whether eachothers ou math is right. Come on, it's just not right...(the battle itself not your ideas)
I understand what you are saying, However - given the topic of this thread ^^^ points to top of page, i feel that this conversation is perfectly relevant.
the "argument" over wether or not the math is right is pointless, i agree - but alas that is Omni's only defense at this point because i have proven this to be "OU" through mathematics as well as experimentation, and he's up against a brick wall. - so he wants to attack the physics that explain the observed phenomena.. something i'll never understand...
That being said, i think in my previous posts i have thoroughly covered the basis of evidence for OverUnity, with respect to this device. I appologize for the obnoxiously-long posts , but it was necessary in order to demonstrate the working principal beyond any reasonable doubt.
--- though i admit, most of it was in response to unreasonable statements...
Quote from: sm0ky2 on March 06, 2008, 08:15:40 PM
Quote from: Omnibus on March 06, 2008, 04:48:45 PM
Quote from: sm0ky2 on March 06, 2008, 04:40:35 PM
Quote from: Omnibus on March 06, 2008, 04:39:29 PM
No, admit your error. We can't proceed with this kind of misunderstanding.
i have made no error everything i have said can be verified by your own eyes in the experiments you have elready seen.
the increasing magnetic potential in a repulsion field is in the indward direction, not the outward direction.
So, is the potential energy decreasing with distance when the force is decreasing with distance?
This question you won't be able to elude.
Admit your error because with it we cannot continue the discussion properly.
i dont understand what "error" you are trying to say that i have made.
The potential energy (between 2 points within the field) decreases with distance.
It is a function of the Force, they are not equivallent. Force deals with the acceleration.
the energy deals with the potential for the roller to be accelerated across the measured distance.
The further away from the source you get, the less potential energy there is between the two points. i cannot make it any clearer than this if you dont understand that then you are truly lost and should just go seek another device, because you are not helping here.
Don't try to finagle. I hate this to no end and will not allow you to get away with this. The magnetic potential energy we're talking about is measured with respect to the magnet itself. Now, hearing this correct yourself or the conversation will continue stalling.
You're now showing another misunderstanding of how potential energy is defined. In a given problem the aebitrary reference point with respect to which it is measured is always kept the same, in this case the surface of the magnet.
Don't continue along this line because you'll sink even deeper.
Understand, I'd love to see you proving OU in this device. However, with these gaps you're demonstrating you'll be shot down by any legitimate critic immediately. Notice, not all critics are idiots and morons or dishonest lackeys, there are many who do understand what they're talking about.
Quote from: Omnibus on March 06, 2008, 09:03:44 PM
Understand, I'd love to see you proving OU in this device. However, with these gaps you're demonstrating you'll be shot down by any legitimate critic immediately. Notice, not all critics are idiots and morons or dishonest lackeys, there are many who do understand what they're talking about.
im not going to indulge in your idiocracies. im done with you, its obvious that you dont know what you are talking about, and/or arent even reading what i wrote. either way, When you are willing to perform the experiments yourself, then come back here and we can pick up where we left off, until then, g'day.
Quote from: sm0ky2 on March 06, 2008, 10:02:42 PM
Quote from: Omnibus on March 06, 2008, 09:03:44 PM
Understand, I'd love to see you proving OU in this device. However, with these gaps you're demonstrating you'll be shot down by any legitimate critic immediately. Notice, not all critics are idiots and morons or dishonest lackeys, there are many who do understand what they're talking about.
im not going to indulge in your idiocracies. im done with you, its obvious that you dont know what you are talking about, and/or arent even reading what i wrote. either way, When you are willing to perform the experiments yourself, then come back here and we can pick up where we left off, until then, g'day.
Performing the experiment is one thing. I'll do that in the coming days. The problem is that you don't understand fundamental things and that makes you vulnerable. I'm the last one who would want to see someone trying to prove violation of CoE being such an easy target to critics.
Quote from: Omnibus on March 06, 2008, 10:10:27 PM
Quote from: sm0ky2 on March 06, 2008, 10:02:42 PM
Quote from: Omnibus on March 06, 2008, 09:03:44 PM
Understand, I'd love to see you proving OU in this device. However, with these gaps you're demonstrating you'll be shot down by any legitimate critic immediately. Notice, not all critics are idiots and morons or dishonest lackeys, there are many who do understand what they're talking about.
im not going to indulge in your idiocracies. im done with you, its obvious that you dont know what you are talking about, and/or arent even reading what i wrote. either way, When you are willing to perform the experiments yourself, then come back here and we can pick up where we left off, until then, g'day.
Performing the experiment is one thing. I'll do that in the coming days. The problem is that you don't understand fundamental things and that makes you vulnerable. I'm the last one who would want to see someone trying to prove violation of CoE being such an easy target to critics.
there are no critics here, except one, who is gravely misled about the forces at hand.
i keep telling you to examine this in the outward direction, you keep pointing at it heading inwards.
then shout "see! i told you so!"... and when i try to walk you through it in baby steps, you still dont understant your misconception. almost like its intentional. i have very little respect for disinformants. and i have a hard time believing that you are incapable of comprehension. so, i am left to conclude that you are either intentionally arguing for the sake of argument, OR, you are just completely dense, and stuck on some notion of magnetic fields that you are applying entirely out of context. either way, any further discussion from me to you, or vise versa is apparently going to run around in circles and end up where it started... much like these machines we keep trying to build..
There's no inward or outward examination. That's another confusion of yours. The potential energy at a point A, away from a magnet, with respect to the magnet's surface (which is the generator of the field) is always equal to the work necessary to bring the studied body from the surface to that point A. The absolute value of that work is always greater than the absolute value of the work to bing the studied body from the surface to a point A', closer to the magnet's surface than A, despite the fact that the force on the body exerted by the field at point A is weaker than the force at point A'. This is unconditional. There's no inward and outward examination at that. You are confused about that and it's for your own benefit to understand it.
Hi All
I thought I would show you a couple of videos showing how the stop the repel comming into the Trigate, I have 3 ways to do it and I have made videos showing two of them, the first uses iron as shielding at the front of the Trigate, the second uses iron behind the Trigate as the third magnet of the triangle locking the flux in and the third takes the steelballs away from the back of the Trigate turns the magnet around and let it connect again this also locks the flux in.
All 3 ways work you just need to tune the gate a bit by getting it the right distance from the roller magnet also the roller magnet must be right in the middle you have a corradoor it must run down.
Oh it wont let me upload the videos so you can find them at the Minato Wheel Group file section there names are ShieldedTrigate.wmv and BetterTrigate.wmv.
Take Care All
Graham
@Rusty_Springs,
For some reason I'm having trouble finding these videos posted in the Minato Wheel Group. Don't know what it is.
Omnibus, I think what initiates these arguments are A: Disagreement(duh) B: Inability to be flexible(you) C: noticably telling people what to think D: Telling them that they are confused(big one). Nobody finds this attractive. Thus, if your objective is to truly teach people your experiments and your findings, you should find a new method to do it. Don't you find it contradicting to your objective? I wan't to learn from you, but it's hard too when your consistently arguing with other people. It makes me go, "wow, this guy is a really bad scientist". Regardless of you actualy being a good scientist, it should be your prime direction to present information in a friendly NON hypothetical manner (like don't equate the smot to the tri-gates). It's very unproffesional to just assume that something does or does not work off of a differen't experiment. I don't want to start an argument. I don't want to start an argument. I don't want to start an argument.
This post is a suggestion to methods that are less likely to build opposition and confusion.
Now, I know you saw my new thread. So please! Go there and run free like a pack of crazy polar bears. A place where you can intellectualy argue to your hearts content, without jamming this thread full of it. :D
@ omni, again you are diverting from the context. you cannot compare apples and oranges.
taking the absolute value of the potential energy dismisses the direction. however when examining a repulsion field, with respect to an attraction field - they are exactly opposite.
the points of maximum potential are on opposite sides of the field.
in this case we are dealing with a repulsion field, the point of maximum potential is at the 'surface'.
Quote from: Rusty_Springs on March 07, 2008, 12:28:12 AM
Hi All
I thought I would show you a couple of videos showing how the stop the repel comming into the Trigate, I have 3 ways to do it and I have made videos showing two of them, the first uses iron as shielding at the front of the Trigate, the second uses iron behind the Trigate as the third magnet of the triangle locking the flux in and the third takes the steelballs away from the back of the Trigate turns the magnet around and let it connect again this also locks the flux in.
All 3 ways work you just need to tune the gate a bit by getting it the right distance from the roller magnet also the roller magnet must be right in the middle you have a corradoor it must run down.
Oh it wont let me upload the videos so you can find them at the Minato Wheel Group file section there names are ShieldedTrigate.wmv and BetterTrigate.wmv.
Take Care All
Graham
Can you post your videos to youtube please, they would be easier to access there, thanks.
SMOKEY2
You have it right based on my experience. Of what I have read from your posts much of witch is well above my pay grade I have already verified the hard way.
This contest between you and Omnibus makes no sense.
A time out that allows reality to catch up with the facts could be useful.
Without an adversary there is no contest.
But that is what I Think
Be Well
Tinker
Quote from: Tinker on March 06, 2008, 04:03:42 AM
I often do not agree with you but you have shown some common sense and reality
If you use a Wheel to enter the magnetic field based on what I have experienced there will not be an issue with the entry gate as the moving magnet will enter the array under attraction as the repulsion is encountered only at the front end of the array. IE enter the array before the end.
I offer no truths or data
Hi Tinker
I was thinking along these lines as well of entering the gate beyond the Entry Repulsion.
What if took the Rotor and made it perfectly balanced but hinged on the Axle. So it still spins around but the arms get tilted up and down.
Then some mechanism that will not cause too much friction too lift it past the Entrance and drop it into the Transition area.
Excuse he bad picture not too scale but a general idea.
(https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.overunity.org.uk%2Ftri-gate%2Ftilt1.jpg&hash=21d4b5e4179495411ed5c1367add20b54113cd7e)
Cheers
Sean.
Quote from: Rusty_Springs on March 03, 2008, 04:47:45 PM
For a setup like Clanzer's had I wouldn't be using my Trigate but trying my Corner gate which was made for circler motion, this will attract in and repel out with more force then the Trigate infact the Corner gate is the closest to a perfect gate I have seen, in other words if you want a train type system use my Trigate joined the way I have them joined, if you want a rotating system try my Corner gate but remember everything is a trade off you can't take attract back or repel in away you can only divert them to give you the best result for what you need.
Take Care all
Graham
Hi Graham
I will take a look at the Corner gate.
Home early this week and I have dragged my Big Rig into the Front Room at home as the workshop is too cold LOL.
Have played with a lot of different configurations over the last 3 hours and when you think you have one that has smudged out the Entrance, up it pops again.
Plenty more tests yet though.
Cheers
Sean.
Quote from: sm0ky2 on March 07, 2008, 01:51:21 AM
@ omni, again you are diverting from the context. you cannot compare apples and oranges.
taking the absolute value of the potential energy dismisses the direction. however when examining a repulsion field, with respect to an attraction field - they are exactly opposite.
the points of maximum potential are on opposite sides of the field.
in this case we are dealing with a repulsion field, the point of maximum potential is at the 'surface'.
No at all. I'm not diverting from the context. because we're discussing violation of CoE and that comes about at once in your text but that is only due to your misunderstanding what potential energy really is.
You are trying, instead of acknowledging your error, to finagle in various ways. First you tried to compare increments of potential energy between two points first closer then away from the surface of the magnet, telling me that the values become smaller away from the magnet. Then, after being told that potential energy we talk about always has a single reference point you're trying to escape through proposing that away from the magnet where the force is negligible the potential energy is also close to zero because of the direction of the measurement of that force. That's blatantly incorrect. This means that the work to move a test object from point A to a point at the surface (that is moving it in one direction) will differ from the work to move the same body from the surface to point A (that is, in the opposite direction) because in one of the cases the potential energy will be zero, according to your understanding of the role of direction. This discrepancy between these two works isn't a violation of CoE but is only a demonstration of your confusion. No qualified person with half-sense will accept this as any proof whatsoever.
So, you'd better straighten out your understanding of these elementary things before proceeding with your proof and try not to finagle further because that's one of the worst things a person willing to deal with science can do. We don't need people who claim violation of CoE to fail at that elementary level and be given as justified examples that only nuts can have such claims.
@CLaNZeR,
This isn't a contest. This is clarification of some elementary notions which, surprisingly, @smOkey2 was incorrect about. I repeat, @smOky2 is wrong on this one. Instead of acknowledging his error, though, he started finagling which made it even more disgusting. We must not allow ourselves, those who are interested in these kinds of studies, to provide the numerous enemies we have with such elementary reasons to be laughed at.
Quote from: Omnibus on March 07, 2008, 07:49:14 AM
@CLaNZeR,
This isn't a contest.
Who said anything about any of this being a contest?
I do this for fun, nothing else.
@CLaNZeR,
My bad. Sorry, mate, that was for @Tinker.
Quote from: CLaNZeR on March 07, 2008, 06:30:01 AM
Quote from: Tinker on March 06, 2008, 04:03:42 AM
I often do not agree with you but you have shown some common sense and reality
If you use a Wheel to enter the magnetic field based on what I have experienced there will not be an issue with the entry gate as the moving magnet will enter the array under attraction as the repulsion is encountered only at the front end of the array. IE enter the array before the end.
I offer no truths or data
Hi Tinker
I was thinking along these lines as well of entering the gate beyond the Entry Repulsion.
What if took the Rotor and made it perfectly balanced but hinged on the Axle. So it still spins around but the arms get tilted up and down.
Then some mechanism that will not cause too much friction too lift it past the Entrance and drop it into the Transition area.
Excuse he bad picture not too scale but a general idea.
(https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.overunity.org.uk%2Ftri-gate%2Ftilt1.jpg&hash=21d4b5e4179495411ed5c1367add20b54113cd7e)
Cheers
Sean.
or maybe like this..
Quote from: Omnibus on March 07, 2008, 07:49:14 AM
@CLaNZeR,
This isn't a contest. This is clarification of some elementary notions which, surprisingly, @smOkey2 was incorrect about. I repeat, @smOky2 is wrong on this one. Instead of acknowledging his error, though, he started finagling which made it even more disgusting. We must not allow ourselves, those who are interested in these kinds of studies, to provide the numerous enemies we have with such elementary reasons to be laughed at.
you have yet to verify this, i have proven that i am correct here. and more than myself have verified this by experiment. You are changing the context in which the energy values are being represented.
This was about the effects of the magnetic potential on the gravitational constant OUTSIDE of the field of influence. IN THIS scenerio you MUST examine the magnetic potential BETWEEN TWO POINTS OUTSIDE OF THE FIELD!! Period!. - this is where the roller starts , and this is where you must verify your INPUT ENERGY. examining whats inside the black box from outside does nothing for us in this context.
you cannot turn around in the other direction and measure the inverse of the the INSIDE of the repulsion field. This does not apply here. the inside of the repulsion field does not affect the gravitational constant at a point outside of the field.
Meaning that the Input Energy and Output Energy are independent of the magnetic potential AT THOSE POINTS OUTSIDE OF THE FIELD. - This verifies that the system is OverUnity.
@ GWhy
The repulsion field is still along the circumferance of the circle in that design.
it would appear slightly above where the roller-mag is.
To completely avoid this spot the gates must be longer or the rotor smaller. Which decreases from your rotational-force. i've tried this set-up in several ways, the best i could do was push the repulsion further out (like in graham's corner gate), but it still crosses the circumferance, and thus works against the wheel.
Quote from: sm0ky2 on March 07, 2008, 08:30:12 AM
@ GWhy
The repulsion field is still along the circumferance of the circle in that design.
it would appear slightly above where the roller-mag is.
To completely avoid this spot the gates must be longer or the rotor smaller. Which decreases from your rotational-force. i've tried this set-up in several ways, the best i could do was push the repulsion further out (like in graham's corner gate), but it still crosses the circumferance, and thus works against the wheel.
Thats a shame,,, what about some sort of shielding at both ends ?
@smOky2,
You have gaps in understanding potential energy which compromises any arguments you may have about violation of CoE. Therefore it's counterproductive to continue the theoretical argument. Let's see what you can do in terms of producing a device which can make full turns on its own, without external energy. That will be the real proof for violation of CoE in this case. I will see what I can do experimentally too. Although, except for @klicUK's shielding idea so far the things don't seem very promising.
Quote from: Omnibus on March 07, 2008, 08:51:57 AM
@smOky2,
You have gaps in understanding potential energy which compromises any arguments you may have about violation of CoE. Therefore it's counterproductive to continue the theoretical argument. Let's see what you can do in terms of producing a device which can make full turns on its own, without external energy. That will be the real proof for violation of CoE in this case. I will see what I can do experimentally too. Although, except for @klicUK's shielding idea so far the things don't seem very promising.
Speaking of credibility, where is your whipmag replication?
Edited for sanity. Anybody else want to start a website on ou so we don't have to listen to Omnibus any more? Stefan doesn't seem to want to ban him fast enough.
Quote from: konduct on March 07, 2008, 11:12:42 AM
Edited for sanity. Anybody else want to start a website on ou so we don't have to listen to Omnibus any more? Stefan doesn't seem to want to ban him fast enough.
No need to, plenty of other websites/forums where the omnipresent noise is limited... ;)
Quote from: RunningBare on March 07, 2008, 09:58:37 AM
Quote from: Omnibus on March 07, 2008, 08:51:57 AM
@smOky2,
You have gaps in understanding potential energy which compromises any arguments you may have about violation of CoE. Therefore it's counterproductive to continue the theoretical argument. Let's see what you can do in terms of producing a device which can make full turns on its own, without external energy. That will be the real proof for violation of CoE in this case. I will see what I can do experimentally too. Although, except for @klicUK's shielding idea so far the things don't seem very promising.
Speaking of credibility, where is your whipmag replication?
Hey, liar where have you ?rigorously proven? how @alsetalokin?s device can be faked: http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,3871.msg80659.html#msg80659
One way to know someone is onto something is when you see mediocrities gathering against him, asking the moderator to ban him. Of course, that?s not the only criterion but speaks a lot. No one will care to notice someone whose ideas will make no difference and has no impact.
Quote from: Omnibus on March 07, 2008, 07:41:49 AM
This means that the work to move a test object from point A to a point at the surface (that is moving it in one direction) will differ from the work to move the same body from the surface to point A (that is, in the opposite direction) because in one of the cases the potential energy will be zero, according to your understanding of the role of direction. .
Yes - this is actually true - because you are missing part of the equation. To move from point A to the surface -you a region with no magnetic potential, approaching the boundary - then a region of full magnetic potential from the boundary to the 'surface'. meanwhile there is a constant gravitational force throughout the entire distance.
In the inward direction you have positive potential (the difference bewteen the magnetic and gravitational). in the outward direction you have a negative potential - because you are field working against partial-gravity while moving outwards from the 'surface' to the boundary, and working against gravity outside of the repulsion to get to point A.
If you start the roller at the surface (as you keep trying to insist) you have the full potential of the repulsion field - this tries to push the roller to the outer field boundary. Now - we CAN look at the entire distance - from the 'surface' to point A, and the value of magnetic potential will be constant -regardless of where point A is past the boundary. -This is out of context for use in what we are measuring here, becase the energy values are outside of the influence field.
The input energy is the gravitational potential at point A - which is completely independent of the magnetic potential of the field. Point B is under the same conditions, but has slightly more gravitational potential. This arbitary point A' you make reference to, only suits the purpose of your diversion from the facts. point A1 - that i was referencing for measurements of magnetic potential is just outside the boundary of the influence field - and is under the same conditions as points A & B - having no net magnetic potential between the roller and the prepositioned horizontal plane. - Thus meaning the potential energy values of the roller at these points IS the gravitational potential.
E-mhg The ENTIRE point of starting and ending the roller under these specific conditions is to measure the input / output energy - independent of the energy values going on inside the device. Energy in, Energy out.
No misconcieved ideas about the magnetic potential are going to help you disprove this.
Case Closed.
Omnibus You are a true delusional ... maybe we are all crazy since we try to break the laws of physics... but you my boy are so far from reality its depressing...whatever makes you feel better buddy...the only thing I think you're onto is giving me a headache from trying to make logical sense of your ramblings...you're going to make me subconsciously voodoo you if you keep it up... I smell computer problems...maybe a blown power supply or something in your near future...remember...the universe will always balance itself, no matter how many smot ramps you have around.
sm0ky2;
Force is power. The time integration of power is energy. So the time integration of
force is energy.
"and you are leading people to believe that the integral of a force, that decreases with distance, remains constant with distance?"
In a vacuum, Yes, This statement, independent of it's context, is absolutely true. You need
to use the area under the curve surface integral that you often see in magnetics equations . The mathematical integral symbol with the circle through it. In means, the integral but over the surface area of a volume. Learned in college physics. It's mathematical calculus adapted to Mag. fields.
* *
* *
(*)
( * )
(*)
* *
* *
...The incremental Radius squared decrease of field strength is due to the fact that the same energy that was operating over one spherical surface at time t is same one operating spread over a larger spherical one at time t+(distance/C) the distance a wave front propagates in time t where
the wave is moving at C the speed of light. The wave front which is moving at the speed of light
due to conservation of energy (a vacuum doesn't absorb it) reaches the larger spherical surface
with the same *total* energy, the receptive interval X has just been mapped divided by R^2. What else??? Where else did that energy go? That is why when you transmit energy it is gone from the local process, you transmitted it. The same power bill is received by a radio/TV station independent of viewership.
--->
There is no power in a circular tomi-track arrangement. It is just like a generator
or alternator with a shorted output coil...it acts as a brake. Think of shrinking a
tomi track down to six inches and forcing the rotor to rotate. It turns out that as
soon as you take a linear mag track and bend it you create a definite interval
over which the surface integral operates. It's the bending that does it and a
circle is a perfect bend. So the circle is most inefficient for unit length.
The x-machine;
So it would be more efficient to be mostly linear and when you do curve it to
do it as rapidly as possible, so that the mag forces can't integrate over time.
Remnance forces need to drive through a wheel radius. Remnance forces
act as a receptor phase delay. It is often claimed that magnets discharge
in overunity devices, which I don't buy. Nope, remnance is most probably
destroyed. So, I think that this is going to work...Long enough to convince
someone to do the material's research to extend lifetime of the remnance
in small steel spheres. ;D
--->
Believe what other people observe, just don't believe their theories.
--->
It's not a race but we are racing Mib's. They are probably changing
the material makeup of kid's toys, even as we speak. I propose we
build it out of wood to put the Mib's into the tree growing business.
How's that for a phase delay?
Mark
i dont think OMNI should be banned for disagreeing. It's really not his fault, he was trained to examine things this way. Im an engineer so i look at everything from a different perspective.
He's trying to look at the inside of the device when we dont have all the information.
while im putting the device in a box and looking at the input/output.
i think im done arguing over this, its obvious that he just doesnt get it and/or isnt willing to perform the experiments for himself to verify that his solution does not fit the problem.
If hes not intentionally trying to misinform people then i fear he may never figure out why the square peg doesnt fit in the round hole.
Gwhy
You Get it
With the rotation clockwise i have lined up my neos in a sawtooth looking thing. Two neo's and connected with 3 balls in total its about 15 inches long each side.
The wheel is 18 inches cus that is what they had at Home Depot no science here.
I used the waste from cutting my wheel to mount my neos in an arc on the left side of the wheel to conform to the contour of the wheel.
The sticky end terminates and lays flat under the wheel at the other end of the neos about 5 inches beyond the center point of the wheel.
You did good with your graphic you may want to update it.
I did some Redneck testing before I ran my keyboard and it seemed to play out, but I am still building, the check is still in the mail.
Clazner I am stuck on Verticle right now, you are doing a hybred whip mag I can't get my head around that right now but you do GREAT WORK, THANKS.
Be well folks
Tinker
@smOky2,
Don?t continue with this because you?re sinking even deeper in confusion than I originally thought you might.
To not waste time with this I?ll just point out that what I told you concerns the magnetic potential only, not the combination of magnetic and gravitational potential as you?ve misunderstood.
You need to come to terms with respect to some basic physics notions to avoid compromising your proof. We don?t need someone claiming violation of CoE laughed off at that level.
lol...
@smOky2,
You should see now how one dishonest critic @modervador (applying his typical polite arrogance) is pulling the leg of @Grimer over similar misunderstandings, let alone several others such as @Big Oil Rep, @pcstru4 and @Ice'D Bear (I haven't seen @pcstru4 and @Ice'D Bear to have been dishonest so far). They are right in this case, sorry to say.
Quote from: mscoffman on March 07, 2008, 01:04:49 PM
sm0ky2;
Force is power. The time integration of power is energy. So the time integration of
force is energy.
--->
Believe what other people observe, just don't believe their theories.
--->
It's not a race but we are racing Mib's. They are probably changing
the material makeup of kid's toys, even as we speak. I propose we
build it out of wood to put the Mib's into the tree growing business.
Mark
Mark,
that is basically correct, with the exception of the time propegation of the field, but to us mere humans, differences at speeds close to that of light are petty. we cant tell the difference either way.
In the context that it was used: the magnetic potential from the roller at a point outside of the field to a point just before the influence field bondary - these are two distinct points witihn the field.
between which is a magnetic potential (close to 0). as you choose points closer to the field at which to place the roller for testing - that magnetic potential increases. (pushes the roller upwards against gravity)
That long ^$#*^* 9 -page argument was over wether or not that magnetic potential at those test points was affecting the gravitational constant on the roller. (thus giving an apparent OU that was not 'real).
Hi CLaNZeR
Yes I noticed that you can put a roller through a Trigate 6 times and 1 of those times it acts different to the other 5 so ever I have moved the Trigate or roller slightly or the magnetic field is not constant.
I just wanted to say the bottom half of the gates not the problem, it will always attract in and repel out because the flux is always going in the one direction and the roller can only follow that flux, the problem is at the top half of the Trigate there the flux is going in the opposite direction to the direction we want to travel the trick is stopping that with out cutting down on the force at the bottom half.
Its a case of I have found a way to make magnetic flux move in one direction relitive to another magnet but its not perfect so I need to find a way to make it perfect or work around it by having the roller come into the Trigate in the bridge setup later.
Take Care CLaNZeR
Graham
Hi Gwhy
Yes thats what I have been saying the way I would have it so it comes in at the nuetral point, taking away the worry about the repel in and giving you the most repel out power.
Take Care Gway
Graham
Hi Sm0ky2
Your totally right about most things here and I agree with you about coming in at the neutral point instead of the begining and that is why I would change the rotor to something other then a circle motion but as you say you have to cross the repultion path first in what ever setup you can think of, I was thinking a triangle of square motion but you still have to cross the repultion path comming in.
Take Care Sm0ky2
Graham
Hi Tinker
I forgot in a vertical setup you can come in with out crossing the repel path.
Oh and this is the site where you can find my latest videos http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/minatowheel/ as I said there in the file section there names are ShieldedTrigate.wmv and BetterTrigate.wmv
Take Care All and Tinker
Graham
Been playing a bit today.
Part 3
As usual Hi-Res version:
http://www.overunity.org.uk/tri-gate/CLaNZeRSTri-ForceGate-Rotor3.wmv
YouTube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bfnEjStQZ9w
Cheers
Sean.
Quote from: Rusty_Springs on March 07, 2008, 03:45:10 PM
Hi Gwhy
Yes thats what I have been saying the way I would have it so it comes in at the nuetral point, taking away the worry about the repel in and giving you the most repel out power.
Take Care Gway
Graham
i keep envisioning a "flower" shape to accomplish this.. perhaps something like Ed's motor?
Hi Sm0ky2
Yes a flower may work I was thinking something like using say 4 Trigates as the rotor and a bar magnet as the stator.
Take Care Sm0ky2
Graham
Hi CLaNZeR
Nice video, the setups you are showing will always need a gate that attracts in and repels out to remove the sticky spot but it is nice to see whats happening and I for one appreciate all the work you do.
Take Care CLaNZeR
Graham
Hi CLaNZeR
I wanted to say I think your close but as I said for those setups it needs to attract in and I know you can do that with one set of Trigates but I don't know if you can join them, the way you do it is the triangles you have standing you leave there but you take away all the other magnets so you just have two magnets and one steelball on each side standing, you have the first magnet attract and the magnet behind it repel so now you have both sides attracting in and repelling out this setup will attract in and repel out because the end of the magnet that pushes you away is to far from the rotor to effect it and the end that pulls you back is also to far from the rotor, it attracts in because the flux is moving from the bottom which is repel to the top which is attract and your rotor follows that path, on the other side the flux also moves from repel to attract but in the same direction you are moving so again the rotor follows the path, all forces going in the opposite direction are inside the triangle so they don't effect your rotor.
If you need to see what I mean I will ever make a video or drawing to show you.
Take Care CLaNZeR
Graham
Hi All
This is a drawing of what I ment in my last post.
Take Care All
Graham
Quote from: Rusty_Springs on March 08, 2008, 03:07:11 AM
Hi CLaNZeR
I wanted to say I think your close but as I said for those setups it needs to attract in and I know you can do that with one set of Trigates but I don't know if you can join them, the way you do it is the triangles you have standing you leave there but you take away all the other magnets so you just have two magnets and one steelball on each side standing, you have the first magnet attract and the magnet behind it repel so now you have both sides attracting in and repelling out this setup will attract in and repel out because the end of the magnet that pushes you away is to far from the rotor to effect it and the end that pulls you back is also to far from the rotor, it attracts in because the flux is moving from the bottom which is repel to the top which is attract and your rotor follows that path, on the other side the flux also moves from repel to attract but in the same direction you are moving so again the rotor follows the path, all forces going in the opposite direction are inside the triangle so they don't effect your rotor.
If you need to see what I mean I will ever make a video or drawing to show you.
Thanks for that Graham, I know exactly what you mean and my conclusion doing that experiment was that adding the bottom magnets balances out the Tri-Gate effect and I may as well of just used ordinary magnets.
I also did alot of experiments with different configurations of gates laying down horizontal that I did not video as it just slows me down when trying so many things.
Plenty more playing around to come and will try as your picture shows below.
Many thanks for the feedback.
Cheers
Sean.
Quote from: CLaNZeR on March 07, 2008, 04:30:43 PM
Been playing a bit today.
Part 3
As usual Hi-Res version:
http://www.overunity.org.uk/tri-gate/CLaNZeRSTri-ForceGate-Rotor3.wmv
YouTube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bfnEjStQZ9w
Cheers
Sean.
maybe the rotor can be lifted as it passes the sticky spot. the momentum would aid in this and could possible have enough energy to lift it to pass the sticky spot. then it gets lowered to its original hight.
Quote from: FreeEnergy on March 08, 2008, 06:40:58 AM
maybe the rotor can be lifted as it passes the sticky spot. the momentum would aid in this and could possible have enough energy to lift it to pass the sticky spot. then it gets lowered to its original hight.
I was thinking that also, I popped this picture up a few posts ago in the thread, excuse the crudness of the picture but should give an idea.
(https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.overunity.org.uk%2Ftri-gate%2Ftilt1.jpg&hash=21d4b5e4179495411ed5c1367add20b54113cd7e)
side note...also try adding more balls to the entering gate so maybe it can attract more.
nice work by the way. very inspiring and open source.
im still looking for those geomags, i dont want to buy it online. anyone know a known store to have geomags? ive checked toys r us, kb toys, target, xump, and nothing.
Quote from: CLaNZeR on March 08, 2008, 07:15:01 AM
Quote from: FreeEnergy on March 08, 2008, 06:40:58 AM
maybe the rotor can be lifted as it passes the sticky spot. the momentum would aid in this and could possible have enough energy to lift it to pass the sticky spot. then it gets lowered to its original hight.
I was thinking that also, I popped this picture up a few posts ago in the thread, excuse the crudness of the picture but should give an idea.
(https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.overunity.org.uk%2Ftri-gate%2Ftilt1.jpg&hash=21d4b5e4179495411ed5c1367add20b54113cd7e)
so did you try it yet?
Quote from: FreeEnergy on March 08, 2008, 07:25:25 AM
so did you try it yet?
It is on the ToDo list as such.
Playing with reversing the roles so far today.
(https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.overunity.org.uk%2Ftri-gate%2Fswap1.jpg&hash=0df9793bcae0a75abc4064894b377ef8071420b0)
Quote from: FreeEnergy on March 08, 2008, 07:23:27 AM
side note...also try adding more balls to the entering gate so maybe it can attract more.
nice work by the way. very inspiring and open source.
im still looking for those geomags, i dont want to buy it online. anyone know a known store to have geomags? ive checked toys r us, kb toys, target, xump, and nothing.
WalMart sells them in 70-piece cans for $10
i've picked up a few of them already.
Quote from: Rusty_Springs on March 08, 2008, 05:50:02 AM
Hi All
This is a drawing of what I ment in my last post.
Take Care All
Graham
Hi Graham
Tried removing bottom bar on the reverse setup where Tri-Force Gates were on the Rotor and Rollers on the Stator.
Part 4 below.
Hi Res:
http://www.overunity.org.uk/tri-gate/CLaNZeRSTri-ForceGate-Rotor4.wmv
YouTube version
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ELdY9vMIshk
Cheers
Sean.
Hi CLaNZeR
I made a video of what I ment, I don't have a rotor setup like you so I have to do it by hand but you can see what I mean just remember the Trigates would be turned over and not moving and the roller would be on your rotor arm and moving. with this you will see I'm moving the Trigate towards the roller and the roller is attracted in then moves away from the Trigate.
I can't attach anything over 550KB's so I have to post it at http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/minatowheel/
Take Care CLaNZeR
Graham
Hi All
I forgot to mention the video is in the file section of http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/minatowheel/ and its name is TrigateAbove.wmv.
Take Care All
Graham
After noon folks update on the saw gate
I got it built this morning ''KINDA'' in my Redneck fashon.
It does run for a few minutes, longest was 15 minutes on a pinky finger
nudge. It either reverses and stops or hangs on the top end with last victium [NEO] that made it past the array. It does not self start.
The good news is that It has no problem entering the array and it keeps a constant declining momentum in the array, and there is a pretty substantial push when it leaves.
I mounted the NEOS on the wheel without securing them to the wheel other than attraction, starting with 2 and went up to 8, 4 5, and 6 seemed to give the best results.
I am using 1/2X1/4X1/4 N38 ring neos in the array leftover from my SMOT and the balls from the Magnetics set.
The drivers on the wheel are 1/2x1 cyl N38 NEOS.
I see some potential with this setup but I need to resolve some mechanical issues with it.
I am using the same bearings [2] that most folks were using in AL'S device on a brass axle on the wheel.
Unfortunatly it wobbels like a Drunk Duck I need to work on the hub.
The spin isn't too shabby but the perimiter kinda looks like Fred Flintstones flat tire he as been hauling around since the '70's in his trunk.
It strikes me I [MAY!] '' have a balance issue. :0
I used stiky tape to keep the array neos lined up tacky but it worked until the wheel neos kept crashing into them cus of the wobble. Plan B is Duct tape until I can find some 2in shrink tube to keep them straight and make it easier to secure them. The arrays were spaced with 4.5 in clearance I was being conservative that gave me more than an inch clearance if hadn't been for the wobble
Clazner you said something about raising or lowering something the array or the driver in an earlier post was working better what was it?
Accept reject or ignore
it's just information.
Be Well
Tinker
P.S. I know what time it is I went shopping ;)
@ Graham
I hope this doesnt come across too offensive. i dont mean this in a bad way, but in lue of the apparent paradox. i MUST ask this question....
Are you the CEO/ corporate exec. or Own a large ammount of GeoMag stock>?????????
I have to ask, because every time this device gets more complex i find myself at the store buying more magnets........ :) - i think i passed Clanzer up with this last batch
@ tinker
do you have pics or anything? 15 minutes! thats amazing.
my tri-rotor ive gotten to go around 8-9 times aster barely inserting it into the first gate.
but nothing like 15 mins of runtime.
i did get the "reversal" effect at times, it would go around a few times, then start going in the other direction, sometimes this did not happen. no clue what causes this...
basically i have a set-up like in Clanzers last few videos, except mine is 3 rotor-arms stacked vertically on a common axis- they are spaced apart enough so the fields dont interfere.
all together its 2x2 ft & 3.5 ft tall
the best results thus far have been with the "W" gates. (common-ball back bars removed)
i also removed the balls from the ends
tried with 4 & 5 "W"-gates spaced around the rotors
i'll try some other gate designs when i get a chance.
Clazner
How about a horizontal contiguous sawtooth array without a gate.
No gate NO STICKY POINT hmm
Use a couple of trigates on the end of your rotors and enter the field.
Let them hang down in front of the rotors and make sure the polarity is correct stay in attraction.
Let gravity and attraction do the work?
Add balls and mags as needed to help gravity and attraction it may be that a rotary trigate with magnetic bearings would be the best.
I will leave the rest to you.
Be Well
Tinker
When I get the mechanical issues resolved I will post more.
The major premise of this project is to show the ability to defeat the ''sticky'' point of a magnet motor.
That has been the holy grail against working magnet motors for some time now.
There may be a Solution.
News at eleven but I don't know what date.
Be well
TINKER
.
Smokey2
The holy grail of magnet motors is the sticky point.
This is what I am working on.
The configuration of the magnets is one issue.
The way you approach them is another.
Based on recent developments here I see a solution.
Ask me Sunday after Noon EST and I will give you more.
Its late here.
Be Well
Tinker
Quote from: Tinker on March 09, 2008, 03:37:15 AM
Smokey2
The holy grail of magnet motors is the sticky point.
This is what I am working on.
The configuration of the magnets is one issue.
The way you approach them is another.
Based on recent developments here I see a solution.
Ask me Sunday after Noon EST and I will give you more.
Its late here.
Be Well
Tinker
eliminating the sticky point means making a uniform field. no sticky point - no motive force.
what im working on is a way "around it".
The way around it is the solution.
I might have the solution.
Later
Tinker
Hi sm0ky2
No it didn't worry me mate infact I laughed, I wish I was a CEO for any company I would love the money so I can just experiment 24/7 :)
Take Care sm0ky2
Graham
Hi All
Everything is sounding very promissing I can't wait til tomorrow morning to see what advances have been made.
I know the attractin repel out works with no sticky spot, I have shown it with my corner gate and my latest Trigates but the right arangement must be found, I was thinking something like a wheel with 4 bar magnet sprogs that go through the Trigate but then theres the question if you get something going can you keep it going with out adding energy from an outside source. I don't mind if it doesn't selfstart even if you pull start it like the old mowers thats cool as long as it keeps going.
Take Care All
Graham
Sincerely sorry if this has been asked before...I just had a question or two for you.
What is in the highest incline angle that the runner in a Tri-Force setup can climb? Can the runner magnet even climb at any angle of incline?
Thanks guys...
Quote from: tao on March 09, 2008, 01:25:07 PM
Sincerely sorry if this has been asked before...I just had a question or two for you.
What is in the highest incline angle that the runner in a Tri-Force setup can climb? Can the runner magnet even climb at any angle of incline?
http://youtube.com/watch?v=SP46aoVkOUQ
and
http://youtube.com/watch?v=TTOrYSI4cpY
Cheers
Sean.
Quote from: CLaNZeR on March 09, 2008, 03:18:28 PMhttp://youtube.com/watch?v=TTOrYSI4cpY
Hi Sean.
This video is great. Can you please remove the magnets from the downhill side? Start the runner from the same point as you did in the video. In other words: only use magnets uphill and use downhill (gravity) to pass the repelling point.
See if that works. Thanks.
Eric.
Quote from: eavogels on March 09, 2008, 04:16:36 PM
Quote from: CLaNZeR on March 09, 2008, 03:18:28 PMhttp://youtube.com/watch?v=TTOrYSI4cpY
Hi Sean.
This video is great. Can you please remove the magnets from the downhill side? Start the runner from the same point as you did in the video. In other words: only use magnets uphill and use downhill (gravity) to pass the repelling point.
See if that works.
Hi Eric
All packed up this end for the weekend as away again on work all week.
Will try out your idea next weekend when back.
Cheers
Sean.
@ Eric
that set-up was done in a video a few pages back.
the roller starts from a point uphill, travels down into the repulsion, ou the other side and ends up at a point higher than it started.
For those wanting to see some FEMM sims of the Tri-Force principle, I did them... (had some free time on my hands, lol)
Here is a basic one, if you want to see more, let me know...
I will of course have to host them off OU.com because of the new 50KB attachment limits ;/
Anyway, just thought someone might be interested...
Peace guys!
In this sim below the forces on the runner are: x = 1.058 Newtons and y = -0.0074 Newtons, Which basically translates to, a horizontal only movement based on 1 Newtons for force, the vertical component is negligible. (Remember, this sim is effectively a snapshot in time, so, to see the average force on the runner throughout the whole set of gates, you'd have to do some LUA scripting and map out the force values as you continually move the runner through the lenfth of the Tri-Force gates...)
Hi tao
Can you do the setup below? I have tested it and know it works but I would love seeing what the flux is doing, I have also added another Trigate in this setup and it acts the same as having one, you can get repel in when your a distance from the Trigate but that is fixed by ajusting the high our roller is from the top of the Trigates.
I have two test left with this maybe 3 and thats adding iron to the bottom, adding enough Trigates to get a semi circle and seeing if it still attracts in and kicks out and seeing what happens with the same setup above as well as below the roller.
Take Care tao
Graham
Hi All
A footnote: Iron at the bottom of my lastest Trigate setup locks all the flux inside and you loose movement of the roller.
Take Care All
Graham
Quote from: Rusty_Springs on March 10, 2008, 03:08:40 PM
Hi All
A footnote: Iron at the bottom of my lastest Trigate setup locks all the flux inside and you loose movement of the roller.
Take Care All
Graham
when i open the back side like that, i lose the transitional-phase energy in multiple gate arrays.
it seems a single "v" gate works, but adding more than 1 in a row, is just a balanced gate, theres no linear force inbetween. only repulsion in/out, - so it basically kills the "tri-force effect".
This has been posted in the Bedini SG Yahoo group forum. (not very related I know) Most of you guys have these little magnet thingys so I thought I would post it here. Check it out. See what you think.
http://fr.youtube.com/watch?v=GkzAAPRaJzU
QuoteMagnetic contraption
Posted by: "charlygree" ihti0@hotmail.com charlygree
Thu Mar 13, 2008 5:52 am (PDT)
Hello :D
To those who may be curious to check this:
recently i made by chance this idiotic magnetic contraption:
http://fr.youtube.com/watch?v=GkzAAPRaJzU
it probably can be "finetuned" for better performance... In my case
the positions of the magnet's poles are completely arbitrarry though.
Since i'm artist before all, i use feeling instead of rough data. So
my feeling stems from "putting" a given image in your field and see
what feedback it gives (kind of like in a computer simulation). So
the Feeling told me to look for an effect of very very light "tipping
of the scales", in terms to get close to the continuous motion,
rather than powerful and muscular jolts that many look for. So this
is what i came up with... I think it can be made better... I was also
inspired for it by Reidar Finsrud and he also seems to use very "on
the edge" week magnet action in terms to perpetuate the motion. Of
course his contraption works and he had spent 15 years to tune it :)
Mine, i've spent 15 minutes -he heh... But i thought it may give
ideas to some of you talented folks out there so i share it.
cheers
R0sin
http//perso.orange.fr/raydimitry
p.s. you probably know it, but my feeling tells me that in terms to
make things go continually one needs to have an element that on one
side "deeps" into one "density" and on the other side into
another "density" so that there occures a "draft", so to speak. I've
figured out (by feel) that spinning bodies may create such "draft
because their centers' particles are suffering less momentum than
their periphery, so there should be a draft/current (using the
alegory of air current). Probably this is why a spinning aluminium's
particles get polarised and the alluminium becomes magnetic. I think
coils do the same: they create "draft-holes", vortexes of a sort. I
wonder if a conical coil will do this even better... Or, several
conical coils one into the other in parallel. I think such vortices
are also created by any "shock" events such as sparks for example. I
really wonder about physical elastics, if they generate any field
around them. If the case, a tensegrity structure should be generating
its own field...just ideas...
Quote from: bourne on March 13, 2008, 02:40:09 PM
This has been posted in the Bedini SG Yahoo group forum. (not very related I know) Most of you guys have these little magnet thingys so I thought I would post it here. Check it out. See what you think.
http://fr.youtube.com/watch?v=GkzAAPRaJzU
QuoteMagnetic contraption
Posted by: "charlygree" ihti0@hotmail.com charlygree
Thu Mar 13, 2008 5:52 am (PDT)
Hello :D
To those who may be curious to check this:
recently i made by chance this idiotic magnetic contraption:
http://fr.youtube.com/watch?v=GkzAAPRaJzU
it probably can be "finetuned" for better performance... In my case
the positions of the magnet's poles are completely arbitrarry though.
Since i'm artist before all, i use feeling instead of rough data. So
my feeling stems from "putting" a given image in your field and see
what feedback it gives (kind of like in a computer simulation). So
the Feeling told me to look for an effect of very very light "tipping
of the scales", in terms to get close to the continuous motion,
rather than powerful and muscular jolts that many look for. So this
is what i came up with... I think it can be made better... I was also
inspired for it by Reidar Finsrud and he also seems to use very "on
the edge" week magnet action in terms to perpetuate the motion. Of
course his contraption works and he had spent 15 years to tune it :)
Mine, i've spent 15 minutes -he heh... But i thought it may give
ideas to some of you talented folks out there so i share it.
cheers
R0sin
http//perso.orange.fr/raydimitry
p.s. you probably know it, but my feeling tells me that in terms to
make things go continually one needs to have an element that on one
side "deeps" into one "density" and on the other side into
another "density" so that there occures a "draft", so to speak. I've
figured out (by feel) that spinning bodies may create such "draft
because their centers' particles are suffering less momentum than
their periphery, so there should be a draft/current (using the
alegory of air current). Probably this is why a spinning aluminium's
particles get polarised and the alluminium becomes magnetic. I think
coils do the same: they create "draft-holes", vortexes of a sort. I
wonder if a conical coil will do this even better... Or, several
conical coils one into the other in parallel. I think such vortices
are also created by any "shock" events such as sparks for example. I
really wonder about physical elastics, if they generate any field
around them. If the case, a tensegrity structure should be generating
its own field...just ideas...
... Looks interesting
Any chance we could see some North/South markings on the magnets?
Cheers :)
Yada..
.
All I know is what I copied from the 'daily digest email' from the Yahoo group. I clicked on the youtube link, saw it then posted it over here.
Sorry I can't help.
What made me post it here, rather than start a new thread, was the look of the same "little magnet thingys" that I recognised from this thread.
I thought you guys might be able to experiment, seeing as though you have lots of the "little magnet thingys" lying around.
What are the "little magnet thingys" called by the way? Maybe I could buy some.
Please, start a new thread if you think it is worth it!
Sorry to butt in this thread
Quote from: bourne on March 13, 2008, 03:58:43 PM
All I know is what I copied from the 'daily digest email' from the Yahoo group. I clicked on the youtube link, saw it then posted it over here.
Sorry I can't help.
What made me post it here, rather than start a new thread, was the look of the same "little magnet thingys" that I recognised from this thread.
I thought you guys might be able to experiment, seeing as though you have lots of the "little magnet thingys" lying around.
What are the "little magnet thingys" called by the way? Maybe I could buy some.
Please, start a new thread if you think it is worth it!
Sorry to butt in this thread
bourne,
Your post actually seems appropriate, considering the use of TriForce geometry.
The "magnet thingys" are available at toy stores (including Target) and go by the name GeoMag or Magnetix:
... Magnetix: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetix
Unfortunately, the rods -- which are the magets -- are not marked North/South and the consumer has to do this. The balls are not magnets, but rather simple steel ball bearings.
Happy experimenting.
Cheers :)
Yada..
.
Cheers for the info Yada.
I guess I will have to get myself to the local toy shop.
;D Yipee ;D
I haven't been in a toy shop for ages. I can't wait !!
:D
Quote from: bourne on March 13, 2008, 04:28:50 PM
Cheers for the info Yada.
I guess I will have to get myself to the local toy shop.
;D Yipee ;D
I haven't been in a toy shop for ages. I can't wait !!
:D
The magnet sets are very inexpensive, but be cautioned that you will become addicted ;D
Let us know when you replicate the "magnetic contraption".
Cheers :)
Yada..
.
Quote from: Yadaraf on March 13, 2008, 04:35:45 PM
The magnet sets are very inexpensive, but be cautioned that you will become addicted ;D
Let us know when you replicate the "magnetic contraption".
Cheers :)
Yada..
.
Certianly will.
Playing with magnets is not a bad addiction to have..... is it?
I hope its not another 'Xpenzif' hair dryer powered motor idea :D It doesn't look like it at first glance. Only time will tell.
I will have to read this whole thread at the weekend so I can join in.
