Testing a SMOT

[Ergo]

C'mon. He's just pulling your leg.

[Omnibus]

I would like to see a website further explaining Omnibus' finding also. The equation I came up with was actually the same one Sm0ky2 posted(although his post "disappeared"). When new equations are offered, they are answered "You don't understand/ Read it again/ Of course its OU." Rather than "Here's exactly where your equation fails..." I'm trying to learn about smot, help me better understand it. Tell me why exactly sm0ky2 was wrong.

Go back to the beginning of this thread or in one of the neighboring threads and you'll find the explanations you're asking for. Stop cluttering the thread with useless postings. Do your homework before posting here.

[FreeEnergy]

think smot will work. you just have to be very precise in mm measurements. ball can't be too light/heavy, magnetic field cant be too weak/strong, etc.

if the smot alone won't work then you can always add electromagnetic at the sticky spot.
when a wheel like smot rotates to the point where the sticky spot is, it turns a flywheel that has magnets all around and passes by copper coils that excites the electromagnetic overcoming the sticky spot

just my 2 cents.


peace

[billmehess]

Three problems with this Free Energy
1. The ball turning the fly wheel as it passes will not generate enough energy  from an electromagnet  to propel
    the ball past the sticky spot.
2. The ball would have to be a magnet itself, which is kinda hard to do. There are of course round magnets but useless in this application
    as the ball would be switching polarity as it spun.
3. Last  the now magnetized ball? would have to spin the flywheel before it reaches the sticky spot not at the sticky spot where there
   is no movement. Thus when it reaches the sticky spot the electromagnet has already pulsed.

Again this concept of generating enough energy in one spin to propel pastthe sticky point is the essence of Paul Sprains motor .
Isn't this stuff fun?
Bill

[xpenzif]

I would like to see a website further explaining Omnibus' finding also. The equation I came up with was actually the same one Sm0ky2 posted(although his post "disappeared"). When new equations are offered, they are answered "You don't understand/ Read it again/ Of course its OU." Rather than "Here's exactly where your equation fails..." I'm trying to learn about smot, help me better understand it. Tell me why exactly sm0ky2 was wrong.

Go back to the beginning of this thread or in one of the neighboring threads and you'll find the explanations you're asking for. Stop cluttering the thread with useless postings. Do your homework before posting here.

I said FURTHER EXPLAINING. Anyways this is exactly what I was talking about; the "you don't understand/ read it again" argument. Quit cluttering the thread with your useless postings.