Another Smot Idea w/Pic

[mscoffman]

All that is necessary to show OU is to have that ball perpetually running around the ramps. Because there
are losses in everything that the ball does. Including friction, impacts, noise etc. Forget about applications,
If you give me a SMOT with a steel ball running around continuously, I will put magnetic pickup coils on it
and produce excess free energy to light a led or whatever, that part I can guarantee. Don't forget we haven't
tuned any parmeters to optimize them yet for maximum performance - that's the fun part, if you can get to it.
This is a very unpowerful machine though and care would need to be exercised to see that is not doing it's
thing because of stray magnetic hum fields. Forget about the wheel machines for right now because they
don't have the same characteristics as the ramp. 

I think one should stick to SMOT because the increase in the height of the W weight shows experimental
potential for the magnets to have done work. The inclined ramp is very shallow so there is only so much potential
gravitational energy to work with but clanzer videos have shown it can be extended to nearly any absolute amount
that one wants by repeating gates. And the magnetic fields of the unit can do nasty things as you try to remove
the runner from them so that gravitational potential energy amounts as seen are not guaranteed.

For the magnetic field to have done work, the force would have to have been an acceleration and some
braking against acceleration would have to have occurred, resulting in braking heat. On the other hand
maybe the force was not an acceleration because it took back some but not all of it's (heat) energy and
therefore there could be 'no excess heat'.

But it would be dangerous if a Magnetic field did work but expected to always be able to take it *all* back on
work-out. As shown in my next future post.

If either in the heat area or by splitting the axle mass into two parts we get something that can exit
the magnetic field unhindered - leaving the magnetic parts of the runner contained within the field we
can potentially give the magnetic field problems. It should not have raised that mass against gravity
in the first place!

Having a self-running machine is always a true indication of overunity...It's just trickery in which
environmental energy field is being tapped to supply it, that is negative.

See my subsequent future post.

MarkSCoffman

[mscoffman]

Yes aegis' design is OK. I guess one could fight about the the details. I don't like the steel ball,
as it could magnetize over time and become harder to control, So I would like the runner to be a
magnet itself. Once you do that then the runner should be an axle if it's to maintain it's steering
direction. Clanzer's videos on youtube.com sort of sets the specifications on what can be done
in the area of Tri-Force smoothing.

See, the problem is that the runner can be kept under control by the track's field magnets on the
straightaways. But when it's turning around in the end zone it might have to go outside the magnetic
field to take advantage of stored gravitational potential energy. The magnetic field is threatening to
"take back" it's work potential energy during that time.

A magnetic field is not just associated with matter it is it, so I would rather not try to outsmart it.

In my view; why fight the magnetic field at all. By using stored heat energy we can have an "engine"
that spans the magnetic field and doesn't even sense the magnets. It may be able to keep the runner
totally  inside the magnetic field at all times, enhancing control.

The problem is if the magnetic field wants to "take back" it's work then it could start by not leaving
net heat in the axle due to refrigeration. So one could use heat - if it's there.

--->

One idea I just had even if there is not heat energy, is to have a runner that splits into two parts
at the top of the ramp- a magnetic part remains inside the magnetic field dominated by the local
r^2. The nonmagnetic part would be tossed over the edge and used to convert an arbitrarily large
gravitational potential into energy to force the magnetic part to orbit the end field magnet vertically.
A small amount of gravitational energy would remain to carry a well behaved nonmagnetic part
back to the beginning to be reassembled with the magnetic part at the bottom of both the ramps.
Complicated  mechanically, but the energy balance looks interesting.


--->

I am going to go back and study some formal magnetic physics to see if I've gotten
anything wrong. If I find there is indeed excess heat in the axles I will design the freon
boiler mechanism.

Mark S. Coffman

[Omnibus]

No, that's not true. Lack of engineering application of a scientific effect can never be a proof that the scientific effect isn't real. There won't be science if this were the case.

That is true, but similarly, controversial views like yours, with zero empirical evidence of overunity, inevitably end up marginalized.  If you want to get anywhere, at least set up a SMOT that discontinuously produces more energy than it consumes.  And by that, I mean that it allows energy to be harnessed from it, and that amount of energy is greater than the energy required to constantly return the ball to the starting spot.  But wait, if that were possible, then you could make it self sustain.  See where I am getting at?

How come zero empirical evidence? On the contrary, it is exactly the empirical evidence proving that the ball has available at a certain point more energy to transfer into other energies than all the energy ever imparted to it. I already told you, these energies we are comparing are real, empirical energies, not some fictitious entities, result of imagination and mathematical juggling.

So, we have an experimental physical fact going against a principle considered universal in science. As usual, one such experimental fact is enough to overthrow a theoretical principle such as CoE which was only accepted due to claims for empirical universality. Thus, you have it backwards.

The above clear cut empirical fact of energy disbalance going against a theoretical proposal that such balance is impossible cannot be controversial for any honest qualified scientist.

And I should repeat, harnessing the excess energy due to the observed energy discrepancy is a purely engineering problem whose success or lack of success has nothing to do with the scientific fact and cannot serve as any basis for accepting or rejecting that scientific fact.

As I've told you many times before, the question of marginalization has nothing to do with physics. This a purely sociological problem. Presenting a self-sustaining device, harnessing continuously the excess energy already proven beyond doubt, has only a psychological role as part of that sociology of acceptance. Existence of a self-sustaining device is not a necessary element in the reasoning hard sciences require for a physical fact to be considered real. When two real amounts of energy of the kind we're discussing differ that is enough evidence for physics to reject a principle stating that such amounts of energy should never differ. Never mind whether or not this difference is harnessed for practical purposes.