Until then have fun
Hi All
I just wanted to show you what I beleave is a true magnetic motor, I showed the Trigate works we have seen it cross an air gap now I will show you how I would put it all together, when you look at the drawing remember its a loop so the rotor follows it around to the air gap, this setup has no sticky spot and moves in one direction.
Take Care All
Graham
Quote from: Rusty_Springs on March 14, 2008, 04:57:17 AM
Hi All
I just wanted to show you what I beleave is a true magnetic motor, I showed the Trigate works we have seen it cross an air gap now I will show you how I would put it all together, when you look at the drawing remember its a loop so the rotor follows it around to the air gap, this setup has no sticky spot and moves in one direction.
Take Care All
Graham
CLaNZeRS tried something resembling that, except his 'roller' doesn't roll.
http://nl.youtube.com/watch?v=bXY0CKPTMss (http://nl.youtube.com/watch?v=bXY0CKPTMss)
Quote from: Rusty_Springs on March 14, 2008, 04:57:17 AM
Hi All
I just wanted to show you what I beleave is a true magnetic motor, I showed the Trigate works we have seen it cross an air gap now I will show you how I would put it all together, when you look at the drawing remember its a loop so the rotor follows it around to the air gap, this setup has no sticky spot and moves in one direction.
Take Care All
Graham
Rusty_Springs Q: Are you saying that there is a required pattern of "3-gap-2" or can the pattern be "3-gap-3?"
Cheers :)
Yada..
.
Quote from: Rusty_Springs on March 14, 2008, 04:57:17 AM
Hi All
I just wanted to show you what I beleave is a true magnetic motor, I showed the Trigate works we have seen it cross an air gap now I will show you how I would put it all together, when you look at the drawing remember its a loop so the rotor follows it around to the air gap, this setup has no sticky spot and moves in one direction.
Take Care All
Graham
PLEASE NOTE:
It could be that a completed motor system will work, but only at one crucial speed.
On other words:
if forced to rotate at 10 rpm, it takes energy
if forced to rotate at 11 rpm, it runs away with itself (i.e. it could be OU)
if forced to rotate at 12 rpm, it takes energy.
Paul.
Quote from: Paul-R on March 14, 2008, 10:45:58 AM
Quote from: Rusty_Springs on March 14, 2008, 04:57:17 AM
Hi All
I just wanted to show you what I beleave is a true magnetic motor, I showed the Trigate works we have seen it cross an air gap now I will show you how I would put it all together, when you look at the drawing remember its a loop so the rotor follows it around to the air gap, this setup has no sticky spot and moves in one direction.
Take Care All
Graham
PLEASE NOTE:
It could be that a completed motor system will work, but only at one crucial speed.
On other words:
if forced to rotate at 10 rpm, it takes energy
if forced to rotate at 11 rpm, it runs away with itself (i.e. it could be OU)
if forced to rotate at 12 rpm, it takes energy.
Paul.
Prime numbers sound cool. he he he
Quote from: bourne on March 13, 2008, 05:37:57 PM
Quote from: Yadaraf on March 13, 2008, 04:35:45 PM
The magnet sets are very inexpensive, but be cautioned that you will become addicted ;D
Let us know when you replicate the "magnetic contraption".
Cheers :)
Yada..
.
Certianly will.
Playing with magnets is not a bad addiction to have..... is it?
I hope its not another 'Xpenzif' hair dryer powered motor idea :D It doesn't look like it at first glance. Only time will tell.
I will have to read this whole thread at the weekend so I can join in.
Until then have fun
Thanks for turning us on to this bourne. I wanted to know some more informationon about this so I joined the yahoo group and joe_1001101I posted a reply. He said that in the video description it says the contraption's longet run was ten minutes. I looked it up and it definilty says that. He also posted a link to another video with a very similar idea http://fr.youtube.com/watch?v=cQCmxCJ8gw0 . Of course this one is more twitchy. The second video looks to be made with geomags and the first seems to be made with magnetix.
Quote from: Yadaraf on March 13, 2008, 04:35:45 PM
Quote from: bourne on March 13, 2008, 04:28:50 PM
Cheers for the info Yada.
I guess I will have to get myself to the local toy shop.
;D Yipee ;D
I haven't been in a toy shop for ages. I can't wait !!
:D
The magnet sets are very inexpensive, but be cautioned that you will become addicted ;D
Let us know when you replicate the "magnetic contraption".
Cheers :)
Yada..
.
When I first saw this I suspected the reason for the lengthy spin was that there was very little friction between the two bearings that support the spinner. When I built it though, I found that there are certain configurations that give quite lengthy spin times, and there is clearly a "gate" effect involved.
My control arrangement is where the upper bearing of the double tetrahedron is connected with four bar magnets each with the same pole facing upwards. The second bearing that is used to suspend the double tetrahedron is then easily attracted to this upper bearing. There were no other magnets on top of the suspension bearing. Holding the suspension bearing in my fingers, I then started the device with a slight push.
Even a small push will rotate the "spinner" for quite some time - easily as long as is shown in the video. Changing the arrangement of magnets and trying to copy the shape of the upper part of the device does yield varying results, but the length of spin time is still dependent on the initial push that I give it, and this is an arbitrary force that I apply with my hand - not very scientific.
I have noticed that small oscillations from the initial push start seem to facilitate the rotation in certain arrangements, but it is difficult to know whether or not the device runs longer than the control arrangement because the starting force is always unknown.
I'll try and rig something up to start it with a reasonably uniform force, and then record spin times.
Easy to build - just keep playing with configurations. I don't think we'll find OU though.
klicuk
Hi All
If you go to http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/minatowheel/ you will see that I posted a video of the same setup of the square hanging by magnets and steelballs, I talked about it there ages ago and said when I discovered it it showed me there was hope but theres not enough force there to do work, I even told everyone how to set it up its funny now I'm seeing my designs pop up everywhere I even saw my changing fields at a site, it so cool seeing my designs around the net
Take Care All
Graham
Hi Yada
First with that square or diamond setup its north south north south around you can have it as a diamond or square it doesn't make that much differance.
As for my Trigate motor setup all the Trigates are connected in a loop taking a few out to give you an airgap they all must be setup so they attract in and repel out.
Trigates in a V do join and keep the rotation going, oh and the reason CLaNZeRS didn't work was he had the Trigate closed with the steelballs and magnet across the top to get it to attract in you have to remove the magnet and steelballs across the top.
Take Care Yada and all
Graham
Hi All
Another reason CLaNZeRS didn't work is the airgap is to big and I have no proof of this like the V's joined I can make a video to show you but I think if the rotor magnet is rolling it works better as I said I have no proof of this I just feel it.
Take Care All
Graham
Quote from: Rusty_Springs on March 14, 2008, 04:52:04 PM
Hi Yada
First with that square or diamond setup its north south north south around you can have it as a diamond or square it doesn't make that much differance.
As for my Trigate motor setup all the Trigates are connected in a loop taking a few out to give you an airgap they all must be setup so they attract in and repel out.
Trigates in a V do join and keep the rotation going, oh and the reason CLaNZeRS didn't work was he had the Trigate closed with the steelballs and magnet across the top to get it to attract in you have to remove the magnet and steelballs across the top.
Take Care Yada and all
Graham
Rusty_SpringsThanks Graham.
As I understand it now, there is NOT a pattern of 3-gap-2, and what you did was layout a bunch of independent "V" gates in a circle (i.e. NO connecting balls), and then remove a couple of gates to create a gap. Is this correct?
Thanks for pointing out about the lack of connecting steel balls, since I am so used to using them I completely missed this in your drawing.
Cheers :)
Yada..
.
Quote from: klicUK on March 14, 2008, 04:15:30 PM
Quote from: Yadaraf on March 13, 2008, 04:35:45 PM
Quote from: bourne on March 13, 2008, 04:28:50 PM
Cheers for the info Yada.
I guess I will have to get myself to the local toy shop.
;D Yipee ;D
I haven't been in a toy shop for ages. I can't wait !!
:D
The magnet sets are very inexpensive, but be cautioned that you will become addicted ;D
Let us know when you replicate the "magnetic contraption".
Cheers :)
Yada..
.
When I first saw this I suspected the reason for the lengthy spin was that there was very little friction between the two bearings that support the spinner. When I built it though, I found that there are certain configurations that give quite lengthy spin times, and there is clearly a "gate" effect involved.
My control arrangement is where the upper bearing of the double tetrahedron is connected with four bar magnets each with the same pole facing upwards. The second bearing that is used to suspend the double tetrahedron is then easily attracted to this upper bearing. There were no other magnets on top of the suspension bearing. Holding the suspension bearing in my fingers, I then started the device with a slight push.
Even a small push will rotate the "spinner" for quite some time - easily as long as is shown in the video. Changing the arrangement of magnets and trying to copy the shape of the upper part of the device does yield varying results, but the length of spin time is still dependent on the initial push that I give it, and this is an arbitrary force that I apply with my hand - not very scientific.
I have noticed that small oscillations from the initial push start seem to facilitate the rotation in certain arrangements, but it is difficult to know whether or not the device runs longer than the control arrangement because the starting force is always unknown.
I'll try and rig something up to start it with a reasonably uniform force, and then record spin times.
Easy to build - just keep playing with configurations. I don't think we'll find OU though.
klicuk
klicuk,
I calculated that there are over 131,000 different ways to construct the pyramid-octaheron device shown on YouTube. While this has discouraged me slightly, your info is encouraging, so I'll have to get back to it this weekend. I think CLaNZeR has something, but I can't onto his site at this time.
Cheers :)
Yada..
.
Hi Yada
I would have it in a loop with an airgap but you could also do it like and electromagnetic motor where you have two sections and it attracts in and repels out of each section you could also have it in quarters again where it attracts in and out of each quarter it would depend on what works best.
With the V's connected you still have one steelball on each connection to hold the connections together better.
I will make a video of about 6 Trigates showing the V's together and showing the roller crossing the airgap, what I like about this is its like a electromagnetic motor in that it attracts in and repels out across an airgap, I like to set it up with Trigates above and below so I use both poles of the rotor magnet, with a single setup the pole thats not being used trys to interfear.
Take Care Yada
Graham
Hi Yada
I just uploaded the video I talked about I can't put videos on here and I don't have utube so its here http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/minatowheel/files/
you have to be a member to look at the file section.
This shows VTrigates together and how it crosses the airgap picture it joined in a loop with the small airgap and thats what my motor would be like.
Take Care Yada
Graham
Quote from: Rusty_Springs on March 14, 2008, 06:48:35 PM
Hi Yada
I would have it in a loop with an airgap but you could also do it like and electromagnetic motor where you have two sections and it attracts in and repels out of each section you could also have it in quarters again where it attracts in and out of each quarter it would depend on what works best.
With the V's connected you still have one steelball on each connection to hold the connections together better.
I will make a video of about 6 Trigates showing the V's together and showing the roller crossing the airgap, what I like about this is its like a electromagnetic motor in that it attracts in and repels out across an airgap, I like to set it up with Trigates above and below so I use both poles of the rotor magnet, with a single setup the pole thats not being used trys to interfear.
Take Care Yada
Graham
Hey Graham,
Looking forward to your video. I don't belong to Yahoo Groups and thus, can't access the vids you post there. I suspect that's true for other readers here.
If you keep the vid short, you can attach it to your posts here. Or, you could provide a link to FDP.
... e.g. FDP: http://www.fdp.nu/shared/manager.asp?d=files\Tri-Forces\
Cheers :)
Yada..
.
Hi All
One last thing I forgot to show it starting from across the airgap but it does so you have a start and finish point for the motor so unlike a closed loop the rotation will keep going and not just sit there.
Take Care All
Graham
Quote from: Rusty_Springs on March 14, 2008, 07:29:51 PM
Hi Yada
I just uploaded the video I talked about I can't put videos on here and I don't have utube so its here http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/minatowheel/files/
you have to be a member to look at the file section.
This shows VTrigates together and how it crosses the airgap picture it joined in a loop with the small airgap and thats what my motor would be like.
Take Care Yada
Graham
Hey Graham,
Q: Any chance you could post the vid to your FDP site?
Cheers :)
Yada..
.
Hi Yada
no worries I will see if Eric would like to upload the vids to his site, Eric if your reading would you like to do that, this is Erics site http://www.fdp.nu/default_cached.html
Take Care Yada
Graham
Quote from: Rusty_Springs on March 14, 2008, 07:39:41 PM
Hi Yada
no worries I will see if Eric would like to upload the vids to his site, Eric if your reading would you like to do that, this is Erics site http://www.fdp.nu/default_cached.html
Take Care Yada
Graham
Hey Graham,
Concerning the FDP site, I assumed that because there was a directory structure for you that you could upload directly. My bad.
Another option is to upload to the TriForce section on CLaNZeR's site, where there are numerous TriForce vids and replicators. The site appears to be experiencing difficulties right now, but usually it's very fast.
... CLaNZeR TriForce Replicator Discussion: http://overunity.org.uk/forum/index.php?board=13.0
There's also a thread on the YouTube "magnetic contraption" (octahedral) device.
Cheers :)
Yada ..
.
Quote from: Rusty_Springs on March 14, 2008, 07:39:41 PM
Hi Yada
no worries I will see if Eric would like to upload the vids to his site, Eric if your reading would you like to do that, this is Erics site http://www.fdp.nu/default_cached.html
Take Care Yada
Graham
Hi Graham,
Stefan here at the Forum enabled a different path for uploading videos of max 5MB size:
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?action=tpmod;dl=cat3
And in line
Movies you can see Upload on the right, click on it and a new window opens where you may fill and choose text etc and also at File to upload: Browse (zip,rar,doc,jpg,gif,png,avi,mov,mpg,mpeg,qt,swf,pdf,odt,rm,ra) you look for your video file on your computer and when selected, click on Save.
Finally, when you are done, then you can link to this attachment via your posting.
rgds and good luck, Gyula
I have posted Rusty_Springs video at Clanzer's site. I made a seperate topic for it in the tri-force gate discussions. http://overunity.org.uk/forum/index.php?topic=138.0
Doesn't seem much differant from what we have already seen and know though.
Quote from: buggyirk on March 14, 2008, 08:09:54 PM
Doesn't seem much differant from what we have already seen and know though.
Hi,
No much difference?
How about the missing sticky points?
Gyula
What sticky points (besides the ones on his rotor version)?
Have you even seen Clanzer's videos?
Thanks @buggyirk. Indeed, nothing of any importance. That trivial effect can be observed in numerous other ways.
Quote from: gyulasun on March 14, 2008, 08:14:24 PM
Quote from: buggyirk on March 14, 2008, 08:09:54 PM
Doesn't seem much differant from what we have already seen and know though.
Hi,
No much difference?
How about the missing sticky points?
Gyula
How bout the one a the Front? - this is no different than the numerous gate-arrays in many other videos, in fact this exact set-up has been used in a couple of them. Graham's drawing doesnt match the gates in the video by the way. the drawing showed double stems on the gates which pulls the back field outwards, making the entrance/exit fields "shorter". the video only shows the standard "v" gates introduced a couple weeks ago..
Quote from: buggyirk on March 14, 2008, 08:09:54 PM
I have posted Rusty_Springs video at Clanzer's site. I made a seperate topic for it in the tri-force gate discussions. http://overunity.org.uk/forum/index.php?topic=138.0
Doesn't seem much differant from what we have already seen and know though.
buggyirk,
Thanks for the Graham upload. I didn't see anything new, and in fact the video was DIFFERENT than what Graham described, which was a series of "V" gates without the bases and WITHOUT base connecting balls. I need to ask Graham wassup.
Concerning the octahedral "magnetic contraption", I finally saw the video that CLaNZeR made today, and was quite surprised. I think this is new territory, but then I haven't seen everything. I emailed the inventor to demonstrate the successful replication, and hope he replies -- for closure if nothing else.
...
CLaNZeR Octahedral replicate: http://www.overunity.org.uk/CLaNZeR-Yada.wmv
Cheers :)
Yada..
.
Hi Graham,
The "ball-less base" configuration that you described earlier is not demonstrated in your latest video.
... Ball-less Base Pic: http://www.overunity.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=4142.0;attach=20080
... Video: http://overunity.org.uk/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=138.0;attach=235
Comment?
Cheers :)
Yada..
.
@ yada - i could comment on that (hehe) having already torn through that config.. but i'll let graham tell you in his words.
as for this Magnetic Contraption... im with you guys on this. i dont have the slightest clue whats going on here yet, and it took me a while to get the mags set up right on the polygon.
the litle 'wingmagnets' are what make it unbalance - because as soon as i got them adjusted "just right" the thing went.
its still going right now, im gonna see how long it can keep it up.
here ya go
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgGYJlRx5O8 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgGYJlRx5O8)
Quote from: sm0ky2 on March 14, 2008, 11:17:08 PM
@ yada - i could comment on that (hehe) having already torn through that config.. but i'll let graham tell you in his words.
as for this Magnetic Contraption... im with you guys on this. i dont have the slightest clue whats going on here yet, and it took me a while to get the mags set up right on the polygon.
the litle 'wingmagnets' are what make it unbalance - because as soon as i got them adjusted "just right" the thing went.
its still going right now, im gonna see how long it can keep it up.
here ya go
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgGYJlRx5O8 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgGYJlRx5O8)
sm0ky2 ,
Outstanding! :D There are now three of these devices spinning.
I'm working on mine, but my neos are so small (0.5") that the bloody octahedral collapses every time I piece it together. It's a very unstable configuration.
I've tried so many times that I've worn the paint off the magnets, and it's all over my hands (and sticky). I need to use automobile pin-striping tape, and so I'm off to buy some.
Q1: How have you configured the magnets in the bottom half of the octahedraon?
Q2: What is that dangling from your two stator magnets?
Cheers :)
Yada..
.
@smOky2,
Can you tell us more about this? The video you've posted is so dark one can hardly see anything there. I'm using the 'supermag' sticks and balls and side wings are also made of these pieces but I'm not getting anything. worth showing.
Does your thingy self-start or you had to apply an initial push?
@ Yada -
I used a couple pieces of metal i had laying around. i dont think it matters what you use, though im sure theres a shape or two that might work better. basically it dampens the field comming off the wing magnets,
Clanzer used the steel balls on his.
the first video had two black rectangle pieces.
mine are kind of square-triangle shaped, they were corner pieces from something dismantled.
My magnets the "square" goes around N->S->N->S->N->S
the pyramids are all N on top, and all S on bottom.
standard Tri-Force above (double-N-pole facing down)
sorry about the lighting, the only thing i had to stick that to was the garage door, and the light sucks over there....
i couldnt get it to balance on a stick like the others...
it kept wanting to tip sideways
@Omni -
Start with a square. Then build a pyramid on top and bottom
/\
/ | \
/ | \
/ | \
| __|__ | he he. 8)
\ | /
\ | /
\ | /
\/
Hi All
The video and the drawing are the same except the video has steelballs on top to keep the V's together I didn't put them in the drawing, you can put cluetac there if you like or anything else just to stop them clamping together I happen to use steelballs.
Take Care All
Quote from: sm0ky2 on March 14, 2008, 11:50:18 PM
@Omni -
Start with a square. Then build a pyramid on top and bottom
OK, that's what I did. Does it matter what the polarities of the sticks are or just any square and two pyramids will do? I'm using single sticks both for the double pyramid and for the triangle as well as for the wings.
Can you show a sketch of the structure with the polarities?
Hi All
That polygon setup as I said I did ages ago and I posted in the minato wheel group I don't know who did it first but I havn't seen it before I posted it, in one setup I had a magnet at the bottom as the stator because I was thinking the flux between the top and bottom magnet was causing an inbalance between the rotor magnets causing the rotation, with my setup I had the rotor magnets set at north south north south.
Take Care All
Graham
Quote from: Omnibus on March 15, 2008, 12:04:45 AM
Quote from: sm0ky2 on March 14, 2008, 11:50:18 PM
@Omni -
Start with a square. Then build a pyramid on top and bottom
OK, that's what I did. Does it matter what the polarities of the sticks are or just any square and two pyramids will do? I'm using single sticks both for the double pyramid and for the triangle as well as for the wings.
Can you show a sketch of the structure with the polarities?
considering there was absolutely no description in the original, and i did not see anything as of yet from Clanzer about his particular set-up,i have no idea what the "right" polarity configuration is, or should be...
mine i just sat there trying different stuff. i've edited my last post before this, to describe my particular set-up.
the 'wings' you just adjust them until it moves, 1 is a tad further out than the other on mine, im not sure what that means if anything,
Hi all,
@sm0ky2,
Hi, did you try this with a control setup to get a bench mark reading?
klicuk
soooooo, is this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nMvdR7PB5iE&NR=1 for real ?, or is it another thing where something is blowing on it from a distance ?.
Update:
i just went out into the garage and found it to have stopped spinning.
i move the 'wing magnets' ever so slightly, and off she goes.. it'll probably stop again in a little bit.
at this point im gonna have to assume the slight imbalance sets it off, and it finds its resting point after spinning for a while..
i didnt time it, i watched it for a min or two then left it be.
Quote from: sm0ky2 on March 15, 2008, 12:23:59 AM
Update:
i just went out into the garage and found it to have stopped spinning.
i move the 'wing magnets' ever so slightly, and off she goes.. it'll probably stop again in a little bit.
at this point im gonna have to assume the slight imbalance sets it off, and it finds its resting point after spinning for a while..
i didnt time it, i watched it for a min or two then left it be.
are you giving it a nudge to start it? I haven't found an arrangement that self starts yet.
Quote from: klicUK on March 15, 2008, 12:25:55 AM
Quote from: sm0ky2 on March 15, 2008, 12:23:59 AM
Update:
i just went out into the garage and found it to have stopped spinning.
i move the 'wing magnets' ever so slightly, and off she goes.. it'll probably stop again in a little bit.
at this point im gonna have to assume the slight imbalance sets it off, and it finds its resting point after spinning for a while..
i didnt time it, i watched it for a min or two then left it be.
are you giving it a nudge to start it? I haven't found an arrangement that self starts yet.
to "start it" all im doing is making slight adjustments to the wing-magnets, until it finds an imbalanced position and takes off spinning. theres no "power" to speak of, you could probably blow hard enough to stop this thing
Quote from: sm0ky2 on March 15, 2008, 12:23:59 AM
Update:
i just went out into the garage and found it to have stopped spinning.
i move the 'wing magnets' ever so slightly, and off she goes.. it'll probably stop again in a little bit.
at this point im gonna have to assume the slight imbalance sets it off, and it finds its resting point after spinning for a while..
i didnt time it, i watched it for a min or two then left it be.
Can't you stay for a while with it while spinning and even make a video? Does it spin for, say, 10min or so?
Don't take is apart and try to give as many details as possible so that we can reproduce it. I saw the addition in your previous post but what are the polarities of the triangle? These wings are also interesting.
Can't you make another one with wings from the sticks as @CLaNZeR did and see if it would work?
Quote from: Omnibus on March 15, 2008, 12:28:36 AM
Quote from: sm0ky2 on March 15, 2008, 12:23:59 AM
Update:
i just went out into the garage and found it to have stopped spinning.
i move the 'wing magnets' ever so slightly, and off she goes.. it'll probably stop again in a little bit.
at this point im gonna have to assume the slight imbalance sets it off, and it finds its resting point after spinning for a while..
i didnt time it, i watched it for a min or two then left it be.
Can't you stay for a while with it while spinning and even make a video? Does it spin for, say, 10min or so?
Don't take is apart and try to give as many details as possible so that we can reproduce it. I saw the addition in your previous post but what are the polarities of the triangle? These wings are also interesting.
Can't you make another one with wings from the sticks as @CLaNZeR did and see if it would work?
i'll put those things on my list.. right now im gonna make a whole schlough of these that interact with each other, and see how much fun we can actually have here
@klicUK,
If I spin it by hand it turns for a while but the deceleration is obvious.
Hi All
As I said before you can find a video and describtion of how this works in the Minato wheel group that I posted a while back and sm0ky's right the inbalance makes it work I used my hand to hold the stator and I could keep it going for ever with the shakiness of my hand also as I said it when I discovered it I new it didn't have enough force to do anywork but it showed me you can make magnets spin using permanent magnet, oh one more thing was when I placed the stator magnet under it to get it spinning and removes that magnet it increased speed for a while and keep spinning with nothing there for a time.
Take Care All
Graham
Quote from: Omnibus on March 14, 2008, 11:39:40 PM
@smOky2,
Can you tell us more about this? The video you've posted is so dark one can hardly see anything there. I'm using the 'supermag' sticks and balls and side wings are also made of these pieces but I'm not getting anything. worth showing.
Does your thingy self-start or you had to apply an initial push?
@OmnibusThe octahedral spinner started with a YouTube video made by a novice who discovered an interesting "magnetic contraption."
...
YouTube contraption: http://fr.youtube.com/watch?v=GkzAAPRaJzU
It was first noticed by Bourne:
...
Bourne: http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,4142.msg82418.html#msg82418
In addition to sm0ky2, CLaNZer has replicated the octahedral spinner
...
CLaNZeR replication: http://www.overunity.org.uk/CLaNZeR-Yada.wmv
Cheers :)
Yada..
.
Quote from: Omnibus on March 15, 2008, 12:34:27 AM
@klicUK,
If I spin it by hand it turns for a while but the deceleration is obvious.
@Omnibus,
I'm not sure if you've seen my first post on this, but I'm trying to compare spin times with a control device. It's difficult to gauge whether certain arrangements give longer run times because the starting force is unknown. It's not possible to guess this based on the turn speed, because certain arrangements interact with the top assembly and require (it feels) a greater force to attain the same speed.
Quote from: Rusty_Springs on March 15, 2008, 12:42:28 AM
Hi All
As I said before you can find a video and describtion of how this works in the Minato wheel group that I posted a while back and sm0ky's right the inbalance makes it work I used my hand to hold the stator and I could keep it going for ever with the shakiness of my hand also as I said it when I discovered it I new it didn't have enough force to do anywork but it showed me you can make magnets spin using permanent magnet, oh one more thing was when I placed the stator magnet under it to get it spinning and removes that magnet it increased speed for a while and keep spinning with nothing there for a time.
Take Care All
Graham
That's nothing. This shouldn't be considered at all. There are innumerable experiments showing such effect due to the shaking of your hand holding the stator. That's trivial.
Quote from: klicUK on March 15, 2008, 12:50:50 AM
Quote from: Omnibus on March 15, 2008, 12:34:27 AM
@klicUK,
If I spin it by hand it turns for a while but the deceleration is obvious.
@Omnibus,
I'm not sure if you've seen my first post on this, but I'm trying to compare spin times with a control device. It's difficult to gauge whether certain arrangements give longer run times because the starting force is unknown. It's not possible to guess this based on the turn speed, because certain arrangements interact with the top assembly and require (it feels) a greater force to attain the same speed.
Yeah, I agree. What we need to see is a self-starting device otherwise all kinds of questions will be pouring in even if the initially input energy is measured precisely and it shows longer spin than expected. The only device so far whereby the input energy can be compared with the output in an unquestionable way is SMOT where the violation of CoE was discovered. For a motor to prove CoE it must be a self-starter and exhibit acceleration (at least).
Hi All
The Trigate motor was a break through to me because I aways thought if you can get permanent magnets to work like an electromagnetic motor you would have a PMM, that is attract in move along and repel out to attract in again and this happens with the Trigate motor, I know a magnet moves from repel to attract and I know if you angle magnets right you can get them to go from attract to repel so first I came up with the Corner gate then the Trigate both systems attract in and repel out the difference with the Trigate is you can join them to make a loop then take a few out to give you something that a magnet will follow around then repel out to be attracted in again, comming into or moving out of a system was always the problem, you always had the attract back leaving or the repel away comming in the Trigate fixes that now theres no attract back leaving or repel away comming in so you can open a loop and not have the closed loop effect that all PMM systems have and you don't need shields to do this, the only question for me now is will this system keep spinning with out have to add energy.
Take Care All
Graham
Quote from: sm0ky2 on March 14, 2008, 11:50:18 PM
@ Yada -
I used a couple pieces of metal i had laying around. i dont think it matters what you use, though im sure theres a shape or two that might work better. basically it dampens the field comming off the wing magnets,
Clanzer used the steel balls on his.
the first video had two black rectangle pieces.
mine are kind of square-triangle shaped, they were corner pieces from something dismantled.
My magnets the "square" goes around N->S->N->S->N->S
the pyramids are all N on top, and all S on bottom.
standard Tri-Force above (double-N-pole facing down)
sorry about the lighting, the only thing i had to stick that to was the garage door, and the light sucks over there....
i couldnt get it to balance on a stick like the others...
it kept wanting to tip sideways
sm0ky2,Thanks for the description. There are over 131,000 combinations to play with, but at least we're off to a start.
Note that your configuration appears to be
quite different from CLaNZeR's and the one I'm playing with. I'll create a drawing, but in the meantime look very closely at the arrangement of equatorial magnets in CLaNZeR's design. Then, look closely at the bottom half of the octahedral.
Cheers :)
Yada..
.
Quote from: Rusty_Springs on March 15, 2008, 12:59:33 AM
Hi All
The Trigate motor was a break through to me because I aways thought if you can get permanent magnets to work like an electromagnetic motor you would have a PMM, that is attract in move along and repel out to attract in again and this happens with the Trigate motor, I know a magnet moves from repel to attract and I know if you angle magnets right you can get them to go from attract to repel so first I came up with the Corner gate then the Trigate both systems attract in and repel out the difference with the Trigate is you can join them to make a loop then take a few out to give you something that a magnet will follow around then repel out to be attracted in again, comming into or moving out of a system was always the problem, you always had the attract back leaving or the repel away comming in the Trigate fixes that now theres no attract back leaving or repel away comming in so you can open a loop and not have the closed loop effect that all PMM systems have and you don't need shields to do this, the only question for me now is will this system keep spinning with out have to add energy.
Take Care All
Graham
No, such a thing doesn't happen. There is no "tri-gate" motor. If you disagree show it.
Hi Omnibus
Yes I know its nothing I came up with it as I have said it doesn't spin well enough to do work and like everyone has seen it stops after a while but what it does show is you can make magnets spin using permanent magnets, the only reason I showed it in the Minato Wheel Group was to give people hope that something can be done btw I will be shocked if that you tube video came out before my first posting of this at the minato wheel group.
One thing Omnibus why do you put everything down with out even testing it I have not seen one creative idea come from you only bagging,
can you try and be a bit positive in the future its ok to tell someone there idea wont work and show them why but you don't have to downgrade them or bag them in doing so.
Take Care Omnibus
Graham
Quote from: Rusty_Springs on March 15, 2008, 01:09:07 AM
Hi Omnibus
Yes I know its nothing I came up with it as I have said it doesn't spin well enough to do work and like everyone has seen it stops after a while but what it does show is you can make magnets spin using permanent magnets, the only reason I showed it in the Minato Wheel Group was to give people hope that something can be done btw I will be shocked if that you tube video came out before my first posting of this at the minato wheel group.
One thing Omnibus why do you put everything down with out even testing it I have not seen one creative idea come from you only bagging,
can you try and be a bit positive in the future its ok to tell someone there idea wont work and show them why but you don't have to downgrade them or bag them in doing so.
Take Care Omnibus
Graham
You're wrong. Not only it doesn't spin well enough but it doesn't spin at all. For a magnetic motor to be pronounced as working it must make full turns on its own while self-starting. It should be perfectly clear that nothing like this has happened with what you think is your contraption and you need not push the issue further before you really make a working pmm. Even 9.999% closeness to the desired pmm is equal to nothing more than 0% success.
Quote from: Rusty_Springs on March 15, 2008, 01:09:07 AM
Hi Omnibus
Yes I know its nothing I came up with it as I have said it doesn't spin well enough to do work and like everyone has seen it stops after a while but what it does show is you can make magnets spin using permanent magnets, the only reason I showed it in the Minato Wheel Group was to give people hope that something can be done btw I will be shocked if that you tube video came out before my first posting of this at the minato wheel group.
One thing Omnibus why do you put everything down with out even testing it I have not seen one creative idea come from you only bagging,
can you try and be a bit positive in the future its ok to tell someone there idea wont work and show them why but you don't have to downgrade them or bag them in doing so.
Take Care Omnibus
Graham
Rusty_Springs,
Hang in there Graham. Focus on your experiments, which are very worthwhile. Don't let yourself get distracted by the noise.
Cheers :)
Yada..
.
Hi Yada
yes your 100% right.
Thanks mate and take care Yada
Graham
Correct. Let him continue with the experiments and restrain from pushing non-issues here. We've seen enough maniacs already, pretending to have working pmm's.
Quote from: Rusty_Springs on March 15, 2008, 01:30:03 AM
Hi Yada
yes your 100% right.
Thanks mate and take care Yada
Graham
Hi Graham,You're welcome, mate. Stay positive.
By the way, you never posted a link to your video of a "V" gate loop device that uses "ball-less" bases and has a single gap.
Q: Are you still working on it?
Cheers :)
Yada..
.
Hi Omnibus
Get one thing straight I never said I had a working PMM nor will I until I do but I do know I'm alot closer to it then you or your SMOT will ever be grow up and try and be a little creative which I know you will find hard.
Take Care Omnibus
Graham
Quote from: Rusty_Springs on March 15, 2008, 01:41:59 AM
Hi Omnibus
Get one thing straight I never said I had a working PMM nor will I until I do but I do know I'm alot closer to it then you or your SMOT will ever be grow up and try and be a little creative which I know you will find hard.
Take Care Omnibus
Graham
No, you're wrong again. You are as far from the working pmm as anyone who has tried to make one. Have no illusions about that. Before you produce a working one and ensure that independent parties reproduce it you have accomplished absolutely nothing. All you're showing here are well known trivialities which one should restrain from posting because they clutter the already heavily cluttered thread, let alone claim to have accomplished something. If you don't have the restraint and continue with this someone should put a stop to it..Some people value their time and would really want to see progress in this field rather than be overwhelmed with non-issues and pressing unsubstantiated personal agenda.
As for the SMOT, SMOT is a done deal, it proves violation of CoE beyond a shadow of a doubt but this is beside the point here.
Quote from: Omnibus on March 15, 2008, 01:48:21 AM
Quote from: Rusty_Springs on March 15, 2008, 01:41:59 AM
Hi Omnibus
Get one thing straight I never said I had a working PMM nor will I until I do but I do know I'm alot closer to it then you or your SMOT will ever be grow up and try and be a little creative which I know you will find hard.
Take Care Omnibus
Graham
No, you're wrong again. You are as far from the working pmm as anyone who has tried to make one. Have no illusions about that. Before you produce a working one and ensure that independent parties reproduce it you have accomplished absolutely nothing. All you're showing here are well known trivialities which one should restrain from posting because they clutter the already heavily cluttered thread, let alone claim to have accomplished something. If you don't have the restraint and continue with this someone should put a stop to it..
As for the SMOT, SMOT is a done deal, it proves violation of CoE beyond a shadow of a doubt but this is beside the point here.
Your smot is useless, a MOTOR is not.. lol. Proving violation of CoE is only a first step. A very small one considering this website is called overunity.com....... lol
Hi Omnibus
First post this so call proof of the SMOT then show me where the SMOT was your idea because I don't beleave it was I know you don't have a creative bone in your body and are the type of person that needs to jump on the cot tails of real inventers.
One question how much do you get payed to babble on about his invention called the SMOT?
Take Care Omnibus
Graham
oops I left the a out of coat me bad oh and my ideas are shit so I would like everyone to stop experimenting with any idea I posted, tell me how I can stop them wasting there time Omnibus do I have some kind of copy right on them or something
Take Care All
Graham
Quote from: Rusty_Springs on March 15, 2008, 02:01:32 AM
Hi Omnibus
First post this so call proof of the SMOT then show me where the SMOT was your idea because I don't beleave it was I know you don't have a creative bone in your body and are the type of person that needs to jump on the cot tails of real inventers.
One question how much do you get payed to babble on about his invention called the SMOT?
Take Care Omnibus
Graham
@ Graham
i offered to give an independent peer review of his SMOT theory, but unfortunately Omnibus was unable to produce the so-called "work" he claims to have done in this area. My personal experience with various SMOT designs was quite the contrary of CoE. i would love to see one that actually did what he claims it does.
@ CLANZER --- I hope you can Read this through the Garbage...
I found a way around the problem with working with 2 circumferances (rotary Tri-Force)
connect 2 gates onto the same Back-Bar so it makes like a double-triangle. Then fold them out at right angles
( L-shaped) and place them either on the inner circumferance, or the outer.
This gives us the power of both sides of the gate on ONE side of the circle. and i think will help eliminate some of the "geometrical issues".
SMOT is not the issue here. The issue here is that there's no such thing as "tri-force" motor and anyone claiming such a thing should be promptly cut short. This isn't a sanatorium for a friendly bliss This is a very serious matter which should be handled with responsibility, not by fantasies of maniacs.
At this point the so-called "tri-force" is another miserable failure as a way to produce pmm. This is seen clearly in CLaNZeR's and @klicUK's experiments. All we see there are the expected trivial impossibility to create an all magnet pmm.
Next idea which seems interesting is the octagonal one but so far it isn't clear whether or not anyone has made a self-starter with it. If so, it would be remarkable. I'm not holding to my hat, though, until a a reproducible structure can be built.
Thus, it's too early for any celebration. The truth is that regarding pmm we are at the same position we were a year or two ago. Not one inch of progress. Sad but true.
Quote from: Omnibus on March 15, 2008, 02:29:09 AM
SMOT is not the issue here. The issue here is that there's no such thing as "tri-force" motor and anyone claiming such a thing should be promptly cut short. This isn't a sanatorium for a friendly bliss This is a very serious matter which should be handled with responsibility, not by fantasies of maniacs.
This is one of the official definitions of maniac; I find it a rude word to use:
"a person who has an obsession with or excessive enthusiasm for something"
LMAO!
Quote from: Yadaraf on March 15, 2008, 01:00:00 AM
Quote from: sm0ky2 on March 14, 2008, 11:50:18 PM
@ Yada -
I used a couple pieces of metal i had laying around. i dont think it matters what you use, though im sure theres a shape or two that might work better. basically it dampens the field comming off the wing magnets,
Clanzer used the steel balls on his.
the first video had two black rectangle pieces.
mine are kind of square-triangle shaped, they were corner pieces from something dismantled.
My magnets the "square" goes around N->S->N->S->N->S
the pyramids are all N on top, and all S on bottom.
standard Tri-Force above (double-N-pole facing down)
sorry about the lighting, the only thing i had to stick that to was the garage door, and the light sucks over there....
i couldnt get it to balance on a stick like the others...
it kept wanting to tip sideways
sm0ky2,
Thanks for the description. There are over 131,000 combinations to play with, but at least we're off to a start.
Note that your configuration appears to be quite different from CLaNZeR's and the one I'm playing with. I'll create a drawing, but in the meantime look very closely at the arrangement of equatorial magnets in CLaNZeR's design. Then, look closely at the bottom half of the octahedral.
Cheers :)
Yada..
.
The differences i see here, between the polarities are:
a) my equatorial magnets are not reversed "MPMM-sytle"
and
b) the bottom of mine are S instead of N
ive tried both configurations and theres only one major operational difference - caused by the equatorial magnets - theres a rythem like "tic-tic-tic" pushing it along, whereas in the non-MPMM-style its a smoother motion.
i cant find an arrangement that allows more than one of these to work together, so aside from the peculiar amazement of dangling octahedrons, theres nothing really spectacular here. just another interesting magnetic oddity.
If i could get them to cooperate in spinning each other, the implications would be astounding. but so far i've come up with nothing.
@smOky2,
Wait a sec now. Explain what you?ve really done. Why do you say that:
Quotethe peculiar amazement of dangling octahedrons, theres nothing really spectacular here. just another interesting magnetic oddity.
Should one understand from the above that you?ve given it initial push before watching it spin for a while? If that?s the case there?s nothing in it indeed. I wonder if that?s the case in the original video as well?
I need to comment on that too:
QuoteI offered to give an independent peer review of his SMOT theory, but unfortunately Omnibus was unable to produce the so-called "work" he claims to have done in this area. My personal experience with various SMOT designs was quite the contrary of CoE. i would love to see one that actually did what he claims it does.
You cannot be an independent peer-reviewer because, as was determined, you have some basic confusion regarding force and energy which you couldn't avoid despite the various ways and finagling you applied in trying to escape when you were nailed down. Besides, this isn't a medium for a peer-review because the credentials and affiliations of the potential peer-reviewers aren't known, although there are indirect indications regarding the expertise, as in the above case.
Quote from: Omnibus on March 15, 2008, 02:49:29 AM
I need to comment on that too:
QuoteI offered to give an independent peer review of his SMOT theory, but unfortunately Omnibus was unable to produce the so-called "work" he claims to have done in this area. My personal experience with various SMOT designs was quite the contrary of CoE. i would love to see one that actually did what he claims it does.
You cannot be an independent peer-reviewer because, as was determined, you have some basic confusion regarding force and energy which you couldn't avoid despite the various ways and finagling you applied in trying to escape when you were nailed down. Besides, this isn't a medium for a peer-review because the credentials and affiliations of the potential peer-reviewers aren't known, although there are indirect indications regarding the expertise, as in the above case.
Are you implying that you are superior to sm0ky2?
Quote from: sm0ky2 on March 15, 2008, 02:32:59 AM
Quote from: Yadaraf on March 15, 2008, 01:00:00 AM
sm0ky2,
Thanks for the description. There are over 131,000 combinations to play with, but at least we're off to a start.
Note that your configuration appears to be quite different from CLaNZeR's and the one I'm playing with. I'll create a drawing, but in the meantime look very closely at the arrangement of equatorial magnets in CLaNZeR's design. Then, look closely at the bottom half of the octahedral.
Cheers :)
Yada..
.
The differences i see here, between the polarities are:
a) my equatorial magnets are not reversed "MPMM-sytle"
and
b) the bottom of mine are S instead of N
ive tried both configurations and theres only one major operational difference - caused by the equatorial magnets - theres a rythem like "tic-tic-tic" pushing it along, whereas in the non-MPMM-style its a smoother motion.
i cant find an arrangement that allows more than one of these to work together, so aside from the peculiar amazement of dangling octahedrons, theres nothing really spectacular here. just another interesting magnetic oddity.
If i could get them to cooperate in spinning each other, the implications would be astounding. but so far i've come up with nothing.
sm0ky2,
Below is a crude pic of how I interpret CLaNZeR's octahedral spinner. All sections are viewed from the top down. He seems to have oriented the N-S along the diagonal of the middle square, although it's hard to tell from his video.
I've tried building my octahedral rotor like his, but mine keeps collapsing into the center as soon as I attach it to the TriForce stator. I'm working with tiny neos and they really like each other.
Cheers :)
Yada..
.
Quote from: Omnibus on March 15, 2008, 02:44:24 AM
@smOky2,
Wait a sec now. Explain what you?ve really done. Why do you say that:
Quotethe peculiar amazement of dangling octahedrons, theres nothing really spectacular here. just another interesting magnetic oddity.
Should one understand from the above that you?ve given it initial push before watching it spin for a while? If that?s the case there?s nothing in it indeed. I wonder if that?s the case in the original video as well?
in answer to your question the initial "push" was: imbalancing the magnet fields, via a slight adjustment of the wings
this creates a chaotic-moment, starting the polygon into motion, which fades over time to a stop.
i dont feel anything pushing-back against the wings when i do this. and its so low-friction that ANY ammount of energy put into the system will "fly-wheel" for a long time.
it appears impressive because the object is imparted with a considerable spin. But theres nothing to keep it from spinning (friction, back-EMF, ect), so this is actualy not impressive at all. set a penny at 9-o'clock on a bicycle wheel you get the same thing.
Hope @CLaNZeR will come about and explain what he did. First and foremost, was his self-starting or he set it in motion by hand?
@smOky2,
Do you think that's what the original video was showing too? If that's the case we shouldn't be wasting time with it.
Just for the record, if that's not a big deal for you, it would be interesting to see a video of this chaotic moment started by the wings.
Quote from: sm0ky2 on March 15, 2008, 03:15:00 AM
Quote from: Omnibus on March 15, 2008, 02:44:24 AM
@smOky2,
Wait a sec now. Explain what you?ve really done. Why do you say that:
Quotethe peculiar amazement of dangling octahedrons, theres nothing really spectacular here. just another interesting magnetic oddity.
Should one understand from the above that you?ve given it initial push before watching it spin for a while? If that?s the case there?s nothing in it indeed. I wonder if that?s the case in the original video as well?
in answer to your question the initial "push" was: imbalancing the magnet fields, via a slight adjustment of the wings
this creates a chaotic-moment, starting the polygon into motion, which fades over time to a stop.
i dont feel anything pushing-back against the wings when i do this. and its so low-friction that ANY ammount of energy put into the system will "fly-wheel" for a long time.
it appears impressive because the object is imparted with a considerable spin. But theres nothing to keep it from spinning (friction, back-EMF, ect), so this is actualy not impressive at all. set a penny at 9-o'clock on a bicycle wheel you get the same thing.
sm0ky2,
As you know, there many many many possible configurations. I wouldn't give up so soon. Tomorrow I hope CLaNZeR tells us more of his experience, since his configuration is different.
Because the octahedral rotor and triangular stator are
physically connected to each other via a steel ball, it's entirely possible that there is some
flux oscillating between the two as the device rotates -- somewhat like in the Perepetia device. It's hard to picture how this thing works, and positive feedback between the stator and rotor might be worth investigating.
Cheers :)
Yada..
.
I was looking again at @CLaNZeR's video. The device seems to slow down. Was it spun initially by hand or the spinning started by simply adjusting the wings as in @smOky2's case? The wind down seems peculiar, though, much longer than expected. Mine comes to a stop earlier and differently when set in motion by hand but that may be just because the conditions of my experiment are different.
Quote from: Omnibus on March 15, 2008, 03:46:05 AM
I was looking again at @CLaNZeR's video. The device seems to slow down. Was it spun initially by hand or the spinning started by simply adjusting the wings as in @smOky2's case? The wind down seems peculiar, though, much longer than expected. Mine comes to a stop earlier and differently when set in motion by hand but that may be just because the conditions of my experiment are different.
Omni,
As I recall you were going to buy the SuperMagnetMan Erector Kit. If you are using that kit, then I don't believe you've replicated CLaNZeR's device, since the small 0.5" neos do not create a stable rotating octahedron without glue of some kind. The neos are so strong and so close to each other that the
octahedron caves in when attached to the stator. However, it might be possible to replicate sm0ky2's device using the 0.5" neos.
Cheers :)
Yada..
.
I think this is a nice Magnetic Bearing with reduced friction.
So would be good for experiementing with as a rotor.
Here is second video.
Shows a big difference between coupling the joining ball bearing N-N or N-S
Hi Res download link:
http://www.overunity.org.uk/CLaNZeRSFairFieldReplication2.wmv
Or Youtube
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vwvrl9aesz8
Off to check out Grahams new video.
Cheers
Sean.
@Yadaraf,
That's correct, I'm working with that SuperMagnetMan Erector Kit. The symmetric octahedron can be built just fine with it. Unfortunately, as we also see in @CLaNZeR's video it decelerates (in some configurations faster than in others) just as anything else trivial does.
A man after my own heart with the RAPID Catalogue in the background!
Quote from: CLaNZeR on March 15, 2008, 07:53:32 AM
I think this is a nice Magnetic Bearing with reduced friction.
So would be good for experiementing with as a rotor.
Here is second video.
Shows a big difference between coupling the joining ball bearing N-N or N-S
Hi Res download link:
http://www.overunity.org.uk/CLaNZeRSFairFieldReplication2.wmv
Or Youtube
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vwvrl9aesz8
Off to check out Grahams new video.
Cheers
Sean.
Edited....
Quote from: Omnibus on March 15, 2008, 11:21:00 AM
@Yadaraf,
That's correct, I'm working with that SuperMagnetMan Erector Kit. The symmetric octahedron can be built just fine with it. Unfortunately, as we also see in @CLaNZeR's video it decelerates (in some configurations faster than in others) just as anything else trivial does.
Omni,I agree that the octahedral rotor can be built separately using the small neos, but while the rotor is suspend from the triangular stator and the rotor/stator gap is being established, the rotor collapses. My guess is that
you're not setting the gap close enough, which is necessary to "pulse" the rotor as observed by both sm0ky2 and the original author, who called the pulsing
"light jolts, not some muscular pushes."...
"light jolts": http://fr.youtube.com/watch?v=GkzAAPRaJzU
If you have a video of your SuperMagnetMan device "pulsing" like in the original YouTube vid, I'd love to see it. My rotor keeps collapsing during the gap setup, which is very tricky
Cheers :)
Yada..
.
Quote from: CTG Labs on March 15, 2008, 11:24:07 AM
A man after my own heart with the RAPID Catalogue in the background!
Quote from: CLaNZeR on March 15, 2008, 07:53:32 AM
I think this is a nice Magnetic Bearing with reduced friction.
So would be good for experiementing with as a rotor.
Here is second video.
