Studying the pjk e book, I would like build a solid state ele gen. This is a vast amount of invented technology to go through, so I'll try to compile a list of parts and processes to come up with a ele. gen. so our family can unplug from the bigs. any kind of help and advice will be welcome. Thank you.

Quote from: Poit on September 17, 2013, 11:56:10 PM
In the following video, you see the magnet ramp with a coil and led been powered by a "smot" (for lack of better terms).
http://youtu.be/Pxy8phi6I74?t=8m4s


here is a gif image of just the bit that i am talking about
http://ozprepper.com/http___makeagif.com__media_9-17-2013_tJIEDc.gif

So... so what do we know about smots?
1: a smot can go for ever, but can not loop back on to it self with out external force.
2: a smots sticky point to date has not been broken with out external force

the plan... use external force, that was generated BY the smot...

so clearly we can see the smot powering the led (albeit, for a fraction of a second)... but this demonstrates both voltage and amps (not know the figures). But lets call this wattage X.

To push the ball through the sticky spot will need power (multiple ways, servo motor? solenoid? either way, a device requiring power, lets call the device Y). Lets call the power required for the device to push the ball through the sticky spot Z

So.. now we have X, Y and Z.

The experiment. Find out how much Z (power needed to push ball through sticky spot) is needed for Y (the device used to push the ball through the sticky spot). Find out how much power X (the coil next to smot track) produces. Have multiple X's along a track till its enough power to get Z power Y. and you now have over unity.

The problem with this idea is that that the energy you store to while accelerating the ball has to come from somewhere. It comes from reducing the kinetic energy of the ball.

To overcome the 'sticky spot' that kinetic energy has to be returned to the ball.

This double conversion of kinetic -> stored potential -> kinetic means the ball approaching the 'sticky spot' is actually in a lower energy state than if you didn't add the complication of storing and releasing some of the energy.

It will perform worse than a normal 'smot', and still has no chance of being overunity or self looping.

 

Quote from: LibreEnergia on September 22, 2013, 08:10:41 PM
The problem with this idea is that that the energy you store to while accelerating the ball has to come from somewhere. It comes from reducing the kinetic energy of the ball.

To overcome the 'sticky spot' that kinetic energy has to be returned to the ball.

This double conversion of kinetic -> stored potential -> kinetic means the ball approaching the 'sticky spot' is actually in a lower energy state than if you didn't add the complication of storing and releasing some of the energy.

It will perform worse than a normal 'smot', and still has no chance of being overunity or self looping.

So, would I be correct to say that you believe the ball would slowly lose its kinetic ability to travel along the rail given that it is giving off its energy (in the form of Lenz law, magnetic flux) every time it passes a generator coil, or a mechanical device.

To put it another way, you believe it would simply stop, mid way somewhere, and not "finish" the length of the track. If this is so, then yes, I agree, it would not work.

Personally... i don't know... what your saying does make scientific sense... but the great thing about my idea is, that it is tangible, measurable, and easy to test your idea.

All I have to do is get a length of track, and measure the time it takes for the ball to go from one side to the other  - control test
Then, measure it with one generator coil, and see if the time is slower

Also, I could put the coil dead centre of the track... measure the speed of the ball approaching the coil... then exiting from the coil... if the ball sustainably loses kinetic energy i.e slows down.. then I am inclined to think you are right.

on the other hand! if the ball then recovers, and picks up speed (to what it otherwise would of been travelling at) then I am right... and in theory, I could built a over unity device... albeit, silly looking and VERY impracticable... but then again, so was the first computer


By the way.. THANK YOU very much for your reply and thought that went into your post.. i eagerly await your response

Quote from: Poit on September 22, 2013, 10:23:55 PM
 
So, would I be correct to say that you believe the ball would slowly lose its kinetic ability to travel along the rail given that it is giving off its energy (in the form of Lenz law, magnetic flux) every time it passes a generator coil, or a mechanical device.

To put it another way, you believe it would simply stop, mid way somewhere, and not "finish" the length of the track. If this is so, then yes, I agree, it would not work.

Personally... i don't know... what your saying does make scientific sense... but the great thing about my idea is, that it is tangible, measurable, and easy to test your idea.

All I have to do is get a length of track, and measure the time it takes for the ball to go from one side to the other  - control test
Then, measure it with one generator coil, and see if the time is slower

Also, I could put the coil dead centre of the track... measure the speed of the ball approaching the coil... then exiting from the coil... if the ball sustainably loses kinetic energy i.e slows down.. then I am inclined to think you are right.

on the other hand! if the ball then recovers, and picks up speed (to what it otherwise would of been travelling at) then I am right... and in theory, I could built a over unity device... albeit, silly looking and VERY impracticable... but then again, so was the first computer


By the way.. THANK YOU very much for your reply and thought that went into your post.. i eagerly await your response

I rarely do experimentation is this area as I'm far more inclined to trust the theory and mathematics which has already been proven sound.

The whole idea of a SMOT as far as I am aware is that it needn't be practical or useful but is merely to demonstrate a principle that COULD be used to produce a working useful device. That means any over-unity effect no matter how small (but beyond the bounds of measurement error) could be considered success.

By all means set up an experiment as you describe and measure the speed with and without a generator coil to verify. If you do get a result that indicates over-unity then first question your measurements and methodology very carefully.

If you're still convinced of success publish in a recognised scientific journal and apply immediately for a Nobel prize

lol... really? i always figured i would have to actually build a working over unity device FIRST.. but reading what you just said, all i need to do is prove generation of power without loss?

cool...

makes me think it wont happen lol

but i love tinkering around with this kind of stuff... so ill do the experiements .. and like you said, if i feel i have got the results indicating it is over unity, or just unity... ill double check.. tripple check.. submit here for testing....

Thanks for all your input