How this was done in 1821.....

[steve_whiss]

OK guys,

let me SPELL OUT what I was trying to show.

1. The issue "how are amazing things shown to people" has been tackled before - successfully.

2. We have Ampere, a formal by-the-numbers guy who would not do anything unless he had the math nailed, and Faraday who basically played with stuff on a workbench till he got it to work.

So, how did Faraday show his great invention off (- and please do realise - in those days THIS WAS UNKNOWN and just as amazing then as an OU device today)

He simplified it to the bone - then built a couple of dozen and mailed the models out to people - with instructions how to use.


Here is my point >>> Why could Steorn not have done this?


Too many people re-invent the wheel.

Most of human life and the various factors and situations in it have HAPPENED BEFORE - there is no need to re-invent ways of dealing with situations.

Just look see what worked before.


Also, this is a good book. Einstein did take us up a blind alley in some ways, but just because his name is in the title does not mean that a recommendation is discredited.


For instance, did you know that there was a Lorentz and a Lorenze? They lived a few hundred miles apart and were always being mis-quoted and guilty of cribbing each others work. Also Maxwell is important - if you go by Bearden, Maxwell is THE great hero of science. And his story is in this book.

I'm not saying it answers OU issues, just that here it is, it's fun to read and it has nice ideas in it.

Some of those ideas are very strange too - it is interesting to see how near-genius level thinkers work a problem, given only 10% of what we know now (example - electron unknown till late 1800s. So, how did people explain magnets before?)


Back to Faraday.

He used what worked and did the job. So he floated experiments - it's simple, bearing friction is removed, there is less fiddly mechanics. I'm wondering if a Steorn demo laid flat - using magnets about a floating rotor (this would look like a water-filled plate) would not show the effects simply.

Just - as an easy way to build the thing. Hey, get cooling from water too!

[shruggedatlas]

OK guys,

Here is my point >>> Why could Steorn not have done this?

Because they have no working prototype.

[Omnibus]

OK guys,

Here is my point >>> Why could Steorn not have done this?

Because they have no working prototype.

What makes you so sure?

[shruggedatlas]

Yours are not statement of ideas. Yours is a plain and simple confusion.

Really, then clear up my confusion.  You claim SMOT is over unity.  Well then, where does the extra energy in the ball go, if there is not even enough there to get back to the starting point?  A $5 electric motor can do this, with current technology (meaning a little track for the ball).

Oh wait, I know.  We have not developed circular track technology that works with magnets, right?  This is an engineering problem, right?  We need another few hundred years, I guess.  Give me a break.  Make the track non-ferrous, if that is the issue.  But don't tell me we have no engineering solution to get the ball back to its original location.  The real problem is that the ball does not have enough energy.

Read Simanek's article - http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/museum/smot.htm.   I find no flaw with his refutation of your device.  If you spot a flaw, let me know.

[Omnibus]

Simanek's analysis is incorrect. Analysis of the closed-loop device http://data.image.zabim.com/o-wa51V9glc9.jpg confirms that. Indeed, since the ball doesn?t return along B->A the ball does not lose only the energy portion, imparted to it by the researcher, (+mgh1 ?(Ma ? Mb)) from the energy (+mgh1 +Mb) it has at B, that is, it?s not true that the ball returns at A with the energy

(+mgh1 +Mb) - (+mgh1 ?(Ma ? Mb)) = +Ma (CoE obeyed)

As experiment shows, the ball returns along C->A, therefore, the ball loses in addition to (+mgh1 ?(Ma ? Mb)) also the energy portion (+Mb ? 0) = mgh2 + [kinetic + rotational + energy losses] which the ball had stored at B but was realized at C. Therefore, the ball returns at A with the energy

(+mgh1 +Mb) - (+mgh1 ?(Ma ? Mb) - Mb) = +Ma + Mb = +Ma +mgh2 + [kinetic ...+]

As a result, in SMOT, the initial +Ma is restored and in addition an excess of +mgh2 + [kinetic ...+] is produced.

Harnessing the excess energy produced is an engineering problem beyond the scope of this analysis.