Shows a big difference between coupling the joining ball bearing N-N or N-S
Hi Res download link:
http://www.overunity.org.uk/CLaNZeRSFairFieldReplication2.wmv
Or Youtube
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vwvrl9aesz8
Off to check out Grahams new video.
Cheers
Sean.
CTG Labs,
CLaNZeR forgot the stator arms and is redoing the exercise.
Look closely at the original YouTube and notice that the device pulses, which the author refers to as "light jolts." Also, the pulsing can be seen in CLaNZeR's first video, which included the stator arms.
Cheers :)
Yada..
.
@Yadaraf,
I don't know what rotor/stator gap you're referring to. My rotor is attached to the triangular stator easily and doesn't collapse. Making a video isn't worth it because there's nothing unusual to see.
As for the jolts, what's the point since in all videos the rotor is decelerating after the initial push?
Quote from: Omnibus on March 15, 2008, 01:46:17 PM
@Yadaraf,
I don't know what rotor/stator gap you're referring to. My rotor is attached to the triangular stator easily and doesn't collapse. Making a video isn't worth it because there's nothing unusual to see.
As for the jolts, what's the point since in all videos the rotor is decelerating after the initial push?
@OmniLook closely at the stator in sm0ky2's video, or in the original YouTube Fairfield video, or in CLaNZeR's first and fifth videos.
There are two extension arms that include bars or balls at the ends. In order to achieve "pulsing" you have to move the stator elements closer to the rotor (i.e. "set the gap"). With the Erector Kit neos you will find that your octahedral rotor collapses during the process. It's not just my experience -- another investigator working with the same Erector Kit has had the same problem. The small steel balls are saturated by the large cluster of strong neos. In any event, with regular Geomag or Magnetix setting the gap is tricky, as both sm0ky2 and the Fairfield author have described.
For this particular device I'm going to buy a small Magnetix or Geomags kit to see if I can make a "pulser" as demonstrated in the original Fairfield YouTube. Seriously ... when the neo rotor caves in, it's very disheartening. My thumbnails are now hurting from "ungluing" the residual piles of neos and balls. :(
IMHO, because the device "pulses" it appears to be more than a simple bearing. My guess is that the stator rocks back and forth slighty as the rotor spins, and this sustains rotation -- akin to a latch. In addition, it's possible that some flux is circulating between the spinning rotor and oscillating stator, which are physically coupled together via a steel ball. This could contribute postive feedback to the system. I haven't studied many systems where the rotor and stator are physically coupled -- I am familiar with the Perepetia, however.
Cheers :)
Yada..
.
Okay I admit after playing for a couple of hours I thought there was nothing in this part from a very nice magnetic bearing.
Must now I am convinced the Top magnet is interacting and doing a bit of work.
Usually adding magnets to a stator make the Wind Down times shorter.
Could this be a bit of SV interaction going on?
http://www.overunity.org.uk/CLaNZeRSFairFieldReplication7.wmv
If you want to see earlier videos then they are listed below, or can be seen on my YouTube account.
http://www.overunity.org.uk/CLaNZeRSFairFieldReplication3.wmv
http://www.overunity.org.uk/CLaNZeRSFairFieldReplication4.wmv
http://www.overunity.org.uk/CLaNZeRSFairFieldReplication5.wmv
http://www.overunity.org.uk/CLaNZeRSFairFieldReplication6.wmv
Cheers
Sean.
Quote from: CTG Labs on March 15, 2008, 11:24:07 AM
A man after my own heart with the RAPID Catalogue in the background!
ROFL , atleast it came in handy for something ;D ;D
Quote from: CLaNZeR on March 15, 2008, 02:51:47 PM
Okay I admit after playing for a couple of hours I thought there was nothing in this part from a very nice magnetic bearing.
Must now I am convinced the Top magnet is interacting and doing a bit of work.
Usually adding magnets to a stator make the Wind Down times shorter.
Could this be a bit of SV interaction going on?
http://www.overunity.org.uk/CLaNZeRSFairFieldReplication7.wmv
If you want to see earlier videos then they are listed below, or can be seen on my YouTube account.
http://www.overunity.org.uk/CLaNZeRSFairFieldReplication3.wmv
http://www.overunity.org.uk/CLaNZeRSFairFieldReplication4.wmv
http://www.overunity.org.uk/CLaNZeRSFairFieldReplication5.wmv
http://www.overunity.org.uk/CLaNZeRSFairFieldReplication6.wmv
Cheers
Sean.
CLaNZeR,I think one thing that is affecting wind down time is the flux in the rotor-stator connecting ball.
In some of your configurations there is a strong N-N<->S-S-S-S setup, but in others you have a weaker N-S<->S-S-S-S setup. The friction on the ball is different in each case.
Cheers :)
Yada..
.
Quote from: Yadaraf on March 15, 2008, 02:32:40 PM
For this particular device I'm going to buy a small Magnetix or Geomags kit to see if I can make a "pulser" as demonstrated in the original Fairfield YouTube.
Hi Yada and everyone
I bought the small 50 piece Magnetix kit on friday and, as of yet been unable to make this work. I would say the kit I bought is of very poor quality. I have noticed a large discrepancy of magnet strength in the little rods as well as MOST of the magnets nickel coatings are starting to flake and come away. ?10 well spent >:( (made in china!)
So my suggestion would be, stay away from the cheap-o Magnetix kits and go for something better quality.
What is everyone else using?
Your right, bloody addictive though :)
One other question, how are the stator arms orientated off the upper triangle? I have tried all sorts of combinations with no luck.
One thing that surprised me is; I have N-N pointing down from the upper triangle and N-N-N-N pointing up from the rotor. When I bring them near each other they repel (No surprise) but when I touch them together they stick !?!? With very little friction as shown in CLaNZeR's video
How does that work?
Hi all;
In Clanzers inclined ramp video we see an axle with weight W being pulled up an incline by
an interaction with a magnetic field. I hate to say this folks, but; a) that represents work
being done by a magnet, b) the axle remains under control of a local magnetic field as it
is transfered between two gates. The Tri-Force field lattice does the smoothing. An arbitrary
number of gates can apparently raise the axle to any higher level. The ramp-incline then
partions the work done by the magnetic field into two parts the momentum force of the axle
moving forward+rotating (arbitrated by metal sphere friction on the drive surface) + the gravitational
potential energy of the weight W increasing by increasing height of the axle by of about .8cm per
every Tri-force gate. What added the energy to the axle? A magnet pulling it's weight up the ramp.
What happens next? The axle remains under control of the Tri-force magnetic field, ready for a
repeat performance in the next Tri-Force gate.
Now; A Magnetic force did this, and a Mag. force is an acceleration. So without some force holding
it back the axle should accelerate to any arbitrarily high speed. And since the axle seems to reach a
"top speed", a non-linear force must be holding it back. One non-linear force is air resistance with
a terminal velocity of 250MPH. So that is not it. It *must* be Lenz Law eddy current braking which
converts excess energy into heat, that is holding the axle back. Not some saturation by initial energy.
Because the forward momentum is saturated, the y-axis velocity represents an almost ideally efficient
mechanism for potential energy storage. (By the way - if you look carefully, you will see that the
Wheel machines has none of these things!, so it is not suprising that the wheel machine rotor does
not accelerate. The wheel rotor makes it easy to pick off excess energy but hard to change the mass
center of gravity of whirling parts. A spinning magnetic dipole also has RF radio frequency energy
losses which the wheel has and the ramp does not)
What I propose is that the Tri-force lattice array acts like a refrigerator absorbing latent heat from
all of it's parts in the environments and concentrates that heat into the axle's metal parts, and
suppling the energy to move it.
An interesting experiment then would involve sending maybe ten axles up a 30 gate Tri-Force ramp and
capturing all ten in a cup filled with some water and seeing if there is any small temperature rise in the
water in the cup after a brief period.
If there is excess heat it would be possible to use a "drinking bird toy" arrangement which contains
a freon boiler...But *please* no water. The custom designed mechanism would be able to capture an
axle absorb the heat out of it and use that heat to arm itself so that the next axle that comes along would
cause the first to flip up to a drive surface mounted above the magnetic field array which would pull the axle
down the slope at above 1xG with eddy current braking powered full on. The neat thing about this is the
axle would go from the bottom ramp to the top ramp at very high speed, Creating a very short undesirable
out-of-magnetic-field control pop-up time. The gravitational potential energy would not be used, except to
create a clearance for the rotating mechanism.
The only way I can see that this would not work is if magnetic forces refrigerates the axle too. I would
believe that too much of the machine's energy is concentrated in the axle for it not to be heated to
some small extent. Since moving the weight up the incline represents work, I would tend to experiment
with that configuration then optimize it. Those Wheel machines have additional RF losses due to spinning
magnetic dipoles in space and those RF losses are fractionally proportionate to the eddy current losses seen
by the the wheel. The inclined ramps are showing what one wants to see, acceleration limited by a non-linear
force and efficient potential energy storage. Do not forget that G the force of gravity on the planet earth is
arbitrary among all the G values in the universe, not some absolute value designed to purposely defeat the
operation of a magnetic machine design (that we know of).
So if someone could measure a temperature rise in the axles then the operation of this machine could pretty
much be assured. On the other hand, if there is not temperature rise, one would have to find some other
way to use the gravitational potential energy of the raised weight to switch tracks.
Sorry, for the length of this post and I would now be glad to answer any questions about it.
MarkSCoffman
Quote from: Yadaraf on March 15, 2008, 03:12:50 PM
CLaNZeR,
I think one thing that is affecting wind down time is the flux in the rotor-stator connecting ball.
In some of your configurations there is a strong N-N<->S-S-S-S setup, but in others you have a weaker N-S<->S-S-S-S setup. The friction on the ball is different in each case.
Hi Yada
All the long Wind Down times were done with the NS-NS-NS-NS on the middle bars, top and bottom are either all North or all South.
The pulse you see in the first video and indeed the original is I suspect the NN-SN-SS-NS
Here is a video to show the difference
Hi-res
http://www.overunity.org.uk/CLaNZeRSFairFieldReplication8.wmv
Youtube
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-E1Eg04OlUQ
If the Original Video poster would show us a longer video than 30 seconds then I would be excited.
What I am excited about is that something else is happening here with the NS-NS-NS-NS config and the changing of the top magnet arrangement.
This is the closest to SV(Lag) interaction between the Rotor and the top Stator that I have seen and might even be tempted to get the Tacho out LOL
Cheers
Sean.
Quote from: mscoffman on March 15, 2008, 04:42:33 PM
Hi all;
In Clanzers inclined ramp video we see an axle with weight W being pulled up an incline by
an interaction with a magnetic field.
............
Sorry, for the length of this post and I would now be glad to answer any questions about it.
MarkSCoffman
HI Mark
Thanks for that.
I will have to re-read a few times to take it in, but thanks for the input.
Will let you know if my brain connects with what you describe.
Cheers
Sean.
Hi Mark
I just wanted to say I found that very interesting.
Take Care Mark
Graham
Quote from: CLaNZeR on March 15, 2008, 05:00:32 PM
Quote from: Yadaraf on March 15, 2008, 03:12:50 PM
CLaNZeR,
I think one thing that is affecting wind down time is the flux in the rotor-stator connecting ball.
In some of your configurations there is a strong N-N<->S-S-S-S setup, but in others you have a weaker N-S<->S-S-S-S setup. The friction on the ball is different in each case.
Hi Yada
All the long Wind Down times were done with the NS-NS-NS-NS on the middle bars, top and bottom are either all North or all South.
The pulse you see in the first video and indeed the original is I suspect the NN-SN-SS-NS
Here is a video to show the difference
Hi-res
http://www.overunity.org.uk/CLaNZeRSFairFieldReplication8.wmv
Youtube
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-E1Eg04OlUQ
If the Original Video poster would show us a longer video than 30 seconds then I would be excited.
What I am excited about is that something else is happening here with the NS-NS-NS-NS config and the changing of the top magnet arrangement.
This is the closest to SV(Lag) interaction between the Rotor and the top Stator that I have seen and might even be tempted to get the Tacho out LOL
Cheers
Sean.
Hey CLaNZeR,
Great job, mate. The first pattern of NN-SN-SS-NS definitely creates a strong NS across the diagonal and enables the pulsing to occur.
I'm glad the long hang time of the second pattern looks interesting to you. It's not something I would have expected. Interesting ;D
Cheers :)
Yada..
.
Quote from: Omnibus on March 15, 2008, 03:46:05 AM
I was looking again at @CLaNZeR's video. The device seems to slow down. Was it spun initially by hand or the spinning started by simply adjusting the wings as in @smOky2's case? The wind down seems peculiar, though, much longer than expected. Mine comes to a stop earlier and differently when set in motion by hand but that may be just because the conditions of my experiment are different.
@OMNI - look man, please dont jump at me with your preconcieved notions of magnetic theory.
im going to try to explain this to you very simply.
when you have the magnets in attraction the spheres are under a lot of "magnetic friction" from the balls pulling towards one another.
you must connect the octehedral to the Tri-Force in REPULSION.
This creates a (almost) frictionless junction allowing it to spin freely,
once you see what this actually is, its not that impressive from a "free energy" standpoint.
it IS however quite fascinating from the point of tiny changes on the magnetic level sending it into a chaotic spin.
i say chaotic because it does not decrease steady, it oscillates from slow, to not so slow, then to a bit slower.
if that makes any sense.
Quote from: Yadaraf on March 15, 2008, 06:47:09 PM
Quote from: CLaNZeR on March 15, 2008, 05:00:32 PM
Quote from: Yadaraf on March 15, 2008, 03:12:50 PM
CLaNZeR,
I think one thing that is affecting wind down time is the flux in the rotor-stator connecting ball.
In some of your configurations there is a strong N-N<->S-S-S-S setup, but in others you have a weaker N-S<->S-S-S-S setup. The friction on the ball is different in each case.
Hi Yada
All the long Wind Down times were done with the NS-NS-NS-NS on the middle bars, top and bottom are either all North or all South.
The pulse you see in the first video and indeed the original is I suspect the NN-SN-SS-NS
Here is a video to show the difference
Hi-res
http://www.overunity.org.uk/CLaNZeRSFairFieldReplication8.wmv
Youtube
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-E1Eg04OlUQ
If the Original Video poster would show us a longer video than 30 seconds then I would be excited.
What I am excited about is that something else is happening here with the NS-NS-NS-NS config and the changing of the top magnet arrangement.
This is the closest to SV(Lag) interaction between the Rotor and the top Stator that I have seen and might even be tempted to get the Tacho out LOL
Cheers
Sean.
Hey CLaNZeR,
Great job, mate. The first pattern of NN-SN-SS-NS definitely creates a strong NS across the diagonal and enables the pulsing to occur.
I'm glad the long hang time of the second pattern looks interesting to you. It's not something I would have expected. Interesting ;D
Cheers :)
Yada..
.
That was my experience as well. i prefer the long wind-down version myself.
the pulses however - are more like what we see in the original video. - which was claimed to have run for 10 minutes before stopping.
at best i've seen it go for 4 mins, and the last 45 secs or so it goes reeeaaaalll slow.
@ Yada - the connection between the balls is very tiny. they're "barely" touching, in fact they are trying to push away from one another and are held only by the return flux-paths through the center.
though in observation - the magnetic "axis" running through the ball with 4 poles is actually a "twin-axis"
like a "V" thats not exactly through the center of the octahedrals top ball.
which makes the balls offset from one another slightly
Quote from: sm0ky2 on March 15, 2008, 10:41:24 PM
@ Yada - the connection between the balls is very tiny. they're "barely" touching, in fact they are trying to push away from one another and are held only by the return flux-paths through the center.
though in observation - the magnetic "axis" running through the ball with 4 poles is actually a "twin-axis"
like a "V" thats not exactly through the center of the octahedrals top ball.
which makes the balls offset from one another slightly
@sm0ky2,
My balls are relatively weaker than yours. Seriously, I'm using the Erector kit from SuperMagnetMan, and the small balls are overpowered by the 0.5" neos -- especially when clustered at the North and South poles of the octahedron.
I agree with you entirely that the REPULSION is a key ingredient to long wind down. In addition, I think two stators might be better than one -- each would "lightly tug" at the rotor, placing it in a more neutral position.
Lastly, OC is considering building a WhipMag-like device using the octahedron rotor and WhipMag stators.
Cheers :)
Yada..
.
@smOky2,
I have to be perfectly clear with you, if we can't make this to self-start and to sustain a non-decelerating run it is absolutely trivial and of no interest whatsoever. There's nothing "interesting" about it at all if it's just an efficient bearing.
Quote from: Omnibus on March 15, 2008, 11:02:05 PM
@smOky2,
I have to be perfectly clear with you, if we can't make this to self-start and to sustain a non-decelerating run it is absolutely trivial and of no interest whatsoever. There's nothing "interesting" about it at all if it's just an efficient bearing.
your individual opinions of what IS or ISN'T "interesting" are interfering with the common goal of this forum.
i don't understand why you attempt to steer people away from experimenting with new ideas....
please cease and desist.
a frictionless bearing is quite relevant to EVERYTHING we do. If you can't see that, then you are truly in the wrong place.
Quote from: sm0ky2 on March 16, 2008, 12:26:29 AM
Quote from: Omnibus on March 15, 2008, 11:02:05 PM
@smOky2,
I have to be perfectly clear with you, if we can't make this to self-start and to sustain a non-decelerating run it is absolutely trivial and of no interest whatsoever. There's nothing "interesting" about it at all if it's just an efficient bearing.
your individual opinions of what IS or ISN'T "interesting" are interfering with the common goal of this forum.
i don't understand why you attempt to steer people away from experimenting with new ideas....
please cease and desist.
a frictionless bearing is quite relevant to EVERYTHING we do. If you can't see that, then you are truly in the wrong place.
Not at all. Frictionless bearing is of absolutely no relevance to the common goal of this forum. Some here may recall how a year or two ago Wesley Snyder was trying to divert attention towards a frictionless bearing (much better, as a matter of fact that the current one) while being unable to sustain his main claim for a self-sustaining device running on its own without him holding the stator in his hand. No time should be wasted on this fruitless pursuit (constructing of a frictionless bearing). The only thing such pursuit indicates is the weakness and the inability of the constructors to build what is desired while trying to camouflage that inability with seemingly "interesting" other directions of research. This should be stopped because it's only a useless waste of time and energy.
i guess thats one way to look at it.
you can stop building octahedrals now.
myself (as well as others im sure) will continue to experiment with this type of set-up, as it has obvious potential in construction of other systems. It is not a diversion at all, but a tool. one which should be carefully placed on a shelf in the workshop - because it may have a use in the future.
This set-up in particular has another potential tool,-- which is the chaotic reversal of magnetic flux. Sure - this has been observed in great detail in other designs, but not by most of us first-hand, and definately not with the added advantage of a (near) frictionless "bearing".
Tunnell-Vision only takes you in one direction, and you might not end up where you want to go.
perhaps the tri-force roller gets repulsed out of the gate, which makes the octahedral start spinning to 'cancel' out the flux at the entrance of the next gate - allowing the roller to enter un-repulsed.
- this may be far-fetched, but its a good example of how something like this COULD BE usefull.
If you reject everything anyone tries to teach you, what will you have learned?
I think the people who have done work on these projects should be served with gratitude, nothing they have done, posted , or shown us in videos was a "waste of time". They have all given us useful information (wether good or bad). Let that be known.
A more applicable scenerio would be to attach the Rollers peripherally around the octahedron.
then place Tri-Force Gates around the outside of that.
this would give us less losses in our rotary Tri-Force System.
See, it's a free country and no one can stop anybody from carrying out useless experiments. The point here is what is rational to do at this point. I'm not saying all these experiments do not have potential to reach the goal but the efforts should not be diverted towards the easy and obvious stuff such as frictionless bearings while forgetting what the real issue is. These easy and probably fun things to do cannot substitute for the real issues to be studied neither can they be of any help in solving these issues.
Quote from: Omnibus on March 16, 2008, 01:24:30 AM
See, it's a free country and no one can stop anybody from carrying out useless experiments. The point here is what is rational to do at this point. I'm not saying all these experiments do not have potential to reach the goal but the efforts should not be diverted towards the easy and obvious stuff such as frictionless bearings while forgetting what the real issue is. These easy and probably fun things to do cannot substitute for the real issues to be studied neither can they be of any help in solving these issues.
Yes, i would love to see you get help you your "issues"
Quote from: sm0ky2 on March 16, 2008, 01:27:44 AM
Quote from: Omnibus on March 16, 2008, 01:24:30 AM
See, it's a free country and no one can stop anybody from carrying out useless experiments. The point here is what is rational to do at this point. I'm not saying all these experiments do not have potential to reach the goal but the efforts should not be diverted towards the easy and obvious stuff such as frictionless bearings while forgetting what the real issue is. These easy and probably fun things to do cannot substitute for the real issues to be studied neither can they be of any help in solving these issues.
Yes, i would love to see you get help you your "issues"
On the contrary, you are the one to get help with your issues because they clutter a thread devoted to overunity and not to trivialities such as efficient bearings. If you want that to be the issue go somewhere else to discuss it.
.
Quote from: Omnibus on March 16, 2008, 01:44:13 AM
On the contrary, you are the one to get help with your issues because they clutter a thread devoted to overunity and not to trivialities such as efficient bearings. If you want that to be the issue go somewhere else to discuss it.
[/quote]
@ Omni
are you ^%#*($(*ing serious?? Why do you even hover over this thread and whine and cry about other peoples experiments? - i give you credit, you seem to have at least ATTEMPTED this one, though im not sure you actually suceeded.
Let me ask you this:: IF our system is overunity by 6%
but our losses due to friction are 7.5% - how will we know that ths system is overunity???
Do you think that lowering the losses in the system would be a "waste of time" given that situation??
anyways.......
[/quote]
-- i have discovered (thanks to the help of my super-sized neo-octahedral) that the chaotic-factor occurs when the wings are placed perpendicular to the upper pyramid bars. Balls dont seem to work well, it favors a rectangular shape, something not strongly magnetic - either non-magnetized metal, or rubber-magnets.
No, lowering the losses will be quite desirable if there is OU. However, lowering the losses shouldn't be an end in itself because if there's no possibility in principle for OU no lowering of losses will make any sense with regard to the discussion at hand.
In the current case I don't think it's the losses that prevent us from achieving a working pmm. The problems here are the same as in any other attempt and I don't see the current pursuit to be closer to the goal than any other so far.
As far as I can see the main problem is that many of us are continuing to bump their heads into something which has already been well understood--it isn't possible to build a working pmm based on the interaction of a magnet with a steady-state magnetic field, no matter how complicated that field might be due to the coupling of component stationary magnetic fields. In order for a pmm to work there must be an independent conservative field, uncoupled with the field in question, which would assist the travel of the rotor along part of the closed loop in that first field. How this can be accomplished for the purposes of buiding a pmm is still unclear but that has to be the direction to go. Again, a pmm based on one stationary (time invariant) magnetic field is impossible and trying to build a working pmm with that in mind is a pure waste of time.
Quote from: sm0ky2 on March 16, 2008, 12:26:29 AM
Quote from: Omnibus on March 15, 2008, 11:02:05 PM
@smOky2,
I have to be perfectly clear with you, if we can't make this to self-start and to sustain a non-decelerating run it is absolutely trivial and of no interest whatsoever. There's nothing "interesting" about it at all if it's just an efficient bearing.
your individual opinions of what IS or ISN'T "interesting" are interfering with the common goal of this forum.
i don't understand why you attempt to steer people away from experimenting with new ideas....
please cease and desist.
a frictionless bearing is quite relevant to EVERYTHING we do. If you can't see that, then you are truly in the wrong place.
sm0ky2,You are absolutely correct that the reduced friction artifact may bear fruit elsewhere.
For example, I don't have a machine shop and I don't want to spend $$$$ having someone build a WhipMag-like rotor for me. Using CLaNZeR's method, a couple of us are now constructing both rotors and stators using the reduced friction method. This provides a very inexpensive setup for many investigators, and hopefully one of them will "stumble" into something new. For many of us, this devices help us rediscover the joy of learning. CLaNZeR, for example, is a star pupil and we could use more like him. His videos are educational
Also, the requirement of "self-starting" is completely bogus for OU, as any grade schooler knows.
Cheers :)
Yada..
.
@all, actual, "experimenters",
has anyone, tried dropping the equatorial balls through a horizontally gapped tri-force magnet array, just past the repulsion zone? i am wondering if the acceleration provided by the tri-force might just make it perpetual?
lol
sam
@all, actual, "experimenters",
has anyone, tried dropping the equatorial balls through a horizontally gapped tri-force magnet array, just past the repulsion zone? i am wondering if the acceleration provided by the tri-force might just make it perpetual?
lol
sam
@Yadaraf,
Explain how every grade schooler knows that the self-starting is completely bogus for OU. On the contrary, every grade schooler knows that OU cannot be achieved by using just time independent magnetic field. There's nothing new to be learned regarding this. Repeating over and over the same impossibility in different variants and designs is not a learning process. It's like touching every time a hot stove to learn that it hurts. This case isn't as drastic but in intellectual sense it is the same. No need for that.
@ omni,
why does the phrase, "intelectual sense", sound like an oxymoron, when coming from you?
lol
sam
Quote from: supersam on March 16, 2008, 02:47:45 PM
@ omni,
why does the phrase, "intelectual sense", sound like an oxymoron, when coming from you?
lol
sam
You figure it out for yourself and don't clutter the thread with your stupidities.
@Yadaraf,
It seems you still believe @alsetalokin's effect is real and his contraption is worth exploring further. What makes you think so?
Quote from: Omnibus on March 16, 2008, 02:43:18 PM
@Yadaraf,
Explain how every grade schooler knows that the self-starting is completely bogus for OU. On the contrary, every grade schooler knows that OU cannot be achieved by using just time independent magnetic field. There's nothing new to be learned regarding this. Repeating over and over the same impossibility in different variants and designs is not a learning process. It's like touching every time a hot stove to learn that it hurts. This case isn't as drastic but in intellectual sense it is the same. No need for that.
@OmniFirst, you misquoted me. Second, today's grade schoolers are very resourceful and know how to use the Internet.
... From Wiki: "However, perpetual motion usually refers to a device or system that delivers more energy than was
put into it."
What does "put into it" mean? It means the system
can be started externally and does not have to be self-starting. I think ANY grade schooler would know that.
Cheers :)
Yada..
.
Quote from: Omnibus on March 16, 2008, 02:55:09 PM
@Yadaraf,
It seems you still believe @alsetalokin's effect is real and his contraption is worth exploring further. What makes you think so?
@Omni,
After reading the transcript between Al and OC during the months of October through January, I concluded that Al was sincere in his research and astounded by the results and unexplained phenomenon. The dialog seems very genuine to me.
I also wondered why anyone would arbitrarily add magnet dampers to such a system, unless it exhibited run away characteristics.
.. and there is the objective data from the video -- the two speed plateaus in particular.
Is the WhipMag the "real deal?" For me it doesn't hurt to think that it is. It has not been disproved at this point -- simply not replicated.
Lastly, as a scientist/engineer/philosopher I grow more by accepting the possibility rather than the impossibility
Cheers :)
Yada..
.
Quote from: Yadaraf on March 16, 2008, 02:59:40 PM
Quote from: Omnibus on March 16, 2008, 02:43:18 PM
@Yadaraf,
Explain how every grade schooler knows that the self-starting is completely bogus for OU. On the contrary, every grade schooler knows that OU cannot be achieved by using just time independent magnetic field. There's nothing new to be learned regarding this. Repeating over and over the same impossibility in different variants and designs is not a learning process. It's like touching every time a hot stove to learn that it hurts. This case isn't as drastic but in intellectual sense it is the same. No need for that.
@Omni
First, you misquoted me. Second, today's grade schoolers are very resourceful and know how to use the Internet.
... Second sentence from Wiki: "However, perpetual motion usually refers to a device or system that delivers more energy than was put into it."
What does "put into it" mean? It means the system can be started externally and does not have to be self-starting. I think ANY grade schooler would tell you that.
Cheers :)
Yada..
.
In that sense you're absolutely right. The definitive proof for that is the SMOT, as is already known. You know that I agree with that categorically. And I have proven conclusively that that's the case. So there's nothing to discuss in this respect.
There is a psychological barrier, however, which has to be overcome for this to be accepted by society and that is to build a pmm. Again, building a pmm is just a psychological barrier to be overcome and not a scientific necessity to prove violation of CoE (perpetual motion in the sense cited by you in Wiki).
For a pmm to be real self-starting is a must. There's a remote possibility that imparting outside energy from the onset may cause additional effects to kick in causing OU and that was the reason why I took interest in @alsetalokin's device after initially rejecting it for not being a self-starter. It was a failure, however, and at this point there's no reason to believe that a device other than a self-starter can be a working pmm.
This is what I had in mind. Again, as everybody knows that OU (violation of CoE) can be achieved is something I'm convinced completely in. However, that doesn't mean that clothing that in a working pmm is as straightforward as it seems to some.
Thus, since this thread is practically about constructing a working pmm (not so much as to whether or not OU is real, which has been categorically proven to be the latter) I insist once again, experiments with time-independent magnetic fields with the aim of constructing working pmm's is a dead end, a waste of time. There must an additional assisting conservative field somehow favorably superimposed to attain self-sustaining rotation of a pmm.
Quote from: Yadaraf on March 16, 2008, 03:10:39 PM
Quote from: Omnibus on March 16, 2008, 02:55:09 PM
@Yadaraf,
It seems you still believe @alsetalokin's effect is real and his contraption is worth exploring further. What makes you think so?
@Omni,
After reading the transcript between Al and OC during the months of October through January, I concluded that Al was sincere in his research and astounded by the results and unexplained phenomenon. The dialog seems very genuine to me.
I also wondered why anyone would arbitrarily add magnet dampers to such a system, unless it exhibited run away characteristics.
.. and there is the objective data from the video -- the two speed plateaus in particular.
Is the WhipMag the "real deal?" For me it doesn't hurt to think that it is. It has not been disproved at this point -- simply not replicated.
Lastly, as a scientist/engineer/philosopher I grow more by accepting the possibility rather than the impossibility
Cheers :)
Yada..
.
The nasty thing about such scams as the one @alsetalokin pulled on us is that it can never be disproved. He can play forever the game and lie to us that the effect he has shown is real and he can always blame it on the replicators' lack of ability and skills for not being able to reproduce it. This is a dirty game played by who knows who for all kinds of purposes one may suspect.
You are considering @alsetalokin sincere but you're forgetting what he's continuously saying--on the one hand he insists the effect he shows isn't a result of a foul play while on the other he clearly states that what he has intended to do with this is to show that something false is false. That's cynical to no end. It is offensive to the intellect of everyone involved and shows no sincerity at all. The seeming sincerity during the discussion with @overconfident is a part of the game. He has taken one obviously incompetent random person such as @overconfident who doesn't know his place and has deliberately entangled him in his disgusting politely arrogant game whose main intention is to teach people interested in this question a lesson. Like I said, this may not be his personal game but a game in which he plays just the role of a lackey to certain well known forces. Of course, ultimately it's a losing game which will teach lessons other than the ones intended by its perpetrators but it's for sure annoying while it lasts.
Therefore, as you can see I don't buy this "sincerity" argument as something that would warrant further interest in that hoax. There's absolutely nothing interesting in it and it should be abandoned at once as any hoax should. If the hoaxer @alsetalokin disagrees with this, now deserved, qualification he knows what he should do to clear his name.
Quote from: Omnibus on March 16, 2008, 03:19:14 PM
For a pmm to be real self-starting is a must. There's a remote possibility that imparting outside energy from the onset may cause additional effects to kick in causing OU and that was the reason why I took interest in @alsetalokin's device after initially rejecting it for not being a self-starter. It was a failure, however, and at this point there's no reason to believe that a device other than a self-starter can be a working pmm.
Omni,Consider the effect of natural geophysical resonances or atmospheric electrodynamics on magnetodynamic devices. From my point of view, a rotating PMM interacts -- resonates? -- with these phenomenon. Having said that it might be necessary to "coax" the PMM device into rotation, such that it synchronizes with these naturally occurring, rhythmic phenomenon, after which it remains parasitic providing that the Earth continues to spin or lightning continues to strike. Under these conditions, to me, the PMM will rotate "forever."
However, because it is parasitic it is not OU. There is no such thing as OU. OU is a substitute for what we do not understand and cannot comprehend due to the limit of our five senses and crude "scientific" instrumentation, which we design to study our three dimensional surrounding. Some brave souls are developing technology to see beyond 3D - the CERN LHC for example. To me OU is the equivalent of dark matter, which astrophysicists conjured up to explain that which they did not understand: "The universe doesn't make sense, so let's blame it on dark matter." Anyone who claims that they have an OU device has not studied hyperdimensional physics nor the life of Copernicus.
Furthermore, consider that the Earth is big PMM -- or several coaxial, spherical PMMS. It spins just fine, although it is slowing down at present. Literature tells us that periodically Earth stops spinning and then reverses direction when the heliosphere and/or the magnetosphere undergo dramatic changes. How does such a large body start rotating again and continue to do so for aeons?
In short, I am more than willing to approach the dynamics of the PMM from a geophysical, hyperdimensional, and even metaphysical perspective. In addition, I don't think science really understands magnetostatics, but that is another story.
Cheers :)
Yada..
.
@omni,
and exactly what does any of that have to do with the tri-force magnet array, any more than the smot?
lol
sam
ps: we still havn't seen how a horizonaly mounted tri-force array can affect the octohedron!
@Yadaraf,
I strongly disagree. As you probably know I have proven conclusively that there is OU (violation of CoE) exactly according to the definition you gave above. Therefore, my thinking regarding a somewhat more practical device than the SMOT which is the pmm is entirely along these lines.
I don't see the concrete mechanism as to how this continuous spin might happen due to the interaction with the geophysical factors other than expressing certain intuition, as you do. It may be also interesting and it may also be OU but it seems more far fetched than the already established possibility for violating CoE and applying it to build a pmm. So far there isn't any inkling whatsoever for a possibility geophysical factors to participate in driving a device such as that of @alsetalokin. As of this moment @alsetalokin's device should be considered as nothing else but a hoax.
Quote from: supersam on March 16, 2008, 04:08:55 PM
@omni,
and exactly what does any of that have to do with the tri-force magnet array, any more than the smot?
lol
sam
ps: we still havn't seen how a horizonaly mounted tri-force array can affect the octohedron!
So called "tri-force" array suffers from the same problems as SMOT or any other device when trying to build a pmm based on it. It adds nothing new to the problem. Like I said, the solution should be sought along the lines of proper superimposing an assisting conservative field. Such solution once found will be applicable to anyone of the numerous seemingly differing designs based on the same underlying principle and having the same problems.
As for the SMOT, the advantage is that with it proving violation of CoE undeniable while anything else, including the tri-force, applied for this purpose supplies the potential critics with ample room for finagling.
@omni,
and how do you propose that expermenters get to this conclusion? with the smot? well it seems to me that things are progressing, except for the blabber that you are throwing abut without any experimentation! so why don't you just shut the f UP AND LET PEOPLE DO THERE EXPERIMENTS THAT YOU HAVE NO INTINTIONS OF DOING?
lol
sam
Quote from: Omnibus on March 16, 2008, 04:23:28 PM
@Yadaraf,
I strongly disagree. As you probably know I have proven conclusively that there is OU (violation of CoE) exactly according to the definition you gave above. Therefore, my thinking regarding a somewhat more practical device than the SMOT which is the pmm is entirely along these lines.
I don't see the concrete mechanism as to how this continuous spin might happen due to the interaction with the geophysical factors other than expressing certain intuition, as you do. It may be also interesting and it may also be OU but it seems more far fetched than the already established possibility for violating CoE and applying it to build a pmm. So far there isn't any inkling whatsoever for a possibility geophysical factors to participate in driving a device such as that of @alsetalokin. As of this moment @alsetalokin's device should be considered as nothing else but a hoax.
First i shall start by stating the obvious fact that ANY system, in which multiple moving components cooridinate with one another to produce a desired effect (spinning around?) - would REQUIRE initial input energy. regardless of wether or not those interactions resulted in OU/PM . if the objects are at rest, there is no way for those interactions to occur, much less cooridinate with one another to set the system into motion.
The exception to this would be a magnetic or gravitational imablance - in which the system would move to its point of rest - then the above would still apply.
wether or not AL's device was real does not change this. - because that too would fall into this category if it were genuine.
The Tri-Force has already been shown to exhibit excess energy in several configurations- so LOWERING the losses in these systems is not only "usefull", but i think it could very well be ESSENTIAL to maintaining momentum and overcomming the entrance repulsion barrier.
Keep up the good work guys.
@ OMNI - if your SMOT replication is truly " violating CoE" (most everyone else's are clearly NOT) - then please post the information of how you demonstrated this in the SMOT thread - If you think we're "wasting our time", then perhaps your SMOT device is what we should be trying to 'loop'.
Quote from: supersam on March 16, 2008, 04:56:35 PM
@omni,
and how do you propose that expermenters get to this conclusion? with the smot? well it seems to me that things are progressing, except for the blabber that you are throwing abut without any experimentation! so why don't you just shut the f UP AND LET PEOPLE DO THERE EXPERIMENTS THAT YOU HAVE NO INTINTIONS OF DOING?
lol
sam
Like I said, I don't think anything is progressing. Regarding pmm we're at the same point we were couple of years ago. Not one bit of a progress.
@omni,
it may be because people like you and i are not actually experimenting but constantly throwing our two cents worth into the loop! i'll shut the f up if you will.
lol
sam
@Yadaraf,
If these components require outside work to spin then such device is of absolutely no interest here in this forum. If the only thing the device does is to seek rest after external force has been applied, that?s trivial. Such device isn?t an OU device and discussing it has no place here.
As for the SMOT, this isn?t the appropriate thread to post the proof I?ve already posted numerous times in other threads.
Quote from: supersam on March 16, 2008, 05:32:56 PM
@omni,
it may be because people like you and i are not actually experimenting but constantly throwing our two cents worth into the loop! i'll shut the f up if you will.
lol
sam
I am experimenting, you're the one blabbering.
As for the progress, I repeat, other than a couple of hoaxers there hasn't been any progress in demonstrating a working pmm whatsoever. The only interesting construction so far was the one posted by Paul Sprain which unfortunately requires external energy input. The psychology of the critics involved in this field, however, is such that even if Paul Sprain provides the ultimate proof that the input energy in his device is less than the output it will never be accepted by the mainstream, unfortunately. As is already known, a definitive proof already exists for the violation of CoE. Unless, however, a working pmm is shown the human psychology will prevent this violation to gain acceptance in the standard science. Sad, unfortunate but that't the sorry state of affairs nowadays.
@omni,
so the hand no longer has anything to do with smot? why don't you show that?
lol
sam
ps: over on a smot thread!!!
Quote from: supersam on March 16, 2008, 05:38:53 PM
@omni,
so the hand no longer has anything to do with smot? why don't you show that?
lol
sam
ps: over on a smot thread!!!
Go away. Your nonsense isn't needed here (and anywhere else for that matter).
Quote from: Omnibus on March 16, 2008, 04:23:28 PM
@Yadaraf,
I strongly disagree. As you probably know I have proven conclusively that there is OU (violation of CoE) exactly according to the definition you gave above. Therefore, my thinking regarding a somewhat more practical device than the SMOT which is the pmm is entirely along these lines.
I don't see the concrete mechanism as to how this continuous spin might happen due to the interaction with the geophysical factors other than expressing certain intuition, as you do. It may be also interesting and it may also be OU but it seems more far fetched than the already established possibility for violating CoE and applying it to build a pmm. So far there isn't any inkling whatsoever for a possibility geophysical factors to participate in driving a device such as that of @alsetalokin. As of this moment @alsetalokin's device should be considered as nothing else but a hoax.
Omni,
Because you have not measured energy from higher dimensions (4D, 5D, etc) you have not proven OU. Your device might simply be exhibiting "3D OU", because it is converting 4D or 5D energies into 3D.
Remember, please, that voltmeters, scales, etc. are only 3D instruments that are good for measuring 3D phenomenon. 3D creatures made these simple instruments to rationalize their 3D experience and satisfy their egos. The CERN LHC is another story.
Concerning CoE, it, too, must be consider in hyperdimensional context. Most discussions of CoE are really Co3DE, and this is a problem.
Concerning Al's device, the objective data can be used to support the hypothesis that Al's device was possibly influenced by SR modes 1 & 2. In order to promote the hypothesis to a theory, however, replication is needed. (See Steve Mark's work.)
Cheers :)
Yada..
.
@Yadaraf,
The violation of CoE discovered is shockingly simple. There's nothing esoteric about it, no speculations about spaces and unknown energy conversions. I know it's sounds like fun and appears very elevated to make esoteric speculations but the reality is pretty plain, although with far-reaching consequences. Unfortunately, however, so far there hasn't been apparent way to harness that simple existing violation of CoE in a somewhat more practical device, producing the excess energy continuously. The discontinuous production of excess energy discovered so far is obtained in such a form which is complicated to feed into the input to make the device self-sustaining. Of course, there can be practical ways to utilize for practical purposes this excess energy obtained for free, although discontinuously. The obviously beneficial practical application of such potential technologies exclude self-sustaining run but it still is a free lunch. As I already said, the psychology of people is somehow set to only accept excess energy if it is produced continuously. That's pure psychology and stiff way of thinking, nothing else. Add to it the interests of powerful forces with conservative, reactionary agendas and we can see why we're here, facing a total crisis of society. I'm not far from the though that, for instance, Tokamaks are deliberately held back because there are powerful forces feeding on the system as it is now. These forces need the "progress" to be only in the direction that suits them pushing in oblivion everything really innovative that can threaten their governance. Look at the OU. It has been known to be real for centuries (despite the vigorous propaganda asserting otherwise). The SMOT we're talking about has been put forth hundreds of years ago by Taisnierius, Others have had working OU machines as well--completely shunned with a forceful deliberation by the powers that be.
Anyway, that's the situation we're facing and one serious psychological threshold which can be crossed which the powers that be can hardly shun (especially with the advance of the net) is to create a self-sustaining device. That has no other meaning regarding the violation of CoE than psychological, I won't stop repeating that. If that cannot be accomplished I'm afraid OU, no matter how real, will remain just a curiosity among the honest brighter people around.
@alsetalokin's device is a non-issue and there's no reason to continue with it. That will remain as one of the sad episodes in the search for a self-sustaining pmm.
Omnibus is such an asshole.
@ Yada - its not so complicated as to need inclusion of a 4th or 5th dimension.
the SMOT's (apparent) OU is simply the experimenter overlooking all of the energy values involved.
i think what we have here is a case of Omnibus mistakingly forgetting about a portion of the energy, therefore tricked himself into thinking the SMOT is OU.
Perhaps this is why he fails to present a link to a single of his "numerous posts explaining it" or even show a drawing or video, ect. of his alleged CoE violating SMOT device. - also why he cant seem to loop it....
He tries to distort your interpretation of the device by garbling on about his "super-imposed field theory"
When the fact of the matter is, the gravitational field is conservative, and equivalent in both directions. adding this does not change the force of the SMOT - it simply allows you to free the SMOT ball, which also comsumes energy out of the system, and leaves the ball lower than the initial starting point.
For it to be truly CoE, the SMOT-ball would have to end up HIGHER than the initial starting point, and FREE of the magnetic attraction.
Quote from: sm0ky2 on March 16, 2008, 08:06:15 PM
@ Yada - its not so complicated as to need inclusion of a 4th or 5th dimension.
the SMOT's (apparent) OU is simply the experimenter overlooking all of the energy values involved.
i think what we have here is a case of Omnibus mistakingly forgetting about a portion of the energy, therefore tricked himself into thinking the SMOT is OU.
Perhaps this is why he fails to present a link to a single of his "numerous posts explaining it" or even show a drawing or video, ect. of his alleged CoE violating SMOT device. - also why he cant seem to loop it....
He tries to distort your interpretation of the device by garbling on about his "super-imposed field theory"
When the fact of the matter is, the gravitational field is conservative, and equivalent in both directions. adding this does not change the force of the SMOT - it simply allows you to free the SMOT ball, which also comsumes energy out of the system, and leaves the ball lower than the initial starting point.
For it to be truly CoE, the SMOT-ball would have to end up HIGHER than the initial starting point, and FREE of the magnetic attraction.
This is incorrect. In my analysis of SMOT all possible energies are accounted for and the outcome is that the energy in is less than the energy out. That's proven categorically and need not be discussed here. This isn't a thread devoted to SMOT.
@ OMNI -
The doctor told you to take those meds for a reason.
YOU keep bringing up the alleged "CoE violation" with the SMOT, in THIS THREAD. Yet when anyone questions you about it, you reply "this is not the proper thread for SMOT discussion"
WHY keep bringing it up then?? WHY just just shut up about the SMOT?
do you WANT us to disprove SMOT "CoE violation" ??? if we disprove it, will you thne shut up about it?
or at least post an accredited journal for peer review by the scientific community. think they might be interested in your findings. (or amused by your folly)
Quote from: sm0ky2 on March 16, 2008, 08:12:26 PM
@ OMNI -
The doctor told you to take those meds for a reason.
YOU keep bringing up the alleged "CoE violation" with the SMOT, in THIS THREAD. Yet when anyone questions you about it, you reply "this is not the proper thread for SMOT discussion"
WHY keep bringing it up then?? WHY just just shut up about the SMOT?
do you WANT us to disprove SMOT "CoE violation" ??? if we disprove it, will you thne shut up about it?
or at least post an accredited journal for peer review by the scientific community. think they might be interested in your findings. (or amused by your folly)
Specifically you should not try to be an arbiter of this because, as was established, you're confusing force with energy. You have basic gaps in understanding and therefore should restrain form pushing yourself as a judge for this.
Quote from: Omnibus on March 16, 2008, 08:16:51 PM
Quote from: sm0ky2 on March 16, 2008, 08:12:26 PM
@ OMNI -
The doctor told you to take those meds for a reason.
YOU keep bringing up the alleged "CoE violation" with the SMOT, in THIS THREAD. Yet when anyone questions you about it, you reply "this is not the proper thread for SMOT discussion"
WHY keep bringing it up then?? WHY just just shut up about the SMOT?
do you WANT us to disprove SMOT "CoE violation" ??? if we disprove it, will you thne shut up about it?
or at least post an accredited journal for peer review by the scientific community. think they might be interested in your findings. (or amused by your folly)
Specifically you should not try to be an arbiter of this because, as was established, you're confusing force with energy. You have basic gaps in understanding and therefore should restrain form pushing yourself as a judge for this.
you keep trying to imply that, when i was quite clear on the dinstinction between the two, it was YOU who was confused about the context in which the force (and resultant energy over distance) was being observed.
And if you are not satisfied with ME personally peer-reviewing your results, thats fine there are plenty of esteemed members in your field of research that will be chosen at random and usually confidential, for this purpose when/if you sumbit your work for peer review. But - you already know this....
and your claim "all possible energies are accounted for" ----
Does YOUR SMOT ball end up HIGHER than it started, and FREE from the magnetic field??
@omni,
what the f@#$$, does that have to do with the tri-force? what part of that question are you having so much trouble with? quit cluttering this thread with your smot bull!!!
lol
sam
Quote from: sm0ky2 on March 16, 2008, 08:40:53 PM
Quote from: Omnibus on March 16, 2008, 08:16:51 PM
Quote from: sm0ky2 on March 16, 2008, 08:12:26 PM
@ OMNI -
The doctor told you to take those meds for a reason.
YOU keep bringing up the alleged "CoE violation" with the SMOT, in THIS THREAD. Yet when anyone questions you about it, you reply "this is not the proper thread for SMOT discussion"
WHY keep bringing it up then?? WHY just just shut up about the SMOT?
do you WANT us to disprove SMOT "CoE violation" ??? if we disprove it, will you thne shut up about it?
or at least post an accredited journal for peer review by the scientific community. think they might be interested in your findings. (or amused by your folly)
Specifically you should not try to be an arbiter of this because, as was established, you're confusing force with energy. You have basic gaps in understanding and therefore should restrain form pushing yourself as a judge for this.
you keep trying to imply that, when i was quite clear on the dinstinction between the two, it was YOU who was confused about the context in which the force (and resultant energy over distance) was being observed.
And if you are not satisfied with ME personally peer-reviewing your results, thats fine there are plenty of esteemed members in your field of research that will be chosen at random and usually confidential, for this purpose when/if you sumbit your work for peer review. But - you already know this....
and your claim "all possible energies are accounted for" ----
Does YOUR SMOT ball end up HIGHER than it started, and FREE from the magnetic field??
This last sentence shows your basic misunderstanding of the problem. It isn't necessary for the ball to end up higher for CoE to be violated. As for the esteemed members, there's no one here whose credentials and affiliation is known, as would be required for a perr-reviewer, so calling anyone esteemed member is stretching it. The only way one can judges about credentials is by reading the arguments and that isn't at all favorable regarding your understanding of the matter. That's why I'm directing this to you--don't try to be an arbiter in this since you're showing continuously a basic misunderstanding of the problem. There are several other active participants who allow themselves to fill in the forum with their confusion, sometimes very aggressively at that. What is observed is that the less competent one is the more aggressive he or she tries to push himself or herself into providing unneeded opinions.
