How this was done in 1821.....

[shruggedatlas]

I have a sneaking suspicion that Omnibus is a very sophisticated troll.  I could be wrong though.  I have no equation to prove it.  At any rate, you will never convince him.  Any failure of the SMOT to actually deliver excess energy in a real world experiment will be written off as an "engineering problem." 

The good part is that you do not have to convince anyone that the SMOT is not OU.  The burden of proof about anything as revolutionary as this is always on the proponent of the revolutionary idea.  Let's see the SMOT return the ball to the starting point without the help of the researcher's hand, and then we will have something to talk about.  Until then, no equation is going to convince me that the SMOT is OU.

Maybe a different question should be asked.  Why is it that the SMOT is not able to return the ball to the starting position?  What happens to the excess energy purportedly created by the SMOT?

[hartiberlin]

@shruggedatlas

please calm down.
Omnibus is a physics professor.

The SMOT is indeed overunity.

The ball is sucked automatically into the ramp fields.
No energy needed to place it there.

User Expitaxy( who unforntunately died in a car accident) and Greg Watson did  get to run the ball
looped around for 5 to 6 times through a SMOTstator track and then the ball was too magnetized and
then sticked to one magnet stator sidetrack.

It is very difficult to setup mechanically such a selflooping system.
It must be all very precise to the 1/10 th of a millimeter, otherwise the forces will accelerate
the iron ball too fast or too slow.It must go through the "blue hole" at the top and then fall far more below to escape
the permanent fields and then be brought again up.

All the rolling friction normally cancels the gain via the SMOT ramp,so it is really only engineering problems to
get a looped system.

[shruggedatlas]

@shruggedatlas

please calm down.
Omnibus is a physics professor.

The SMOT is indeed overunity.

The ball is sucked automatically into the ramp fields.
No energy needed to place it there.

All the rolling friction normally cancels the gain via the SMOT ramp,so it is really only engineering problems to
get a looped system.

Very well, so Omnibus is on the level.

As the the smotstator, the rolling friction can be made minimal.  After all, this is a metal ball that is rolling.  Nothing is being dragged.  I am not saying there is no friction, but with the energy gains claimed (I saw 113% efficiency claimed somewhere, correct me if I am wrong), surely these frictional effects can be overcome easily, and this should not be such a huge engineering problem.

Here is a video of an attempt to create a SMOT loop, and it does not work.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pmsu9NbLxGk

I realize that maybe these people did not do it right and there is too much friction somewhere, but you have to admit, the experiment took alot of work to set up. 

I would really be impressed if I saw the ball go around even twice.   Is there a video of Epitaxy's experiment available?

[psychopath]

Why is it that people are still trying to minimize friction? If it relies on the absence of friction, then it will eventually stop.

and then the ball was too magnetized and
then sticked to one magnet stator sidetrack.

I don't understand how this could work, since the domains in the metal ball are continually aligned in only one direction, and that is the direction we want, so if it stays aligned that way, well, that is alright isn't it? Anyway, even if it did get too magnetized, this could be solved by making the drop point a little higher, so the ball gets a little demagnetized everytime it drops.

By the way, although I believe that overunity through SMOT type devices is possible, I do not think an endless smot has been built yet. Anyway, even if it was, it is a totally different device and would need a new name.

[sm0ky2]

you guys are missing an important fact here. the ball does not require a drop to Point A - this drop is set there for a convienence. once the ball leaves the magnetic field there is kenetic energy imparted on the ball its travel UP the ramp. Someone needs to give this set-up a secondary ramp BACK DOWN, at a slightly lesser grade, so that the ramp ends at point B, where the ball started. NOT below it.

The input energy = the energy needed to lift the ball through the gravitational field to point B MINUS the energy imparted on the ball at slightly before point B when it starts to PULL the bal INTO the ramp!!!
The output energy = the Kenetic energy of the moving ball PLUS the potential energy gained by the incline.

An accurate measurement of this devices Intput vs Output will be the energy rremaining to transport the ball from point C BACK DOWN a secondary (nonmagnetic) ramp around the point B. - If the ball does not have the energy to do that, then te device is obviously not OU. 

BUT dropping the ball all the way down to Point A makes arguing over this a mute point, for the simple fact that the energy to lift ball from point A UP to point B is MUCH more than the energy put into the system initially.

Take point A out of the equation and do NOT let the ball drop BELOW point B. This is the only way you will get it to work, unles your smot ramp is approx 3 feet longer to compensate for the losses you incurr moving from A to B.