Building a self looping "SMOT"

[norman6538]

Hi Norman, I changed the track a bit, I have run aluminum rod through the center, but have still not found a satisfactory way to space the rails. The friction needs to be much lower than I am able to get from the pipes, but I shall persevere with it until I have to admit defeat.
I managed to get it to loop which is an improvement on the 50mm I was short on the first replication. Not anything to get overly excited about ATM but I hope to improve it further still.
Well anyway, 2 rotations of the track is more than anyone here has ever produced or even seen.

I shall attempt to add the video here on this post so it is "PRESERVED" for the know it all.

WOW - that is excellent elecar. I have my work cut out for me.  To space the two tubes I
drilled two holes in a piece of wood then cut lengthwise so there was half a hole and
it might take two or three cuttings to get the right distance so the ball does not
drop and touch the board. I have holes every inch and that gives me some wiggle room
and then I put a piece of paper under the ball to make sure it never pinched the paper.

thanks elecar.......
Now will the naysayers please shut up and go away......

Now it is important to replicate this... My magnet setup is way to small...

Norman

[powercat]

The usual scenario is unfolding, the builders say it might work because one builder has seen it-- after much work and trial-and-error he has seen a model loop for a number of times.  He is working on to produce a continuous self-running replication.  And other builders are jumping in to try to help.

Meanwhile, the skeptics (really, pseudo-skeptics) say it is impossible and they resort to attacking any builder who says it might work. well I'm very sorry but I cannot see how cheap pot-shots on the builders are going to get us to something that will run my home; certainly the belief or faith of the pseudo-skeptics does not help us get to the reality of a device that actually works.

So the pseudo-skeptics should stop wasting their time attacking builders that challenge pseudo-skeptics' claims that it cannot possibly work, and allow the builders to get on with replication.

Meanwhile the pseudo-skeptics have no credibility sitting back and taking cheap pot-shots.

History says enough, you're eight times over unity thread was a huge disappointment, why don't you just tell the truth in the beginning that you're doing experiments and hoping for promising results instead of making claims that you cannot match and neither can anybody else,
all that happens in the long run is more people think that everyone on this forum is a scam artist or a liar.  so many threads over the years with somebody claiming they have done it, but every time they say it nobody can ever successfully replicate their claim,  Show me I'm wrong, show me the self looping device that actually works as claimed. 

I really do hope this device works, but hearing the familiar excuses why the working model can't be shown and the lack of successful replications sounds like history repeating itself, and attacking skeptics for suggesting it doesn't work is hardly going to help the situation, but feel free to carry on regardless.

[Newton II]

...... in the meantime I will be happy to answer any questions.....

I have got one question.   

Basic property of any OU device is that its output energy should go up with every completed cycle especially when the loop is closed and should reach some maximum value depending on various constants.     

In this case the energy of ball  hence velocity of ball should go up with the completion of every cycle and after few cycles it should become uncontrollable and should move up and fall out of  straight portion of the track.  Are you proposing any brake for it?   I didnot see any blocking plate at the end of the track in your diagram.

I think in olden days when people were designing perpetual machines,  they were proposing brakes for the machines because if output energy becomes uncontrollable the machine may break and parts may fly all over the place causing injury.

[JouleSeeker]

History says enough, you're eight times over unity thread was a huge disappointment, why don't you just tell the truth in the beginning that you're doing experiments and hoping for promising results instead of making claims that you cannot match and neither can anybody else,
all that happens in the long run is more people think that everyone on this forum is a scam artist or a liar.  so many threads over the years with somebody claiming they have done it, but every time they say it nobody can ever successfully replicate their claim,  Show me I'm wrong, show me the self looping device that actually works as claimed. 

Because of my experience with research through the years, the ups and downs, dead-ends and windy paths, I did not find the "eight times" thread a disappointment.  Even the title of it ended with a question mark "?" , and that work continues.  That research continues, but I'm not talking much about it here.

I attended ICCF-18 in July 2013 at the University of Missouri. (International Conference on Cold Fusion - 18)  And presented some of my recent results, and discussed these with colleagues there.  The work continues. 

And YES - most of my colleagues there face naysayers and complainers.  Yet we continue, despite the cheap pot-shots of the naysayers.

My own claims back in 1989 have been experimentally verified, but that required YEARS. 

Much more remains to be understood.  That is the nature of research.

[powercat]

JouleSeeker, I'm not doubting your capabilities but the 8 x OU thread was disappointing because we didn't even end up with 1 x OU, that is my point,  exaggerating and making grand claims that end up with no over-unity give this community a bad name.