Also, there are several people, however, who understand already very well the proof but the dishonesty they are used to, typical for the state of affairs in science nowadays, is preventing them from openly admitting their mistakes during the discussion and conceding that CoE is indeed violated. That's the unfortunate truth and I'm sure there are bright people out there who really see that nasty situation and the day will come when they will speak out.
Quote from: supersam on March 16, 2008, 08:41:46 PM
@omni,
what the f@#$$, does that have to do with the tri-force? what part of that question are you having so much trouble with? quit cluttering this thread with your smot bull!!!
lol
sam
This has everything to do with any claim for overunity. The fact that you don't get it is your problem.
As for that "tri-force" it was shown to be a miserable failure when attempts were made to create a self-sustaining device based on it. There's nothing in it in this respect and has to be abandoned for the purposes of constructing a pmm as anyone of the numerous similar ideas. Some new approach has to be sought and that new approach has to include somehow assistance form uncoupled additional conservative field. How? That has to be discussed, I don't have the answer right now. All I know is that that's the way excess energy can be produced discontinuously and that is the only scientifically sound road known so far to follow for achieving continuous production of excess energy.
@smOky2,
The problem with you is that once you were told where your mistake is regarding force and energy and you understood it you started to finagle and instead of admitting it openly you tried to find crazy ways of getting out of the situation and began sinking even deeper. This is a very unseemly behavior for a scientist. Anybody can make mistakes but not admitting it and trying to make it look as if you didn't make them is one great offense in science. I'm telling you this because, despite your confusion on certain matters, I still see you have qualities. You're not as some of these other people here who are somehow fundamentally entangled in their misunderstandings that I see no hope in any exchange with them. It would be very bad for you if you behave like that, trying to make it appear you didn't make a certain mistake, instead of openly admitting it. A day will come such behavior will inevitably hurt you. This is a forum which won't have life consequences for you but there may be situations where your career as a scientist may be damaged because of such behavior.
What can you say ?[probably alot] everybody back to work you have a world to save Chet
Quote from: sm0ky2 on March 16, 2008, 08:06:15 PM
@ Yada - its not so complicated as to need inclusion of a 4th or 5th dimension.
the SMOT's (apparent) OU is simply the experimenter overlooking all of the energy values involved.
i think what we have here is a case of Omnibus mistakingly forgetting about a portion of the energy, therefore tricked himself into thinking the SMOT is OU.
Perhaps this is why he fails to present a link to a single of his "numerous posts explaining it" or even show a drawing or video, ect. of his alleged CoE violating SMOT device. - also why he cant seem to loop it....
He tries to distort your interpretation of the device by garbling on about his "super-imposed field theory"
When the fact of the matter is, the gravitational field is conservative, and equivalent in both directions. adding this does not change the force of the SMOT - it simply allows you to free the SMOT ball, which also comsumes energy out of the system, and leaves the ball lower than the initial starting point.
For it to be truly CoE, the SMOT-ball would have to end up HIGHER than the initial starting point, and FREE of the magnetic attraction.
sm0ky2,I realize that hyperdimensional energies are not the only "unknowns" that we cannot account for, but it's fun to use them as examples of what we don't know -- the limitations of our 3D reality. Within our 3D reality we don't even understand gravity. Just the other day an astrophysicist said we might have to rewrite the laws of gravity to account for transits of near-earth objects.
Did you know that Wright Patterson Air Force Base has been experiencing anomalous energy phenomena that can't be measured and that they have called in paranormal investigators? We're talking about an active military base, mind you. Are these energies bleeding over from 4D? Who knows? (Google if you haven't heard about this.)
My point is simple: we cannot measure all the energy going into a system, and consequently can't state that a system exhibits "xD-OU" or violates "Co-xD-E." This is one of those times where we must check our egos at the door if we are to proceed. Quantum physicists understand this.
Cheers :)
Yada..
.
??? Hi all,
I, have not noticed on here any link to http://freenrg.info/Patents/Mag_Motors/US4179633.pdf
Regards
Den :-X
Omnibus = ASSHOLE
Quote from: cub3 on March 17, 2008, 12:35:20 AM
??? Hi all,
I, have not noticed on here any link to http://freenrg.info/Patents/Mag_Motors/US4179633.pdf
Regards
Den :-X
Yes, that was mentioned already. Somewhere in the latest pages. here or the thread discussing @alsetalokin's device.
ASSHOLE
@Yadaraf,
That?s getting into the irrational. It isn?t true that at the macro level we?re discussing the matters here quantum mechanics has anything to do and that we cannot measure all the energy going into the system. On the contrary, we can, at that very precisely. We won?t have chemistry, for instance, if that were not the case and the egos have nothing to do with this fact.
Quote from: Omnibus on March 17, 2008, 01:27:56 AM
Quote from: cub3 on March 17, 2008, 12:35:20 AM
??? Hi all,
I, have not noticed on here any link too Ã, http://freenrg.info/Patents/Mag_Motors/US4179633.pdf
Regards
DenÃ, :-X
Yes, that was mentioned already. Somewhere in the latest pages. here or the thread discussing @alsetalokin's device.
Posted for all, Some may not have been aware.
You have from this point in time been sent to coventry, as far as I am concerened, others have their own thoughts and rightly so. Personally decision made rectuantly but made @ this point in TIME
Kind regards
Den
Quote from: cub3 on March 17, 2008, 01:49:53 AM
Quote from: Omnibus on March 17, 2008, 01:27:56 AM
Quote from: cub3 on March 17, 2008, 12:35:20 AM
??? Hi all,
I, have not noticed on here any link to http://freenrg.info/Patents/Mag_Motors/US4179633.pdf
Regards
Den :-X
Yes, that was mentioned already. Somewhere in the latest pages. here or the thread discussing @alsetalokin's device.
Posted for all, Some may not have been aware.
You have from this point in time been sent to coventry.
Kind regards
Den
To be aware of what? Of another useless patent? Sending me to Coventry won't change that.
OMNIBUS = ASSHOLE
There were several discussions here in this forum regarding the perpetuum mobile patents granted by the USPTO (the one cited above is only one of them). None of these patents has ever been shown to work and that is an obvious violation of the US Patent Law because for a patent to be granted it has not only to be new but also useful. A non-working device isn't useful in the sense claimed in the patent. Unfortunately, as was discussed, USPTO doesn't have ways to police that internally and the outcome is left to third parties to handle it through the court system if they find it necessary. The rationale being that if it isn't useful the patent won't be anything else but several sheets of paper whose generation which amounts to thousands of dollars at least is entirely at the expense of the patentee with no prospect to be recovered.
shuddup asshole.
Quote from: cub3 on March 17, 2008, 12:35:20 AM
??? Hi all,
I, have not noticed on here any link to http://freenrg.info/Patents/Mag_Motors/US4179633.pdf
Regards
Den :-X
Hi Den
To me thats basicly the Johnson gate and motor just setup a different way
Take Care Den
Graham
Quote from: Omnibus on March 17, 2008, 01:35:57 AM
@Yadaraf,
That?s getting into the irrational. It isn?t true that at the macro level we?re discussing the matters here quantum mechanics has anything to do and that we cannot measure all the energy going into the system. On the contrary, we can, at that very precisely. We won?t have chemistry, for instance, if that were not the case and the egos have nothing to do with this fact.
Omni,First, the grammar in your reply was very poor. For someone who doesn't believe in CoE, you certainly applied CoE to your reply. Use a little more energy, please. ;D
Second, science IS irrational. Many of us understand that.
"Science for me is very close to art. Scientific discovery is
an irrational act. It's an intuition which turns out to be reality
at the end of it - and I see no difference between a
scientist developing a marvelous discovery and
an artist making a painting." -- C. Rubbia, Nobelist and director of CERN
"Science does not know its debt to imagination." -- Ralph Waldo Emerson
Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts. <= a favorite :D
-- Richard P. Feynman
Cheers :)
Yada..
.
@Yadaraf,
These quotations do not prove that science is irrational. The process of discovery, as any creative process, may have an irrational element in it but when the discovery is made, the fact, the phenomenon is rational. A scientific fact in this sense differs from a creation in poetry, music or fiction. In poetry, for instance, unlike the outcome of a scientific endeavor, most of the time the result is an emanation of the irrational. That's why poetry isn't science. The closest a rational outcome can be to poetry one finds in abstract mathematics. However, when mathematics is to describe physical phenomena it is rational by its very nature because physics is rational as such. It may sound cute and amusing for the general public to compare science with art. After all public has to be won for the cause of science, especially when it pertains to convincing the Congress that more money has to be voted for it. In a serious discussion, however, no scientist worth his salt will succumb to populism and allow for the rationality of science to be substituted by the irrationality of art..
And, by the way, the arguments regarding what's being discussed in this thread must be rational if anyone serious is to pay attention to them. Unfortunately, so far, from a rational perspective if a self-sustaining machine is the goal there is nothing which would justify further study of this design. @CLaNZeR and @klicUK have done superb studies which unfortunately prove that this is another dead-end. I'll be the happiest person on Earth if you could prove me wrong.
@ Omnibus,
I made a clear distinction between the forces involved in the Tri-Force system we were observing, and the independent Energy values represented at the begining and end of the cycle.,
Your limited understanding of this ( despite my best efforts to drill it into your head) are what cause your confusion. Attempting to discredit me based on your own misunderstandings is futile. (as if anyone takes you seriously at this point anyways...)
anyone with a basic understanding of physics should be able to understand exactly what i laid out, and replicate the results themselves. Those with a deeper understanding of physics should clearly see the implications that arise here.
and someone with YOUR level of understanding SHOULD BE able to distinguish between the gravitational potential at height x INSIDE a magnetic field, compared to that at height x OUTSIDE of the field.
the fact that you are UNABLE TO UNDERSTAND THIS is what cause you and I do undure a 9-page argument over the fact. and why you KEEP persisting on some error, wen the only Error that occured is the Conceptual Error in your own head. (if you take your meds like the doctor told you, you may be able to clear this kind of thing up )
Quote from: Omnibus on March 17, 2008, 02:45:55 PM
@Yadaraf,
These quotations do not prove that science is irrational. The process of discovery, as any creative process, may have an irrational element in it but when the discovery is made, the fact, the phenomenon is rational. A scientific fact in this sense differs from a creation in poetry, music or fiction. In poetry, for instance, unlike the outcome of a scientific endeavor, most of the time the result is an emanation of the irrational. That's why poetry isn't science. The closest a rational outcome can be to poetry one finds in abstract mathematics. However, when mathematics is to describe physical phenomena it is rational by its very nature because physics is rational as such. It may sound cute and amusing for the general public to compare science with art. After all public has to be won for the cause of science, especially when it pertains to convincing the Congress that more money has to be voted for it. In a serious discussion, however, no scientist worth his salt will succumb to populism and allow for the rationality of science to be substituted by the irrationality of art..
Omni,Carlos Rubbia makes the point that "Scientific discovery is an irrational act." In other words, there IS room for irrational thinking in the discovery process. You criticized my thinking as being "irrational" and claimed there was no basis for my "intuitions". Like Rubbia, I am simply pointing out that irrationality and intuition have a place in the discovery process. It's a very simple concept -- key to
21st century thinking.
=======
[Note: Again ... the grammar in your replies is horrid. My replies are not perfect, but at least they are readable. Although you appear to be a capable writer, you are lackadaisical in the proper use of grammar -- especially pronoun references. In the future I won't have time to parse your syntax and "interpret" your poorly worded replies. If English is not your native language, then I apologize and will make an allowance.
E.G. "On the contrary, we can, at that very precisely." ???
E.G. "The closest a rational outcome can be to poetry (??) one finds in abstract mathematics. However, when mathematics is (??) to describe physical phenomena it is rational by its very nature because physics is rational as such." ]
Cheers :)
Yada..
.
Quote from: sm0ky2 on March 17, 2008, 03:44:42 PM
@ Omnibus,
I made a clear distinction between the forces involved in the Tri-Force system we were observing, and the independent Energy values represented at the begining and end of the cycle.,
Your limited understanding of this ( despite my best efforts to drill it into your head) are what cause your confusion. Attempting to discredit me based on your own misunderstandings is futile. (as if anyone takes you seriously at this point anyways...)
anyone with a basic understanding of physics should be able to understand exactly what i laid out, and replicate the results themselves. Those with a deeper understanding of physics should clearly see the implications that arise here.
and someone with YOUR level of understanding SHOULD BE able to distinguish between the gravitational potential at height x INSIDE a magnetic field, compared to that at height x OUTSIDE of the field.
the fact that you are UNABLE TO UNDERSTAND THIS is what cause you and I do undure a 9-page argument over the fact. and why you KEEP persisting on some error, wen the only Error that occured is the Conceptual Error in your own head. (if you take your meds like the doctor told you, you may be able to clear this kind of thing up )
This is a useless exchange. Whoever wants to check this out may go several pages back and see who's wrong and who's right. The gaps you have will hurt you, not me and especially, as I said, the way you handle the situation when you see you're in error. Anyone can go back and see what you did.
Anyway, the more important fact is that this whole approach discussed here led us to another dead end with respect to constructing a self-sustaining device. This you can't deny. Unless you come out suddenly with a working self-sustaining device based on this design and then I will not only eat my words but also my hat.
Yade and Omni are both right, in their own ways..
The process of scientific discovery IS irrational, and much like art.
the final result - the scientific fact is a sound, rational, thing. As is the final painting of an artist.
I would say you are both right.
@Yadaraf,
The difference is that you may claim that intuition played a role in a discovery only after you?ve made a legitimate discovery, not before that. Free reign of imagination is appropriate only in areas such as poetry where the reality of the outcome doesn?t matter (except for the fact that it?s written on tangible carrier). That?s the point I?m making.
In science, to claim intuition had any role in a discovery can only make sense after the fact. In poetry fantasy governs altogether. In science it is a rare occurrence to have intuition lead to anything worth noticing. In poetry it?s almost always the case.
The remarks on style will remain unnoticed as usual. This is not a writing contest.
Quote from: sm0ky2 on March 17, 2008, 04:21:58 PM
Yade and Omni are both right, in their own ways..
The process of scientific discovery IS irrational, and much like art.
the final result - the scientific fact is a sound, rational, thing. As is the final painting of an artist.
I would say you are both right.
I'd add that irrationality in the process of scientific discovery is a rare occurrence. Discoveries are mostly rational activities based on years of systematic study of a subject, applying the rational scientific method and so on. Intuition plays a certain role but it shouldn't be overemphasized. Chance also plays a role but it isn't the defining factor as well. Systematic study and generalization done with expertise have a much greater role than intuition and chance when discoveries are made.
Quote from: sm0ky2 on March 17, 2008, 04:21:58 PM
Yade and Omni are both right, in their own ways..
The process of scientific discovery IS irrational, and much like art.
the final result - the scientific fact is a sound, rational, thing. As is the final painting of an artist.
I would say you are both right.
sm0ky2,Take the challenge: I bet you can cite at least one scientific result that was/is not rational by today's standards?
Unlike Omni, I don't believe there is a rational basis -- yet -- for ALL scientific phenomenon. Our egos lead us to believe that we have all the answers, but this is not really the case. I think this will become more apparent in the next two decades.
Cheers :)
Yada..
.
@ Yada,
sure, i could list hundreds,
but i could also list thousands more that were discovered through rational processes.
NOW - if we were to compare the impact those discoveries had on society - i would have to say that the irrationally discovered phenomena have had a greater impact, and thus could be defined as 'more important' in some abscure way.....
but not more frequent.
@Yadaraf,
This is a very pessimistic approach to science, if you don't mind that characterization. True science is intrinsically based on reason. It's very core is rational, it's the epitomy of rationality. The circumstance which assures us of that lies in fact that there are unshakable truths established in science which cannot be challenged further. This is a natural restriction which makes an artistic soul uncomfortable. When facing science a person with such poetic sensitivity always seeks to find something esoteric and unusual, some black hole or tenth dimension to hang on to. Everyday life is too dull to allow for another substantial activity such as science to sink into the prison of established norms.
Unfortunately, the truth is that from such perspective real, professional science is a very boring occupation. A professional scientist is dispassionate like the surgeon who may seem to the outsider too cold blooded when cutting live flesh. Portraying science to the public as what it really is, however, is quite counterproductive especially regarding its funding. Therefore, there are these almost appointed public relations figures, usually failed scientists, writing popular books and turning into clowns with the sole idea to make something intrinsically non appealing appear as fun..
@smOky2,
Just curious. Name one irrational discovery with a great impact.
When thinking about the most important discoveries in physics it is quite interesting that they were made by non-physicists. Think of Meyer, think of Helmholtz or Carnot or even J.W Gibbs.
This post applies to the spinning crome thingy.
Well I bought myself two magnetix 35pc metallic silver sets on Friday. I believe they are what the guy used originally. Here is a link to what they look like:
http://www.target.com/gp/detail-tab-popup.html/ref=in_de_detail-item-display/602-9842367-3636616?ie=UTF8&parentStoreItem=0&asin=B0001KU8QU&tabToSelect=additionalImages
(couldn't find a link for the 35 piece sets, and just so you know, they aren't all metal, the metallic look is plastic painted to look like chrome)
And if anyone else that lives in the US wants to buy some for cheap, KB Toys has the 35pc sets for $5.98. And If you join the www.kbclubhouse.com/ you get a $5 off your first purchase coupon. So I got two sets for about the price of one.
I am trying to make mine as close to the original as possible. I don't have any of those rectangular black magnets, but I did try using some really thin rectangular refrigerator magnets. I also oriented my rotor magnets according to Clanzer's poles in his 8th video. The top triangle poles are oriented like Clanzer's first video. I don't know if the original guy spun his up using his hands to get the 10 minute run down time or not, but I did.
Mine would run for 11 to 12 minutes gradually slowing down and then ocilating back and forth at the end. The run down times weren't affected by having arms on it or not. The only significant differance I saw was that if you used only a bearing to suspend the rotor, the run down time was about three minutes. And I am not sure because I can't remember exactly, but I believe it was also three minutes if it was only suspended by one magnet and a bearing. I guess this confirms what Clanzer said about it spinning longer with more magnets on top.
I will still play some more during the week. If I notice anything monumental I will post a video, but to me the original guys extended run down time might come from the fact that he is using magnetix brand and not geomags. The magnetix only have two magnets at each end of each piece instead of two magnets and a bar between them like in the geomags. So Magnetix just have magnets and ball bearings, which would definilty make a differance.
Omnibus,,
Please,Please STOP. You are doing my swede in mate. If you haven't got anything constructive to say then please don't say anything or at least don't say so much and then drop it. Don't keep ON and ON dragging the same OLD stuff up..
I'm going to ask Stefan if I pay for my membership here, if he will then ban Omnibus. Alchemy's law of equivalent exchange.
Quote from: gwhy! on March 17, 2008, 05:31:43 PM
Omnibus,,
Please,Please STOP. You are doing my swede in mate. If you haven't got anything constructive to say then please don't say anything or at least don't say so much and then drop it. Don't keep ON and ON dragging the same OLD stuff up..
Do you have anything constructive to say? Not really, correct?
The real issue here is that we're continuously bumping into dead ends. Not an inkling of success in terms of a self-sustaining machine anywhere. The only well understood as well as reproducible device still remains the one producing excess energy discontinuously--the SMOT, that is. That device is still the only reason for one to continue having interest in this field. How is this well understood principle to be used for making a self-sustaining device, that's the real question.
Now I understand that there are some like @Yadaraf who are expecting the irrational to come to the aid. Hope it works for him, not my cup of tea, though. What else can there be to keep the hope for a working pmm alive?
I'm bringing again the same thing--what if it is impossible in principle to build a self-sustaining device, as it appears to be the case, should we abandon the proven ways to obtain energy out of no energy source and not seek ways to develop it for practical purposes?
Omnibus, when are you going to realize you can't tell people what to do. Nobody can tell people what to do, so quit being such a bossy little girl.
"What we should do..."
"You should not continue..."
"We should be focusing..."
Blow it out your ass you fucking retard. The last person anyone will follow is you so quit telling people what to do. Try making suggestions or something not construed as being an arrogant dickhead.
Quote from: Omnibus on March 17, 2008, 06:00:17 PM
Quote from: gwhy! on March 17, 2008, 05:31:43 PM
Omnibus,,
Please,Please STOP. You are doing my swede in mate. If you haven't got anything constructive to say then please don't say anything or at least don't say so much and then drop it. Don't keep ON and ON dragging the same OLD stuff up..
Do you have anything constructive to say? Not really, correct?
\
Anyone pleading for you to STFU is productive in my view. The sooner you shut your fucking mouth, the sooner the rest of us can get back to work. Counterproductive little punk. One day someone is going to beat you to death with a smot ramp.
In view of all these failures it is imperative that we draw some conclusions from the experience and discuss what new direction to be taken. Other than the irrational approach of @Yadaraf, I don't see at this time any reasonable proposal for a self-sustaining machine. We have to face this harsh reality if anything productive is to happen. We shouldn't bump our heads into the same dead ends and not learn anything from the failures.
Quote from: konduct on March 17, 2008, 06:38:11 PM
Quote from: Omnibus on March 17, 2008, 06:00:17 PM
Quote from: gwhy! on March 17, 2008, 05:31:43 PM
Omnibus,,
Please,Please STOP. You are doing my swede in mate. If you haven't got anything constructive to say then please don't say anything or at least don't say so much and then drop it. Don't keep ON and ON dragging the same OLD stuff up..
Do you have anything constructive to say? Not really, correct?
\
Anyone pleading for you to STFU is productive in my view. The sooner you shut your fucking mouth, the sooner the rest of us can get back to work. Counterproductive little punk. One day someone is going to beat you to death with a smot ramp.
Lmao!!
They Smot him here, they Smot there, they Smot him everywhere! hahahaha
Quote from: Lakes on March 17, 2008, 07:25:37 PM
Quote from: konduct on March 17, 2008, 06:38:11 PM
Quote from: Omnibus on March 17, 2008, 06:00:17 PM
Quote from: gwhy! on March 17, 2008, 05:31:43 PM
Omnibus,,
Please,Please STOP. You are doing my swede in mate. If you haven't got anything constructive to say then please don't say anything or at least don't say so much and then drop it. Don't keep ON and ON dragging the same OLD stuff up..
Do you have anything constructive to say? Not really, correct?
\
Anyone pleading for you to STFU is productive in my view. The sooner you shut your fucking mouth, the sooner the rest of us can get back to work. Counterproductive little punk. One day someone is going to beat you to death with a smot ramp.
Lmao!!
They Smot him here, they Smot there, they Smot him everywhere! hahahaha
Anyone who sides with a potty mouthed swine is nothing better. Remember that.
@OMNI - Can you send me a schematic of your alleged "OU" SMOT device, so that i can replicate it.??
please?
@ Buggy --- what ive discovered about the wings, they are no more than an entension of magnetic force.
you may as well be poking at it with a stick..
what i sspect here, is whatever ammount of energy is put into 'adjusting' the wings, is converted magnetically into kenetic energy on the rotational part of the device.
the geomagnetic structure doesnt seem to matter, having like poles joining the spheres like that creates a low-friction junction, so it spins with very little energy input. on the same note, theres very little energy output if you stop the device.
i've got one here with paper wings it spins on the A/C flow inside the house, it spins as long as theres a litle bit of air flowing around the house.
thats about the most use i could find from it. unless we have a driving source, just hang it from something as a decoration... geomagnetic art... thats actually the intention of these toys we play with :)
Quote from: sm0ky2 on March 17, 2008, 07:28:18 PM
@OMNI - Can you send me a schematic of your alleged "OU" SMOT device, so that i can replicate it.??
please?
@ Buggy --- what ive discovered about the wings, they are no more than an entension of magnetic force.
you may as well be poking at it with a stick..
what i sspect here, is whatever ammount of energy is put into 'adjusting' the wings, is converted magnetically into kenetic energy on the rotational part of the device.
the geomagnetic structure doesnt seem to matter, having like poles joining the spheres like that creates a low-friction junction, so it spins with very little energy input. on the same note, theres very little energy output if you stop the device.
i've got one here with paper wings it spins on the A/C flow inside the house, it spins as long as theres a litle bit of air flowing around the house.
thats about the most use i could find from it. unless we have a driving source, just hang it from something as a decoration... geomagnetic art... thats actually the intention of these toys we play with :)
Yeah, I was thinking it was just a very low friction magnet bearing. I am still going to give it a few more shots though, just because of the fact that it does feel like it wants to spin on it's own, just doesn't have enough energy. Like if I put my finger there to stop it, sometimes I feel a bit of a tug on my fingers. Maybe it is nothing though. :)
Quote from: Omnibus on March 17, 2008, 05:05:33 PM
@smOky2,
Just curious. Name one irrational discovery with a great impact.
When thinking about the most important discoveries in physics it is quite interesting that they were made by non-physicists. Think of Meyer, think of Helmholtz or Carnot or even J.W Gibbs.
Omni,Many scientists agree with the concept of the "lucky accident," which is an unreasoned and, therefore, irrational act. Some of the greatest scientific discoveries have been made "irrationally":
Penicillin,
Microwave,
Insulin,
Poylprolylene,
Quinine,
X-rays,
Pap Smears,
Interferon,
Bioelectricty,
Asparatame,
Rayon,
Vaccination for Disease Prevention,
Cosmetic Botox,
V-iagra,
The Telephone,
Superglue,
Post-It Notes,
Vulcanization,
Velcro,
Corn Flakes,
Electromagnetics,
Cellophane,
Bose-Einstein Statistics
WhipMag AGW, ;D etc.
Throughout the ages humans have ingested numerous plants and roots, and by chance have made many (many) medicinal discoveries -- for example, willow root (a.k.a natural aspirin). Imagine the irrationality (at the time) of consuming willow root for a headache. IMHO it is the prevailing paradigm that determines the rationality of a scientific discovery.
Cheers :)
Yada..
.
@smOky2,
There?s enough said on SMOT in the various threads so I don?t want to get into this again. For me it?s a done deal. If you want to learn more dig for the SMOT discussions. There are quite a few topics devoted to that.
As for the current construction, it seems you have convinced yourself already that it cannot lead to a self-sustaining device. It violates CoE, as many other constructions do but it cannot lead to a working pmm. Do I understand correctly what you just said?
Having it as a toy is of absolutely no interest to those trying to construct a self-sustaining device. On the other hand, as a proof for violation of CoE it isn't interesting as well because such proof has already been provided by a simpler device allowing less leeway to critics to come up with their ridiculous objections.
@Yadaraf,
I only agree partially with what you say about these findings. Most of them aren't fundamental discoveries to begin with. I'm not inclined at this moment to discuss it further though. Maybe sometime later. What I'm really interested is to discuss whether or not there is a possibility in principle for a self-sustaining device. What would prevent, as a matter of principle, the obviously obtained discontinuous excess energy to be harnessed in a self-sustaining device? If that's the case there must be some theoretical reason preventing this. What is it?
Shall we award omnibus a prize for his useless smot? Whether it violates CoE is out of the question. CAN YOU USE IT TO PRODUCE ENERGY? Thats the way. I have never seen one post that actualy talked about, or tried, to construct a closed loop. IMO all your research was a waste. IT suffers the same problem as virtual particles. Only CoE in another space and time. But that argument some how didn't make sense to you... They will not recognize your smot because it cannot be used for anything, thus in their minds, it doesn't violate CoE because the energy cannot be harvested. You have proven without a doubt that your SMOT was a waste of research... It might not have been if you actualy continued and made it useful, but now, it's nothing but a proof. You have proven the square has four sides not three. Congrats on your wasted invention...
@ Omni - steorn did an extensive study on the SMOT device, and have proven it to operate at less than 75% effeciency.
my question was for a replicatable design of YOUR SMOT, that you claim is "UO"
i have read several discussions in this forum, and cannot find the one(s) you keep making reference to,
all i have found is hundreds of posts of you arguing with people about the SMOT...
and understand me on this point - if something TRULY violates CoE then it IS by default - loopable.
the physical technicality of forming that loop may become extremely complicated, rendering the engineer incapable of constructing it, but if theres more energy out than in, it can be looped.
Quote from: Omnibus on March 17, 2008, 07:45:31 PM
@Yadaraf,
I only agree partially with what you say about these findings. Most of them aren't fundamental discoveries to begin with. I'm not inclined at this moment to discuss it further though. Maybe sometime later. What I'm really interested is to discuss whether or not there is a possibility in principle for a self-sustaining device. What would prevent, as a matter of principle, the obviously obtained discontinuous excess energy to be harnessed in a self-sustaining device? If that's the case there must be some theoretical reason preventing this. What is it?
Omni, Q: Because this thread is related to TriForce technology can you -- OR ANYONE --
think of a lucky accident related to the TriForce experiments?The "lucky accidents" below are well documented, and you can find many of them in the four volume set on "A History of Science."
... Vol I: http://www.worldwideschool.org/library/books/sci/history/AHistoryofScienceVolumeI/toc.html
... Vol II: http://www.worldwideschool.org/library/books/sci/history/AHistoryofScienceVolumeII/toc.html
... Vol III: http://www.worldwideschool.org/library/books/sci/history/AHistoryofScienceVolumeIII/toc.html
... Vol IV: http://www.worldwideschool.org/library/books/sci/history/AHistoryofScienceVolumeIV/toc.html
A few "lucky accidents" led to these scientific discoveries
==========================================
Penicillin,
Microwave,
Insulin,
Polypropylene,
Quinine,
X-rays,
Pap Smears,
Interferon,
Bioelectricty,
Asparatame,
Rayon,
Vaccination for Disease Prevention,
Cosmetic Botox,
V-iagra,
The Telephone,
Superglue,
Post-It Notes,
Vulcanization,
Velcro,
Corn Flakes,
Electromagnetics,
Cellophane,
Bose-Einstein Statistics,
WhipMag AGW (?) ;D Yada thinks "maybe."
Cheers :)
Yada..
.
Quote from: HopeForHumanity on March 17, 2008, 08:13:15 PM
Shall we award omnibus a prize for his useless smot? Whether it violates CoE is out of the question. CAN YOU USE IT TO PRODUCE ENERGY? Thats the way. I have never seen one post that actualy talked about, or tried, to construct a closed loop. IMO all your research was a waste. IT suffers the same problem as virtual particles. Only CoE in another space and time. But that argument some how didn't make sense to you... They will not recognize your smot because it cannot be used for anything, thus in their minds, it doesn't violate CoE because the energy cannot be harvested. You have proven without a doubt that your SMOT was a waste of research... It might not have been if you actualy continued and made it useful, but now, it's nothing but a proof. You have proven the square has four sides not three. Congrats on your wasted invention...
See, the thing is that the quantity of excess energy produced is too small a quantity.
Let's observe the magnetic propulsor http://omnibus.fortunecity.com/magnetic_propulsor.gif which is the closes to what we're discussing here. There's no question that the energy which the ball has at C which is (mgh1 + Kc + L) where Kc is the kinetic energy at C and L are the losses along B-C is greater than the energy (mgh1 - (Ma - Mb)) which was imparted to the ball, where Ma and Mb are the magnetic potential energies at A and B.
In other words at C the ball has energy in excess to what was imparted to it. That's a clear violation of CoE.
First thing to note is that the entire amount of energy at C, except for the losses stands to be turned into other energies when the ball will inevitably go back at A.
Notice carefully, except for the losses L along B-C.
Therefore, no matter what energies the ball converts its available energy at C upon its return at C, there will always be an excess energy equal to L which will already be lost for that purpose. This energy L is parto of the free lunch. Very small amount, however.
As far as science goes, no matter how small, proving that there is any amount produced over the amount of energy spent is a violation of the unthinkable and has far-reaching theoretical consequence. Unfortunately, of no immediate practical application.
So far I observed one quantity of energy, namely L, which is in excess to the imparted energy and that?s enough for scientific purposes to obliterate CoE as a general principle in science. You can find other quantities of excess energy if you continue this analysis. However, again, despite its immense significance as a theoretical conclusion in science, the smallness of the effect doesn?t make it directly practical at the present time. This isn?t the first time in science when a substantial theoretical effect has little or no foreseeable practical application. I?m sure @smOkey2 can give you ample examples of such cases.
@Yadaraf,
Believe it or not, despite my initial rejection, I hooked myself up with the @alsetalokin scam led by the feeling that it might be an example of a lucky coincidence. This was an irrational, purely intuitive feeling on a second thought. Turns out my initial intuition, the one that usually leads me in research, was the right one. Probably you know from before that I'm very skeptical towards all magnet contraptions. Well, people make mistakes. I must admit, though, that it was a carefully crafted hoax.
This one we're discussing here held some promise especially after @klicUK's experiment with the shielding. Unfortunately, as expected, it suffers trivially from the same problems every single desogn that was tried has.
Quote from: sm0ky2 on March 17, 2008, 08:48:07 PM
@ Omni - steorn did an extensive study on the SMOT device, and have proven it to operate at less than 75% effeciency.
my question was for a replicatable design of YOUR SMOT, that you claim is "UO"
i have read several discussions in this forum, and cannot find the one(s) you keep making reference to,
all i have found is hundreds of posts of you arguing with people about the SMOT...
and understand me on this point - if something TRULY violates CoE then it IS by default - loopable.
the physical technicality of forming that loop may become extremely complicated, rendering the engineer incapable of constructing it, but if theres more energy out than in, it can be looped.
Never mind Steorn. Their opinion counts for nothing at present, as is well known.
Take a look at Naudin's video. There's a clear proof for OU.
A conclusive proof, however, is the one with the closed A-B-C-A loop--see my reply to @HopeForHumanity.
Quote from: Omnibus on March 17, 2008, 08:54:39 PM
Quote from: HopeForHumanity on March 17, 2008, 08:13:15 PM
Shall we award omnibus a prize for his useless smot? Whether it violates CoE is out of the question. CAN YOU USE IT TO PRODUCE ENERGY? Thats the way. I have never seen one post that actualy talked about, or tried, to construct a closed loop. IMO all your research was a waste. IT suffers the same problem as virtual particles. Only CoE in another space and time. But that argument some how didn't make sense to you... They will not recognize your smot because it cannot be used for anything, thus in their minds, it doesn't violate CoE because the energy cannot be harvested. You have proven without a doubt that your SMOT was a waste of research... It might not have been if you actualy continued and made it useful, but now, it's nothing but a proof. You have proven the square has four sides not three. Congrats on your wasted invention...
See, the thing is that the quantity of excess energy produced is too small a quantity.
Let's observe the magnetic propulsor http://omnibus.fortunecity.com/magnetic_propulsor.gif which is the closes to what we're discussing here. There's no question that the energy which the ball has at C which is (mgh1 + Kc + L) where Kc is the kinetic energy at C and L are the losses along B-C is greater than the energy (mgh1 - (Ma - Mb)) which was imparted to the ball, where Ma and Mb are the magnetic potential energies at A and B.
In other words at C the ball has energy in excess to what was imparted to it. That's a clear violation of CoE.
First thing to note is that the entire amount of energy at C, except for the losses stands to be turned into other energies when the ball will inevitably go back at A.
Notice carefully, except for the losses L along B-C.
Therefore, no matter what energies the ball converts its available energy at C upon its return at C, there will always be an excess energy equal to L which will already be lost for that purpose. This energy L is parto of the free lunch. Very small amount, however.
As far as science goes, no matter how small, proving that there is any amount produced over the amount of energy spent is a violation of the unthinkable and has far-reaching theoretical consequence. Unfortunately, of no immediate practical application.
So far I observed one quantity of energy, namely L, which is in excess to the imparted energy and that?s enough for scientific purposes to obliterate CoE as a general principle in science. You can find other quantities of excess energy if you continue this analysis. However, again, despite its immense significance as a theoretical conclusion in science, the smallness of the effect doesn?t make it directly practical at the present time. This isn?t the first time in science when a substantial theoretical effect has little or no foreseeable practical application. I?m sure @smOkey2 can give you ample examples of such cases.
yes this is true. however, if you link enough of these things to reach an energy value of substantial quantity - hten the implications cannot be so easily overlooked.
couple that with the fact that we can compact incredible ammounts of magnetic energy into a small space - (neos)creating something usefull out of tiny ammounts of energy can be easily realized.
this is evident in the Neo Tri-Force which can climb a considerably steeper incline, thus suggesting that the transitional-phase energy is even greater in a "stronger" gate.
have you noticed similar results with a SMOT made from neos?
Quote from: Omnibus on March 17, 2008, 09:05:27 PM
A conclusive proof, however, is the one with the closed A-B-C-A loop--see my reply to @HopeForHumanity.
are you and i looking at the same diagram? there is LESS energy at point A, than there is at point B.
the energy leaving point C is not enough to return from A to B.
the energy you must put into the system is equal to (B -A)mg, to start the next cycle.
sure there is some energy value from B<->C, but this is countered by the attraction force (or more rather caused by) sticking the ball at the end of the ramp. That energy is put BACK into the system, by gravity, which pulls the ball free and returns it to point A. Thus the entire energy LOST in the system is (A-B) mg.
Quote from: sm0ky2 on March 17, 2008, 09:05:32 PM
Quote from: Omnibus on March 17, 2008, 08:54:39 PM
Quote from: HopeForHumanity on March 17, 2008, 08:13:15 PM
Shall we award omnibus a prize for his useless smot? Whether it violates CoE is out of the question. CAN YOU USE IT TO PRODUCE ENERGY? Thats the way. I have never seen one post that actualy talked about, or tried, to construct a closed loop. IMO all your research was a waste. IT suffers the same problem as virtual particles. Only CoE in another space and time. But that argument some how didn't make sense to you... They will not recognize your smot because it cannot be used for anything, thus in their minds, it doesn't violate CoE because the energy cannot be harvested. You have proven without a doubt that your SMOT was a waste of research... It might not have been if you actualy continued and made it useful, but now, it's nothing but a proof. You have proven the square has four sides not three. Congrats on your wasted invention...
See, the thing is that the quantity of excess energy produced is too small a quantity.
Let's observe the magnetic propulsor http://omnibus.fortunecity.com/magnetic_propulsor.gif which is the closes to what we're discussing here. There's no question that the energy which the ball has at C which is (mgh1 + Kc + L) where Kc is the kinetic energy at C and L are the losses along B-C is greater than the energy (mgh1 - (Ma - Mb)) which was imparted to the ball, where Ma and Mb are the magnetic potential energies at A and B.
In other words at C the ball has energy in excess to what was imparted to it. That's a clear violation of CoE.
First thing to note is that the entire amount of energy at C, except for the losses stands to be turned into other energies when the ball will inevitably go back at A.
Notice carefully, except for the losses L along B-C.
Therefore, no matter what energies the ball converts its available energy at C upon its return at C, there will always be an excess energy equal to L which will already be lost for that purpose. This energy L is parto of the free lunch. Very small amount, however.
As far as science goes, no matter how small, proving that there is any amount produced over the amount of energy spent is a violation of the unthinkable and has far-reaching theoretical consequence. Unfortunately, of no immediate practical application.
So far I observed one quantity of energy, namely L, which is in excess to the imparted energy and that?s enough for scientific purposes to obliterate CoE as a general principle in science. You can find other quantities of excess energy if you continue this analysis. However, again, despite its immense significance as a theoretical conclusion in science, the smallness of the effect doesn?t make it directly practical at the present time. This isn?t the first time in science when a substantial theoretical effect has little or no foreseeable practical application. I?m sure @smOkey2 can give you ample examples of such cases.
yes this is true. however, if you link enough of these things to reach an energy value of substantial quantity - hten the implications cannot be so easily overlooked.
couple that with the fact that we can compact incredible ammounts of magnetic energy into a small space - (neos)creating something usefull out of tiny ammounts of energy can be easily realized.
this is evident in the Neo Tri-Force which can climb a considerably steeper incline, thus suggesting that the transitional-phase energy is even greater in a "stronger" gate.
have you noticed similar results with a SMOT made from neos?
Yes, that's what attracted my attention here but it turned out experimentally it's not the case. The quantity of energy out is again only slightly more than the input, insufficient to surmount the initial barrier (in this case there's an initial barrier--conditions differ slightly from SMOT). Unless you or someone else can show otherwise. Like I said, @klicUK's screening results gave some hope but, again, that doesn't appear to be enough. The excess energy is too small a portion to be useful in these configuration (by useful I mean to make these configuration self-sustaining). This is what the experiments seem to show so far.
Quote from: sm0ky2 on March 17, 2008, 09:15:56 PM
Quote from: Omnibus on March 17, 2008, 09:05:27 PM
A conclusive proof, however, is the one with the closed A-B-C-A loop--see my reply to @HopeForHumanity.
are you and i looking at the same diagram? there is LESS energy at point A, than there is at point B.
the energy leaving point C is not enough to return from A to B.
the energy you must put into the system is equal to (B -A)mg, to start the next cycle.
sure there is some energy value from B<->C, but this is countered by the attraction force (or more rather caused by) sticking the ball at the end of the ramp. That energy is put BACK into the system, by gravity, which pulls the ball free and returns it to point A. Thus the entire energy LOST in the system is (A-B) mg.
Indeed, there's less energy at B (and that's the imparted energy) than at C which the ball stands to transform into other energies. That's exactly the violation of CoE.
Quote from: Rusty_Springs on March 17, 2008, 04:06:35 AM
Quote from: cub3 on March 17, 2008, 12:35:20 AM
??? Hi all,
I, have not noticed on here any link toÃ, Ã, http://freenrg.info/Patents/Mag_Motors/US4179633.pdf
Regards
DenÃ, :-X
Hi Den
To me thats basically the Johnson gate and motor just setup a different way
Take Care Den
Graham
Hi Graham
Could, this not be an application That is amenable to the Tri-Force Gate?
Kind regards
Den
Quote from: cub3 on March 18, 2008, 01:05:29 AM
Quote from: Rusty_Springs on March 17, 2008, 04:06:35 AM
Quote from: cub3 on March 17, 2008, 12:35:20 AM
??? Hi all,
I, have not noticed on here any link to http://freenrg.info/Patents/Mag_Motors/US4179633.pdf
Regards
Den :-X
Hi Den
To me thats basically the Johnson gate and motor just setup a different way
Take Care Den
Graham
Hi Graham
Could, this not be an application That is amenable to the Tri-Force Gate?
Kind regards
Den
cub3,
The patent reminds me of Overconfident's (OC's) latch concept.
... http://fizzx.com/viewtopic.php?t=318&start=0&sid=3447abedaaae417a1cc232c362af691f
Cheers :)
Yada ..
.
tri-force gate...wheel?
have the triforce gate start at 3:01 o'clock (for a clockwise rotating wheel), and have it wrap back around to 12:01. triforce gate should propel the wheel for the 270 degrees it is in the area of effect. from 12:01 to 2:59, the weight will fall from the force of gravity. The entire rotation of the wheel is powered, leaving only the gate to be overcome, with the help of gravity.
sound workable?
Quote from: Omnibus on March 17, 2008, 07:39:21 PM
@smOky2,
There?s enough said on SMOT in the various threads so I don?t want to get into this again. For me it?s a done deal. If you want to learn more dig for the SMOT discussions. There are quite a few topics devoted to that.
As for the current construction, it seems you have convinced yourself already that it cannot lead to a self-sustaining device. It violates CoE, as many other constructions do but it cannot lead to a working pmm. Do I understand correctly what you just said?
Having it as a toy is of absolutely no interest to those trying to construct a self-sustaining device. On the other hand, as a proof for violation of CoE it isn't interesting as well because such proof has already been provided by a simpler device allowing less leeway to critics to come up with their ridiculous objections.
Omnibus
You are a bright guy but you are also a Bright Bully you have commented on the amount of bandwidth/clutter. what purpose does that serve? Much of that was your responses to postings.
WE share Ideas and experiences here. for folks to accept or reject
YOU DEMAND account ability YOU HAVE FROM ME AND OTHERS But I made no claims..
You might consider the value of the postings and treat them accordingly. You could also choose not to respond to them.
YOU also have knowledge that could be useful to the group IF you choose to participate with the group it in a helpful way.
But through your words and criticims you post here create an obsticle to free thinking and new ideas, what purpose does that serve?.
This is a message from me to you and does not require a response.
Be Well
Tinker
QuoteBut through your words and criticims you post here create an obsticle to free thinking and new ideas, what purpose does that serve?
Aggressive incompetence, hoaxing, impudent dishonesty pushed with polite arrogance, serving powers set to destroy the field etc. must be confronted vigorously. Not confronting such menace is cowardice and is exactly what?s creating an obstacle to free thinking and new ideas.
Quote from: Omnibus on March 18, 2008, 06:26:41 AM
QuoteBut through your words and criticims you post here create an obsticle to free thinking and new ideas, what purpose does that serve?
Aggressive incompetence, hoaxing, impudent dishonesty pushed with polite arrogance, serving powers set to destroy the field etc. must be confronted vigorously. Not confronting such menace is cowardice and is exactly what?s creating an obstacle to free thinking and new ideas.
You're the only menace asshole.
Hi Dan
I have to check that patent out more to see if it will work with the Trigate.
Omnibus first I am the designer of the Trigate and I have made no claims about it in this or any other forum so were am I a hoax or anyother comment you have made, you have attacted me and I have to wonder why because like I said I have made no claims about my design, as people have told you the Trigate may or maynot be a tool, people have alway wanted a magnetic gate that can attractin and repel out and I have shown you can do that with my corner gate and Trigate what people do with that is up to them, will they make a PMM I have no idea but being able to cross and airgap is to me a step in the right direction, to me anything that can repel you across and airgap and can bring you back into the system has to be good and again a step in the right direction.
Not having tryed the SMOT I can't really comment but knowing magnets and iron I know it doesn't repel out so to me its useless and thats why I have never worked with it and will never its the dead end you keep talking about.
Take Care Omnibus
Graham
@Rusty_Springs,
I have never accused you of being a hoax. How can you dare say such a thing? The only thing I've meant is that you're misguided and that the so-called tri-gate is not the solution that will bring about a self-sustaining run, as you seem to believe. There's already ample experimental evidence to that effect although it was almost clear from the get go. That is a trivial design suffering from all the known problems numerous designs have and is getting the community into the same dead-end experienced with other designs. There is still a slight possibility for success, based on @klicUK's screening experiments and I'd love to be proven wrong. That's all I've had in mind. As for a hoaxer, we have a bug time one now--@alsetalokin--but that's a completely different story.
Quote from: Omnibus on March 18, 2008, 07:34:11 PM
@Rusty_Springs,
I have never accused you of being a hoax. How can you dare say such a thing? The only thing I've meant is that you're misguided and that the so-called tri-gate is not the solution that will bring about a self-sustaining run, as you seem to believe. There's already ample experimental evidence to that effect although it was almost clear from the get go. That is a trivial design suffering from all the known problems numerous designs have and is getting the community into the same dead-end experienced with other designs. There is still a slight possibility for success, based on @klicUK's screening experiments and I'd love to be proven wrong. That's all I've had in mind. As for a hoaxer, we have a bug time one now--@alsetalokin--but that's a completely different story.
If you don't believe it will work, STFU. Your causing idea traffic by pulling your critic car into the wrong lane. WTF do you think will happen in that situation? "Oh, everyone will agree with me, because I disagree with them"... Thats something a person would realize to be futile. Yet you try and try to stop the train. Suicide, omnibus, suicide......
Hi Omnibus
I felt like I was being attacted and if you say your not personally attacking me then Im sorry for saying you did, and you maybe right about Trigate taking us nowhere but as I said any system that can attract in and repel out must be a step in the right direction, to be honest I have tryed many setup and until I see a working model that I can biuld I will not beleave its possible to make a PMM and until I see my setup biult the way I said and not rotate I will still think it may work because it fits all that is needed in that it attracts in moves along the magnetic course and repels out across the airgap to attractin again.
I had a theory about a one pulse electromagnetic motor now from theory to reality it took 6 months, until I biult it I had douts but it did work, at the moment my trigate motor is a theory and I have douts about it but I will never know until I biuld it and that could take months thats just the way things work but I will not throw an idea away until I have fully tested it first.
To me thats how things are invented you have an idea and you run with it until its proven to be right or wrong if wrong you start again but I'm sure while your getting to the stage of proving it wrong your learning new things and thats how ideas progress or using an old saying you learn from your mistakes, just cause someone says something wont work doesn't mean it wont nor does it mean you should stop because even if it doesn't work you will learn something new, if inventers over the years listened to people saying the ideas wont work nothing would have been invented and we would still be in the horse and buggy stage, how many things where invented where people said that wont work thats rubbish yes not only did it work but it inproved the way we are now.
Take Care Omnibus
Graham
You can bash me only after you or someone else proves a self sustaining-device can be made based on the so-called "tri-gate" and demonstrates one for others to reproduce (I'll be the first to eat my hat if that happens, solely based on the cooperative stationary magnetic field of that device). Until then I'm right and that's not because I want it to be so but because the scientific arguments and the ample experiments point to such impossibiliy.
