Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Mechanical free energy devices => mechanic => Topic started by: KSW on April 11, 2005, 02:45:18 PM

Title: SMOT
Post by: KSW on April 11, 2005, 02:45:18 PM
hi
dont know if this is the right topic but here goes

on jlnlabs they show two magnet devices able to move a ball bearing ( http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/s102jln.htm ) over two ramps

would it be so hard to close the loop? not that it would produce any useful power ... but just prove the laws of physics wrong  :P

they seem to start talking sbout closing the loop here http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/smot4cl.htm

but dont get to any conclusion.

how come this always seems to happen, for example on the bedini group people say they have managed to get overunity but then instead of working at it they just move on to some other ideas.
why not just stick with something if you know it can work.

Kane
Title: Re: SMOT
Post by: rlm555339 on April 11, 2005, 05:17:09 PM
If you read Bedini, Naudin, and Beardon sites very closely, you will notice a lot of key words like "should"  "might"  "if"  -- - - - -  The other key word is "you."  In other words, they pick up on an idea from a site like this one, do 4 experiments on it in somewhat controlled conditions, add their own twist, present it in a webpage like it was some fabulous idea THEY had, and expect YOU to figure out a way to make it work.  This makes them an "authority" which gives others the impression they are "experts" and allows them to sell "kits" to curious people like us.  $$$$$

Title: Re: SMOT
Post by: TechStuf on April 11, 2005, 10:02:32 PM
LOL!  Excellent synopsis.....I sometimes wonder if "Bearden" is the Colonel's real name?  Bear+Den....Russkie Shuttle shoot downs....hmmm.  His supposed connection to Howard Johnson....and intrigues with the Japanese Yakuza....I don't know......I've never met either of these two of his contacts....but even I know more about the principles Howard exploited in his models.....(or so it would seem from my limited contact with the old codger).

Bless his heart,

He's quite an asset to somebody, I'm sure.

(insert Rod Serling theme here)

TS out



Title: Re: SMOT
Post by: Oxygon on April 11, 2005, 10:06:40 PM
Kane...

How true...

It seems those with the means just seem to not follow thru...

???

the whole SMOT field is just a spattering of "segmented tests" and temporary interests...

 >:(
Title: Re: SMOT
Post by: hartiberlin on April 12, 2005, 12:04:39 AM
There is soon coming a reviving of the SMOT topic !
Stay tuned ! ;)

Regards. Stefan.
Title: Re: SMOT
Post by: kenbo0422 on April 19, 2005, 02:47:08 AM
Why even try rolling a steel ball up a ramp????  Why not keep it on the same plane???  Why not use a curved magnet or series of magnets to make a curve, then let the next 'ramp' continue the effort?  In effect, you would be making the ball continually rotate around the 'track'.  Then, I ask, why a ball???  Why not a ball (or disk) on an axis (several in fact) connected to a central axis and use it to do some work?  If it is proven to work up a ramp, then use the work in a different manner.  It seems to me that without a continuous movement, connected to something, it is being treated more like a toy and a novelty.

Does this make sense?  It also then falls toward looking like a permanent magnet motor of other varieties which some have had a hard time getting to work.  The key in this one seems to be the ramping of the outer magnets.  Maybe applying the same principle and measurements to other devices it could work efficiently.  I'm in the process of doing that (when time permits).

I want to be retired and spend my days on these things that keep my interest.....   sorry.... I'm babbling again(wiping the drool from the corner of my mouth).

Title: Re: SMOT
Post by: rlm555339 on April 19, 2005, 04:30:13 AM
One further twist on Kenbo0422's idea........
Do it using a mobius stip and "bingo", you've got infinity.    :D
Title: Re: SMOT
Post by: KSW on April 19, 2005, 03:04:32 PM
ken i think the reason why it isnt kept on the same plane is that, the ball uses the height of the drop to escape the magnetic field.

As i think otherwise if it was just on a flat plane then the ball would roll past the ends and then get pulled back in.

