Testing a SMOT

[Honk]

Here's some pretty good SMOT explanations to read.
http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/museum/smot.htm

Here's J Naudins SMOT experiments and crappy videos.
http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/smot1.htm
http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/s102jln.htm

[eavogels]

I did many tests with SMOT's years ago. It was Naudin's website and SMOT that made me interested in doing experiments.
I managed to stack well build SMOTs. I had 6 SMOT's behind each other. The adjustment was very difficult since the ball had to fall down very straight at the end of the track, just to be smootly catched into the next track. There was no difference in 4, 5 or 6 SMOT's in a row: the ball kept rolling from one track to the other.
But I never managed to make a turn, not even a very small curve woked for me. Because when the tracks were not 100% in-line, the ball jump to the side. That made me loose my interest because a straight track over the planet was not my goal.
Eric.

[Omnibus]

Here's some pretty good SMOT explanations to read.
http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/museum/smot.htm

This is an incorrect explanation which must be ignored. The analysis of whether or not SMOT violates CoE must be done for a steel ball traveling along a closed loop.

As I have shown rigorously, for instance, here: http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,2733.30.html#msg40090 for a ball traveling along a closed A-B-C-A loop (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2383887636280790847) SMOT produces excess energy (energy from nothing). This is a definitive finding based on scientific principles which proves unequivocally that CoE can be violated. In the case shown. production of excess energy (energy from nothing) occurs discontinuously which although can find practical application is less convenient than continuous production of excess energy. Until now continuous production of excess energy hasn't been demonstrated convincingly which by no means puts into doubt the above conclusive finding that SMOT can violate the principle of conservation of energy.(CoE).

You will stop ignoring the above conclusive findings or else this thread will have the fate of the thread @hartiberlin just closed.

[Omnibus]

I did many tests with SMOT's years ago. It was Naudin's website and SMOT that made me interested in doing experiments.
I managed to stack well build SMOTs. I had 6 SMOT's behind each other. The adjustment was very difficult since the ball had to fall down very straight at the end of the track, just to be smootly catched into the next track. There was no difference in 4, 5 or 6 SMOT's in a row: the ball kept rolling from one track to the other.
But I never managed to make a turn, not even a very small curve woked for me. Because when the tracks were not 100% in-line, the ball jump to the side. That made me loose my interest because a straight track over the planet was not my goal.
Eric.

Although personal experience such as yours may or may not be interesting in such discussions becaus it is only a demonstration of your personal skills, such experience by no means can serve as any proof concerning the possibility to build a self-sustaining SMOT.

More importantly, it has already been proven conclusively through rigorous scientific aralysis that SMOT does violate the principle of conservation of energy (CoE) which means that constructing a self-sustaining SMOT is nothing more than a mere engineering problem.

[hansvonlieven]

You will stop ignoring the above conclusive findings or else this thread will have the fate of the thread @hartiberlin just closed.

How bizarre!

Hans von Lieven