Hi Omnibus
I have no problems with that and your right if there was a way of changing the field in motion then you would have a working PMM, is there a way using permanent magnets thats yet to be seen but I would love to be the first to discover it if there was.
I could be wrong here but my theory is if you can follow the magnetic flux in one direction in a loop or circle you are doing as good as changing the magnetic field in motion, my gates work by doing just that they follow the magnetic lines of flux from repel to attract in the case of my corner gate and attract to repel in the case of the Trigate, they travel through the gates in one direction because they have nowhere else to go and how I'm making that happen is by angleing the magnets so the lines of flux going against the motion I want are behind the lines of flux going in the direction I want.
Take Care Omnibus
Graham
Take Care Omnibus
Graham
As I already told you, in this analysis you're not taking into account the energy needed to overcome the barrier prior to where you initially place the roller. Overcoming that barrier (not the follow up one which you seem to emphasize) is the crux of the matter. Like I said, @klicUK may have the solution with his shielding but that remains to be demonstrated experimentally. Hope it works.
Quote from: Omnibus on March 18, 2008, 09:40:01 PM
As I already told you, in this analysis you're not taking into account the energy needed to overcome the barrier prior to where you initially place the roller. Overcoming that barrier (not the follow up one which you seem to emphasize) is the crux of the matter. Like I said, @klicUK may have the solution with his shielding but that remains to be demonstrated experimentally. Hope it works.
This actually causes an aditional problem, by lowering the repulsion in, you also lower the repulsion out, and subsequently the transitional factor in between.
i.e. - multiple shielded gates lose their strength over long runs and wont even exit the array, much less enter the next one. i think magnetic diversion would be better along those lines.
As Graham showed in one experiment where he ran the extension magnets off to the side.
i believe Clanzer also repeated this in one set-up.
Also sometihng to think about, the back 2 corners of the Tri-Force (N and S respectively) shoot a flux stream about 3 feet away, and can effect set-ups where the gates come back passed one another, like in a loop attempt.
if you think of circle divided trilatterally, like a "peace sign", the bottom two legs being the bars adjoining at the ball.
the top line is the direction of the flux shooting out in a straight line.
Yeah, you have a point. @Ice D'Bear is repeating it over and over again also. You improve it here but it reflects adversely there, to put it simply. That has always been the core of the problem.
Quote from: sm0ky2 on March 18, 2008, 10:47:01 PM
Also sometihng to think about, the back 2 corners of the Tri-Force (N and S respectively) shoot a flux stream about 3 feet away, and can effect set-ups where the gates come back passed one another, like in a loop attempt.
if you think of circle divided trilatterally, like a "peace sign", the bottom two legs being the bars adjoining at the ball.
the top line is the direction of the flux shooting out in a straight line.
sm0ky2,Ditto on the flux streams. When studying any of these devices under controlled conditions, place all unused magnets several feet away from the device under test (DUT). DO NOT under estimate the influence of even a small neo that is one foot away -- or a nearby metal object, like a camera tripod or lamp.
Cheers :)
Yada..
.
@Yadaraf,
Your conjecture that possible natural changes in the geophysical EM fields could lie at the basis of ostensible self-sustaining spin is plausible because such fields are not conservative. However, it still is only a conjecture in view of the fact that these fields are very weak and there's no mechanism offered to explain how such fields would couple with the fields of the permanent magnets of a pmm to produce quasi-self-sustaining effects. Let alone the fact that it will not be a true perpetuum mobile since there would be an energy source which the pmm would be tapping in. Recall that @Grimer is also trying to invoke somehow exotic external factors such as, what he calls, a 'gamma atmosphere'.
Hi Omnibus
I showed videos of how to overcome the barrier comming in with out shielding and with shielding and for a loop with a small airgap you only have to overcome the barrier comming in across the airgap which I showed can be done, this doesn't mean it will work as a motor but I know the barrier can be overcome.
Take Care Omnibus
Graham
Quote from: Rusty_Springs on March 19, 2008, 12:30:00 AM
Hi Omnibus
I showed videos of how to overcome the barrier comming in with out shielding and with shielding and for a loop with a small airgap you only have to overcome the barrier comming in across the airgap which I showed can be done, this doesn't mean it will work as a motor but I know the barrier can be overcome.
Take Care Omnibus
Graham
You haven't shown, however, how the barrier is overcome, prior to the one you mention above.
Quote from: Omnibus on March 18, 2008, 11:50:47 PM
@Yadaraf,
Your conjecture that possible natural changes in the geophysical EM fields could lie at the basis of ostensible self-sustaining spin is plausible because such fields are not conservative. However, it still is only a conjecture in view of the fact that these fields are very weak and there's no mechanism offered to explain how such fields would couple with the fields of the permanent magnets of a pmm to produce quasi-self-sustaining effects. Let alone the fact that it will not be a true perpetuum mobile since there would be an energy source which the pmm would be tapping in. Recall that @Grimer is also trying to invoke somehow exotic external factors such as, what he calls, a 'gamma atmosphere'.
Omni,First,
"hypothesis" is the proper term -- not conjecture. My reasoning is tied to objective data, after all. (I think you understand the difference.)
Steve Marks TPU as well as Bruce's TPU are presumably based on tapping into SR. Mark's TPU is particularly interesting because it produced a frequency of 7.3 Hz and worked only in one orientation -- it stopped working when he turned it upside down. This artifact might be due to the orthogonal magnetic field that results from the vertical electric field in the ionoshpere.
One problem with SR is that it is affected by diurnal, seasonal, and geographical variations. I actually thought Al might have gotten lucky with his device, and that it might have worked only during the Fall night -- in Canada. ;D
Grimer and I aren't the only ones considering SR, and I believe Harvey picked up on it in the very beginning. I'm not sure where Bruce stands. As far as I know, this is the only hypothesis supported by objective data -- albeit "sketchy."
Cheers :)
Yada..
.
Hi sm0ky2
Your right the best way I have found to shield magnetic forces is to add to them, as you add iron to them the field decreases in other words your stretching the field so its not spilling out as much, this cuts down the field when your a distance away but makes the field stronger when your close because the lines of flux are closer together, I use iron because as the field stretches the iron weakens it until the field is so weak it can't be senced, I have found one big piece of iron doesn't work as well as alot of little pieces of iron joined by the magnetic flux as you join them you will see when the field is weak enough the iron will not attract to the last piece any more, also if you wanted to move the field away from a magnet you join iron to the magnet like I said but you overlap the iron so the magnet you are moving will still attract to the iron and keep moving until the iron is so weak it can't move the magnet any more.
There is no perfect shield and I have found rather then shielding a magnet its easier to divert its flux away from where you don't want it using ever iron or other magnets.
Take Care sm0ky2
Graham
@Yadaraf,
Well, call it hypothesis if you wish, it's OK with me. My problem is that we already have a proven way of producing energy out of no energy source and that's the real scientifically shocking fact, established beyond a shadow of a doubt. Why not go along that line of research and not stick to hypotheses which not only haven't been proven to be viable but are also along the trivial, foreseeable paths of thinking. Indeed, there are natural resources out there. There are waterfalls, coal mines, oil fields etc. and all these are being exploited for the purposes of obtaining energy. The trivial line of thinking is to look further into such available resources, say ocean tides, wind, sun light, natural temperature differences, hydrogen from splitting water and carry it on into the tectonic movements, cosmic rays, naturally existing EM field around our planet and what not. These are trivial, foreseeable ways to look for new energy sources. Many groups are devoting their efforts to even more trivial but secure, as a way of funding, efforts--just looking for ways to increase the efficiency of the already existing machines.
Here, however, we're talking about something fundamentally different, not in any way stemming from or related to the above approaches. Here we're seeking ways to implement the already established production of energy out of no energy source into a machine which will produce that out-of-nothing-energy continuously. There's a hell of a lot of difference between this and all of the above, including all the bogus speculations for zpe, energy from the vacuum and the like.
So, here we're not only talking about free energy which exists out there and we are set to find ways to tap into it. We're not only talking about overunity, that is, obtaining for our practical purposes more energy, extracting it from the vast free resources out there through spending less energy for the purpose. We're talking about something, fundamentally, revolutionary different--continuous obtaining of energy out of no source, having already found a way to produce energy out of nothing discontinuously.
I think you understand that difference but I felt I'd mention it once again.
@ Graham - using other magnets is the type of diversion i was refering to. using metal to divert it is pretty much the same as shielding, just on a a gradient, instead of into one mass..
using more magnets, not only maintains the original test field, but also amplifies it while also diverting the repulsion zone. this of course changes the test conditions, and therefore must be treated as an entirely different gate array.
also if you want to loop it back aorund, your 'roller' generally passes back through the field you just diverted...
i know there are other directions (up?) you can run the diversion, but it gets to a point where it begins to effect the action of the gate. thus making the now "working" loop inneffective. does that make sense?
@ OMNI,
theres a VERY fine line between unity (PM), and Overunity.
Overunity - is NOT perpetual motion, nor CAN it be, in a closed loop system.
each cycle, if there is excess energy imparted into the system, the next cycle will be accelerated.
and the next, and the next, and the next until the device destroys itself. Meaning, you cant have a device that accelerates, AND continues to run indefinately. it will reach the mechanical 'speed limit' of the device's construction, OR if its build strong enough, the tensil strength of the materials themselves, but it WILL destroy itself.... [Magnetic systems accellerate exponentially]
Perpetual Motion - is Perfect Unity. ANY and ALL Overunity energy, MUST be disposed of (or stored) before the start of the next cycle, so as to maintain the frequency of the device cycles. (not accelerating or decellerating). Now there are lots of ideas that come to mind of how to do this, (wind resistance, physical 'load', electronic 'load', any load..)
Now, from the standpoint of physics - i dont see a 'magnetic' device in the same way that i see a physical device. in a physical device - sure you can't get energy out of nothing. this is true.
but we are manipulating force fields here - which themselves are energy wating to be set into motion.
like dropping a rock into our atmosphere from space..... the natural world is constantly changing a a result of magnetic forces.
So i dont view a magnetic arrangement that produces excess energy as a violation of any laws of physics.
i think the biggest problem is how people interpret those laws, especially the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
Which i would argue does not apply to magnetic interactions, they are independent from energy/thermal/physical interactions.
While magnetic interactions can cause these types of interactions to occur - the magnetic interaction can occur regardless of the status of energy in the system.
[ the exception being when that energy creates or otherwise manipulates a magnetic field].
I have proven to myself nearly a decade ago that overunity with magnets was possible - when a purely magnetic device nearly killed me. That was when i first really started playing with magnets again.
some guy had a video of a device in the internet ( imagine that!....) and i decided to play with what he was playing with... and got off on my own tangent.
prior to that i thought i had a complete understanding of magnetics (as was taught to me). And believed such tihngs were not possible.
@smOky2,
Your acceleration argument is incorrect. Recall that as it accelerates forces of friction also increase until a dynamic equilibrium is established between the tendency for acceleration and the opposing it friction. Thus, after the initial acceleration a steady state is attained whereby the rpm are no longer increased. So that argument against perpetual motion is out.
Further, magnetic devices are physical devices and forces are not energy. That has to be clearly understood. Also, CoE is a universal principle in physics and it is supposed to cover also the magnetic devices. Violation of CoE in a magnetic device overthrows CoE as a general principle in physics. In addition, violation of CoE invalidates also the second principle of thermodynamics as a general principle. Thus, violation of CoE is a very serious matter with far reaching consequences.
I don?t know what you mean by saying that you proved to yourself that overunity with magnets was possible when a purely magnetic device nearly killed you but one thing is categorically certain?a purely magnetic device cannot prove overunity (violation of CoE). The fact that the magnetic field itself is a conservative field and CoE can never be violated there is one of those absolute truths in physics which can never be challenged.
Quote from: Omnibus on March 19, 2008, 02:52:35 PM
@Yadaraf,
Your acceleration argument is incorrect. Recall that as it accelerates forces of friction also increase until a dynamic equilibrium is established between the tendency for acceleration and the opposing it friction. Thus, after the initial acceleration a steady state is attained whereby the rpm are no longer increased. So that argument against perpetual motion is out.
Further, magnetic devices are physical devices and forces are not energy. That has to be clearly understood. Also, CoE is a universal principle in physics and it is supposed to cover also the magnetic devices. Violation of CoE in a magnetic device overthrows CoE as a general principle in physics. In addition, violation of CoE invalidates also the second principle of thermodynamics as a general principle. Thus, violation of CoE is a very serious matter with far reaching consequences.
I don?t know what you mean by saying that you proved to yourself that overunity with magnets was possible when a purely magnetic device nearly killed you but one thing is categorically certain?a purely magnetic device cannot prove overunity (violation of CoE). The fact that the magnetic field itself is a conservative field and CoE can never be violated there is one of those absolute truths in physics which can never be challenged.
Omni,
Your reply should be directed @sm0ky2, not me.
Cheers :)
Yada..
.
Sorry @Yadaraf. My bad.
Quote from: Omnibus on March 19, 2008, 03:14:57 PM
Sorry @Yadaraf. My bad.
Omni,No problem,
So that sm0ky2 gets your reply, would you edit: http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,4142.msg83795.html#msg83795 ?
Cheers :)
Yada ..
.
Quote from: Yadaraf on March 19, 2008, 03:18:29 PM
Quote from: Omnibus on March 19, 2008, 03:14:57 PM
Sorry @Yadaraf. My bad.
Omni,
No problem,
So that sm0ky2 gets your reply, would you edit: http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,4142.msg83795.html#msg83795 ?
Cheers :)
Yada ..
.
Done. Thanks.
Hi sm0ky2
Your right about shielding the point I was trying to make is to shield magnetics you don't place something infront of it to try to block the magnetic field but you join things onto it or place magnets behind it.
Take Care sm0ky2
Graham
Hi sm0ky2
Oh I forgot to mention 3 things, 1 what I said is I feel the best way to shield placing something in front may work but I don't think its as effective.
2 when you are using magnets behind to shield its always better to have an airgap between the two magnets.
Take Care sm0ky2
Graham
Quote from: Rusty_Springs on March 19, 2008, 04:51:19 PM
Hi sm0ky2
Oh I forgot to mention 3 things, 1 what I said is I feel the best way to shield placing something in front may work but I don't think its as effective.
2 when you are using magnets behind to shield its always better to have an airgap between the two magnets.
Take Care sm0ky2
Graham
i agree with that point - having an air-gap still diverts the flux, but doesn't "link" the magnets, thus leaving the gate somewhat intact.
@ Omni -
what i meant by that was a magnetic wheel - operated by another magnetic set-up
spinning out of control, exploding, and shooting magnets THROUGH my walls.
Quote from: sm0ky2 on March 19, 2008, 09:43:15 PM
@ Omni -
what i meant by that was a magnetic wheel - operated by another magnetic set-up
spinning out of control, exploding, and shooting magnets THROUGH my walls.
This can always be controlled. Recall Finsrud's small brake magnets above the track. That's their role--to prevent the system going berserk.
So, that's the least of our concerns. Show me a device producing continuously excess energy and you'll be pleasantly surprised how this can be handled. Unfortunately, I don't see anything promising around. The only proven way so far is the discontinuous production of excess energy and one has to really figure out if it isn't an intrinsic situation inherent in this phenomenon. Something like the bound energy TdS, part of the enthalpy dH, which is always lost.
Quote from: Omnibus on March 19, 2008, 11:05:21 PM
Quote from: sm0ky2 on March 19, 2008, 09:43:15 PM
@ Omni -
what i meant by that was a magnetic wheel - operated by another magnetic set-up
spinning out of control, exploding, and shooting magnets THROUGH my walls.
This can always be controlled. Recall Finsrud's small brake magnets above the track. That's their role--to prevent the system going berserk.
So, that's the least of our concerns. Show me a device producing continuously excess energy and you'll be pleasantly surprised how this can be handled. Unfortunately, I don't see anything promising around. The only proven way so far is the discontinuous production of excess energy and one has to really figure out if it isn't an intrinsic situation inherent in this phenomenon. Something like the bound energy TdS, part of the enthalpy dH, which is always lost.
\
you're wrong about that. little "brakes" dont work, its either Yes or No.
Acceleration or Decelleration.
you have to hit it DEAD on the mark - to get conintious rotation in that kind of set-up. which yur not going to do with a mock brack magnet hanging above. these things dont accelerate on a linear scale, its like 2x,4x,8x,16x.. and keeps on going. it can go from double digits to 4-5 digit rpm's in seconds.
Quote from: sm0ky2 on March 20, 2008, 02:41:28 AM
Quote from: Omnibus on March 19, 2008, 11:05:21 PM
Quote from: sm0ky2 on March 19, 2008, 09:43:15 PM
@ Omni -
what i meant by that was a magnetic wheel - operated by another magnetic set-up
spinning out of control, exploding, and shooting magnets THROUGH my walls.
This can always be controlled. Recall Finsrud's small brake magnets above the track. That's their role--to prevent the system going berserk.
So, that's the least of our concerns. Show me a device producing continuously excess energy and you'll be pleasantly surprised how this can be handled. Unfortunately, I don't see anything promising around. The only proven way so far is the discontinuous production of excess energy and one has to really figure out if it isn't an intrinsic situation inherent in this phenomenon. Something like the bound energy TdS, part of the enthalpy dH, which is always lost.
\
you're wrong about that. little "brakes" dont work, its either Yes or No.
Acceleration or Decelleration.
you have to hit it DEAD on the mark - to get conintious rotation in that kind of set-up. which yur not going to do with a mock brack magnet hanging above. these things dont accelerate on a linear scale, its like 2x,4x,8x,16x.. and keeps on going. it can go from double digits to 4-5 digit rpm's in seconds.
Again, acceleration is a non-issue. That's desirable let alone that it can be handled without a problem. Give me that missing acceleration and just sit back and watch.
Quote from: Omnibus on March 20, 2008, 02:53:21 AM
Give me that missing acceleration and just sit back and watch.
one day when i have the equipment to do that i'll recreate it. (hardcore machine shop?)
but as it stands, with hand crafted wheels, and glue i cant hit that mark.
not enough load, boom / too much load - stop.
with something like these Tri-Force, thats not even an issue ; the magnetic force is so small compared to the masses in question, that it would probably have some degree of self-limiting as you mentioned above. also the gates themselves have a limiting factor - slowing, speeding up, slowing, speeding up, throughout the gate array.
completely diferent scenerio.
Update on the Sawtooth magnet configuration
2 NEO'S .and 3 steel balls connecting them with a 15in long magnet array in attraction plus on one side and negative on the other similar to the SMOT. With a 15in wheel to allow a vertical wheel to enter the magnet array forward of the sticky point negating the repulsion experienced when entering the static magnet array. Clasner has already shown us how to exit it.
WHAT Clasner has found works [exiting the field], What I have found works [Entering the array from above forward of the sticky point as long as it is in attraction it allows entrance to the magnet field without Repulsion.
My Original device had serious mechanical issues but it worked as I posted earlier. But after I resolved these mechanical issues the wobble and the truing of the wheel, my results became dismal based on my previous results I have gone from counting rotation in minutes to counting rotations of the wheel.
The magnet array looks something like this.
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x x x
SIDE VIEW
The wheel follows the arc on the left, the rotor magnets enter the array on the flat side from above on the right side clockwise well inside the magnet array avoiding the sticky point at the beginning of the magnets, the magnets on the flat side extends about 4 inches beyond the centerline of the wheel, the flat side is longer than shown above.
I took the wheel down to re-gauge the magnet spacing on the wheel I remembered AL's comments about a unbalanced wheel and thought it was a good idea so I set the wheel with 5 rotor magnets, it's still a good idea for a horizontal wheel but defying gravity on a vertical wheel didn't work out too well, that might be part of my problem DUH.
One other observation is that when I ran the wobbly wheel it seemed to work better than the bolted down later version maybe we need to think about providing some wiggle room to these things.
Accept reject or ignore.
Be Well
Tinker
''Everything will work if you let it"
MEATLOAF
"wiggle room"..... hmmm
we have touched on this previously, but perhaps it should be discussed some more.
the system needs room to move around, only when its not prefectly alligned
gates/roller
if they are off, and the system cant move into allignment when it 'needs to', it will slow the wheel down, trying to allign itself.
they way i dealt with this - was to perfectly balance the wheel with magnets mounted on it. then adjust the gates for a 'true spin'.
this allows you to have a solid wheel, without magnetic disruption.
It's like a wave motion. The problem with having no "wiggle room" is that we would have to set everything up perfectly to match the magnetic strength, spacing, motion, and speed. But if we give it wiggle room, it gives the rotor a chance to dynamicaly adapt to the systems most efficient path. LoL, guerrilla tactics of the tri-force magnets! You know, dynamic adaption, and going for efficient attacks, like convoys... you get my analogy... :D
sm0ky2
Based on your previous post it's the same here, I work at my desk with hand tools.
Precision is is a lofty goal if I get that far.
If or when I get to To the point of a viable device I have backing based on my previous endeavours but this one requires proof beyond convenital thinking .
Leave the details to the experts I am just looking for a working device.
No one will take us seriously without without them.
Be well
TINKER
well,. there was a reason for saying that....
when it "wiggles", energy is lost from the system. Granted, its not as much as when you restrict the wiggling - but both scenerios are bad for the system.
even working with your hands, its possible to make the appropriate adjustments to take all the wiggle out of the device. This is probably essential, as the losses in these systems are too great for the closed loop to function. We need to get rid of as many of these losses as we can.
I was looking through some old stuff and found this...
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Magnetic_Motors:PM3
Not Triforce but similar in principle.
Maybe it's been discussed before in another thread, but I thought I'd bring it to your attention
regards,
klicuk
Quote from: sm0ky2 on March 20, 2008, 02:41:28 AM
Quote from: Omnibus on March 19, 2008, 11:05:21 PM
Quote from: sm0ky2 on March 19, 2008, 09:43:15 PM
@ Omni -
what i meant by that was a magnetic wheel - operated by another magnetic set-up
spinning out of control, exploding, and shooting magnets THROUGH my walls.
This can always be controlled. Recall Finsrud's small brake magnets above the track. That's their role--to prevent the system going berserk.
So, that's the least of our concerns. Show me a device producing continuously excess energy and you'll be pleasantly surprised how this can be handled. Unfortunately, I don't see anything promising around. The only proven way so far is the discontinuous production of excess energy and one has to really figure out if it isn't an intrinsic situation inherent in this phenomenon. Something like the bound energy TdS, part of the enthalpy dH, which is always lost.
\
you're wrong about that. little "brakes" dont work, its either Yes or No.
Acceleration or Decelleration.
you have to hit it DEAD on the mark - to get conintious rotation in that kind of set-up. which yur not going to do with a mock brack magnet hanging above. these things dont accelerate on a linear scale, its like 2x,4x,8x,16x.. and keeps on going. it can go from double digits to 4-5 digit rpm's in seconds.
Smoky you are correct in that an acceleration can accelerate something to any very high speed. What one would require
is a non-linear restraining force that goes up as a velocity^a, velocity rasied to the a power a where a>1.0 and the device needs to
be able to accept the device's full horse power wo. burning up. One brake often used is a fan where the non-linear braking force
is due to wind resistance that goes up as the cube of velocity. Another is magnetic eddy current braking as in a alternator
with a resistor as load. A Horse Power Dynamometer is usually simply a calibrated generator with a very large wattage
resistor bank. Pbrake=(I^2)/R with I proportional to angular V, With a calibrated voltmeter used to measure the power.
I have a mental model of the SMOT ramp that shows that the height change of mobile weight on the ramp is
truely an unbalanced force that is not present when one magnet attracts another but seems to be vested in the
field being composed of increments and the weight moving between the gates along balanced force field lines.
I'm going to think about this some more but you may just want to dust off your device plans.
MarkSCoffman
@ MarkSCoffman
Thanks for the input, i think you are absolutely right about that.
im thinking along the lines of "fan blades" around the device to accept a delivered wind resistance.
(or possibly create its own) - im not sure how to handle it properly without a sort of RPM measurement, to base the fan-speed on, and increase it appropriately.
I received my magnets/balls yesturday. The one I was talking about the magnestix.
Here some photos of the balls/magnets.
http://www.cncfreak.com/trigates.php
Hi klicuk
Thats almost the same as the Trigate but the Trigate is attract to repel not repel to attract also the animation shows what my idea was for the TrigateMotor but using an airgap not closed loop like in the animation, what made the Trigate different is you can make any system go from repel to attract but attract to repel is a different matter and the Trigate does that meaning you can leave a system and come back into it so as I have shown you can cross and airgap giving you a greater chance of having a woring pmm, I'm not saying my idea will make a pmm because its untested but the theory to me is sound.
Take Care klicuk
Graham
@Rusty_Springs,
You still seem to miss the point. The only thing that matters is whether or not a given construction will lead to a pmm. There are numerous ways for linear magnetic propulsion known, better understood and more efficient. Violation of CoE using such magnetic propulsor is proven definitively. So, there's nothing new in linear magnetic propulsion. The only thing outstanding is to construct a working pmm. @klicUK and @CLaNZeR are doing exceptional work towards this goal but as of now, as the experiment shows, the probability that your so-called "tri-gate" will bring about the pmm solution is as remote as has ever been.
As I've said many times, it is unlikely that a pmm based on a single stationary magnetic field, no matter of how complicated a form it is, will ever work unless that magnetic field is properly assisted somehow by another independent conservative field. How this can be achieved is still unclear but that's the direction to go if we're to have success in constructing a working pmm.
Of course, I'm waiting with interest @CLaNZeR's experiments with the Halbach arrays because one may speculate that this is one direction to go in search for an assisting overlaid conservative field. Although I'd prefer a rational solution of that assisting field problem, as clear cut as in the analysis of SMOT, in view of it's more complicated nature when pmm's are concerned, the solution may first come empirically. Anyway, it doesn't matter how the solution will come about as long as it really does.
Hi Omnibus
What point am I missing I understand that no one has shown that you can keep a pmm going with out changing the fields and I agree that it could be the only way you will make a pmm all I'm saying is if it can be done with tou changing the fields then a gate that attracts in and repels out is the way to do it because you can not close a magnetic loop so you need a airgap to give the design a start and finish point so you have to cross that airgap and the only way you can is if you repel out and attract in, even a ac motor is not a closed loop it using changing fields and attract in repel out to rotate it uses electricity to change the field but basicly its a magnetic motor or its using magnetic fields to spin. the only way I can see to change the field with out using electricity is by using soft iron as the rotor but with iron you can attract in but you still have the problem of moving out, if you could repel iron then you can make a pmm there is a way of repelling iron but in order to do it it must be touching a magnetic field, I can change the field of permanent magnets but it will take energy to do it because you have to move a piece of iron up and down between two horseshoe magnets, thats not hard the hard part is the iron has to be touching the horseshoe magnets so it takes alot of energy to move it, the point is until we can work out a way of changing the field in motion with out using energy from somewhere else then we ever have to see if it can be done with out changing the field or say it can't be done.
I except it may never been done and as I said I wont beleave it can be done till I see something spinning that I can biuld but it dosn't mean I have to stop trying and in trying I may learn something new or make a discovery no one has see before in trying theres still hope in not try theres no hope.
Take Care Omnibus
Graham
@ Rusty
what about soft iron on one side, and the other side being Bismuth? if its properly oriented, meaning the diamagnetic axis pointing outwards, in the plane of rotation.....
the iron attracts in, and the bismuth magnetizes like the triforce gate - N/S in repulsion of the induced field in the iron.
which 'should' give it a kick out.
@Rusty_Springs,
The problem isn't in overcoming or not overcoming the air gap. The problem is before that, the barrier which exists before that. No matter what gate you'll make after that initial barrier, gap or no gap, it will serve no purpose, with regard to building a working pmm, if you don't solve the problem with that earlier barrier which you always ignore. That problem doesn't seem to be anywhere near solved with the tri-gate. As far as whether a pmm can be built in principle, that's another story, unconnected with the current problem (current problem is the existence of that initial barrier you tend to ignore).
Quote from: Omnibus on March 22, 2008, 01:09:37 AM
@Rusty_Springs,
The problem isn't in overcoming or not overcoming the air gap. The problem is before that, the barrier which exists before that. No matter what gate you'll make after that initial barrier, gap or no gap, it will serve no purpose, with regard to building a working pmm, if you don't solve the problem with that earlier barrier which you always ignore. That problem doesn't seem to be anywhere near solved with the tri-gate. As far as whether a pmm can be built in principle, that's another story, unconnected with the current problem (current problem is the existence of that initial barrier you tend to ignore).
Did anybody ask you? Again...nobody wants to hear what you have to say until you find another way to say it. What did you learn in Kindergarten?
@Rusty_Springs,
It's important for you to understand that it is not because pmm cannot be made with the gate you call "tri-force" constructing pmm isn't possible. Seems to me this is your thinking. Pmm may or may not be possible but it isn't connected with your contraption.
Of course, a discussion as to whether pmm is at all possible is quite necessary. Will save time and effort for many, to say the least. It still seems to me it is possible if the lessons learned from the SMOT are heeded, that is, that an assisting conservative field has to be somehow superimposed on the time-independent magnetic field. Thus, is isn't only as you mention--through changing magnetic fields. SMOT teaches us that there's another, revolutionary way to accomplish this.
Never forget, SMOT so far provides the only scientifically sound proof that CoE can be violated and that energy out of no source (out of nothing) can be produced. Everything else is speculation, hits in the dark a lot of incompetence and even outright fraud, as the recent events indicate.
Hi Omnibus
Your right I don't beleave a pmm can be made and I wont beleave it till I see one that works and anyone can biuld.
@sm0ky2
Are you say the Bismuth will repel the iron if the iron is in a magnetic field if so then theres something we maybe able to do with that?
Take Care All
Graham
Hi All
I havn't got the drawings I wanted to show on this computer of how Bismuth will help in one of the systems I thought of, this was overlapping magnets and iron with a iron rotor, the stators where one side overlapping north magnets and the other overlapping south magnets so as the iron rotated the iron rotor would change poles, the overlapping magnets ment it moves to the end of the magnets and the overlapping iron shield ment it moved out of the magnetic field. if I added Bismuth to this system the once its out of the magnets field and into the weaker irons field then it goin g into the Bismuths field and repels out and across to be attracted in the opposite magnetic field and changing its own magnetic field to start again, it works like an electromagnetic motor except it uses iron and bismuth to repel out and cross the airgap.
Oh heres a drawing of the horseshoe changing fields I was talking about earlier.
Take Care All
Graham
Quote from: Rusty_Springs on March 22, 2008, 01:48:10 AM
Hi Omnibus
Your right I don't beleave a pmm can be made and I wont beleave it till I see one that works and anyone can biuld.
Any particular reason for that belief or you just have a feeling it can't be made just because you haven't seen one yet?
No one did really see one. All failed beyond a certain degree of scrutiny and/or to the test of time.
Quote from: Omnibus on March 22, 2008, 01:30:02 AM
Never forget, SMOT so far provides the only scientifically sound proof that CoE can be violated and that energy out of no source (out of nothing) can be produced. Everything else is speculation, hits in the dark a lot of incompetence and even outright fraud, as the recent events indicate.
How could we possibly forget with you around? Anybody ever say you sound like a broken record?
That SMOT is the only scientifically sound way of proving violation of CoE is a firmly established fact. The question now is what lessons we are to learn from it to construct a working pmm. The difference between SMOT and a working pmm is that the former produces excess energy discontinuously while the latter does it continuously.
So, we have now a firmly established way to produce more energy than the energy input but that necessarily requires spending external energy. That in itself is an achievement with far reaching consequences but is it at all possible to eliminate the external energy input and reap the benefits Nature offers without bothering to do any work at all?
The fact that it is possible to produce excess energy appears to some connected with the inevitable possibility, if such production is real (wich it undoubtedly is), to have it produced continuously. It?s like getting sudden inheritance versus spending a dollar to get a million from the lottery. That connection between a fact and its continuous display isn?t at all evident, however. Production of excess energy so far appears more like a successful business whereby you have to spend money to get more money rather than find cash lying on the sidewalk, whereby the only effort required is to put it in your pocketbook.
That seems to be the case at this point but is it really it? Is it impossible in principle to have a device, although not seen by anyone so far, that would happily spin on its own while we recline in the armchair?
In trying to answer that questions some things are established for sure. For instance, efforts along the lines shown here http://nl.youtube.com/watch?v=yMoIExJEaBU or using only so-called ?tri-force? for the purposes of seeing it convert it back into kinetic energy (and losses) is just trivial. Physics has always recognized that, say, magnets do such work when equivalent amount of work has been done in advance. It?s amazing how many people are still keen to repeat that obvious triteness thinking something new is being discovered. Hope @smOky2 reads this because he seems to be confused about that, judging from his comment under that video. There?s nothing amazing about stretching a spring and then letting it go, seeing it snap back fast.
So far what we?ve learned from SMOT is that there must be a conservative field properly overlaid to assist the time independent magnetic field acting on the object. Here the crucial word is ?properly?. The effect we seek, production of excess energy, cannot be achieved by just any overlay of two fields. We know what it should be in SMOT but is it at all possible to have such golden overlay for the purposes of continuous motion, that remains to be understood.
Hi Omnibus
I think that because I havn't seen one working thats not a hoax, I havnt been able to make magnets spin continusly with out adding extra force or changing the fields in rotation and science says it can't be done.
Take Care Omnibus
Graham
Quote from: konduct on March 22, 2008, 08:05:17 AM
Quote from: Omnibus on March 22, 2008, 01:30:02 AM
Never forget, SMOT so far provides the only scientifically sound proof that CoE can be violated and that energy out of no source (out of nothing) can be produced. Everything else is speculation, hits in the dark a lot of incompetence and even outright fraud, as the recent events indicate.
How could we possibly forget with you around? Anybody ever say you sound like a broken record?
LOL
Quote from: Rusty_Springs on March 22, 2008, 04:44:09 PM
Hi Omnibus
I think that because I havn't seen one working thats not a hoax, I havnt been able to make magnets spin continusly with out adding extra force or changing the fields in rotation and science says it can't be done.
Take Care Omnibus
Graham
Never mind the hoax part. You're obsessed not to be accused of that and I already told you that no one has ever blamed you to be a hoaxer.
As for science, indeed, science says that magnets cannot spin continuously without adding an extra force when only one time-independent field is used. This is exactly the case with your so called "tri-force" concept and that is why it isn't of any interest when figuring out ways to construct a pmm. I have told you that numerous times. As far a its role as a propulsor, it is trivial. Like I said, there are numerous other more efficient and better understood way of magnetic propulsion.
Therefore, again, science says that a construction such as "tri-force" has not potential in the search for a working pmm and should be abandoned, unless combined with something else, if at all.
As far as, violation of CoE and production of energy out of no source (out of nothing), science says it's possible and one may think that it's a prerequisite for a working pmm. That has to be understood better, however. Proving violation of CoE is not a small deal but whether or not it can be implemented to construct a working pmm is to be studied. Proving violation of CoE is just a start if one's goal is a working pmm.
That SMOT video shows nothing we havn't see and as has been pointed out it doesn't release at the end ofcause it would shot another steelball out if it was connected to the last magnet and they hit each other.
I showed a video of a steelball going straight up just using neomagnets joined together, I had the steelball in a plastic tube and every time I moved the ball close to the magnets it would go straight up why it does this is because iron wants to move around with the flux to the centre of one pole of the magnet, its like trying to push a nail into a magnet on its edge it wont go it trys to move to the face or the centre of one pole, what ever side of the face its on it will move to that pole, you can make it touch the edge and it will stay but getting it to touch the edge takes alot of force.
The nail moves in both directions so you have to set something up at the right angle to bring a nail in in a rotating system but if you do that then you have the problem of releasing it at the end same with the SMOT its not hard bringing the steelball in but releasing it at the end is a different story and it needs to be in the magnetic field to get any movment but with the Trigate you can bring it in and release it at the end.
I could be wrong but in science having a magnet lift a piece of steel straight up is not doing work and isn't that what the SMOT is doing except with alot of magnets taking turns lifting the steelball.
This is where you can see that video I talked about http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/minatowheel/files/ the name of the file is RollingUpHillBallBearing.WMV
Take Care All
Graham
Quote from: Rusty_Springs on March 22, 2008, 05:45:26 PM
That SMOT video shows nothing we havn't see and as has been pointed out it doesn't release at the end ofcause it would shot another steelball out if it was connected to the last magnet and they hit each other.
I showed a video of a steelball going straight up just using neomagnets joined together, I had the steelball in a plastic tube and every time I moved the ball close to the magnets it would go straight up why it does this is because iron wants to move around with the flux to the centre of one pole of the magnet, its like trying to push a nail into a magnet on its edge it wont go it trys to move to the face or the centre of one pole, what ever side of the face its on it will move to that pole, you can make it touch the edge and it will stay but getting it to touch the edge takes alot of force.
The nail moves in both directions so you have to set something up at the right angle to bring a nail in in a rotating system but if you do that then you have the problem of releasing it at the end same with the SMOT its not hard bringing the steelball in but releasing it at the end is a different story and it needs to be in the magnetic field to get any movment but with the Trigate you can bring it in and release it at the end.
I could be wrong but in science having a magnet lift a piece of steel straight up is not doing work and isn't that what the SMOT is doing except with alot of magnets taking turns lifting the steelball.
This is where you can see that video I talked about http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/minatowheel/files/ the name of the file is RollingUpHillBallBearing.WMV
Take Care All
Graham
That video isn't a video of a SMOT. You have understood it incorrectly. In SMOT the imparted energy is less than the energy the object has available to transform into other energies and that's a clear violation of CoE. This is the definitively established effect that may have ramifications in constructing a pmm.
Hi All
I'm not on my computer so I can't access my videos but I also did a video show how you can repel iron, using a nail I placed it between the edges in the centre of two sets of block magnet with the faces being opposite and the nail moved along then kicked out, the effect was the same as my Trigate but you had to start the nail in the centre of the two blocks of magnet because it wouldn't come in the flux is pushing it to the faces comming in and in doing so is stopping it from comming in, start it in the middle and it moves along then kicks out.
This is a easy experiment just get two block magnets and place a nail between them and keep moving the magnets towards the nail and when you have it right you will see the nail trying to move away from the magnets.
Take Care All
Graham
Now, that's something more interesting to explore because it is not a magnet to magnet interaction. Interaction between a ferromagnetic material and a magnet for the purposes of pmm is along with what @xpenzif has shown and that's a really interesting direction to follow.
@ OMNIBUS:
please post the schematics for your "OU SMOT" in the SMOT thread. as the conventional SMOT-ramp is NOT "OU" at all..
if your SMOT is really "OU" i can show you how to loop it.
@ OMNI,
what makes grahams new idea more interesting is the inclusion of Bismuth.
adding an induced diamagnetic effect that is only present when the iron is under the influence of the magnetic field. once the iron demagnetizes, the bismuth is inert.
say the iron were to enter the field at a point just passed the bismuth - the iron would magnetize, be atracted by the magnetic field AND repelled by the bismuth at the same time. like inducing a 'kick' into the rotor just before the gate entrance.
Yeah, this Bismuth idea sounds interesting indeed. Need more info, though.
As for the SMOT, the excess energy there is produced in an inconvenient form and making it self-sustaining is quite a challenge. I think it's more worth pursuing something along @xpenzif's work which has to be understood better.
Quote from: Omnibus on March 23, 2008, 12:45:30 AM
Yeah, this Bismuth idea sounds interesting indeed. Need more info, though.
As for the SMOT, the excess energy there is produced in an inconvenient form and making it self-sustaining is quite a challenge. I think it's more worth pursuing something along @xpenzif's work which has to be understood better.
yes but i'd still love to give it a try. if it is truly proven to violate CoE (beyond a doubt)
Quote from: Omnibus on February 23, 2008, 05:53:23 PM
Quote from: Lakes on February 23, 2008, 05:49:29 PM
@AquariuZ, no webcam or cameraphone?, flatbed scanner? :D
Now, flatbed scanner to produce a video is a wee bit stretching it but what do I know ...
Update on the sawtooth or lack of update on the dual array.
IT'S OVER for me based on what is see there is not enough motion created to sustain rotation at least with what I have seen I am not commenting here on the tri-gate.
OMNIBUS you are still a bully but you are a bright bully, you are correct on the SMOT I have known that from the our first conversation.
That said '' WE MAY'' have found a solution to the '' STICKY POINT'' /'S putsing around here with toys.
How about we re-visit the SMOT V GATE.
We know it works on the horizontal in fact I was truly impressed I have been there and done that.
Since then I have seen folks mount a gob of magnets on a rotor and make it spin with their triger finger magnet and thumb. it worked but no doubt would become very tedious working at a power plant.
PLAN B
To the best of my recoliction the replications of the round v-gate had the magnets mounted on the rotor not the stator.
If we mounted the stator magnets stationary in the arc I described earlier and used rotor magnets on the wheel similar to the rollers on the smot and others. Could the limitations due to angle and gauss in a stationary array not be negated?
HOW would the rotor magnets/wheel know the difference [question] and or be able to tell the difference if the rotor and stator if alineged properly should look like a straight SMOT that we know works.
Anyone please stepinhere.
Well thats where I am headed
Hans be well and its great to see you back.
EVERYONE HAS LIMITATIONS.
Accept reject or ignore.
TINKER
Quote from: sm0ky2 on March 23, 2008, 01:18:17 AM
Quote from: Omnibus on March 23, 2008, 12:45:30 AM
Yeah, this Bismuth idea sounds interesting indeed. Need more info, though.
As for the SMOT, the excess energy there is produced in an inconvenient form and making it self-sustaining is quite a challenge. I think it's more worth pursuing something along @xpenzif's work which has to be understood better.
yes but i'd still love to give it a try. if it is truly proven to violate CoE (beyond a doubt)
Me too. The Naudin setup, which is the only SMOT I have studied, did not convince me.
@Omnibus, could you point to a concise, (yet complete) description of the SMOT design to which you refer? I want to see provable OU too. Is it "inconvenient" or is it a phantom?
Mercury has properties similar to bismuth (e.g. high diamagnetism), and the fact that it is a liquid might be exploited in some clever way. Capillary action, perhaps? Plus, Hg is a good conductor, so it could theoretically be used to close a switch as it sloshes about.
Quote from: zerotensor on March 23, 2008, 02:45:58 AM
Quote from: sm0ky2 on March 23, 2008, 01:18:17 AM
Quote from: Omnibus on March 23, 2008, 12:45:30 AM
Yeah, this Bismuth idea sounds interesting indeed. Need more info, though.
As for the SMOT, the excess energy there is produced in an inconvenient form and making it self-sustaining is quite a challenge. I think it's more worth pursuing something along @xpenzif's work which has to be understood better.
yes but i'd still love to give it a try.
if it is truly proven to violate CoE (beyond a doubt)
Me too. The Naudin setup, which is the only SMOT I have studied, did not convince me.
@Omnibus, could you point to a concise, (yet complete) description of the SMOT design to which you refer? I want to see provable OU too. Is it "inconvenient" or is it a phantom?
Mercury has properties similar to bismuth (e.g. high diamagnetism), and the fact that it is a liquid might be exploited in some clever way. Capillary action, perhaps? Plus, Hg is a good conductor, so it could theoretically be used to close a switch as it sloshes about.
Did you study it or do it.
I did it, maybe you should try then you would know.
Reality gives new meaning many things.
Is it "inconvenient" or is it a phantom?
Do your homework, you have the tools or you wouldn't be here.
Omnibus will be back later today he is not from around here.
Be well
TINKER
@zerotensor,
Very briefly. At that using a simpler contraption than SMOT. As you can see in this diagram http://omnibus.fortunecity.com/magnetic_propulsor.gif, the energy (mgh1 - (Ma -Mb)) imparted to the ball, where Ma and Mb are the magnetic potential energies at A and B, respectively, m is the mass of the ball and g is the gravitational constant, is less than the energy (mgh1 + Kc + L) where Kc is the kinetic energy at C and L are the losses incurred from B to C, the ball has at C which stands to be inevitably transformed into other energies when the ball inevitably gets back at A. According to CoE at no point can the ball have more energy to be transformed into other energies than the energy imparted to it, which is obviously contrary to what is observed here.
The above is a conclusive rigorous proof for violation of CoE.
Qualitatively violation of CoE can be observed still in Naudin?s experiment. Indeed, despite the fact that less energy is imparted to the ball to lift it at height h compared to the energy imparted in the control experiment to lift it at the same height (where the magnets are pushed away) the distance the ball reaches using SMOT is greater than the distance the ball reaches in the control experiment.
Hi All
Heres a drawing of the iron and bismuth setup I would like to test once I get some bismuth.
Take Care All
Graham
Hi All
I just wanted to show what someone did with the SMOT of Eric's site, this shows what I think will always happen with a SMOT setup.
The address is http://www.schmalenbach.de/patent/
Take Care All
Graham
Quote from: Rusty_Springs on March 24, 2008, 07:14:17 PM
Hi All
I just wanted to show what someone did with the SMOT of Eric's site, this shows what I think will always happen with a SMOT setup.
The address is http://www.schmalenbach.de/patent/
Take Care All
Graham
This is a well known experiment. SMOT undoubtedly produces energy out of no source (excess energy) discontinuously as has already been proven conclusively. Continuous production of excess energy is a difficult engineering problem, not solved yet, because of the inconvenient form of the produced excess energy. I've emphasized this many times. Therefore, it can hardly be expected that solution of the continuous excess energy production will come about as straightforward as the attempt shown in the link let alone by constructions such as whatever one calls "tri-force". Continuous production of excess energy with the latter is impossible (unlike with SMOT where it is possible in principle and the problem is only engineering) because it utilizes only a time-independent magnetic field. I've said that many times and I will repeat it until it gets across to some here.
Quote from: Omnibus on March 23, 2008, 03:46:08 AM
@zerotensor,
Very briefly. At that using a simpler contraption than SMOT. As you can see in this diagram http://omnibus.fortunecity.com/magnetic_propulsor.gif, the energy (mgh1 - (Ma -Mb)) imparted to the ball, where Ma and Mb are the magnetic potential energies at A and B, respectively, m is the mass of the ball and g is the gravitational constant, is less than the energy (mgh1 + Kc + L) where Kc is the kinetic energy at C and L are the losses incurred from B to C, the ball has at C which stands to be inevitably transformed into other energies when the ball inevitably gets back at A. According to CoE at no point can the ball have more energy to be transformed into other energies than the energy imparted to it, which is obviously contrary to what is observed here.
The above is a conclusive rigorous proof for violation of CoE.
Qualitatively violation of CoE can be observed still in Naudin?s experiment. Indeed, despite the fact that less energy is imparted to the ball to lift it at height h compared to the energy imparted in the control experiment to lift it at the same height (where the magnets are pushed away) the distance the ball reaches using SMOT is greater than the distance the ball reaches in the control experiment.
@ OMNI - you have failed to address the energy losses from C to A = [(h(C) - h(A)] mg
at point C, there is a negative magnetic potential holding the ball to the end of the ramp.
THAT IS WHY THE BALL MUST DROP FROM C TO A - you CANNOT ignore this, i will NOT let you.
Quote from: Rusty_Springs on March 24, 2008, 03:24:22 PM
Hi All
Heres a drawing of the iron and bismuth setup I would like to test once I get some bismuth.
Take Care All
Graham
@ Graham - as the magnet approaches the iron on the right side, heading to the left <--
N-pole,
the right side of the iron magnetizes N, which makes the bismuth junction S(Bi)/S(Fe)
this will pull the magnet in towards the junction - now as the magnet nears the junction, the iron magnetizes N on the junction end - which gives the bismuth a diamagnetic "n" pole at the junction.
N(Bi)/N(Fe)
like applying a large brake to the magnet trying to cross the junction.
Quote from: sm0ky2 on March 24, 2008, 09:35:51 PM
Quote from: Omnibus on March 23, 2008, 03:46:08 AM
@zerotensor,
Very briefly. At that using a simpler contraption than SMOT. As you can see in this diagram http://omnibus.fortunecity.com/magnetic_propulsor.gif, the energy (mgh1 - (Ma -Mb)) imparted to the ball, where Ma and Mb are the magnetic potential energies at A and B, respectively, m is the mass of the ball and g is the gravitational constant, is less than the energy (mgh1 + Kc + L) where Kc is the kinetic energy at C and L are the losses incurred from B to C, the ball has at C which stands to be inevitably transformed into other energies when the ball inevitably gets back at A. According to CoE at no point can the ball have more energy to be transformed into other energies than the energy imparted to it, which is obviously contrary to what is observed here.
The above is a conclusive rigorous proof for violation of CoE.
Qualitatively violation of CoE can be observed still in Naudin?s experiment. Indeed, despite the fact that less energy is imparted to the ball to lift it at height h compared to the energy imparted in the control experiment to lift it at the same height (where the magnets are pushed away) the distance the ball reaches using SMOT is greater than the distance the ball reaches in the control experiment.
@ OMNI - you have failed to address the energy losses from C to A = [(h(C) - h(A)] mg
at point C, there is a negative magnetic potential holding the ball to the end of the ramp.
THAT IS WHY THE BALL MUST DROP FROM C TO A - you CANNOT ignore this, i will NOT let you.
What are you not gonna let me? Read and think. I can only explain this to you but cannot understand it for you.
As i understand it, the ball starts out with a gravitational potential, does it not?
and is this starting potential not Greater than its ending gravitational potential?
Quote from: sm0ky2 on March 24, 2008, 10:35:35 PM
As i understand it, the ball starts out with a gravitational potential, does it not?
and is this starting potential not Greater than its ending gravitational potential?
Think about a ball lifted from the floor and placed on the table at height h. CoE is obeyed when the gravitational potential energy mgh imparted to the ball is transformed into other energies in exactly the same amount mgh when the ball falls from the table back to the floor. In obeying CoE the ball will never spontaneously go sideways after imparting to it mgh. Here it does.
Quote from: Omnibus on March 23, 2008, 03:46:08 AM
@zerotensor,
Very briefly. At that using a simpler contraption than SMOT. As you can see in this diagram http://omnibus.fortunecity.com/magnetic_propulsor.gif, the energy (mgh1 - (Ma -Mb))..........
No, I can't see that because when I follow the link http://omnibus.fortunecity.com/magnetic_propulsor.gif (http://omnibus.fortunecity.com/magnetic_propulsor.gif) , all I see is a "Fortune City" logo.
Anyway, you are ignoring the magnetic potential in your analysis.
Quote from: zerotensor on March 24, 2008, 11:06:43 PM
Quote from: Omnibus on March 23, 2008, 03:46:08 AM
@zerotensor,
Very briefly. At that using a simpler contraption than SMOT. As you can see in this diagram http://omnibus.fortunecity.com/magnetic_propulsor.gif, the energy (mgh1 - (Ma -Mb))..........
No, I can't see that because when I follow the link http://omnibus.fortunecity.com/magnetic_propulsor.gif (http://omnibus.fortunecity.com/magnetic_propulsor.gif) , all I see is a "Fortune City" logo.
Anyway, you are ignoring the magnetic potential in your analysis.
I am not ignoring the magnetic potential in my analysis. Read carefully before posting.
(Try reloading the page to see the diagram).
OK, I see fortunecity.com behaves funny. Here's a link to the actual experiment: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5163427245750490858&q=magnetic_propulsor
im not talking about the magnetic potential, im talking about the gravitational potential, which is an independent field.
we're talking about 9 cm in the verticle direction.
why is that not on the level surface below??
are you starting to see this missing piece of your puzzle now?
Quote from: sm0ky2 on March 24, 2008, 11:31:54 PM
im not talking about the magnetic potential, im talking about the gravitational potential, which is an independent field.
we're talking about 9 cm in the verticle direction.
why is that not on the level surface below??
are you starting to see this missing piece of your puzzle now?
\
Read carefully what I write and think before posting.
Quote from: Omnibus on March 24, 2008, 11:22:59 PM
OK, I see fortunecity.com behaves funny. Here's a link to the actual experiment: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5163427245750490858&q=magnetic_propulsor
Thanks for the link.
OK, I have seen this one. Here's my analysis:
We start with the ball at point B. We let it go, and it goes zooming off, whips around, and ends up at point A. Point A is directly below point B. Agree so far?
The fact that it zooms and whirs and interacts with a magnetic field (which is not static, by the way, since the very reason that the ball moves is because it distorts the field lines), is impressive, but in the end...
The ball has fallen several
inchescm. Game over.
Get the ball to return to the starting point <edit: or demonstrate work> and I'll be impressed. Until then, all you have is a fancy roller coaster.
.
QuoteWe start with the ball at point B. We let it go, and it goes zooming off, whips around, and ends up at point A. Point A is directly below point B. Agree so far?
No, I don?t agree. Watch the video once again. We start with the ball at A, not at B, as you're trying to finagle.
You have understood the experiment incorrectly and that confuses you and causes you to write the rest of the post which makes no sense.
Give it another try.
Quote from: Omnibus on March 25, 2008, 12:14:16 AM
No, I don?t agree. Watch the video once again. We start with the ball at A.
...
Give it another try.
The magnetic potential is
dynamic. Imagine the field lines as the ball is released and drawn into the array. Do they wiggle, bend, move in space, enter and leave the sphere? You bet they do. If you assume static fields, then it appears to momentarily violate COE. -- I grant you that. However, you can
not assume static fields in this case. If the fields were actually static there would be no acceleration of the ball to begin with. The actual configuration of the magnetic field, and, along with it, the instantaneous value of the magnetic potential varies in space as the position of the ball changes.
I ask you this: Why does the ball accelerate?
Answering that question without invoking a dynamic magnetic field will be difficult, I think.
QuoteThe magnetic potential is dynamic.
No, it isn?t. The magnetic potential at A, at B and at C is time independent.
QuoteImagine the field lines as the ball is released and drawn into the array. Do they wiggle, bend, move in space, enter and leave the sphere? You bet they do. If you assume static fields, then it appears to violate COE. -- I grant you that.
Are you kidding me? Of course, the fields are static. Any wiggling of the fields occurring is exactly because of the violation of CoE, not otherwise. The static fields of the permanent magnets do not wiggle at all.
QuoteHowever, you can not assume static fields in this case.
I?m not assuming. They are.
QuoteIf the fields were actually static there would be no acceleration of the ball to begin with. The actual configuration of the magnetic field, and, along with it, the instantaneous value of the magnetic potential varies in space as the position of the ball changes.
Completely ridiculous statements. Changing of the magnetic fields occurring spontaneously is such that overall the imparted energy is greater than the energy available to the ball to transform into other energies which is the violation of CoE itself.
QuoteI ask you this: Why does the ball accelerate?
Answering that question without invoking a dynamic magnetic field will be difficult, I think.
The ball accelerates because it has at its disposal energy which has come from no energy source. The energy which allows the ball to accelerate was not imparted to it when moving it from A to B. Do you get it? That?s the gist of the violation of CoE in this case.
I think this exchange should end here because it is nothing else but an exercise in confusion on your part.
I agree that this exchange should end here because it is nothing else but an exercise in confusion on your part.
Quote from: zerotensor on March 25, 2008, 01:23:55 AM
I agree that this exchange should end here because it is nothing else but an exercise in confusion on your part.
No, the confusion is on your part, like I said. Before coming here to discuss this you must learn that the magnetic fields of permanent magnets are time-independent.
You tried with finagling with the starting point. It obviously didn't pass. Then you tried other obviously stupid suggestions. Since you have no restraint someone has to put a stop to this. Enough is enough.
This analysis has unexpectedly turned into a litmus test of human stupidity and confusion. I will be as harsh as can be if anyone continues with such stupidities. This forum isn't a public toilet and a dumping ground for intellectual waste and it nust not be dominated by stupid people.
Quote from: Omnibus on March 25, 2008, 01:32:33 AM
Quote from: zerotensor on March 25, 2008, 01:23:55 AM
I agree that this exchange should end here because it is nothing else but an exercise in confusion on your part.
No, the confusion is on your part, like I said. Before coming here to discuss this you must learn that the magnetic fields of permanent magnets are time-independent.
This analysis has unexpectedly turned into a litmus test of human stupidity and confusion. I will be as harsh as can be if anyone continues with such stupidities.
@Omnibus:
Gosh. You sure do get yourself worked up about this, don't you?
You say that the magnetic field is static, and I say that it is dynamic. This is where we differ. I propose an experiment that should settle this:
Visualize the magnetic field --( One could use a piece of magnetic viewing film). Observe the motion (or lack thereof) of the pattern when a bearing zooms through. If the pattern moves, then the field is dynamic. If it stays put, then I concede the point. How's that for a "litmus test"?
I no nothing about science in the way you all seem to know but I would think the magnetic field in that experiment is not static and it takes energy to lift the ball from A to B, I could do the same with the Trigate and get the same result, I've shown it drop and kick through another gate all I would have to do it take the other gate away and have it land on something that is angled back towards the first gate and there you have it the same thing.
Oh and I have shown you the way to lift that ball back up to B from A but I don't think it will keep going cause it has to release from the track taking it back up to roll along B again and thats the point I have been making it will not release unless helped by gravity.
@sm0ky2
Do you think my bismuth setup would work better if I seperated the iron and bismuth so only the magnetic field is comming from the permanent magnet and not from iron connected to it.
Take Care All
Graham
Quote from: zerotensor on March 25, 2008, 01:59:48 AM
Quote from: Omnibus on March 25, 2008, 01:32:33 AM
Quote from: zerotensor on March 25, 2008, 01:23:55 AM
I agree that this exchange should end here because it is nothing else but an exercise in confusion on your part.
No, the confusion is on your part, like I said. Before coming here to discuss this you must learn that the magnetic fields of permanent magnets are time-independent.
This analysis has unexpectedly turned into a litmus test of human stupidity and confusion. I will be as harsh as can be if anyone continues with such stupidities.
Gosh. You sure do get yourself worked up about this, don't you?
You say that the magnetic field is static, and I say that it is dynamic. This is where we differ. I propose an experiment that should settle this:
Visualize the magnetic field --( One could use a piece of magnetic viewing film). Observe the motion (or lack thereof) of the pattern when a bearing zooms through. If the pattern moves, then the field is dynamic. If it stays put, then I concede the point. How's that for a "litmus test"?
This motion of the fields is spontaneous and is due exactly to the violation of CoE.
What my analysis shows is something that cannot be denied, namely, the discrepancy between amounts of energy in and out. These amounts are set in stone. The discrepancy between the amounts of energy, at odds with CoE, is set in stone and cannot be denied. What disturbances they cause is another story, unrelated to the main point in the analysis--the discrepancy between amount of energies not allowed by the CoE. How many times do you want me to repeat this so that it can come across?
Quote from: Rusty_Springs on March 25, 2008, 02:30:09 AM
I no nothing about science in the way you all seem to know but I would think the magnetic field in that experiment is not static and it takes energy to lift the ball from A to B, I could do the same with the Trigate and get the same result, I've shown it drop and kick through another gate all I would have to do it take the other gate away and have it land on something that is angled back towards the first gate and there you have it the same thing.
Oh and I have shown you the way to lift that ball back up to B from A but I don't think it will keep going cause it has to release from the track taking it back up to roll along B again and thats the point I have been making it will not release unless helped by gravity.
@sm0ky2
Do you think my bismuth setup would work better if I seperated the iron and bismuth so only the magnetic field is comming from the permanent magnet and not from iron connected to it.
Take Care All
Graham
Of course, you can do the same with the "tri-gate", because the principle is the same, but that initial barrier gives little leeways to the critics that prevents you from pinning them down dead on. You see what obvious nonsense one @zerotenzor resorts to in his complete inability to find arguments against a clear cut example. Why provide him with seeming ammunition, allowing him to discuss "tri-gate" in terms of violating CoE Don't get me wrong, "tri-gate" also violates CoE but, like I said, it isn't the shining example, which the magnetic propulsor is, that would make a clever critic speechless (leaving the argument only to a stupid person).
As for the bismuth example, that seems interesting and I'd like to see an experimental demonstration of it. If this works this would be one of the brightest proposals in this field.
Quote from: Omnibus on March 25, 2008, 02:48:47 AM
Quote from: zerotensor on March 25, 2008, 01:59:48 AM
Quote from: Omnibus on March 25, 2008, 01:32:33 AM
Quote from: zerotensor on March 25, 2008, 01:23:55 AM
I agree that this exchange should end here because it is nothing else but an exercise in confusion on your part.
No, the confusion is on your part, like I said. Before coming here to discuss this you must learn that the magnetic fields of permanent magnets are time-independent.
This analysis has unexpectedly turned into a litmus test of human stupidity and confusion. I will be as harsh as can be if anyone continues with such stupidities.
Gosh. You sure do get yourself worked up about this, don't you?
You say that the magnetic field is static, and I say that it is dynamic. This is where we differ. I propose an experiment that should settle this:
Visualize the magnetic field --( One could use a piece of magnetic viewing film). Observe the motion (or lack thereof) of the pattern when a bearing zooms through. If the pattern moves, then the field is dynamic. If it stays put, then I concede the point. How's that for a "litmus test"?
This motion of the fields is spontaneous and is due exactly to the violation of CoE.
What my analysis shows is something that cannot be denied, namely, the discrepancy between amounts of energy in and out. These amounts are set in stone. The discrepancy between the amounts of energy, at odds with CoE, is set in stone and cannot be denied. What disturbances they cause is another story, unrelated to the main point in the analysis--the discrepancy between amount of energies not allowed by the CoE. How many times do you want me to repeat this so that it can come across?
Omnibus Has been there and done that, you would do well to listen to or read his input.
His demeanor sucks but he is most often accurate.
But what do I know.
Accept reject or Ignore.
Be Well
Tinker
Quote from: Omnibus on March 25, 2008, 02:58:17 AM
...
You see what obvious nonsense one @zerotenzor resorts to in his complete inability to find arguments against a clear cut example. Why provide him with seeming ammunition, allowing him to discuss "tri-gate" in terms of violating CoE Don't get me wrong, "tri-gate" also violates CoE but, like I said, it isn't the shining example, which the magnetic propulsor is, that would make a clever critic speechless (leaving the argument only to a stupid person). ...
@Rusty_Springs:
You see what name-calling @Omnibus resorts to when challenged, all the while injecting his own pet device into the thread and claiming its ultimate superiority. I think your triforce experiments are great. And I think it would be interesting to see the interaction of the steel ball with the magnetic fields in any of these kinds of setups.
@Omnibus:
<sarc>
Oh heavens! we wouldn't want to
allow @zerotensor to
discuss triforce on the
triforce thread in the
discussion forum! That would be
horrible!
</sarc>
I am here to help figure this stuff out. We are all in it together.
I suggest that you knock off the "stupidity" attacks. It makes you look... stupid.
Quote from: zerotensor on March 25, 2008, 04:06:10 AM
Quote from: Omnibus on March 25, 2008, 02:58:17 AM
...
You see what obvious nonsense one @zerotenzor resorts to in his complete inability to find arguments against a clear cut example. Why provide him with seeming ammunition, allowing him to discuss "tri-gate" in terms of violating CoE Don't get me wrong, "tri-gate" also violates CoE but, like I said, it isn't the shining example, which the magnetic propulsor is, that would make a clever critic speechless (leaving the argument only to a stupid person). ...
@Rusty_Springs:
You see what name-calling @Omnibus resorts to when challenged, all the while injecting his own pet device into the thread and claiming its ultimate superiority. I think your triforce experiments are great. And I think it would be interesting to see the interaction of the steel ball with the magnetic fields in any of these kinds of setups.
@Omnibus:
<sarc>
Oh heavens! we wouldn't want to allow @zerotensor to discuss triforce on the triforce thread in the discussion forum! That would be horrible!
</sarc>
I am here to help figure this stuff out. We are all in it together.
I suggest that you knock off the "stupidity" attacks. It makes you look... stupid.
This stuff is already figured out as far as violation of CoE is conecerned. Your muddled thinking isn't needed to confuse even further people such as @Rusty_Springs who are not comfortable with scientific argumentation to begin with. Don't try to find shelter with the weak such as @Rusty_Spring and seek support from them. When violation of CoE is concerned you'll meet me and your finagling and nonsense will not pass. This is a warning.
"Permanent Magnet Motors --- Build One"
http://www.rexresearch.com/monus/monus.htm#1
Marzio
Dear Mrs Omnibus,
Why are you still banging on about the f**king SMOT thing. What does SMOT stand for anyway...
Some
More
Omnibus
Tat
Graham's tri-gate can do the same thing that is in the video you posted but a lot more efficiently, you only got to look at all the videos that Graham and Clanzer has shown for visual proof.
Quote from: gwhy! on March 25, 2008, 08:40:14 AM
Dear Mrs Omnibus,
Why are you still banging on about the f**king SMOT thing. What does SMOT stand for anyway...
Some
More
Omnibus
Tat
Graham's tri-gate can do the same thing that is in the video you posted but a lot more efficiently, you only got to look at all the videos that Graham and Clanzer has shown for visual proof.
Of course. The so-called "tri-gate" is a sort of SMOT and a magnetic propulsor and it also demonstrates violation of CoE. That goes without saying. Like I said, the magnetic propulsor which I'm showing allows to easier pin down any critic because it is more clear cut theoretically. That's important in a scientific discussion, especially when the critics (the competent ones) are obviously dishonest as the experience shows.
Omnibus is the sort of person who would jump in a wrecked car to tell the person inside it will explode soon, and not get out. Omnibus is commiting proffesional suicide. Would a scientist study earthquakes in a biology lab?
Quote from: HopeForHumanity on March 25, 2008, 04:02:07 PM
Omnibus is the sort of person who would jump in a wrecked car to tell the person inside it will explode soon, and not get out. Omnibus is commiting proffesional suicide. Would a scientist study earthquakes in a biology lab?
What the hell is that?
I was wondering how hard would it have been to place a rotor in the middle of that SMOT setup, drill a hole in the steelball and place it on one end of the rotor then place another steelball on the other end so there balanced and start one ball at B once it moves along and down the opposite ball should move across and up to B starting the process again if the disign attracts in but I have to wonder why the guy is lifting the steelball so carefully up to B from A, is the magnetic flux making it hard to lift or does it need to start at a certain point to work.
Take Care All
Graham
just learn to ignore omnibus. let him build us a working model that defies c.o.e. until then his statements have no weight.
Quote from: rice on March 25, 2008, 07:22:20 PM
just learn to ignore omnibus. let him build us a working model that defies c.o.e. until then his statements have no weight.
You've obviously missed it. I have built a mopdel defying CoE.
care to point me to it?
thanks in advance
Quote from: Rusty_Springs on March 25, 2008, 06:13:08 PM
I was wondering how hard would it have been to place a rotor in the middle of that SMOT setup, drill a hole in the steelball and place it on one end of the rotor then place another steelball on the other end so there balanced and start one ball at B once it moves along and down the opposite ball should move across and up to B starting the process again if the disign attracts in but I have to wonder why the guy is lifting the steelball so carefully up to B from A, is the magnetic flux making it hard to lift or does it need to start at a certain point to work.
Take Care All
Graham
That's very hard. This is a difficult engineering problem but you have to understand the essence of violation of CoE in order to figure that out.
OMNI knows his stuff not the best diplomat but then this is not about diplomacy Chet
Quote from: Omnibus on March 25, 2008, 07:31:29 PM
That's very hard. This is a difficult engineering problem but you have to understand the essence of violation of CoE in order to figure that out.
It is exactly as hard as making a gravity wheel. Very difficult engineering problem indeed. Some would say impossible, but those people probably do not understand that paradox of doublespeak, the SMOT, which produces excess energy while simultaneously requiring the human operator to keep flipping the ball back up with his hand. Pay no attention to the hand, look what happens on the ramp. Ball goes up, see? Free energy for everyone. Just make sure your arms are in good shape - you will be lifting balls for a while. :)
Quote from: ramset on March 25, 2008, 07:49:48 PM
OMNI knows his stuff not the best diplomat but then this is not about diplomacy Chet
Um no, he is just like Steorn and the countless of others who claim to have overunity, but end up spending all their efforts to defend themselves from critics who naggingly point to the device that cannot power itself, instead of simply showing us a self-runner. It all goes the same way: "Look see, mathematically, less energy in than out. My formula cannot be wrong. The math works out perfectly. What's that you say, why can't it power itself? Just an engineering problem! Pay no mind, will be solved shortly. In the meantime, look at all that excess energy that I can mathematically prove! Look at my breakthrough!" Brother, please. How about we use the scientific method for a change.
Look, it's real simple, folks. If a SMOT is overunity, then it can escape the ramp with enough kinetic energy to be able to loop. Or at least you should be able to line up some SMOTs in a circle and have perpetual motion. The fact that this is impossible speaks volumes.
All math aside if you can't see the reality of the smot the magnets moving the ball against gravity the rest [the easier part ] is surely not far off OMNI IS right IMHO Chet
Quote from: utilitarian on March 25, 2008, 07:53:32 PM
Quote from: Omnibus on March 25, 2008, 07:31:29 PM
That's very hard. This is a difficult engineering problem but you have to understand the essence of violation of CoE in order to figure that out.
It is exactly as hard as making a gravity wheel. Very difficult engineering problem indeed. Some would say impossible, but those people probably do not understand that paradox of doublespeak, the SMOT, which produces excess energy while simultaneously requiring the human operator to keep flipping the ball back up with his hand. Pay no attention to the hand, look what happens on the ramp. Ball goes up, see? Free energy for everyone. Just make sure your arms are in good shape - you will be lifting balls for a while. :)
That is funny but not the way you intended it to be. You are the one who is the clown to be laughed at because you allow yourself to comment on things you don't have a clue about or most likely you're just plain stupid. Because only a stupid person will refuse to take $20 in exchange for the $10 bill he holds in his hand which is what the principle of SMOT is. Well, who says the world consists of geniuses, many are just utilitarian that don't see farther than their nose.
Quote from: Omnibus on March 25, 2008, 08:27:22 PM
That is funny but not the way you intended it to be. You are the one who is the clown to be laughed at because you allow yourself to comment on things you don't have a clue about or most likely you're just plain stupid. Because only a stupid person will refuse to take $20 in exchange for the $10 bill he holds in his hand which is what the principle of SMOT is. Well, who says the world consists of geniuses, many are just utilitarian that don't see farther than their nose.
Wrong analogy. The SMOT, overall, drains energy rather than produces it. More like receiving $10 after paying $20.
Now, when you come back and show us a SMOT that has a net energy gain, then we can talk. That means no more hand energy. "Engineering problem!" Ha, what a cop-out.
Quote from: utilitarian on March 25, 2008, 08:43:13 PM
Quote from: Omnibus on March 25, 2008, 08:27:22 PM
That is funny but not the way you intended it to be. You are the one who is the clown to be laughed at because you allow yourself to comment on things you don't have a clue about or most likely you're just plain stupid. Because only a stupid person will refuse to take $20 in exchange for the $10 bill he holds in his hand which is what the principle of SMOT is. Well, who says the world consists of geniuses, many are just utilitarian that don't see farther than their nose.
Wrong analogy. The SMOT, overall, drains energy rather than produces it. More like receiving $10 after paying $20.
Now, when you come back and show us a SMOT that has a net energy gain, then we can talk. That means no more hand energy. "Engineering problem!" Ha, what a cop-out.
What you're saying is stupid but, hey, that's what's expected from a stupid person to do--to blabber stupidities.
Quote from: Omnibus on March 24, 2008, 10:40:15 PM
Quote from: sm0ky2 on March 24, 2008, 10:35:35 PM
As i understand it, the ball starts out with a gravitational potential, does it not?
and is this starting potential not Greater than its ending gravitational potential?
Think about a ball lifted from the floor and placed on the table at height h. CoE is obeyed when the gravitational potential energy mgh imparted to the ball is transformed into other energies in exactly the same amount mgh when the ball falls from the table back to the floor. In obeying CoE the ball will never spontaneously go sideways after imparting to it mgh. Here it does.
the sideways motion is caused by the magnetic attraction. Theres no more "extra" energy in that than letting a magnet stick to the refrigerator.....
The fact still remains that point A is lower than point B. Since the ball must return to point A to be 'freed' from point C - the total system incurs a loss of mg(b-a) where (b-a) is the difference in height between points B and A. This is incidently the exact same energy value placed into the system in the initial lift from A to B.
The kenetic enregy built up from the magnetic gradient B->C is countered by the attraction at point C.
this interaction is equal on both ends. - i.e. the magnet pulls towards the refrigerator with the same ammount of energy required to pull it back off.
This is demonstrated by placing the SMOT on a level plane - where point A and point B are at the same height. the ball stops at point C. ALL of the kenetic energy is transformed back into magnetic potential.
exactly the inverse of the conditions the ball was under at point B.
to put it in your words::: (Mb - Mc) = 0
additionally:: [ mg(B-A) - mg(B-A)] = 0
That's your full cycle from A -> B-> C -> A
so again i ask::: WHERE is this "extra energy" ??
If i replace the SMOT, with an angled RAMP from B to C, then from C back to A.
would i not have achieved the exact same results??
@smOky2,
You are confused. A magnet sticking to the refrigerator will never spontaneously go back at its initial position. In this case it does.
The exchange with you is useless because you have serious gaps in some basic issues in basic physics, therefore, you don't need to reply to this.
Quote from: Omnibus on March 26, 2008, 01:23:58 AM
@smOky2,
You are confused. A magnet sticking to the refrigerator will never spontaneously go back at its initial position. In this case it does.
The exchange with you is useless because you have serious gaps in some basic issues in basic physics, therefore, you don't need to reply to this.
sure it will OMNI, just superimpose a gravitational field to let it fall to the floor. dont run from me. im comming at you head on, address the issue.
the only gap in physics is the one in which you fail to apply physics. you apply some sort of OMNI-interpretation which excludes the essential energy values throughout the full cycle of the system.
If you dont agree, show me how i am wrong? dont spout off at the mouth about this so called "OU" device, then refuse to talk about it when someone questions you. What are you here for?
Quote from: sm0ky2 on March 26, 2008, 01:32:34 AM
Quote from: Omnibus on March 26, 2008, 01:23:58 AM
@smOky2,
You are confused. A magnet sticking to the refrigerator will never spontaneously go back at its initial position. In this case it does.
The exchange with you is useless because you have serious gaps in some basic issues in basic physics, therefore, you don't need to reply to this.
sure it will OMNI, just superimpose a gravitational field to let it fall to the floor. dont run from me. im comming at you head on, address the issue.
the only gap in physics is the one in which you fail to apply physics. you apply some sort of OMNI-interpretation which excludes the essential energy values throughout the full cycle of the system.
You should be the one to run from me because, as you know, I don't like stupid people and you'll hear it big if you continue with these stupidities. So, cut it out.
Quote from: Omnibus on March 26, 2008, 01:35:21 AM
Quote from: sm0ky2 on March 26, 2008, 01:32:34 AM
Quote from: Omnibus on March 26, 2008, 01:23:58 AM
@smOky2,
You are confused. A magnet sticking to the refrigerator will never spontaneously go back at its initial position. In this case it does.
The exchange with you is useless because you have serious gaps in some basic issues in basic physics, therefore, you don't need to reply to this.
sure it will OMNI, just superimpose a gravitational field to let it fall to the floor. dont run from me. im comming at you head on, address the issue.
the only gap in physics is the one in which you fail to apply physics. you apply some sort of OMNI-interpretation which excludes the essential energy values throughout the full cycle of the system.
You should be the one to run from me because, as you know, I don't like stupid people and you'll hear it big if you continue with these stupidities. So, cut it out.
i would love to hear it, as big as you can make it. validate these claims you make for an "OU" Smot or shut the hell up about it.
Quote from: sm0ky2 on March 26, 2008, 01:36:46 AM
Quote from: Omnibus on March 26, 2008, 01:35:21 AM
Quote from: sm0ky2 on March 26, 2008, 01:32:34 AM
Quote from: Omnibus on March 26, 2008, 01:23:58 AM
@smOky2,
You are confused. A magnet sticking to the refrigerator will never spontaneously go back at its initial position. In this case it does.
The exchange with you is useless because you have serious gaps in some basic issues in basic physics, therefore, you don't need to reply to this.
sure it will OMNI, just superimpose a gravitational field to let it fall to the floor. dont run from me. im comming at you head on, address the issue.
the only gap in physics is the one in which you fail to apply physics. you apply some sort of OMNI-interpretation which excludes the essential energy values throughout the full cycle of the system.
You should be the one to run from me because, as you know, I don't like stupid people and you'll hear it big if you continue with these stupidities. So, cut it out.
i would love to hear it, as big as you can make it. validate these claims you make for an "OU" Smot or shut the hell up about it.
The claims for OU in SMOT are validated already conclusively. If someone is stupid enough not to see that (mgh1 - (Ma - Mb)) is less than (mgh1 + Kc + L) that's not my fault. So cut it out.
Omnibus, if you take the time to analyze my statement, you will see how it describes your actions in this non-smot thread...
"validated conclusively" ?? Steon has presented the most accurate scientific analysis of the SMOT to date, and they have proven conclusively that their version of the SMOT-device is less than 90% efficient.
i repeat :::
(Mb - Mc) = 0
additionally:: [ mg(B-A) - mg(B-A)] = 0
That's your full cycle from A -> B-> C -> A
so again i ask::: WHERE is this "extra energy" ??
the fact that Ma is less than Mb is irrelevant.
Mb = -Mc
Ma is greater than Mc.
SMOT is less than Unity.
you have not shown SMOT to be in violation of CoE, even Textually, much less Conclusively.
keep trying.
Quote from: HopeForHumanity on March 26, 2008, 02:13:00 AM
Omnibus, if you take the time to analyze my statement, you will see how it describes your actions in this non-smot thread...
No thread discussing magnetic motors is a non-SMOT thread.
Quote from: Rusty_Springs on March 25, 2008, 06:13:08 PM
I was wondering how hard would it have been to place a rotor in the middle of that SMOT setup, drill a hole in the steelball and place it on one end of the rotor then place another steelball on the other end so there balanced and start one ball at B once it moves along and down the opposite ball should move across and up to B starting the process again if the disign attracts in but I have to wonder why the guy is lifting the steelball so carefully up to B from A, is the magnetic flux making it hard to lift or does it need to start at a certain point to work.
Take Care All
Graham
@ Graham -- Thay type of device 'works' on the bottom side too. so while hes lifting the ball, its trying to pull towards the refrigerator (point c). hes holding it back against that magnetic potential.
What Omnibus is trying to convince everyone of is that the "pull" towards point C results in some sort of energy gain, while he refuses to address the fact that this energy sticks the ball to the refrigerator.
Hence the need to elevate it for gravity to do the work to pull it back down.
Quote from: sm0ky2 on March 26, 2008, 02:26:08 AM
"validated conclusively" ?? Steon has presented the most accurate scientific analysis of the SMOT to date, and they have proven conclusively that their version of the SMOT-device is less than 90% efficient.
i repeat :::
(Mb - Mc) = 0
additionally:: [ mg(B-A) - mg(B-A)] = 0
That's your full cycle from A -> B-> C -> A
so again i ask::: WHERE is this "extra energy" ??
the fact that Ma is less than Mb is irrelevant.
Mb = -Mc
Ma is greater than Mc.
SMOT is less than Unity.
you have not shown SMOT to be in violation of CoE, even Textually, much less Conclusively.
keep trying.
This is incoherent blabber. Restrain from further demonstrating stupidity and confusion.
Quote from: Omnibus on March 26, 2008, 02:55:05 AM
Quote from: HopeForHumanity on March 26, 2008, 02:13:00 AM
Omnibus, if you take the time to analyze my statement, you will see how it describes your actions in this non-smot thread...
No thread discussing magnetic motors is a non-SMOT thread.
@ Omnibus.
I shall now direct you back to the previous pages, where YOU stated that "this is not a SMOT thread"
open mouth , insert foot,.
thanks,
Sm0ky2
p.s. - calling people "stupid" doesnt make your SMOT overunity.
QuoteWhat Omnibus is trying to convince everyone of is that the "pull" towards point C results in some sort of energy gain, while he refuses to address the fact that this energy sticks the ball to the refrigerator.
Hence the need to elevate it for gravity to do the work to pull it back down.
This is stupid and incompetent and you should stop cluttering the thread with it.
Quote from: sm0ky2 on March 26, 2008, 02:57:17 AM
Quote from: Omnibus on March 26, 2008, 02:55:05 AM
Quote from: HopeForHumanity on March 26, 2008, 02:13:00 AM
Omnibus, if you take the time to analyze my statement, you will see how it describes your actions in this non-smot thread...
No thread discussing magnetic motors is a non-SMOT thread.
@ Omnibus.
I shall now direct you back to the previous pages, where YOU stated that "this is not a SMOT thread"
open mouth , insert foot,.
thanks,
Sm0ky2
p.s. - calling people "stupid" doesnt make your SMOT overunity.
You stop with your stupidity and restrain from any characterization regarding this matter. You're incompetent and have proven this more than once. Don't clutter the thread with nonsense any further.
I'm not calling people stupid. I'm calling you stupid because you are and are demonstrating it big time with every posting on this topic. If you continue you will hear it more, I warned you. This is not a place to dump your intellectual waste.
Quote from: Omnibus on March 26, 2008, 02:58:21 AM
QuoteWhat Omnibus is trying to convince everyone of is that the "pull" towards point C results in some sort of energy gain, while he refuses to address the fact that this energy sticks the ball to the refrigerator.
Hence the need to elevate it for gravity to do the work to pull it back down.
This is stupid and incompetent and you should stop cluttering the thread with it.
What is incompetent is a self-proclaimed "scientist" falsifying evidence of his own experiments.
Why do you refuse to address this issue? show me how what i am saying is not correct
Quote from: sm0ky2 on March 26, 2008, 03:01:04 AM
Quote from: Omnibus on March 26, 2008, 02:58:21 AM
QuoteWhat Omnibus is trying to convince everyone of is that the "pull" towards point C results in some sort of energy gain, while he refuses to address the fact that this energy sticks the ball to the refrigerator.
Hence the need to elevate it for gravity to do the work to pull it back down.
This is stupid and incompetent and you should stop cluttering the thread with it.
What is incompetent is a self-proclaimed "scientist" falsifying evidence of his own experiments.
Why do you refuse to address this issue? show me how what i am saying is not correct
I'm not going to discuss this with you because you are incompetent and discussing it with you is a waste. Stop posting on this unless you want to hear again and again that you are stupid and incompetent. Cut it out. I said that several times already.
um this is really getting annoying. omnibus is obviously NOT going to show his over unity smot. so just ignore him and move on, i know i have.
or at least start a new thread about it and take this junk out of here. jesus christ!
Quote from: FreeEnergy on March 26, 2008, 03:13:07 AM
um this is really getting annoying. omnibus is obviously NOT going to show his over unity smot. so just ignore him and move on, i know i have.
or at least start a new thread about it and take this junk out of here. jesus christ!
I have shown my overunity SMOT. You get it wrong.
@ Omnibus,
you can call me any names that you like. your childish behavior doesnt offend me, in fact i find it midly amusing to watch you blow your lid when the object of your obsession comes into question.
I understand why you wont address this issue. You probably do to, but it doesnt matter.
we're here to discuss science not psychology....
so, if you're going to continue to with this SMOT- propeganda - i demand an explaination for the inconsistencies in your representation of the energy values. Either you are confused, or you are a mis-informationist.
Whichever the case, its time to play your cards. Theres been enough useless SMOT-promotion, with NO validation. or even worse FALSE validation. I'm calling your bluff.
Quote from: sm0ky2 on March 26, 2008, 03:32:09 AM
@ Omnibus,
you can call me any names that you like. your childish behavior doesnt offend me, in fact i find it midly amusing to watch you blow your lid when the object of your obsession comes into question.
I understand why you wont address this issue. You probably do to, but it doesnt matter.
we're here to discuss science not psychology....
so, if you're going to continue to with this SMOT- propeganda - i demand an explaination for the inconsistencies in your representation of the energy values. Either you are confused, or you are a mis-informationist.
Whichever the case, its time to play your cards. Theres been enough useless SMOT-promotion, with NO validation. or even worse FALSE validation. I'm calling your bluff.
This is not a place to discuss nonsense and you cannot demand anything because you have proven to be incompetent. Period.
so far i haven't seen a video of a self running looped smot. unless i missed it? did anybody here see it? did i miss the boat again?
Quote from: FreeEnergy on March 26, 2008, 03:39:42 AM
so far i haven't seen a video of a self running looped smot. unless i missed it? did anybody here see it? did i miss the boat again?
Ask @Yadaraf what perpetuum mobile means. He even gave quotations and links. Ask him if self-sustaining run is a necessary condition for a perpetuum mobile and whether or not obtaining energy from nothing (getting more energy out then in), although not in a self-sustaining way, is overunity. I'm telling you to ask him because he obviously has taken the time to look for definitions and explanations.
Quote from: FreeEnergy on March 26, 2008, 03:39:42 AM
so far i haven't seen a video of a self running looped smot. unless i missed it? did anybody here see it? did i miss the boat again?
You missed nothing. He has admitted that the energy created by his smot is useless, thus it isn't loopable and cannot be considered violation of CoE in a two way manner (connecting the energy channel).
even a picture explaining how to build a self running looped smot would be nice too.
or even just maybe a text explanation on how to build a self running looped smot, although a picture/video would be much much better which is not very hard to do.
if anyone seen any of the above please post (start a new thread "Omnibus's self running looped smot"), cause i might of missed it. thank you in advanced.
peace
hmmm lets see here... http://www.overunity.com/index.php?action=profile;u=10095;sa=showPosts
Quote from: HopeForHumanity on March 26, 2008, 03:56:46 AM
Quote from: FreeEnergy on March 26, 2008, 03:39:42 AM
so far i haven't seen a video of a self running looped smot. unless i missed it? did anybody here see it? did i miss the boat again?
You missed nothing. He has admitted that the energy created by his smot is useless, thus it isn't loopable and cannot be considered violation of CoE in a two way manner (connecting the energy channel).
Where have I admitted this? Just the contrary, I've always said that the excess energy produced by SMOT can be used for practical purposes, given the proper engineering research and development is done, and that is probably a more straightforward way to go for those technically oriented who want to see it applied in industry and home. Just as I've always said that Paul Sprain's direct approach is probably the most practical of all for continuous production of excess energy.
Quote from: FreeEnergy on March 26, 2008, 04:12:50 AM
hmmm lets see here... http://www.overunity.com/index.php?action=profile;u=10095;sa=showPosts
So, did you pay attention to this written on page 18 " Mechanical setups / Magnet Motors / Re: Tri-Force Magnets - Finally shown to be OU? " on: March 16, 2008, 06:59:40 PM
"... From Wiki: "However, perpetual motion usually refers to a device or system that delivers more energy than was put into it."
or you just like to post links without reading them?
ok get back to me when you have a video/picture showing exactly how to build a self running looped smot, till then i am moving on.
peace
Quote from: FreeEnergy on March 26, 2008, 04:46:23 AM
ok get back to me when you have a video/picture showing exactly how to build a self running looped smot, till then i am moving on.
peace
Why should I? The fact that you don't understand certain things isn't something to be proud of and to demand from other people things. I'd be very ashamed if I were you and will keep real quiet.
Quote from: Omnibus on March 26, 2008, 04:16:02 AM
Quote from: HopeForHumanity on March 26, 2008, 03:56:46 AM
Quote from: FreeEnergy on March 26, 2008, 03:39:42 AM
so far i haven't seen a video of a self running looped smot. unless i missed it? did anybody here see it? did i miss the boat again?
You missed nothing. He has admitted that the energy created by his smot is useless, thus it isn't loopable and cannot be considered violation of CoE in a two way manner (connecting the energy channel).
Where have admitted this? Just the contrary, I've always said that the excess energy produced by SMOT can be used for practical purposes, given the proper engineering research and development is done, and that is probably a more straightforward way to go for those technically oriented who want to see it applied in industry and home. Just as I've always said that Paul Sprain's direct approach is probably the most practical of all for continuous production of excess energy.
I would actualy believe what you say if you continued your smot construction beyond your useless toy. You have a lot of promise in that post; prove it by actualy working on it. Thats what people do when they have a project worth working on. Either I have missed your rare moment, or you have not posted any "practical purposes" for the excess energy.
Quote from: HopeForHumanity on March 26, 2008, 05:12:49 AM
Quote from: Omnibus on March 26, 2008, 04:16:02 AM
Quote from: HopeForHumanity on March 26, 2008, 03:56:46 AM
Quote from: FreeEnergy on March 26, 2008, 03:39:42 AM
so far i haven't seen a video of a self running looped smot. unless i missed it? did anybody here see it? did i miss the boat again?
You missed nothing. He has admitted that the energy created by his smot is useless, thus it isn't loopable and cannot be considered violation of CoE in a two way manner (connecting the energy channel).
Where have admitted this? Just the contrary, I've always said that the excess energy produced by SMOT can be used for practical purposes, given the proper engineering research and development is done, and that is probably a more straightforward way to go for those technically oriented who want to see it applied in industry and home. Just as I've always said that Paul Sprain's direct approach is probably the most practical of all for continuous production of excess energy.
I would actualy believe what you say if you continued your smot construction beyond your useless toy. You have a lot of promise in that post; prove it by actualy working on it. Thats what people do when they have a project worth working on. Either I have missed your rare moment, or you have not posted any "practical purposes" for the excess energy.
See, the thing is, I'm not at all interested in the practical application of the scientific discoveries. As a matter of fact, I'm following what's happening with the search for self-sustaining devices only because of the psychological effect they'll have for accepting the violation of CoE by the society. As you know, I have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that CoE can be violated. Unfortunately, and that's only for psychological reasons, that will not be accepted by the society at large unless it is clothed in an engineering solution of a self-sustaining device. That's a sad situation, that's not necessary for the acceptance of a scientific phenomenon, but this is how the world functions. nowadays.
I agree with what your saying, but it gets a little old when the webites address surrounds belief in OU. Many people here have no care in this website because the simply already know that OU is possible. I suggest you try and stop the SMOT stuff in this thread, it's clearly ticking people off, and start publicly posting your data in other energy research websites. I would find it a better solution for your incredible passion.
The very same proof used for SMOT can also be employed to "prove beyond any doubt" that the CoE is ?violated? in the following gravitational only (and non-magnetic) setup:
B * *
* * * A
* *
* *
C * *
Ein=EpotA-EpotB
But Ec>Ein, thus ? violation of CoE!
I wish.
Cheers,
Tinu
Hi All
Call me stupid but it looks to me if you take the magnets away from that SMOT setup the steelball will still do the same thing because its not level the ball will roll down from B to C then drop into the spoon and roll down to A so it looks to me with or with out the magnets you get the same result.
Take Care All
Graham
@Rusty_Springs,
When you put a ball on a level surface, just put it there, don't push it, will it move sideways?
Quote from: tinu on March 26, 2008, 05:49:50 AM
The very same proof used for SMOT can also be employed to "prove beyond any doubt" that the CoE is ?violated? in the following gravitational only (and non-magnetic) setup:
B * *
* * * A
* *
* *
C * *
Ein=EpotA-EpotB
But Ec>Ein, thus ? violation of CoE!
I wish.
Cheers,
Tinu
What the hell is this?
Some people have really gone off the deep end.
Quote from: Omnibus on March 26, 2008, 06:13:45 AM
Quote from: tinu on March 26, 2008, 05:49:50 AM
The very same proof used for SMOT can also be employed to "prove beyond any doubt" that the CoE is ?violated? in the following gravitational only (and non-magnetic) setup:
B * *
* * * A
* *
* *
C * *
Ein=EpotA-EpotB
But Ec>Ein, thus ? violation of CoE!
I wish.
Cheers,
Tinu
What the hell is this?
It?s a solid proof of CoE violation for a ball gravitationally moving on a B-C-A curve.
You see, the energy I put in is Ein=EpotA-EpotB, which can also be written as Ein=m*g*h(AB) where m is mass of the ball and h(AB)is vertical distance between A and B. And the energy of the ball in C (which is kinetic but it doesn?t matter) is EC=m*g*h(BC). So, because always h(BC)> h(AB) due to the particular setup under study, it indubitably results that Ein<Ec.
Therefore, having proved that EC>Ein, it is clear that the ball in C is having more energy that I put in!!! Eureka!!!
Thanks to your proof for SMOT that greatly inspired me, I definitely proved without any doubt that GOT is also overunity and that CoE is violated. GOT (SGOT also accepted between friends) will stand for (Simple) Gravitational Overunity Toy and I hereby release it to the public domain. I release it with one exception: X-(S)GOT, which is foreseen to be the improved pulsed version of (S)GOT (see Tseung et all); that would be way too OU, hence a real public danger.
Cheers,
Tinu
Hi Omnibus
On a level surface ofcause it wont move but as far as I know the test was not on a level surface but a slightly downhill surface, if I'm wrong and its a level surface the I take back the statment and you can't do the same thing if you take the magnets away but if its the slightest bit downhill from B to C then it can be done with out magnets and gives the same result.
Oh and I also have no idea what the gravity thing is.
Take Care Omnibus
Graham
Quote from: tinu on March 26, 2008, 08:31:01 AM
Quote from: Omnibus on March 26, 2008, 06:13:45 AM
Quote from: tinu on March 26, 2008, 05:49:50 AM
The very same proof used for SMOT can also be employed to "prove beyond any doubt" that the CoE is ?violated? in the following gravitational only (and non-magnetic) setup:
B * *
* * * A
* *
* *
C * *
Ein=EpotA-EpotB
But Ec>Ein, thus ? violation of CoE!
I wish.
Cheers,
Tinu
What the hell is this?
It?s a solid proof of CoE violation for a ball gravitationally moving on a B-C-A curve.
You see, the energy I put in is Ein=EpotA-EpotB, which can also be written as Ein=m*g*h(AB) where m is mass of the ball and h(AB)is vertical distance between A and B. And the energy of the ball in C (which is kinetic but it doesn?t matter) is EC=m*g*h(BC). So, because always h(BC)> h(AB) due to the particular setup under study, it indubitably results that Ein<Ec.
Therefore, having proved that EC>Ein, it is clear that the ball in C is having more energy that I put in!!! Eureka!!!
Thanks to your proof for SMOT that greatly inspired me, I definitely proved without any doubt that GOT is also overunity and that CoE is violated. GOT (SGOT also accepted between friends) will stand for (Simple) Gravitational Overunity Toy and I hereby release it to the public domain. I release it with one exception: X-(S)GOT, which is foreseen to be the improved pulsed version of (S)GOT (see Tseung et all); that would be way too OU, hence a real public danger.
Cheers,
Tinu
I think tinu is really on to something! This is truly brilliant. Clearly, the ball loses more energy along B->C->A than is imparted by the hand from A->B. Plainly, this is overunity, as this energy comes from nothing (not even a magnet). The fact that the ball does not return to B on its own is irrelevant. The fact that there is discontinuous production of excess energy is enough to show a violation of CoE.
I propose that from now on, all discussions regarding free energy start at this very point. CoE has been proven in a simple gravity setup, now it is up to all the inventors to close the SGOT loop and make a self-sustaining device. Now, admittedly, this is a difficult engineering problem, but surely a surmountable one. We have a violation of CoE plainly in sight, so it just a matter of making use of it.
This is not to take anything away from the SMOT, which is also overunity for the exact same reason. There is no reason inventors cannot work in parallel to develop both the SGOT and SMOT into something that produces useful energy.
Quote from: Rusty_Springs on March 26, 2008, 09:39:16 AM
Hi Omnibus
On a level surface ofcause it wont move but as far as I know the test was not on a level surface but a slightly downhill surface, if I'm wrong and its a level surface the I take back the statment and you can't do the same thing if you take the magnets away but if its the slightest bit downhill from B to C then it can be done with out magnets and gives the same result.
Oh and I also have no idea what the gravity thing is.
Take Care Omnibus
Graham
No, the surface is level, not downhill, so your suggestion is incorrect.
it's not like i'm putting a gun to your head and demanding results.
aside from that any more news on this tri-force magnet anyone? any more improvements?
@tinu,
Now, take the position of a devil's advocate and explain why your experiment is not in violation of CoE.
I have the geomag toys from wally world, and a circular wood board, just not sure how to arrange the "tri's", specifically the orientation of fields prior to attaching to iron. Also not sure how to arrange a good axle in middle of board for testing. Once i have an axle, i plan on testing some magnet idea's I've had on the back burner.
Quote from: FreeEnergy on March 26, 2008, 01:49:56 PM
aside from that any more news on this tri-force magnet anyone? any more improvements?
I'm still playing ::) , there seems to be a very small sweet spot in the air gap ( which can be much bigger ) where the roller mag can be rotated 360 degrees ( if the arrays are pointing the same way ) or 180 degrees if array polarity's are alternating to give a bit more unffff through the air gap if a can work out a good way of timing it without losing to much momentum, or I'm also looking at using just one side of a trigate array on a stacked rotor ( 2 high ) with opposite polarity on the top to the bottom of the rotor,,, it a possibility and something to try :-\ , its all good clean fun anyway ;)
Hi All
I just wanted to say I could do the same experiment as the one we seen with the SMOT using to Trigates and having them both on a level plan, the top Trigate would kick the magnet from B to C and then it would drop into the bottom Trigate which would kick it to A but I would still have the problem of bring it back up to B to start the process again, I have shown how you can bring a steelball straight up against gravity so its not hard to move a steelball from A to B but then you have the problem of having it release so it travels from B to C again.
I have found once I bypass one problem I meet another, making a magnetic gate that attracts in and repels out I find easy and I have shown two that I have made, I found moving metal against gravity is easy and again I have shown videos that prove this also making magnets spin using permanent magnets is easy and again I have shown how this can be done but to me none of it is OU because I can't make any of them spin continusly.
To me and argument about whats OU and whats not is pointless until you have what ever system doing continus movment so it can do usefull work and as of now I havn't seen anything do that be it Trigate, SMOT or anything else.
Thats my 2 cents worth Take Care All
Graham
Hi All
I still have alot of magnetic experiments to try before I give up on a permanent magnet motor by here is something I know will work and the only added energy comes from compressed air, if you put a bar magnet on a rotor and move a block magnet up and down near that bar magnet the bar magnet will spin, the faster you move it the faster it will spin so if you used compressed air to push the block magnet up and down like a piston you have a working motor or generator to keep it going all you need to do is fill up the air tank.
I know if I had the means I would be biulding this while I still work on my other projects but I don't have the means so I will put it out there for anyone that wants to try it.
Take Care All
Graham
Quote from: Omnibus on March 26, 2008, 06:13:45 AM
Quote from: tinu on March 26, 2008, 05:49:50 AM
The very same proof used for SMOT can also be employed to "prove beyond any doubt" that the CoE is ?violated? in the following gravitational only (and non-magnetic) setup:
B * *
* * * A
* *
* *
C * *
Ein=EpotA-EpotB
But Ec>Ein, thus ? violation of CoE!
I wish.
Cheers,
Tinu
What the hell is this?
That appears to be a very accurate analogy of the pereptual OMNI_SMOT babble that you have been propegating throughout this thread. It is exactly the same bogus claim of "extra energy" that you attribute to the SMOT, just in his example there are no magnets. The extra energy out is still the same in both cases. None......
Quote from: utilitarian on March 26, 2008, 11:03:32 AM
Quote from: tinu on March 26, 2008, 08:31:01 AM
Quote from: Omnibus on March 26, 2008, 06:13:45 AM
Quote from: tinu on March 26, 2008, 05:49:50 AM
The very same proof used for SMOT can also be employed to "prove beyond any doubt" that the CoE is ?violated? in the following gravitational only (and non-magnetic) setup:
B * *
* * * A
* *
* *
C * *
Ein=EpotA-EpotB
But Ec>Ein, thus ? violation of CoE!
I wish.
Cheers,
Tinu
What the hell is this?
It?s a solid proof of CoE violation for a ball gravitationally moving on a B-C-A curve.
You see, the energy I put in is Ein=EpotA-EpotB, which can also be written as Ein=m*g*h(AB) where m is mass of the ball and h(AB)is vertical distance between A and B. And the energy of the ball in C (which is kinetic but it doesn?t matter) is EC=m*g*h(BC). So, because always h(BC)> h(AB) due to the particular setup under study, it indubitably results that Ein<Ec.
Therefore, having proved that EC>Ein, it is clear that the ball in C is having more energy that I put in!!! Eureka!!!
Thanks to your proof for SMOT that greatly inspired me, I definitely proved without any doubt that GOT is also overunity and that CoE is violated. GOT (SGOT also accepted between friends) will stand for (Simple) Gravitational Overunity Toy and I hereby release it to the public domain. I release it with one exception: X-(S)GOT, which is foreseen to be the improved pulsed version of (S)GOT (see Tseung et all); that would be way too OU, hence a real public danger.
Cheers,
Tinu
I think tinu is really on to something! This is truly brilliant. Clearly, the ball loses more energy along B->C->A than is imparted by the hand from A->B. Plainly, this is overunity, as this energy comes from nothing (not even a magnet). The fact that the ball does not return to B on its own is irrelevant. The fact that there is discontinuous production of excess energy is enough to show a violation of CoE.
I propose that from now on, all discussions regarding free energy start at this very point. CoE has been proven in a simple gravity setup, now it is up to all the inventors to close the SGOT loop and make a self-sustaining device. Now, admittedly, this is a difficult engineering problem, but surely a surmountable one. We have a violation of CoE plainly in sight, so it just a matter of making use of it.
This is not to take anything away from the SMOT, which is also overunity for the exact same reason. There is no reason inventors cannot work in parallel to develop both the SGOT and SMOT into something that produces useful energy.
Brilliant!! purely brilliant !! Special Thanks to Omnibus - for showing how to prove beyond any doubt, that CoE can be violated by any device, when examined in this manner.
Perhaps we can apply this same technique to other devices, and prove them to be in violation of CoE as well.
@smOky2,
Did you see my question to @tinu or you'll continue with your superficial attitude?
Quote from: Omnibus on March 26, 2008, 10:21:13 PM
@smOky2,
Did you see my question to @tinu or you'll continue with your superficial attitude?
To try to be an advocate against the SGOT's overunity is an effort not even the Devil would partake. It's proof is irrefutable. Just like the SMOT's overunity. Please, you have your SMOT. Let the unwashed masses who cannot afford magnets have their SGOT! Its CoE violation is equally valid. The math supports it perfectly.
Quote from: utilitarian on March 26, 2008, 11:28:29 PM
Quote from: Omnibus on March 26, 2008, 10:21:13 PM
@smOky2,
Did you see my question to @tinu or you'll continue with your superficial attitude?
To try to be an advocate against the SGOT's overunity is an effort not even the Devil would partake. It's proof is irrefutable. Just like the SMOT's overunity. Please, you have your SMOT. Let the unwashed masses who cannot afford magnets have their SGOT! Its CoE violation is equally valid. The math supports it perfectly.
To talk like this is easy. You may think it's funny but it's only mildly so, at your expense, at that.
This is the example @shruggedatlas was looking for. There may be others too. Like I said, according to my analysis, any situation whereby the imparted energy is less than the energy which the object stands to inevitably transform into other energies is in violation of CoE.
Quote from: Omnibus on March 26, 2008, 11:40:15 PM
To talk like this is easy. You may think it's funny but it's only mildly so, at your expense, at that.
It is obviously satire, maybe funny, maybe not. But go ahead, try to disprove the SGOT's overunity. You will soon realize that your own prior logic is not so easy to dodge.
Remember, the issue is not whether the SGOT is the same as the SMOT. Obviously, it isn't, as there is only one force in effect. Yet, by your logic, it violates CoE in the same manner the SMOT does - i.e. the ball loses more energy that what was imparted to it by the hand.
Quote from: utilitarian on March 27, 2008, 12:03:25 AM
Quote from: Omnibus on March 26, 2008, 11:40:15 PM
To talk like this is easy. You may think it's funny but it's only mildly so, at your expense, at that.
It is obviously satire, maybe funny, maybe not. But go ahead, try to disprove the SGOT's overunity. You will soon realize that your own prior logic is not so easy to dodge.
Remember, the issue is not whether the SGOT is the same as the SMOT. Obviously, it isn't, as there is only one force in effect. Yet, by your logic, it violates CoE in the same manner the SMOT does - i.e. the ball loses more energy that what was imparted to it by the hand.
Yes, it does. It does violate CoE in the same way SMOT does. I've already said that on several occasions (cf. when @shruggedatlas was trying to find a matching example; unsuccessfully, unfortunately) that any device in which an object has energy to be inevitably transformed in other energies greater than the energy imparted to it, violates CoE. She thought, for instance, we know her example with the bungee rope and the ramp intrinsically doesn't violate CoE. I told her clearly then, if that device does what she thinks it does (it doesn't unfortunately) then we will know that it does violate CoE. You may go back to that exchange, I think it's in this same thread.
As a matter of fact this principle is at the bottom of the gravity OU machines such as the Bessler wheel. It remains to be understood, however, how the produced excess energy is harnessed to make it self-sustaining. That's a purely engineering problem. The excess energy in the current setup, as in SMOT, is quite small and produced in an inappropriate form to allow rendering a self-sustaining contraption. That should be the gist of the discussions now that we know violation of CoE can happen for sure.
If the SGOT violates CoE, then we have no further disagreement. Your views are completely consistent. We shall consider the issue put to rest now.
Quote from: utilitarian on March 27, 2008, 01:12:48 AM
If the SGOT violates CoE, then we have no further disagreement. Your views are completely consistent. We shall consider the issue put to rest now.
No we won't, because that's the gist of all the discussions in this forum.
Now, you obviously disagree but that is only in words. You have no arguments whatsoever. So you'd better restrain from posting any further since obviously you have nothing of importance to say.
Quote from: Omnibus on March 27, 2008, 01:17:10 AM
No we won't, because that's the gist of all the discussions in this forum.
I just meant that between the two of us, we can put the issue to rest. I will champion the SGOT, and you can have the SMOT, and we will both be pioneers.
Though you did ask for a devil's advocate response, and here is the closest I can get to that with the SGOT. Energy at each stage:
A to B (or "AB"): mgh (AB)
B to C (AB + CA): -mgh (AB+CA)
C to A (CA): mgh (CA)
So, the closed loop A-B-C-A results in a net energy gain of zero:
mgh(AB) - mgh(AB+CA) + mgh(CA) = 0
Of course, the devil's advocate analysis is incorrect. The devil forgets that by going from B to C, no energy is required from the hand, that the ball travels from B to C spontaneously, on its own. The ball also returns spontaneously to A. Therefore, one must consider only the energy imparted by the hand, which is mgh(AB). Since mgh(AB) is less than the energy lost from B-C-A (which is mgh(BC) plus kinetic), therefore the system violates CoE. Plain as day.
What would the devil say about the SMOT? Of course, same flawed gravitational analysis applies as above, though slightly different, since the experiment has a different arrangement:
A to B (or "AB"): mgh (AB)
B to C (or "BC"): mgh (BC)
C to A (AB+BC): -mgh (AB+BC)
So, from a gravitational standpoint, the devil would argue that there is no net energy gain:
mgh(AB) + mgh(BC) - mgh(AB+BC) = 0
CoE obeyed
In addition, the devil would propound the following equally flawed analysis regarding the magnetic energies. Let's assign magnetic energy changes as follows:
From A to B: X
From B to C: Y
From C to A: Z
Since magnetism is a conservative force, it is safe to conclude that X+Y+Z must equal zero.
So, in a colossal mistake, the devil will attempt to foolishly combine the two analyses above as follows:
A to B: mgh(AB) + X
B to C: mgh(BC) + Y
C to A: -mgh(AB+BC) + Z
Total:
mgh(AB) + X + mgh(BC) + Y - mgh(AB+BC) + Z = 0
No net energy gain and CoE obeyed.
Why is the devil wrong? It is elementary. It's because by going from B to C, the ball acquires this energy spontaneously, with no help from anything. Therefore, mgh(BC) is the free energy gained from nothing. Clear? Good.
**********
OK, now we can agree and you have your devil's advocate argument and, let me be clear, THE TWO OF US can put this to rest.
@utilitarian,
On the contrary, you are the one to go away because this is my argument, not yours. Thus, I will not put this to rest because it, again, is the gist of the discussion in this forum. Concerning your participation, it?s up to you. You may continue to utter stupidities and you will get the response you deserve for that or you may choose to remain silent, which will be the prudent thing to do, and then you won?t hear things unpleasant to your ear. Well, there?s an unlikely third possibility for you to come to your senses but I?m not too hopeful about that.
Let?s now go back to the problem at hand and, to simplify matters, let?s stick to the gravitational example.
I will denote vertical distances A-B, C-A and C-B by h2, h1 and (h1 + h2) respectively, the rest of the symbols having their usual meaning.
From @tinu?s figure it is immediately seen that if we are to move the ball from its initial position A to position B, the ball at B will have available to inevitably transform into other energies (the ball will inevitably reach C when let go from B) an amount of energy mg(h1 + h2) which is greater than the energy mgh2, imparted to it in moving the ball from A to B. If we can find a devil's advocate who would be willing to dispute that we will know with certainty that he is out of his mind and the nicest thing he'd deserve would be to be ignored. Right?
CoE forbids such discrepancy between said energies. This discrepancy, however, is an experimental fact and therefore requires its abolition as a general principle in science.
Now, attention, what CoE forbids is that mentioned discrepancy despite the fact that, once available, that greater energy mg(h1 + h2) will transform equivalently into other energies which is obeyed in full in this example.
Principle of CoE has two aspects??transformation? and ?conservation?. In fact, it?s actual name (although we call it for brevity ?conservation of energy?) is ?principle of conservation and transformation of energy?. As I have said many, many times these examples (I have been looking for years for mechanical examples, equivalent to such in other areas which I won?t discuss now) violate only the ?conservation? part of CoE and do not violate the ?transformation? part of CoE. Indeed, all my analysis is based entirely on considering the ?transformation? aspect of CoE as valid. In other words, it is indisputably valid that when there is energy available its transformation into other energies occurs in equivalent quantities.
Your analysis obviously serves to reconfirm that aspect (the ?transformation? aspect) of the CoE, incorrectly considering that it is this aspect I am disputing. That?s wrong. Hear it once again, I am not disputing this aspect of CoE. What I am disputing is the statement that energy cannot be obtained out of no energy source, that is I am disputing the ?conservation? aspect of the CoE, which is the more important aspect, not the ?transformation? aspect you think I?m disputing. OK?.
As a matter of fact, in the overwhelming number of cases in science when discussing energy it is the application of exactly that ?transformation? aspect of CoE that is had in mind and is applied in the analyses and probably that has led to overlooking the possibility for the crucial violation we?re discussing now.
As we see, there are instances whereby energy can appear out of no energy source, only due to the favorable placing (due to proper construction) of an object in a conservative force field. Therefore, when saying ?energy out of nothing? we mean out of no energy source, by no means ignoring the existence of physically real conservative forces acting on the object and construction which are the underlying cause for the appearance of that energy. In this sense, a force field isn?t ?nothing?. Energy is obtained from no energy source but from very much existing other components of the physical world.
P.S. As a matter of fact Helmohltz in his lectures (because the papers he had submitted had been rejected from publication), where he puts forth the principle of CoE, shows a clear confusion between force and energy calling it principle of conservation of force. That confusion is later silently shoved under the rug making it appear that he actually meant conservation of energy. That?s only a detail.
Quote from: Omnibus on March 26, 2008, 02:42:00 PM
@tinu,
Now, take the position of a devil's advocate and explain why your experiment is not in violation of CoE.
The Devil will surely like to question your understanding of CoE principle, since you agreed that both SMOT and SGOT violate CoE.
Other than that, there is not much left to discuss but maybe engineering challenges. Like sm0ky2 correctly anticipated, there is quite a large class of such devices, including SEOT (Electrical) and maybe CNOT (complex nuclear, either weak or strong). Nonetheless, I?m quite confident that engineers will be able to solve the dispute.
To the free energy we go!
Cheers,
Tinu
@All,
Although incorrect, I should say that, to his credit, @utilitarian at least tried. He confuses the ?transformation? part of the CoE with the ?conservation? part thinking that I?m disputing the former while I challenge the latter. That?s a common misunderstanding as is seen from the Steorn forum in the threads where we were discussing this. That confusion has been exposed and rejected numerous times and is nothing new. Of course, @utilitarian may not know this and he repeats once again the same mistake. Note, however, that such a mistake is an honest mistake which, as I said, really stems from the incomplete way CoE is usually applied in academia. This mistake has nothing to do with the obvious stupidities written by a number of people, most recently by @zerotensor and @smOky2. That?s the reason I spent time to respond to @utilitarian?s post (and not just tell him not to clutter the thread with stupidities), mainly considering that he may be unaware of the fact that these exact incorrect arguments have already been discussed and rejected.
Quote from: tinu on March 27, 2008, 04:05:02 AM
Quote from: Omnibus on March 26, 2008, 02:42:00 PM
@tinu,
Now, take the position of a devil's advocate and explain why your experiment is not in violation of CoE.
The Devil will surely like to question your understanding of CoE principle, since you agreed that both SMOT and SGOT violate CoE.
Other than that, there is not much left to discuss but maybe engineering challenges. Like sm0ky2 correctly anticipated, there is quite a large class of such devices, including SEOT (Electrical) and maybe CNOT (complex nuclear, either weak or strong). Nonetheless, I?m quite confident that engineers will be able to solve the dispute.
To the free energy we go!
Cheers,
Tinu
Don't be too funny.
You think you're funny and that will conceal the lack of argument in your post. This isn't funny, however, that's stupid.
This is for everyone to notice--I am giving arguments while @tinu thinks he can get away with bafoonery instead.
And I will reiterate, any device in which an object happens to have at a certain point an amount of energy (available to transform spontaneously into other energies) greater than the energy imparted to it, violates CoE Such a device violates the most important "conservation" part of the CoE leaving the "transformation" part intact. This I have explained numerous times already here and in other places. "Transformation" part of CoE, that is, the part stating that energy transforms into other kinds of energy in equivalent amounts is as valid as ever in every known device.
All arguments were already posted.
Now onto the engineering issues, as not everyone is trained in magnetic hence GOT is a much viable alternative, I?d like to stress that although theory will say it?s irrelevant, the shape of the B-C-A curve is of utmost importance.
You see, it?s like a U-letter shape. Not entirely accurate because ball free falling is to be avoided. However, U accurately describes the curvature around point C of the B-C-A. As for the walls, letter V is much appropriate. Obviously, ?V? is inaccurate for C area. Anyway, a proper combination of the two V&U would be ideal in GOT. Therefore, I strongly imply something like V-GOT-U. How does it sound, omnibus?
Cheers,
Tinu
Quote from: tinu on March 27, 2008, 04:32:57 AM
All arguments were already posted.
Now onto the engineering issues, as not everyone is trained in magnetic hence GOT is a much viable alternative, I?d like to stress that although theory will say it?s irrelevant, the shape of the B-C-A curve is of utmost importance.
You see, it?s like a U-letter shape. Not entirely accurate because ball free falling is to be avoided. However, U accurately describes the curvature around point C of the B-C-A. As for the walls, letter V is much appropriate. Obviously, ?V? is inaccurate for C area. Anyway, a proper combination of the two V&U would be ideal in GOT. Therefore, I strongly imply something like V-GOT-U. How does it sound, omnibus?
Cheers,
Tinu
Hey, untalented mean little twerp, you will stop making fun of these serious matters and either will discuss the issue seriously or will go away. I will not tolerate this and will be as harsh as you know me to be towards morons such as you. This is a warning.
@All,
Now, how is to deal with this? For lack of arguments several people are trying to destroy the discussion. @tinu demonstrates such an obvious weakness that it's not even worth dirtying one's hand with such slime. He was warned, however, and should he continue his bafoonery he knows what to expect.
It's really curious to see how @tinu's intention is turning against him. That's really interesting. @tinu obviously really thought he has found the solution to this and now facing obvious failure is trying to escape through clownery. That's really weak. I'm sorry for the guy.
@utilitarian,
Let me reinforce once again that point so that I'm sure it gets across. The sum you're writing equal to zero
Quotemgh(AB) + mgh(BC) - mgh(AB+BC) = 0
CoE obeyed
is an expression of obeying the "transformation" part of CoE. Therefore, instead of "CoE obeyed" you must write "transformation part of CoE obeyed" which isn't disputed anyway and the validity of which is the basis of all of my analysis.
Violation of CoE I'm talking about consists in the discrepancy between mg(h1 + h2) and mgh2 which is invalidation of the more important, "conservation" part of CoE.
Quote from: Omnibus on March 27, 2008, 04:58:59 AM
...you will stop making fun of these serious matters and either will discuss the issue seriously...
Which matters, to be more specifically ? SMOT, SGOT, SEOT, CNOT or V-GOT-U?
I?m asking because the other matter, that of conservation of energy, is already well discussed elsewhere, like in http://physics.about.com/od/glossary/g/energy.htm
Cheers,
Tinu
Quote from: tinu on March 27, 2008, 05:36:11 AM
Quote from: Omnibus on March 27, 2008, 04:58:59 AM
...you will stop making fun of these serious matters and either will discuss the issue seriously...
Which matters, to be more specifically ? SMOT, SGOT, SEOT, CNOT or V-GOT-U?
I?m asking because the other matter, that of conservation of energy, is already well discussed elsewhere, like in http://physics.about.com/od/glossary/g/energy.htm
Cheers,
Tinu
There are better texts to cite in connection with CoE than that link. Nevertheless, my analysis proves that even this rudimentary definition given in the link is violated. The link requires that the total energy in the system remain constant but in the example at hand it does not remain constant.
In the initial state (when ball initially at A) the system has zero energy. The energy for making the system from its parts is never taken into account in the energy balance.
The system acquires energy only due the external intervention whereby the total amount imparted is mgh2.
However, at C the system has total energy in various forms, equivalent to mg(h1 + h2)
The amount of total energy mgh2 is by no means equal to the amount mg(h1 + h2) of the total energy.
Therefore, it is not true that in the discussed case the requirement that the total energy of the system remains constant is obeyed. On the contrary, in the discussed example, the total energy of the system does not remain constant which is in violation of the definition of CoE given in the link.
Lol. The above is so full of mistakes that it?s not even worth commenting unless the objective is to make traffic. The other possible objective, which you apparently don?t like, is ridicule.
For the sake of making traffic, selling adds and increasing your post counting: what do you mean by ?system? above? Just in one sentence, if possible. Note that you use ?system? twice (in respect to A and C).
Cheers,
Tinu
QuoteLol. The above is so full of mistakes that it?s not even worth commenting unless the objective is to make traffic. The other possible objective, which you apparently don?t like, is ridicule.
On the contrary, my text is based on argument while the text above is obviously frivolous and therefore it is what?s ridiculous. The fact that you are the one making them doesn?t make the above unsubstantiated statements substantiated.
As to what is meant by ?system?, the meaning is the same as in the link you gave above?it is the object of our examination. To make it clearer, draw an imaginary boundary around the hills A and B you presented, including the ball and you?ll get a picture of the system we?re talking about.
Thus, traffic and selling ads has nothing to do with the above. The above only shows that you?ve missed physics101 but are nevertheless eager to discuss something you don?t quite understand.
Here?s a little more. If we make the above thought boundary adiabatic, that is, not allowing heat to be exchanged with the environment, the energy contained in the system due to motion of the molecules, energy of the chemical bonds and so on, is constant. To simplify this argument we consider that initial energy (when the ball is at A) as zero.
Now, lifting the ball from A to B introduces potential energy to the system which, if CoE is obeyed, will express itself in equivalent quantities of other energies (ultimately heat) when the ball is let go from B directly back to A.
In our case, however, the potential energy the body loses when let go from B is more than that imparted to it. Therefore, at C the system will find itself with greater amount of various energies (ultimately heat) than the expected amount from what was introduced into the system in the form of potential energy.
Thus, our system which cannot exchange heat with the surroundings will be heated more than it would be expected from the amount of energy imparted to it.
Let me add also this -- that extra heat has come about at the expense of no energy source. It is nether due to the energy imparted to the system nor is it due to energy within the system (it was accepted as zero at the onset) but is only due to the special conditions we've placed our ball in the force field allowing for such energy to be obtained out of no energy source.
Nope. You?re doing worst and worst.
Quote from: Omnibus on March 27, 2008, 06:22:25 AM
In the initial state (when ball initially at A) the system has zero energy.
Obviously, the ball placed in A will move to C, thus either its energy can not be considered zero or, if you insist to take it zero by convention, you necessarily have to introduce (to get familiar with?!) negative potential energies. But you obviously haven?t and because of that you fall into another error:
Quote from: Omnibus on March 27, 2008, 06:22:25 AM
However, at C the system has total energy in various forms, equivalent to mg(h1 + h2)
The above crippled ?physics? samples don?t make even for the adds they sell.
Furthermore, you failed to see elementary and evidently points since you considered my post unsubstantiated (but your inability to see doesn?t make it so).
The rest of the first post goes into several similar errors. Shall I continue? The last two posts are even more catastrophic.
Cheers,
Tinu
QuoteQuote from: Omnibus on Today at 10:22:25 AM
In the initial state (when ball initially at A) the system has zero energy.
Obviously, the ball placed in A will move to C, thus either its energy can not be considered zero or, if you insist to take it zero by convention, you necessarily have to introduce (to get familiar with?!) negative potential energies. But you obviously haven?t and because of that you fall into another error:
Not at all. The ball when at its initial position A will not go to C. The way the hills you draw will not collapse. The energy to build the machine, to raise the hills, to put the ball at A, the energy of the chemical bonds, thermal motion and so on is never taken into account when an energy balance we?re talking about is carried out. That?s physics101.
QuoteQuote from: Omnibus on Today at 10:22:25 AM
However, at C the system has total energy in various forms, equivalent to mg(h1 + h2)
The above crippled ?physics? samples don?t make even for the adds they sell.
This is senseless blabber. You?d better straighten up your ?physics?.
QuoteFurthermore, you failed to see elementary and evidently points since you considered my post unsubstantiated (but your inability to see doesn?t make it so).
What points. Yours is just frivolous blabber, as I already said. Don?t make such pronouncements because a confused person such as you must not feel he?s a judge.
QuoteThe rest of the first post goes into several similar errors. Shall I continue? The last two posts are even more catastrophic.
Continue with what? With the inconsequential blabber? No. The answer is, no, you should not continue.
HA, HA, HA!
Ridicule is what you deserve all the way along. You?ll get it, don?t worry. Remember SMOT goes together with SGOT, SEOT, CNOT and particularly with ?V-GOT-U.
Now I better understand your rate of survival here and the threats you addressed to so many members. Go to Stefan, cry again to him and invoke your role here (and your contract?!) and ask him to delete my current post since it reveals that you do not do science, neither experimenting but only business (bad business).
By the way, what happened to the last thread opened by Konduct? It vanished the same way, isn?t it? You weren?t looking good on votes last time I checked? LOL again. Nice forum! Is it any other accepting you as member?
Cheers,
Tinu
Quote from: tinu on March 27, 2008, 05:07:03 PM
HA, HA, HA!
Ridicule is what you deserve all the way along. You?ll get it, don?t worry. Remember SMOT goes together with SGOT, SEOT, CNOT and particularly with ?V-GOT-U.
Now I better understand your rate of survival here and the threats you addressed to so many members. Go to Stefan, cry again to him and invoke your role here (and your contract?!) and ask him to delete my current post since it reveals that you do not do science, neither experimenting but only business (bad business).
By the way, what happened to the last thread opened by Konduct? It vanished the same way, isn?t it? You weren?t looking good on votes last time I checked? LOL again. Nice forum! Is it any other accepting you as member?
Cheers,
Tinu
This is for everyone to see how weak you are in your argumentation. Like I said, you are in no position to judge who does science and who doesn't because you are incompetent, as seen from the above exchange and the earlier exchanges. Go learn some basics of physics first and then come here to discuss more involved matters.
Quote from: Omnibus on March 27, 2008, 05:16:48 PM
Quote from: tinu on March 27, 2008, 05:07:03 PM
HA, HA, HA!
Ridicule is what you deserve all the way along. You?ll get it, don?t worry. Remember SMOT goes together with SGOT, SEOT, CNOT and particularly with ?V-GOT-U.
Now I better understand your rate of survival here and the threats you addressed to so many members. Go to Stefan, cry again to him and invoke your role here (and your contract?!) and ask him to delete my current post since it reveals that you do not do science, neither experimenting but only business (bad business).
By the way, what happened to the last thread opened by Konduct? It vanished the same way, isn?t it? You weren?t looking good on votes last time I checked? LOL again. Nice forum! Is it any other accepting you as member?
Cheers,
Tinu
This is for everyone to see how weak you are in your argumentation. Like I said, you are in no position to judge who does science and who doesn't because you are incompetent, as seen from the above exchange and the earlier exchanges. Go learn some basics of physics first and then come here to discuss more involved matters.
@Omnibus,
How did you know I was talking to you? Lol again!
You are not very intelligent, aren?t you? My IQ is above 140. Yours?
I do have a solid MSc in physics; still study for my PhD and I?ll continue also after that. What do you have beside SMOT?
Cheers,
Tinu
Oh, almost missed: YOU are weak/incompetent; you simply can not grasp arguments a high-school student would easily do. Besides, you?re very close minded, thinking exclusively on single threads. Get more open! You'll enjoy it.
Quote from: tinu on March 27, 2008, 05:38:35 PM
Quote from: Omnibus on March 27, 2008, 05:16:48 PM
Quote from: tinu on March 27, 2008, 05:07:03 PM
HA, HA, HA!
Ridicule is what you deserve all the way along. You?ll get it, don?t worry. Remember SMOT goes together with SGOT, SEOT, CNOT and particularly with ?V-GOT-U.
Now I better understand your rate of survival here and the threats you addressed to so many members. Go to Stefan, cry again to him and invoke your role here (and your contract?!) and ask him to delete my current post since it reveals that you do not do science, neither experimenting but only business (bad business).
By the way, what happened to the last thread opened by Konduct? It vanished the same way, isn?t it? You weren?t looking good on votes last time I checked? LOL again. Nice forum! Is it any other accepting you as member?
Cheers,
Tinu
This is for everyone to see how weak you are in your argumentation. Like I said, you are in no position to judge who does science and who doesn't because you are incompetent, as seen from the above exchange and the earlier exchanges. Go learn some basics of physics first and then come here to discuss more involved matters.
@Omnibus,
How did you know I was talking to you? Lol again!
You are not very intelligent, aren?t you? My IQ is above 140. Yours?
I do have a solid MSc in physics; still study for my PhD and I?ll continue also after that. What do you have beside SMOT?
Cheers,
Tinu
Oh, almost missed: YOU are weak/incompetent; you simply can not grasp arguments a high-school student would easily do. Besides, you?re very close minded, thinking exclusively on single threads. Get more open! You'll enjoy it.
Weak, weak.
You must not characterize anyone's abilities in science because you don't have such. Those who are keeping you as a PhD student are out of their minds. A person with a muddled thinking such as you must not be allowed to even set foot at a university, let alone work towards a PhD. The fact the the likes of you are allowed to do so only indicates the deep crisi in our educational system, ready to accept literally people from the street for lack of demand. A system which in its very essence is exclusive has turned into inclusive to no end, allowing complete morons such as you to destroy it from within. That's the sorry state of affairs. As for you, like I said, go away, study the basics of physics and then come back to discuss the subtleties of science. I doubt your cognitive abilities, however, judging from the exchange with you. So, I'm not expecting a discourse of any better quality even if you apply efforts to learn elementary physics.
Goodbye Omnibus!
Answer the questions when prepared.
@utilitarian,
Again, don?t forget that this
Quotemgh(AB) + mgh(BC) - mgh(AB+BC) = 0
CoE obeyed
is only an expression of the ?transformation? side of the ?principle of conservation of transformation of energy?. That side of CoE holds true The ?conservation? aspect of that principle, however, requires to account for the origin of each term in the above equality, that is, in this case, to account for the energy source responsible for the appearance of the term and this is where CoE fails.
The only term (in my notation, I posted earlier) having an energy source associated with it is mgh2 imparted and lost (through transforming into other energies) by the ball. All other terms in the above equality arise from no energy source. They are real, they exist, a balance (obeying the ?transformation? part of CoE) with them as terms can be written, as you have done, but their origin is out of no energy source.
This is a clear violation of the very essence of CoE and the very possibility for such violation is the main justification for the efforts in the area this forum is devoted to.
Quote from: tinu on March 27, 2008, 06:07:00 PM
Goodbye Omnibus!
Answer the questions when prepared.
On the contrary, you are the unprepared, as anyone interested in this can see from the above exchange.
Quote from: Omnibus on March 27, 2008, 06:22:25 AM
The link requires that the total energy in the system remain constant but in the example at hand it does not remain constant.
This is unprepared.
Lab assistant?
Quote from: tinu on March 27, 2008, 06:37:41 PM
Quote from: Omnibus on March 27, 2008, 06:22:25 AM
The link requires that the total energy in the system remain constant but in the example at hand it does not remain constant.
This is unprepared.
Lab assistant?
No, it is the one who makes unsubstantiated statements as the above who is the unprepared. I won't hire you even as a lab assistant.
Quote from: Omnibus on March 27, 2008, 06:22:25 AM
In the initial state (when ball initially at A) the system has zero energy.
This is unsubstantiated. And plainly wrong.
Of course you won't hire me. You can't. It would need a much higher position.
Quote from: tinu on March 27, 2008, 08:29:34 PM
Quote from: Omnibus on March 27, 2008, 06:22:25 AM
In the initial state (when ball initially at A) the system has zero energy.
This is unsubstantiated. And plainly wrong.
Of course you won't hire me. You can't. It would need a much higher position.
Don't worry about my position. Worry about your being incompetent.
As for whether the above is "unsubstantiated", don't go further, just take a look at the balance @utilitarian has presented above:
Quotemgh(AB) + mgh(BC) - mgh(AB+BC) = 0
CoE obeyed
and see if there is any non-zero energy term accounting for the energy of the system in the initial state (when ball is initially at A). There?s none, correct? The energy of the system in its initial state is accepted as zero ? the thermal motion, the energy of molecular bonds, the work to put together the system and to place the ball at A etc. are not taken into account in the energy balance we?re discussing.
Like I said, go learn elementary physics first and then come here to discuss subtleties.
Well its a good thing nobody here seems to need a job tomorrow is Friday pay day what are you guys gonna tell the Boss this week? you had a peeing contest?
I'm just going to say that the generally excepted "I.Q" test is completely flawed. It's based on a strict system of average thinking styles. I took a school I.Q test a long time ago, and it was very inconsiderate of differen't thinking styles. The head psychologist of the school said that I had scored the highest he's ever seen on a particular test (think it was picture concepts). Then above average on verbal, and low on some computational speed test thing. I already knew I was a visual thinker, and infact had a very strong visual memory (not photographic though), but I had it to a degree where the test was thrown off by it. The point is, I can remember the last answere to the picture concepts testing (flag-bell-candle), but i'm not a fast computational guy (like multiplication, division...). So because I suck computationaly, I only got to above average range. I think above average is like 120 - 149. If I had taken a test completely geared toward my thinking style, I would have probably been a "super man". Thats why I have never trusted any sort of thing to measure intelligence, as even intelligent people make stupid decisions. (like hitler, stalin...)
Quote from: Omnibus on March 27, 2008, 08:46:16 PM
Quote
mgh(AB) + mgh(BC) - mgh(AB+BC) = 0
CoE obeyed
and see if there is any non-zero energy term accounting for the energy of the system in the initial state (when ball is initially at A). There?s none, correct? The energy of the system in its initial state is accepted as zero...
Wrong, as usual! (Why I?m not surprised?)
The ball placed in either A or B will move to C, hence it has an ability to perform useful work. This is plain fact. Therefore, initial potential energy of the ball is not zero. In other words: there is a non-zero energy term accounting for the energy of the system in the initial state. (And just forget about thermodynamics to avoid heating yourself up; nobody but you brought it into discussion) Can you wrote this initial non-zero potential energy term down or the simple definition of energy is already above your level?
Quote from: Omnibus on March 27, 2008, 08:46:16 PM
Like I said, go learn elementary physics first and then come here to discuss subtleties.
Well, issue is you unmistakably need to talk to the mirror. You really don?t have much in common with physics, despite your doggedness and ability to make some people believe you do. See you again when you can prove that you know what you?re trying to talk about.
Cheers,
Tinu
Quote from: HopeForHumanity on March 28, 2008, 04:28:51 AM
I'm just going to say that the generally excepted "I.Q" test is ...
I partially agree about IQ remarks. But still wanna hear Omnibus? credentials and/or something placing him back to his real place. He has shown nothing, really, except a very large number of elementary mistakes and a huge fixation about SMOT and magnetic motors that, unfortunately, can not possibly work. How do you really know he?s not a magnet salesman or a humble technician? I wouldn?t mind him to be as I respect anyone as long as respect is reciprocal. But I?m telling that his physics really sucks and he pretends to teach and to command people around when he?s actually a mediocrity in physics. Let?s see some of the real omnibus (I doubt it will ever happen).
Cheers,
Tinu
Quote
Re: Tri-Force Magnets - Finally shown to be OU?
? Reply #763 on: Today at 09:01:47 AM ?
Reply with quoteQuote
Quote from: Omnibus on Today at 12:46:16 AM
Quote
mgh(AB) + mgh(BC) - mgh(AB+BC) = 0
CoE obeyed
and see if there is any non-zero energy term accounting for the energy of the system in the initial state (when ball is initially at A). There?s none, correct? The energy of the system in its initial state is accepted as zero...
Wrong, as usual! (Why I?m not surprised?)
The ball placed in either A or B will move to C, hence it has an ability to perform useful work. This is plain fact. Therefore, initial potential energy of the ball is not zero. In other words: there is a non-zero energy term accounting for the energy of the system in the initial state. (And just forget about thermodynamics to avoid heating yourself up; nobody but you brought it into discussion) Can you wrote this initial non-zero potential energy term down or the simple definition of energy is already above your level?
No, you?re wrong. The ball placed at A will not move to C when the ball is left at its initial state at A on its own. The same way the hills A and B that you?ve drawn will not collapse on their own.
If that were the case, as you ridiculously insist, then we will not have the system described by you available, all would have collapsed before we even think of raising the ball from A to B, and there will be nothing to discuss.
The system left on it own in its initial state will have the hills intact and the ball resting at A indefinitely unless an external intervention (imparting energy mgh2 to the ball to move it from A to B) is induced when the hills will still remain intact but the ball will have changed its state.
I repeat, the energy to screw the screws of the machine, to cut its parts, to raise the hills, to place the ball at A, the energy of the intermolecular forces, thermal motion, molecular bonds etc. is not taken into account when carrying out this type of energy balance.
Learn physics first. Don?t push your confusion here.
QuoteQuote from: Omnibus on Today at 12:46:16 AM
Like I said, go learn elementary physics first and then come here to discuss subtleties.
Well, issue is you unmistakably need to talk to the mirror. You really don?t have much in common with physics, despite your doggedness and ability to make some people believe you do. See you again when you can prove that you know what you?re trying to talk about.
Don?t continue with this discussion before learning the basics of physics because all you do is further exposing your confusion for everyone to see.
Quote from: tinu on March 28, 2008, 05:17:38 AM
Quote from: HopeForHumanity on March 28, 2008, 04:28:51 AM
I'm just going to say that the generally excepted "I.Q" test is ...
I partially agree about IQ remarks. But still wanna hear Omnibus? credentials and/or something placing him back to his real place. He has shown nothing, really, except a very large number of elementary mistakes and a huge fixation about SMOT and magnetic motors that, unfortunately, can not possibly work. How do you really know he?s not a magnet salesman or a humble technician? I wouldn?t mind him to be as I respect anyone as long as respect is reciprocal. But I?m telling that his physics really sucks and he pretends to teach and to command people around when he?s actually a mediocrity in physics. Let?s see some of the real omnibus (I doubt it will ever happen).
Cheers,
Tinu
As I've already said, you are underqualified, as seen from this exchange, and therefore you must not utter pronouncements about the competence of other people. You have still a lot to learn and even then it isn't certain that you will be able to do science because your cognitive abilities seem to be lacking.
Quote from: Omnibus on March 28, 2008, 05:26:49 AM
The ball placed at A will not move to C when the ball is left at its initial state at A on its own. The same way the hills A and B that you?ve drawn will not collapse on their own.
If that were the case, as you ridiculously insist, then we will not have the system described by you available, all would have collapsed before we even think of raising the ball from A to B, and there will be nothing to discuss.
The system left on it own in its initial state will have the hills intact and the ball resting at A indefinitely unless an external intervention (imparting energy mgh2 to the ball to move it from A to B) is induced when the hills will still remain intact but the ball will have changed its state.
Work done by gravity on a horizontal path is null.
Ability of the ball to perform work has noting to do with the ball actually performing it or not. In other words, it doesn?t matter if the ball is fixed in A or not or if it?s in motion toward C or not. Regardless, its ability to perform work will remain the same. This comes within the simple definition of potential energy you couldn?t grasp either.
Now, if you don?t mind, I?ll have to perform some useful work by myself. Like it results from all posts above, you?re hopeless. Get back to your ordinary business, whatever they might be; they?re surely not in physics. Desperate blabber doesn?t make you trained.
Cheers,
Tinu
Quote from: tinu on March 28, 2008, 05:54:58 AM
Quote from: Omnibus on March 28, 2008, 05:26:49 AM
The ball placed at A will not move to C when the ball is left at its initial state at A on its own. The same way the hills A and B that you?ve drawn will not collapse on their own.
If that were the case, as you ridiculously insist, then we will not have the system described by you available, all would have collapsed before we even think of raising the ball from A to B, and there will be nothing to discuss.
The system left on it own in its initial state will have the hills intact and the ball resting at A indefinitely unless an external intervention (imparting energy mgh2 to the ball to move it from A to B) is induced when the hills will still remain intact but the ball will have changed its state.
Work done by gravity on a horizontal path is null.
Ability of the ball to perform work has noting to do with the ball actually performing it or not. In other words, it doesn?t matter if the ball is fixed in A or not or if it?s in motion toward C or not. Regardless, its ability to perform work will remain the same. This comes within the simple definition of potential energy you couldn?t grasp either.
Now, if you don?t mind, I?ll have to perform some useful work by myself. Like it results from all posts above, you?re hopeless. Get back to your ordinary business, whatever they might be; they?re surely not in physics. Desperate blabber doesn?t make you trained.
Cheers,
Tinu
That's incompetent. When at the initial state not only the ball at A but also the hills and other parts of your proposed experimental setup have potential energy. There's thermal energy as well, there are other kinds of energies at the initial state too. All these energies are not taken into account when this type of energy balance is carried out. I'm repeating this over and over again but you dont get it. @utilitarian gave you a balance but you don't get it. You're a hopeless case of an incompetent but persistent in his desire to push his incompetence individual. This should stop.
Quote from: Omnibus on March 28, 2008, 05:26:49 AM
I repeat, the energy to screw the screws of the machine, to cut its parts, to raise the hills, to ...
Don?t you have some screws that needed to be tightened on your own machine?!
Better use your energy into that.
Good bye, poor omnibus. Busted and fired!
Cheers,
Tinu
Quote from: tinu on March 28, 2008, 06:50:19 AM
Quote from: Omnibus on March 28, 2008, 05:26:49 AM
I repeat, the energy to screw the screws of the machine, to cut its parts, to raise the hills, to ...
Don?t you have some screws that needed to be tightened on your own machine?!
Better use your energy into that.
Good bye, poor omnibus. Busted and fired!
Cheers,
Tinu
Learn basic physics first and then come back to discuss more involved matters.
No point in reading this thread anymore, its degenerated into the usual Omnibus noise...
Quote from: Lakes on March 28, 2008, 09:21:58 AM
No point in reading this thread anymore, its degenerated into the usual Omnibus noise...
Well, that's what someone has to say for lack of arguments. That's typical.
Quote from: Omnibus on March 27, 2008, 06:08:45 PM
@utilitarian,
Again, don?t forget that this
Quotemgh(AB) + mgh(BC) - mgh(AB+BC) = 0
CoE obeyed
is only an expression of the ?transformation? side of the ?principle of conservation of transformation of energy?. That side of CoE holds true The ?conservation? aspect of that principle, however, requires to account for the origin of each term in the above equality, that is, in this case, to account for the energy source responsible for the appearance of the term and this is where CoE fails.
OK, here is how I see it then. You have a very tortured definition of violation of CoE. If you are granting that the GOT (or "SGOT") equally violates the principle of CoE (the conservation part, not the transformation part, as you would have it), well, I do not know what to tell you. You are just dancing on heads of pins now, playing with semantics.
The energy you speak of does not come from nothing. We know exactly where it comes from. Putting a ball at the top of the hill and having it roll down is not energy from nothing, anymore than letting a ball go from the base of a SMOT ramp, and watching it roll "downhill" down the magnetic field. But if you want to call that energy from nothing, go ahead, just be aware that the ball will only roll once, so it's a short free energy joyride, paid in advance by your hand.
The bottom line is this. You are granting overunity status to devices that cannot possibly work, and by work, I mean sustain themselves, like a proper overunity device should. You can stand here and give a million excuses and reasons why they don't work, but in theory can work, but the bottom line is they don't work.
QuoteReply #773 on: Today at 03:31:22 PM ?
Reply with quoteQuote
Quote from: Omnibus on March 27, 2008, 10:08:45 PM
@utilitarian,
Again, don?t forget that this
Quote
mgh(AB) + mgh(BC) - mgh(AB+BC) = 0
CoE obeyed
is only an expression of the ?transformation? side of the ?principle of conservation of transformation of energy?. That side of CoE holds true The ?conservation? aspect of that principle, however, requires to account for the origin of each term in the above equality, that is, in this case, to account for the energy source responsible for the appearance of the term and this is where CoE fails.
OK, here is how I see it then. You have a very tortured definition of violation of CoE. If you are granting that the GOT (or "SGOT") equally violates the principle of CoE (the conservation part, not the transformation part, as you would have it), well, I do not know what to tell you. You are just dancing on heads of pins now, playing with semantics.
On the contrary, you know what to tell me but you don?t want to tell it. And that is, that I am right. It isn?t just semantics to have a real physical quantity mgh2 greater than another real physical quantity mg(h1 + h2) and honestly admit that the one is greater than the other which CoE forbids. According to CoE the ball can never have more energy (that?s the energy mg(h1 + h2)) available to inevitably transform into other energies than the energy imparted to it (which is energy mgh2).
QuoteThe energy you speak of does not come from nothing. We know exactly where it comes from. Putting a ball at the top of the hill and having it roll down is not energy from nothing, anymore than letting a ball go from the base of a SMOT ramp, and watching it roll "downhill" down the magnetic field.
Not so. Putting a ball at the top of the hill B by lifting it from A and having it roll down is not energy from nothing only down to point level with A. Any energy from that point on, down to C, is energy from nothing (meaning from no energy source). The ball was not endowed with such energy when putting it at the top of the hill B form point A.
QuoteBut if you want to call that energy from nothing, go ahead, just be aware that the ball will only roll once, so it's a short free energy joyride, paid in advance by your hand.
Not at all. Putting the ball at the top of the hill B while lifting it from A and letting it go will inevitably bring the ball back at A. Otherwise it won?t be an analog of SMOT, as was the intention. Having the ball back at A, you may repeat the experiment and therefore it will not be a short free energy joyride and not all of it is paid in advance by my hand. Like I said, in advance by my hand will be paid only the ride from B down to a point level with A. Anything further down from that point level with point A to C is not paid in advance by my hand.
QuoteThe bottom line is this. You are granting overunity status to devices that cannot possibly work, and by work, I mean sustain themselves, like a proper overunity device should. You can stand here and give a million excuses and reasons why they don't work, but in theory can work, but the bottom line is they don't work.
On the contrary, as explained, these devices I?m granting overunity status do work. Every cycle ends up the ball at its initial state, point A, producing in the meantime energy from nothing (from no energy source). This is what a proper overunity device should do. If you don?t trust me, recall the link @Yadaraf gave in support of that, explaining what a perpetual motion machine is. That explanation didn?t include the requirement that the device should sustain itself: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_motion:
QuoteHowever, perpetual motion usually refers to a device or system that delivers more energy than was put into it.
Like I said, the problem is that in our every day research we usually take the "transformation" part of CoE as the CoE itself usually overlooking its main part, the "conservation" part. And that's in a way understandable because what we usually are dealing with are transformations of energy from one form to another. The whole mainstream chemistry is based on that, for instance. Only in very subtle cases which I will not go into now, not in the mainstream chemistry. at that, can there be an analog of the situation we're discussing now. I won't get ito it now because, as seen, even a simple case such as this isn't easy to get across to some, let alone an example based on the complexities of chemistry which are only up to real experts.
Quote
Putting a ball at the top of the hill B by lifting it from A and having it roll down is not energy from nothing only down to point level with A. Any energy from that point on, down to C, is energy from nothing (meaning from no energy source).
HA! In your mind maybe...
Quote from: Omnibus on March 28, 2008, 12:08:58 PM
On the contrary, as explained, these devices I?m granting overunity status do work. Every cycle ends up the ball at its initial state, point A, producing in the meantime energy from nothing (from no energy source). This is what a proper overunity device should do. If you don?t trust me, recall the link @Yadaraf gave in support of that, explaining what a perpetual motion machine is. That explanation didn?t include the requirement that the device should sustain itself: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_motion:
I do not understand why you do not account for the potential energy present in the ball at starting point A. It still has that energy, whether you put it there, or I did, or God did it, or the kid down the block, or if the earth in its volcanic violence formed it that way. As you would have it:
Height A: h1
From A to B: h2
From B to C: (h1+h2)
Ball starts out with potential energy mg(h1) at A. Human hand adds energy to the system equal to mg(h2), and the ball is now at B. Ball rolls downhill on its own, converting potential energy mg(h1+h2) to kinetic energy and also into heat and sound. After passing C, the ball converts the kinetic energy it has into potential energy mg(h1) and no more, since the kinetic energy from mg(h2) was lost to friction, so the ball is able to make it to A, and no further. Where is the profit? No excess energy here.
If the above is a violation of CoE, then I violated CoE the other day on the basketball court. Referee hands me the ball, as I stand at the free throw line. I take the ball at height A (4 feet off floor). I bring the ball up and shoot. Ball smacks off the front of the rim (height B, 10 feet off floor). The ball then proceeds to bounce back to me, off the floor (height C, zero feet off floor), and I catch it at the crest of its bounce. Hope the spectators saw that! Bad shot, true, but I just turned a millennium of science sideways. Thermodynamics is no longer the same!
Quote from: tinu on March 28, 2008, 12:43:21 PM
Quote
Putting a ball at the top of the hill B by lifting it from A and having it roll down is not energy from nothing only down to point level with A. Any energy from that point on, down to C, is energy from nothing (meaning from no energy source).
HA! In your mind maybe...
Don't bother. Go learn some physics first.
QuoteQuote]Quote from: Omnibus on Today at 04:08:58 PM
On the contrary, as explained, these devices I?m granting overunity status do work. Every cycle ends up the ball at its initial state, point A, producing in the meantime energy from nothing (from no energy source). This is what a proper overunity device should do. If you don?t trust me, recall the link @Yadaraf gave in support of that, explaining what a perpetual motion machine is. That explanation didn?t include the requirement that the device should sustain itself: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_motion:
I do not understand why you do not account for the potential energy present in the ball at starting point A. It still has that energy, whether you put it there, or I did, or God did it, or the kid down the block, or if the earth in its volcanic violence formed it that way. As you would have it:
Height A: h1
From A to B: h2
From B to C: (h1+h2)
Ball starts out with potential energy mg(h1) at A. Human hand adds energy to the system equal to mg(h2), and the ball is now at B. Ball rolls downhill on its own, converting potential energy mg(h1+h2) to kinetic energy and also into heat and sound. After passing C, the ball converts the kinetic energy it has into potential energy mg(h1) and no more, since the kinetic energy from mg(h2) was lost to friction, so the ball is able to make it to A, and no further. Where is the profit? No excess energy here.
You are making the same mistake @tinu makes. Look at your balance. It doesn?t contain that initial energy. Because if it did then you would have (in my notation):
mgh1 + mgh2 ? mg(h1 + h2) + mgh1 =/= 0
which is not what you wrote, correct?
The energies the machine has at its initial state are never taken into account in this kind of energy balance. You wrote the energy balance correctly but your understanding of it is incorrect?first, as I noted, in terms of the origin of the terms in it and second, as it is seen now, regarding the energy at the initial state.
QuoteIf the above is a violation of CoE, then I violated CoE the other day on the basketball court. Referee hands me the ball, as I stand at the free throw line. I take the ball at height A (4 feet off floor). I bring the ball up and shoot. Ball smacks off the front of the rim (height B, 10 feet off floor). The ball then proceeds to bounce back to me, off the floor (height C, zero feet off floor), and I catch it at the crest of its bounce. Hope the spectators saw that! Bad shot, true, but I just turned a millennium of science sideways. Thermodynamics is no longer the same!
Not to get confused, avoid the kinetic energy and do the basketball court thing this way?the referee places the ball on an elevated surface, above the ground of the court. The ball sits still there. In this way the referee builds the ?machine? consisting of the elevation, the ball, the rim and the ground. Aside from the work the referee has done to place the ball at the elevation, someone else has done work to make the rim, screw it up where it is, other work has also been done to create the ?machine? too. That?s the initial state of the machine. If you let it on its own it will stay intact indefinitely. However, you pick up the ball, lift it to the rim and let it go. The ?machine? works in such a way that it brings back the ball at the same spot at the elevation and has it there finally at rest. CoE (in its more essential "conservation" part) is violated. The "transformation" part of CoE is not violated.
Quote from: Omnibus on March 28, 2008, 02:13:36 PM
Quote from: tinu on March 28, 2008, 12:43:21 PM
Quote
Putting a ball at the top of the hill B by lifting it from A and having it roll down is not energy from nothing only down to point level with A. Any energy from that point on, down to C, is energy from nothing (meaning from no energy source).
HA! In your mind maybe...
Don't bother. Go learn some physics first.
Just relax?
Relax your body long enough until you smash your head on the floor. Then you?ll see how much potential energy is in your head (I hope it won?t floating, will it?!).
Repeat, recover, repeat, recover. Don?t give up and focus on potential energy. Good luck.
Cheers,
Tinu
Quote from: tinu on March 28, 2008, 02:43:16 PM
Quote from: Omnibus on March 28, 2008, 02:13:36 PM
Quote from: tinu on March 28, 2008, 12:43:21 PM
Quote
Putting a ball at the top of the hill B by lifting it from A and having it roll down is not energy from nothing only down to point level with A. Any energy from that point on, down to C, is energy from nothing (meaning from no energy source).
HA! In your mind maybe...
Don't bother. Go learn some physics first.
Just relax?
Relax your body long enough until you smash your head on the floor. Then you?ll see how much potential energy is in your head (I hope it won?t floating, will it?!).
Repeat, recover, repeat, recover. Don?t give up and focus on potential energy. Good luck.
Cheers,
Tinu
Don't hang around here. Go learn some physics if you want to participate in the discussion, don't waste time.
Quote from: Omnibus on March 28, 2008, 02:36:33 PM
The energies the machine has at its initial state are never taken into account in this kind of energy balance.
Please show a single other example in the history of modern physics where the initial potential energy of an object "is not taken into account" when calculating the energy balance of a system. If you are basing your violation of CoE on that, I just don't know what to tell you. One of the major foundations of our understanding of our universe is wrong, and based on that?
This is madness. If I had $100 sitting in a bank account, and then I deposit $50, and then I buy a book for $150 on a debit card, and then I return the book for a $150 credit. Then I look at my balance and say, ZOMG, modern math is so wrong. I deposited $50 and was able to buy a $150 book, return it, and have $150 in my account. I was able to spend more than the $50 I put in. This is earth shattering. No, the initial $100 did not count. I do not remember putting that in there, I think my father deposited that check, so that cannot, I repeat cannot, let me stress, CANNOT, be part of the equation. Money in = $50, money out = $150. Financial overunity! I will be rich someday.
Oh, and I keep doing the book buy and return trick but never get ahead. In fact, I get slapped with a monthly checking account fee. But trust me folks, making money with my system is purely a logistical problem. The engineers will figure it out someday.
QuoteQuote from: Omnibus on March 28, 2008, 06:36:33 PM
The energies the machine has at its initial state are never taken into account in this kind of energy balance.
Please show a single other example in the history of modern physics where the initial potential energy of an object "is not taken into account" when calculating the energy balance of a system. If you are basing your violation of CoE on that, I just don't know what to tell you. One of the major foundations of our understanding of our universe is wrong, and based on that?
Like I said, your own energy balance proves it. As I already said, you?ve written it correctly but obviously you don?t understand its meaning.
Here?s another example. You?re in a room on the tenth floor of a building which is at height H from the street level. You pick a ball which lies on the floor of that room, lift it up and place it on the table in that room which is at height h from the floor. Modern physics says that you have imparted energy mgh to the ball and not energy mg(h + H), as you seem to suggest because the ball on the floor had energy mgH with respect to the street level at the onset.
QuoteThis is madness. If I had $100 sitting in a bank account, and then I deposit $50, and then I buy a book for $150 on a debit card, and then I return the book for a $150 credit. Then I look at my balance and say, ZOMG, modern math is so wrong. I deposited $50 and was able to buy a $150 book, return it, and have $150 in my account. I was able to spend more than the $50 I put in. This is earth shattering. No, the initial $100 did not count. I do not remember putting that in there, I think my father deposited that check, so that cannot, I repeat cannot, let me stress, CANNOT, be part of the equation. Money in = $50, money out = $150. Financial overunity! I will be rich someday.
No, this is an incorrect analogy. The correct analogy is as follows. You have $100 sitting in your bank account. You spend $50 out of pocket to buy a book which costs $150. Then you sell the book for $150. Your $100 are still in the bank but you have made a profit of another $100. Now you may take another $50 but this time from your profit (the $100 are in the bank untouched) and buy another book that costs $150, sell it for $150 and so on and so forth.
I strongly recommend, however, that you return from money analogies to the real physical world and experiments. Focus, for instance, on the experiment wih the ball in the apartment on the tenth floor of a building.
QuoteOh, and I keep doing the book buy and return trick but never get ahead. In fact, I get slapped with a monthly checking account fee. But trust me folks, making money with my system is purely a logistical problem. The engineers will figure it out someday.
No, you do get ahead. After every cycle you are $50 richer if you always also put aside $50 to continue the money crunching.
P.S. Oh, and, by the way?thermodynamics isn?t as old as you portray it. The times of Carnot and J.W.Gibbs are not even ancient times where the likes of Johannes Taisnierius have carried out their experiments oblivious of that discipline.
It's funny that George Soros himself wrote a book some years ago explaining that the financial system, especially the stock market is a sort of a CoE violation machine. His take was that money on Wall Street is made out of thin air--value of stock mostly not having much to do with the underlying products--and it isn't true that for some to get rich it isn't necessary that others become poor. This may be interesting to discuss but even if the stock market is a perpetuum mobile, it is a man made one. What we're discussing here is violation of CoE inherent in the natural phenomena (not man made), inevitable under the specified conditions as any other physical law.
We are not getting anywhere. Good luck with your theory.
Quote from: utilitarian on March 29, 2008, 12:30:33 AM
We are not getting anywhere. Good luck with your theory.
Why are you saying that (that we are not getting anywhere)? I've shown you the errors you make. How is it not getting anywhere?
Wow, this thread has been completely destroyed... It does not matter whether the Stupid Machine Of Talk is overunity or not, in this thread. On a macro level, Omnibus is acting like a complete child. GTFO. This isn't a chat room, it's a forum. Unlike a chat room, off-topic arguments actualy cause problems. So everybody just needs to STFU about the smot, no more discussion, peoples incompetence for this thread have done too much damage. Omnibus, you are the biggest violater of starting this shit storm. I'm tired right now, and probably over reacting. But when I come to this thread to see Tri-Force stuff, and all I end up seeing is more smot bullshit, I get increasingly annoyed. Administator, please show some real admin like behaviour, and just stop this argument crap.
Quote from: HopeForHumanity on March 29, 2008, 02:58:26 AM
Wow, this thread has been completely destroyed... It does not matter whether the Stupid Machine Of Talk is overunity or not, in this thread. On a macro level, Omnibus is acting like a complete child. GTFO. This isn't a chat room, it's a forum. Unlike a chat room, off-topic arguments actualy cause problems. So everybody just needs to STFU about the smot, no more discussion, peoples incompetence for this thread have done too much damage. Omnibus, you are the biggest violater of starting this shit storm. I'm tired right now, and probably over reacting. But when I come to this thread to see Tri-Force stuff, and all I end up seeing is more smot bullshit, I get increasingly annoyed. Administator, please show some real admin like behaviour, and just stop this argument crap.
Well said,
No your not over reacting... The administrator of this site should do something....
The latest exchange is absolutely not off-topic. What was discussed is the essence of this and other threads in a forum devoted to overunity. Constructing an OU device doesn't only consist of putting together pieces of material without having a clue about the basic laws that govern Nature. No wonder why there are so many "inventors" thinking they have an OU machine while they don't and only cause deserved ridicule by the experts. Case in point--people who think their machine is overunity just because they get lower voltage out than in. In this particular case it is amazing how some are talking about OU involving potential energies without having a slightest clarity regarding what potential energy really is. Therefore, to discuss such matters is not only not off-topic but is mandatory if one is really serious about the matter at hand.
With all due respect omnibus please shut up. I think 99% of people who read these forums know what the final goal is ( something that self runs ). I only have a very limited or maybe no understanding of physics ( its not my field ) but I do understand that to make such a 'device' it would be about fooling the natural balance of said 'device'. These forums are all about exchanging ideas and NOT about trying to ENFORCE your knowledge, views and theories onto other people its irrelevant who's right or wrong ( for me anyway ), say you piece, read the replies and then move on.... its that simple. And Omnibus Please do not post a reply quoting me on any of this. Just a very small reply if you feel you must write more crap but please don't start telling me how wrong or how stupid I am because it will be water of a ducks back, just in case you don't understand what I just said I don't give a flying f**k.
Quote from: gwhy! on March 29, 2008, 07:15:40 AM
With all due respect omnibus please shut up. I think 99% of people who read these forums know what the final goal is ( something that self runs ). I only have a very limited or maybe no understanding of physics ( its not my field ) but I do understand that to make such a 'device' it would be about fooling the natural balance of said 'device'. These forums are all about exchanging ideas and NOT about trying to ENFORCE your knowledge, views and theories onto other people its irrelevant who's right or wrong ( for me anyway ), say you piece, read the replies and then move on.... its that simple. And Omnibus Please do not post a reply quoting me on any of this. Just a very small reply if you feel you must write more crap but please don't start telling me how wrong or how stupid I am because it will be water of a ducks back, just in case you don't understand what I just said I don't give a flying f**k.
On the contrary, I will reply and I will tell you that I will continue the necessary discussion and will not agree that people such as you who by their own admission "only have a very limited or maybe no understanding of physics" to govern what is and what is not to be discussed. This absolutely will not pass. You'd better think about your own behavior and curb your arrogance before allowing yourself to set the direction of the discussion. What nerve.
:D
what a knob!
Quote from: Omnibus on March 29, 2008, 12:46:48 AM
Quote from: utilitarian on March 29, 2008, 12:30:33 AM
We are not getting anywhere. Good luck with your theory.
Why are you saying that (that we are not getting anywhere)? I've shown you the errors you make. How is it not getting anywhere?
Perhaps if we had an hour or so in person, we could narrow our differences further, but it would take days of forum participation to accomplish the same, and I am just not up to it.
Anyway, I think the exercise is pointless. I will never convince you, and since there is no one else who takes your side, there is no one else to convince. And you will never convince me of this theory, the physics equivalent of 2+2=5, without either (1) a self-sustaining model or (2) independent validation by those qualified in this field. And I can tell none of those are forthcoming in this lifetime.
Quote from: utilitarian on March 29, 2008, 04:39:56 PM
Quote from: Omnibus on March 29, 2008, 12:46:48 AM
Quote from: utilitarian on March 29, 2008, 12:30:33 AM
We are not getting anywhere. Good luck with your theory.
Why are you saying that (that we are not getting anywhere)? I've shown you the errors you make. How is it not getting anywhere?
Perhaps if we had an hour or so in person, we could narrow our differences further, but it would take days of forum participation to accomplish the same, and I am just not up to it.
Anyway, I think the exercise is pointless. I will never convince you, and since there is no one else who takes your side, there is no one else to convince. And you will never convince me of this theory, the physics equivalent of 2+2=5, without either (1) a self-sustaining model or (2) independent validation by those qualified in this field. And I can tell none of those are forthcoming in this lifetime.
No, this isn't the same as claiming that 2 + 2 = 5 because, remember, the "transformation" aspect of CoE is valid and your balance (which expressed as 2 + 2 = 4) is correct. It will be 2 + 2 = 5 if you start unjustified additions of the energy mgh1 (or the energy to lift the ball from the street level to the tenth floor), as I already explained.
As far as convincing me, yes, you can convince me but with sound scientific arguments. So far you have presented none and, therefore, the opposite should have occurred--you should already be convinced. Never mind who else agrees. Science isn't done by sheep in a herd who have to stick together no matter what the arguments are. Truth in science is never established by voting.
Quote from: Omnibus on March 29, 2008, 06:32:19 PM
Never mind who else agrees. Science isn't done by sheep in a herd who have to stick together no matter what the arguments are.
On the radio: ?We break for an important traffic announcement: on highway x, around km y, a mad person is driving on the wrong way. Watch out, drivers!? Shortly afterwards, the phone rings on that radio station: ?Hi there. You?re wrong! It?s not one mad person. There are hundreds, maybe thousands of them!?
Take good care,
Tinu
You show me in scientific literature one single place where CoE is expressed in terms of ?imparted? (where did you get that?!) and not total energy. Then, since you threw away with various accusations, we can further depart from plain talking and move to some more serious staff in physics (gravitational potentials, vector field equations etc.), to eventually let everyone see your competence and my incompetence. Deal?
Quote from: tinu on March 29, 2008, 06:58:07 PM
Quote from: Omnibus on March 29, 2008, 06:32:19 PM
Never mind who else agrees. Science isn't done by sheep in a herd who have to stick together no matter what the arguments are.
On the radio: ?We break for an important traffic announcement: on highway x, around km y, a mad person is driving on the wrong way. Watch out, drivers!? Shortly afterwards, the phone rings on that radio station: ?Hi there. You?re wrong! It?s not one mad person. There are hundreds, maybe thousands of them!?
Take good care,
Tinu
You show me in scientific literature one single place where CoE is expressed in terms of ?imparted? (where did you get that?!) and not total energy. Then, since you threw away with various accusations, we can further depart from plain talking and move to some more serious staff in physics (gravitational potentials, vector field equations etc.), to eventually let everyone see your competence and my incompetence. Deal?
Somewhere in the introductory lectures of physics101 there's always an example given similar to the example I gave @utilitarian of a ball on a floor raised from the floor and placed on a table at height h from the floor. The total energy discussed in such an example is mgh and it is noted that it is conserved which is a statement of conservation of mechanical energy principle. You may want to look in a standard introductory physics text or maybe search on the net.
@ OMNI
go back and read your own last 10 posts...... i think we need to take away your "virtual-scientist" title...
I'm going to give you a little gift here in a couple of days....
Quote from: sm0ky2 on March 29, 2008, 11:22:32 PM
@ OMNI
go back and read your own last 10 posts...... i think we need to take away your "virtual-scientist" title...
I'm going to give you a little gift here in a couple of days....
You go back, read them carefully and try to understand them. It will only be to your benefit.
Besides, who are those "we" you're referring to. You are the one saying the above and you're not a royalty to refer to yourself as "we". Therefore, edit your post and replace the "we" with "I".
Quote from: Omnibus on March 29, 2008, 11:25:38 PM
Quote from: sm0ky2 on March 29, 2008, 11:22:32 PM
@ OMNI
go back and read your own last 10 posts...... i think we need to take away your "virtual-scientist" title...
I'm going to give you a little gift here in a couple of days....
You go back, read them carefully and try to understand them. It will only be to your benefit.
Besides, who are those "we" you're referring to. You are the one saying the above and you're not a royalty to refer to yourself as "we". Therefore, edit your post and replace the "we" with "I".
"we" was referring to this particular online community, as "I" do not have to power alone to strip you of your self-proclaimed title. Rather - "I" think "WE" should no longer give you credit for this self-proclamation. <<--- does that suit you better?
Quote from: sm0ky2 on March 29, 2008, 11:43:27 PM
Quote from: Omnibus on March 29, 2008, 11:25:38 PM
Quote from: sm0ky2 on March 29, 2008, 11:22:32 PM
@ OMNI
go back and read your own last 10 posts...... i think we need to take away your "virtual-scientist" title...
I'm going to give you a little gift here in a couple of days....
You go back, read them carefully and try to understand them. It will only be to your benefit.
Besides, who are those "we" you're referring to. You are the one saying the above and you're not a royalty to refer to yourself as "we". Therefore, edit your post and replace the "we" with "I".
"we" was referring to this particular online community, as "I" do not have to power alone to strip you of your self-proclaimed title. Rather - "I" think "WE" should no longer give you credit for this self-proclamation. <<--- does that suit you better?
PK, then don't refer to your opinions as expressed by "we" because that's not the truth. Edit your post and replace the "we" by "I".
On the right side of this Image you see a scale. This scale depicts even increases in Magnetic Potential. @ A_0 (Point A of the SMOT) the ball is outside of the magnetic field, and thus M(a) can be considered "0". - (in this set-up, we have a necessary "null" space between A-0 and A_1.)
@ A_13 (Point B of the SMOT) the ball is at the entrance of the SMOT, and thus M(b) is MAX.
Let's assume this energy value to be 13 Joules. (Giganta-SMOT)
As the ball is raised to A_1 - the ball is imparted with 1 Joule of potential energy - the Ball-Lifter has at this point imparted -1 Joule of energy to hold the ball in-line with Point B. (also added is the +mgh)
As the ball is raised to A_2 - the ball is imparted with 1 Joule of potential energy, bringing the ball to total 2 joules potential, and -2 joules imparted by the Ball-Lifter.
This continues up to A_13 - where the ball is imparted with a total of 13 Joules of potential energy -
and -13 Joules of energy have been imparted by the Ball-Lifter.
The ball is sent towards Point C - during this transition, the 13 Joules of potential energy are converted to kenetic energy - When the ball reaches Point C - this energy is inverted to -13 Joules of potential energy. <----- WHAT?? -13? YES -> you also have a +mgh(c) energy at this point, which we'll go ahead and make the assumption that it is greater than 13 Joules.
Gravity strips the ball off the magnet @ Point C, downwards vertically, out of the magnetic field, onto the ramp, returning the ball to point A. Converting the -13 joules of potential energy, the +13 joules of gravitational potential, and the remainder of [mgh(c) - M(c)] leaving the ball with 0 Joules of Energy. Just as it started with.
*losses to heat/sound/friction/ect. are not taken into consideration in this model
QuoteOn the right side of this Image you see a scale. This scale depicts even increases in Magnetic Potential. @ A_0 (Point A of the SMOT) the ball is outside of the magnetic field, and thus M(a) can be considered "0".
Wrong. I already told you that but you don't want to learn. No need to go any further into your text. You are totally confused.
Quote from: Omnibus on March 30, 2008, 12:19:39 AM
QuoteOn the right side of this Image you see a scale. This scale depicts even increases in Magnetic Potential. @ A_0 (Point A of the SMOT) the ball is outside of the magnetic field, and thus M(a) can be considered "0".
Wrong. I already told you that but you don't want to learn. No need to go any further into your text. You are totally confused.
considered "0" means the magnetic field AT THAT POINT has no observable effect on the BALL. the other forces on the ball are dominant AT THAT POINT - thus the magnetic potential isn't DOING ANYTHING TO THE BALL. Now,- is there "some" force on the ball, pulling it towards (vertically under) C?
yes - in fact there IS! but this is insignificant.
I feel like im talking to a child here. It's absolutely AMAZING that I have to explain everything to a "scientist" in baby steps.
Now, before you start rambling bull$%& again - allow me to REDIRECT you to the fact that i am talking about the POTENTIAL FOR THE BALL TO MOVE - not some arbitrary energy value, offset by gravity and friction. - and yes, the conditions on the ball DO change as the ball leaves the 'ground' - THIS is why there is a NECSSARY "NULL" zone.
ok i guess i should rephrase that, since you are dense and hard to explain things to...
instead of "magnetic potential" lets use the term
"potential energy, imparted onto the ball - Magnetically"
THIS IS NOT THE SAME AS THE 'full potential energy of the magnetic field"
---- except @ Point B and C respectively-------
No, you?re wrong. You have to come to terms with that and try to straighten out your confusion. Maybe you can go back in the thread where I explained that to you or maybe you can look around and find literature which explains it. However, no matter what you find you have to sit on your own and try to figure this out yourself.
Pre-Emptive Post::::
If we examine this using classical magnetic analysis::
i.e. total field observation::
M(a) is 13 Joules , just as is M(b)
However - @ A_1 - the energy imparted onto the ball from the magnetic field is 1/13 M(a)
@A_2 - it is 2/13 M(a), ect.
This is important for you to understand this increase of energy as the ball is lifted.
Regardless of the point of reference when examining the field.
I will attempt to avoid discussion with you concerning advanced magnetics, it is obvious you did not reach this level of teaching, so i will try to keep my future posts in lines with your classical training.
Examining the field from outsideperspective of the field
vs
Examining the field from the charge's perspective
Quote from: sm0ky2 on March 30, 2008, 12:35:04 AM
Pre-Emptive Post::::
If we examine this using classical magnetic analysis::
i.e. total field observation::
M(a) is 13 Joules , just as is M(b)
However - @ A_1 - the energy imparted onto the ball from the magnetic field is 1/13 M(a)
@A_2 - it is 2/13 M(a), ect.
This is important for you to understand this increase of energy as the ball is lifted.
Regardless of the point of reference when examining the field.
Don't continue with this. Deal with your confusion first. It's a waste of time otherwise.
Quote from: Omnibus on March 30, 2008, 12:39:32 AM
Quote from: sm0ky2 on March 30, 2008, 12:35:04 AM
Pre-Emptive Post::::
If we examine this using classical magnetic analysis::
i.e. total field observation::
M(a) is 13 Joules , just as is M(b)
However - @ A_1 - the energy imparted onto the ball from the magnetic field is 1/13 M(a)
@A_2 - it is 2/13 M(a), ect.
This is important for you to understand this increase of energy as the ball is lifted.
Regardless of the point of reference when examining the field.
Don't continue with this. Deal with your confusion first. It's a waste of time otherwise.
You're the only one that appears to be confused here. The rest of the scientific community agrees that there is no excess energy in the SMOT device.
[With the exception of Steorn, whos tests Prove a total energy LOSS, yet they still claim a 'gain'.]
@ OMNIBUS
TRY THIS::::
Place the Ball on a Horizontal Track. Parallel to the SMOT.
AT Point A.
Now, lift this Track, so the Ball moves Towards Point B. (without holding the ball)
and WATCH what happens to the BALL
THEN come back here and argue with me. then we take the next baby-step......
Quote from: sm0ky2 on March 30, 2008, 12:42:43 AM
Quote from: Omnibus on March 30, 2008, 12:39:32 AM
Quote from: sm0ky2 on March 30, 2008, 12:35:04 AM
Pre-Emptive Post::::
If we examine this using classical magnetic analysis::
i.e. total field observation::
M(a) is 13 Joules , just as is M(b)
However - @ A_1 - the energy imparted onto the ball from the magnetic field is 1/13 M(a)
@A_2 - it is 2/13 M(a), ect.
This is important for you to understand this increase of energy as the ball is lifted.
Regardless of the point of reference when examining the field.
Don't continue with this. Deal with your confusion first. It's a waste of time otherwise.
You're the only one that appears to be confused here. The rest of the scientific community agrees that there is no excess energy in the SMOT device.
[With the exception of Steorn, whos tests Prove a total energy LOSS, yet they still claim a 'gain'.]
No, you're confused. Consult with someone in the physics department at the university near you whether or not the magnetic potential energy at A is zero. Continuing this exchange without understanding such basic things is just a waste of time.
Quote from: Omnibus on March 30, 2008, 12:47:34 AM
Quote from: sm0ky2 on March 30, 2008, 12:42:43 AM
Quote from: Omnibus on March 30, 2008, 12:39:32 AM
Quote from: sm0ky2 on March 30, 2008, 12:35:04 AM
Pre-Emptive Post::::
If we examine this using classical magnetic analysis::
i.e. total field observation::
M(a) is 13 Joules , just as is M(b)
However - @ A_1 - the energy imparted onto the ball from the magnetic field is 1/13 M(a)
@A_2 - it is 2/13 M(a), ect.
This is important for you to understand this increase of energy as the ball is lifted.
Regardless of the point of reference when examining the field.
Don't continue with this. Deal with your confusion first. It's a waste of time otherwise.
You're the only one that appears to be confused here. The rest of the scientific community agrees that there is no excess energy in the SMOT device.
[With the exception of Steorn, whos tests Prove a total energy LOSS, yet they still claim a 'gain'.]
No, you're confused. Consult with someone in the physics department at the university near you whether or not the magnetic potential energy at A is zero. Continuing this exchange without understanding such basic things is just a waste of time.
i understand the Basics. High-School children understand the Basiscs. i didnt know i had to speak in terms of Basics with a "scientist". im sorry. i will try not to confuse you in the future.
No, you don't. You think magnetic potential energy at A is zero because the ball is away from the magnet and the force of attraction is less than at closer distances. That's incorrect, you've been confused about that from the onset and have been told that numerous times but somehow you don't get it. That's elementary physics but you don't get it. By the way, everyone can get confused but not everyone would be so impudent to push his confusion so intensely.
Using Classical Analysis:: ( Not Point-Perspective Potentials)
The Scale on the right indicates even increases in Potential Energy (sideways) imparted onto the ball, through the verticle path A<->B. This energy is resultant from an increase in Force, as the ball moves through the magnetic field. This is in addition to the gravitational potential (mgh) that is imparted onto the ball.
@ A_0 (Point A) the Potential Energy imparted onto the Ball = 0. i.e. the ball is at rest, and within the constraints of the SMOT device - is at it's lowest point, and not being "pulled" or "pushed" by the magnetic field.
@ A_13 (Point B) the Potential Energy imparted onto the Ball = Max. Let's assume this to be 13 Joules. Somewhere between A_0 and A_1 the ball enters into the "effective field".
@ A_1 the Potential Energy imparted onto the Ball = 1 Joule. @ A_2 = 2 Joules, ect.
This energy is imparted onto the Ball by the Ball Lifter - otherwise the ball would move sideways in the direction of point C. To hold the ball in-line with Point B, this energy is placed on the ball.
This continues all the way up to A_13 there the Ball-Lifter has imparted 13 Joules of Kenetic Energy onto the Ball - which now is Potential Energy @ Point B.
The Ball converts the 13 Joules of Potential Energy into 13 Joulse of Kenetic Energy as it travels to Point C. Where this is inverted into -13 Joules of Potential Energy. The Ball 'sticks' to the magnets at Point C with 13 Joules of Energy.
The Gravitational Potential Energy (mgh) is greater than this 13 Joules by whatever ammount (height)between A_0 and A_1 that the ball was not inside the "effecive field". This causes the Ball to drop converting the -13 Joules of Potential Energy + mgh into Kenetic Energy, sending the ball back to Point A.
Ein = 13 Joules +mgh
Eout = 13 Joules + mgh
[ * This was re-organized for Omnibus, so as to NOT include "magnetic potential"]
Like I said, that's wrong. Don't continue with it.
Show how you feel that is "wrong"
Did you perform the above mentioned Experiment, which proves that it s correct?
Quote from: sm0ky2 on March 30, 2008, 01:21:17 AM
Show how you feel that is "wrong"
Did you perform the above mentioned Experiment, which proves that it s correct?
I've already explained that. Go back in the thread and read it.
You're one of those confused about what potential energy is. It was a shock to me to see so many people confused on that elementary issue but that's the reality we're facing.
Potential Energy (NOT magnetic potential) in this instance is the energy with which the ball moves towards Point C.
(Force x Distance) distance, being the distance between the Ball and Point C
[*time only effects the gravitational portion]
This is the energy which you must push against the ball with to stop it from moving.
The angle of Force is marked below in colors. This angle changes with movement of the Ball, and always is in the relative direction of Point C.
@ Point A (black) - the force is nearly verticle. The effects of gravity (blue) are dominant over the magnetic field at this point. The force vector, being nearly parallel, its simply a balance of which one is greater.
When the ball is alligned vertically with Point B (red) The angle of force is off the verticle, so the effects of gravity vs the magnetic are a vector.
When the ball is raised vertically (green) The angle of force is mostly Horizontal. The effects of gravity vs the magnetic, the vector is on favor of the horizontal.
When the ball is parallel to Point C (grey) The angle of force is perpendicular to Gravity. Gravity is no longer fighting the force, and the Ball has its full potential energy to move towards C. The small effects of gravity, while the ball is on the SMOT-track, are converted entirely into friction. The dominant force is now the magnetic.
The result of this change in Force, is an increase in Potential Energy, as the ball moves into the field, and towards Point B.
This is observed in the Above mentioned expeirment - where-in the Ball is allowed to move freely in the horizontal direction as it is being lifted towards Point B. You see that the ball does not move towards Point B, but rather it moves towards Point C with an increase in force as the ball is lifted vertically.
Quote from: sm0ky2 on March 30, 2008, 01:39:37 AM
Potential Energy (NOT magnetic potential) in this instance is the energy with which the ball moves towards Point C.
(Force x Distance) distance, being the distance between the Ball and Point C
[*time only effects the gravitational portion]
This is the energy which you must push against the ball with to stop it from moving.
The angle of Force is marked below in colors. This angle changes with movement of the Ball, and always is in the relative direction of Point C.
@ Point A (black) - the force is nearly verticle. The effects of gravity (blue) are dominant over the magnetic field at this point. The force vector, being nearly parallel, its simply a balance of which one is greater.
When the ball is alligned vertically with Point B (red) The angle of force is off the verticle, so the effects of gravity vs the magnetic are a vector.
When the ball is raised vertically (green) The angle of force is mostly Horizontal. The effects of gravity vs the magnetic, the vector is on favor of the horizontal.
When the ball is parallel to Point C (grey) The angle of force is perpendicular to Gravity. Gravity is no longer fighting the force, and the Ball has its full potential energy to move towards C. The small effects of gravity, while the ball is on the SMOT-track, are converted entirely into friction. The domonant force is now the magnetic.
I told you, that's wrong. You are confused about elementary notions in physics. Like I said, don't continue with this. Do something to clarify for yourself these elementary notions before coming here to discuss.
The more i look at this, the more i want to use the SMOT, ... from the Bottom...
look at the energy in that set-up. Do not constrict the ball to Point B. let it travel at an angle from A ->C
as its raised vertically.
Quote from: Omnibus on March 30, 2008, 01:47:54 AM
I told you, that's wrong. You are confused about elementary notions in physics. Like I said, don't continue with this. Do something to clarify for yourself these elementary notions before coming here to discuss.
That's ALL you've said, "its wrong, i dont like it, its not right",,
Yet you fail to clarify WHY you feel this way. or offer any Alternative to wha ti am saying. All of which i am saying, can be verified. You have offered nothing to counter this.
It's obvious you are in disagreement, and that you do not understand. But unless you express what exactly it is that you are confused about, i cannot help you to understand.
Quote from: sm0ky2 on March 30, 2008, 01:52:57 AM
Quote from: Omnibus on March 30, 2008, 01:47:54 AM
I told you, that's wrong. You are confused about elementary notions in physics. Like I said, don't continue with this. Do something to clarify for yourself these elementary notions before coming here to discuss.
That's ALL you've said, "its wrong, i dont like it, its not right",,
Yet you fail to clarify WHY you feel this way. or offer any Alternative to wha ti am saying. All of which i am saying, can be verified. You have offered nothing to counter this.
It's obvious you are in disagreement, and that you do not understand. But unless you express what exactly it is that you are confused about, i cannot help you to understand.
No, that's not all I've said. I've explained that to you but you don't want to learn. I can't repeat it over and over again any time it occurs to you I should. I already said, go back in the thread and read my explanation.
Quote from: Omnibus on March 30, 2008, 01:55:54 AM
Quote from: sm0ky2 on March 30, 2008, 01:52:57 AM
Quote from: Omnibus on March 30, 2008, 01:47:54 AM
I told you, that's wrong. You are confused about elementary notions in physics. Like I said, don't continue with this. Do something to clarify for yourself these elementary notions before coming here to discuss.
That's ALL you've said, "its wrong, i dont like it, its not right",,
Yet you fail to clarify WHY you feel this way. or offer any Alternative to wha ti am saying. All of which i am saying, can be verified. You have offered nothing to counter this.
It's obvious you are in disagreement, and that you do not understand. But unless you express what exactly it is that you are confused about, i cannot help you to understand.
No, that's not all I've said. I've explained that to you but you don't want to learn. I can't repeat it over and over again any time it occurs to you I should. I already said, go back in the thread and read my explanation.
all that you explained was that you do not understand what i keep trying to tell you. i can only say this in so many ways before i start repeating myself.. you simply do not understand and i cannot help you.
You dont understand point-perspective potential energy, so i tried to explain it without using ANY magnetic potential, and you dont understand physical potential energy either. I am at a loss with trying to communicate with you.
If you read what i am saying, and perform the experiments i have suggessted, you can clearly see where your confusion arrised from. (at least most people would, you obviously dont, or haven't tried)
I guess none of it matters. you can spend 3 more years trying to understand why your SMOT doesnt work. maybe when you get a little older you can look back and realize what i tried to teach you.
It's just sad that you have to keep disrupting Threads with this SMOT Non-sense.
Your failure to comprehend has prevented you from understanding how the SMOT operates.
Your failure to perform Experiments has prevented you from seeing how the SMOT operates
I suppose i could record it into an Audio file,
but you wouldn't listen to more than 2 words then send a reply :
"you're wrong. my SMOT just doesnt work because... because.... of .... because of technical dificulties in construction"
I do not believe that you are a scientist. i would be willing to bet you never made it much past highschool level calculus.
On the contrary, I explained why Ma is not only not zero, as you misunderstand it, but has the maximum value. Also, I told you a number of times that you're confused about the difference between energy and force, as is also seen in you latest posts. Don't continue with this. It's a useless exercise before you come to terms (no pun intended) with some basic notions in physics.
Quote from: Omnibus on March 30, 2008, 02:14:00 AM
On the contrary, I explained why Ma is not only not zero, as you misunderstand it, but has the maximum value. Also, I told you a number of times that you're confused about the difference between energy and force, as is also seen in you latest posts. Don't continue with this. It's a useless exercise before you come to terms (no pun intended) with some basic notions in physics.
DID you even READ my second post? I DID NOT USE ANY MAGNETIC POTENTIAL.
Quote from: sm0ky2 on March 30, 2008, 02:18:35 AM
Quote from: Omnibus on March 30, 2008, 02:14:00 AM
On the contrary, I explained why Ma is not only not zero, as you misunderstand it, but has the maximum value. Also, I told you a number of times that you're confused about the difference between energy and force, as is also seen in you latest posts. Don't continue with this. It's a useless exercise before you come to terms (no pun intended) with some basic notions in physics.
DID you even READ my second post? I DID NOT USE ANY MAGNETIC POTENTIAL.
For this analysis you must use magnetic potential energy and you are confused about what it really is. So further discussion with you on that is only a waste of time.
If you had any understanding of advanced magnetics, you would know that the potential energy of the charge within the field reduces to M^2 / A (meters over Amperes). Which is a DIRECT relationship to the LOCATION OF THE CHARGE. (the ball).
You are hung up on this pre-concieved notion of full-magnetic potential. We do not need to examine this, because it is already given to be a CONSTANT, throughought ANY point within the experiment.
What we examine is the Potential Energy (in Joules) imparted onto the BALL, AT THE LOCATION THE BALL IS AT IN THAT MOMENT!!! - This is related to the FORCE over the DISTANCE the ball (can) travels, NOT the full magnetic potential of the field.
The Full Magnetic Potential of the Field is ONLY exerted on the ball FROM B -> C. and even not really in that case, because the field 'starts' at a point to the left of B. So in the SMOT, you will NEVER really obtain the full magnetic potential - at ANY point throughout the cycle. there is NO reason to even view the system from that classical analysis.
That's wrong.
Quote from: Omnibus on March 30, 2008, 02:25:16 AM
That's wrong.
It is 100% correct.
If you feel that it is wrong, please explain.
I have already offered a valid experiment to prove what i am saying. Have you tried it??
I've already explained it and I'm not gonna repeat it every time you feel like asking me to repeat it. Go back in the thread and read it.
Quote from: Omnibus on March 30, 2008, 02:30:13 AM
I've already explained it and I'm not gonna repeat it every time you feel like asking me to repeat it. Go back in the thread and read it.
Then explain why my experiment WORKS. If what i said is somehow "wrong".
Or, perhaps you could offer a translation of the Energy (in Joules) imparted onto the Ball,
with respect to the Magnetic Potential.
AT Point B.
Quote from: sm0ky2 on March 30, 2008, 02:31:53 AM
Quote from: Omnibus on March 30, 2008, 02:30:13 AM
I've already explained it and I'm not gonna repeat it every time you feel like asking me to repeat it. Go back in the thread and read it.
Then explain why my experiment WORKS. If what i said is somehow "wrong".
No, in order for this conversation to continue you have put some effort and learn some basic things in physics. How can you ask me to explain things to you while being so much at odds with the very basic concepts in physics? That's impossible. Notwithstanding the fact that when I explain things to you you just don't want to learn. Just stop this and do some learning and thinking.
Quote from: Omnibus on March 30, 2008, 02:35:41 AM
Quote from: sm0ky2 on March 30, 2008, 02:31:53 AM
Quote from: Omnibus on March 30, 2008, 02:30:13 AM
I've already explained it and I'm not gonna repeat it every time you feel like asking me to repeat it. Go back in the thread and read it.
Then explain why my experiment WORKS. If what i said is somehow "wrong".
No, in order for this conversation to continue you have put some effort and learn some basic things in physics. How can you ask me to explain things to you while being so much at odds with the very basic concepts in physics? That's impossible. Notwithstanding the fact that when I explain things to you you just don't want to learn. Just stop this and do some learning and thinking.
its obvious that you have no clue and are just saying this to avoid the issue. My physics hold true. Theres nothing you can say against that until you show where you think it is wrong. Failure to do so, implies that you do not have an understanding of the physics we are discussing here.
How does the Mass of the ball relate to Wb/M^2/N, without respect to the Location of the Ball?
Can you explain this?
Or does what i am saying hold true and the M^2 actually play a roll in the POTENTIAL ENERGY of the ball??
Think about it.
In the case of an electromagnetic field this is represented in N/V*s^2
That's indeed your "physics" and not the science called physics. Because according to the science called physics the magnetic potential energy at A is not only not zero. as you "physics" incorrectly considers, but has the maximum value of that energy at all studied points. You are confused and can't even understand that.
Quote from: Omnibus on March 30, 2008, 03:04:16 AM
That's indeed your "physics" and not the science called physics. Because according to the science called physics the magnetic potential energy at A is not only not zero. as you "physics" incorrectly considers, but has the maximum value of that energy at all studied points. You are confused and can't even understand that.
I DO UNDERSTAND THAT> as i tried to explain 300+ posts ago. that is elementary magnetics. and is irrelevant.
If the full magnetic potential of the field is 1J.
then at Point B, (which is at a point well inside the full field) the BALL has LESS than 1 Joule of potential Energy. Does it not??
This is not considering the (full) negative potential that the ball will experience at point C. We are talking just Point B here.
The increase in energy from A -> B is the difference in the integral force * the distance between an infinite number of points between A and B. i chose to use 13 points for simplicity.
Quote from: sm0ky2 on March 30, 2008, 03:15:12 AM
The increase in energy from A -> B is the difference in the integral force * the distance between an infinite number of points between A and B. i chose to use 13 points for simplicity.
In the magnetic field the magnetic potential energy decreases from A to B. This is something you never understood.
Quote from: Omnibus on March 30, 2008, 03:22:59 AM
Quote from: sm0ky2 on March 30, 2008, 03:15:12 AM
The increase in energy from A -> B is the difference in the integral force * the distance between an infinite number of points between A and B. i chose to use 13 points for simplicity.
In the magnetic field the magnetic potential energy decreases from A to B.
Yes - this is true in this case.
It is exactly the inverse of the entrance of the Tri-Force (Repulsion - in which it increases).
However - the potential energy of the Ball increases - because the Force is at a vector angle to the gravitational force. vertically below the SMOT gravity is dominant.
Perpindicular to Gravity SMOT is dominant in the horizontal plane.
Movement in the horizontal plays no role on gravitational potential. so once the ball is at the horizontal, potential energy is at Max. It would be more efficient to start the ball to the left of Point B, to obtain more of the magnetic potential of the field. So you are correct in saying this.
But when you are at a vector angle to another force, the Potential Energy of the force*distance is not the full potential of the field. Its the vector resultant. Determined by the location of the ball, with respect to the 'edge' of the field. (Point C).
Examining the full field in this device is irrelevant. You can only examine the observable energy imparted on the ball. Input into the system, and Output of the System (whichever points you choose for your input/output).
If you examine the full field, then you must utilize the full field - by lifting the ball mgh, outside of the field, and placing point B, outside of the field. Then account for the energy from B to the start of the field, where the ball is attracted in. This would be the only applicable set-up, where the full magnetic potential could be used.
In the SMOT you presented this is not the case. The potential increases as you lift the ball, in fact you can FEEL the ball trying to pull towards point C, you have to hold it back to position the ball at Point B.
Magnetic potential energy at A in the magnetic propulsor diagram is maximum and this you never understood. Period. Stop with this confused, non-scientific blabber.
Quote from: Omnibus on March 30, 2008, 04:08:29 AM
Magnetic potential energy at A in the magnetic propulsor diagram is maximum and this you never understood. Period. Stop with this confused, non-scientific blabber.
classical Magnetic potential does not translate to Potential Energy on the ball at that vector angle,
it is at the minimum point in the cycle. potential energy at this point is effectively 0. the ball stops there.
Why don;'t you understand this.?? it is simple.
at Point B, there is more potential energy in the ball, than at Point A. This is why the ball moves to point C. For someone who claims to be a SMOT "expert" you sure dont know a lot about this Device...
If you lower the SMOT, and eliminate Point A. Start the Ball at Point B, put the entire device on the same horizontal plane - then what you are saying would hold true. But in the set-up you have here, gravity overcomes the magnetic force at Point A, thus the magnetic force imparts no (net) potential energy onto the ball.
Quote from: sm0ky2 on March 30, 2008, 04:10:17 AM
Quote from: Omnibus on March 30, 2008, 04:08:29 AM
Magnetic potential energy at A in the magnetic propulsor diagram is maximum and this you never understood. Period. Stop with this confused, non-scientific blabber.
classical Magnetic potential does not translate to Potential Energy on the ball at that vector angle,
it is at the minimum point in the cycle. potential energy at this point is effectively 0. the ball stops there.
Why don;'t you understand this.?? it is simple.
at Point B, there is more potential energy in the ball, than at Point A. This is why the ball moves to point C. For someone who claims to be a SMOT "expert" you sure dont know a lot about this Device...
That's sheer nonsense.
Quote from: Omnibus on March 30, 2008, 04:15:51 AM
[
That's sheer nonsense.
it may sound like nonsense to you, but it is 100% correct.
study it, learn it well. experiment and you shall see that it is true.
That's nonsense and it's time for you to stop it.
Quote from: Omnibus on March 30, 2008, 04:20:45 AM
That's nonsense and it's time for you to stop it.
I will not stop until one of two things occurs::
1) it sinks into your head and you understand
or
2) you stop blabbing on and on about this useless NON-OU device hereto named the SMOT.
i have proven beyond any doubt, that the device you presented is NOT in violation of CoE. End of Story.
Stop that nonsense. You are confused and must not set conditions. The only think you have to do is bo learn some physics and try to understand at least its basic concepts.
When you move Point B to the left, to the 'edge' of the attraction field you utilize the Full Magnetic Potential of the field. And Thus:
You have EXACTLY CoE, minus friction/losses.
M(b) = |-M(c)|.
At Point B in your current set-up: Point-perspective-M(b) < point-perspective-|-M(c)| : Hence the need for gravitational assistance.
Quote from: Omnibus on March 30, 2008, 04:30:47 AM
Stop that nonsense. You are confused and must not set conditions. The only think you have to do is bo learn some physics and try to understand at least its basic concepts.
Why dont you try Reading it, and perhaps an experiment or two? What i am saying is 100% true. You can know this to be a fact if you experiment.
or take the time to learn what you are dealing with here.
That's absolute crap. You have no clue and don't want to learn which is worse.
Quote from: Omnibus on March 30, 2008, 04:34:57 AM
That's absolute crap. You have no clue and don't want to learn which is worse.
thats your only refute to the scientific evidence i presented??
"crap" ?
Tu'Che!!
What a nuissance.
If you have an alternative explaination as to why the results of my experiments hold true,
Then by all means: speak
otherwise you are simply arguing for the sake of argument, and have no foundation from which to stand on.
Omnibus, a question. If we have a ball on a flat surface, does the ball have potential energy due to gravity? presumably it does, because if we could suddenly remove the flat surface or bring it closer to the centre of the earth it would fall? If we could somehow place the ball at the centre of the earth, would the ball then have any potential energy due to gravity? I think not, but i'm not sure. If what I have said is true then I see what you are getting at with the magnetic potential energy, the ball doesn't have to be anywhere near a magnet, if it's magnetic, (eg. iron) it has magnetic potential energy.
Quote from: acp on March 30, 2008, 09:11:52 AM
Omnibus, a question. If we have a ball on a flat surface, does the ball have potential energy due to gravity? presumably it does, because if we could suddenly remove the flat surface or bring it closer to the centre of the earth it would fall? If we could somehow place the ball at the centre of the earth, would the ball then have any potential energy due to gravity? I think not, but i'm not sure. If what I have said is true then I see what you are getting at with the magnetic potential energy, the ball doesn't have to be anywhere near a magnet, if it's magnetic, (eg. iron) it has magnetic potential energy.
@ ACP - at the outer edge of the atmopshere the ball would have its full potential energy. At the center of the earth it would have none. (or if you look at it from our perspective, at the center of the earth it would have (-mgh) potential energy. Meaning we have to put energy into it to get it back up to 'ground level'.
In this case the 'ground' is the bottom of the device (Point A), and the 'groud' is not removed - so the point of lowest gravitational potential is Point A.
The (classical) Magnetic Potential relates to the flux density across the width of the entire field. So in this observation, yes there is the same Magnetic Potential regardless of where the ball is.
However, the potential energy on the ball is location specific, just as in the gravity example.