Kane
Title: Re: SMOT
Post by: kenbo0422 on April 19, 2005, 03:57:05 PM
I was thinking that with the momentum of the ball and another set of magnets at the end of the previous set, the proximity of the magnets it is approaching will continue to pull the ball forward.  The other point, about putting it (them) on an axis, like a star pattern of 5 with a pattern of say 6 sets of magnets, there would always be a ball in play, so to speak to help push the one ball which is at its peak to continue forward.  Does this make more sense?  Sorry about the ranting....  I rant, then try to put the idea in better terms.....

 :-[
Title: Re: SMOT
Post by: hartiberlin on April 19, 2005, 04:20:31 PM
Greg Watson and Epitaxy a few years back did get already a rollaround for several times,
but the ball did acceleratetoo much and jumped out of the track.
The setup was just too unreliable to work "every time".

With the right mechanical setup it should really work to get
a reliable rollaround all the time, especially if you have a low
friction inside the rails and the won energy in the ramp will
be used up during the rollaround for the friction
and it will not have too much speed, if it reenters the ramp track.

Somebody will soon introduce a real measurement device for
the energy gain inside the SMOT track.

Regards, Stefan.
Title: Re: SMOT
Post by: kenbo0422 on April 19, 2005, 06:32:21 PM
This is also the reason for harnessing the ball(s) with an axis.... the track becomes a guideline rather than a rule.  If the ball MUST roll to produce the effect, then by all means leave it (the track) in so that the ball can roll.
Title: Re: SMOT
Post by: prometheus_effect on April 20, 2005, 02:52:08 AM
An OU measurement system has been developed which directly measures the amount of energy creation for each pass through a Prometheus Effect OU gate. The Prometheus Effect is what is at the heart of the SMOT device. Details can be found at:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/prometheus_effect/

Now it's just engineering effort, time and money,
Prometheus Effect
Title: Re: SMOT
Post by: Kysmett on April 22, 2005, 08:48:37 PM
here is an idea.  I understand that the drop is needed to escape the magnetic field.  To that end and to continue the concept of a central axle, I propose the following modification.  This was inspired by one of those carnivale octopus rides.
Here is a picture of the device that would show this.  It would have many hinged arms, only one of which is illustrated. The track design is to graduate the ascent and to soften the descent, while adding to the forward momentum of the rotor.  The section of the track(round when seen from above) that is shown is a side view of that transition region.  The rotor is kept by its own weight and the limit of travel of the hinge(shown in green) firmly on the track.  If there is a tendancy for the wheel/ball to come off the track due to momentum at the point of transition, a spring sufficient to the task may be placed between the arm(shown in orange) and the power take-off or main shaft(shown in blue).  Any and all torque measurements can be then taken on the main shaft. 
Let me know what you think.

Kysmett
Title: Re: SMOT
Post by: hartiberlin on April 22, 2005, 10:00:14 PM
Kysmett,
sorry, but I don?t understandyour drawing.
What should it exacty show ?
Is this a sideview or a top view of what ?
Where is magnets track and the ball ?

Regards, Stefan.
Title: Re: SMOT
Post by: Kysmett on April 22, 2005, 10:19:11 PM
The drawing is a side view of the device.  There is a central, verticle shaft(blue) powered by wheels(grey) as they move around the track.  The verticle displacement of the uneven track is compensated for by the hinges(green) that attach the arms to the central shaft. 

The single line in the lower right section is a side view of the track at the moment of transition, if the wheel were moving from right to left.  I don't know why but I can only see this thing moving clockwise when viewed from above.  This might have something to do with something I have forgotten I have read or it might not. 

I am posting here a top view of the device so that you can see the track and the device as a whole.  The magnet placement is as has been previously demonstrated to work and the centrifugal force is compensated for by the arms shown in orange in the previous post. 

In the drawing I am posting here, there are four arms, more could be made to work(or less) but this is only conceptual.

Title: Re: SMOT
Post by: FreeEnergy on April 23, 2005, 10:46:00 AM
here is something kind of like it.
http://www.diac.com/~ekwall2/ffsmot
Title: Re: SMOT
Post by: hartiberlin on April 25, 2005, 03:01:05 AM
Well done,
but the ramps are much too small.
You need at least a 1 Meter ramp with at least a gain or 20 cm in height
to overcome all the frictions involved.
These small ramps with only a height gain of 1 inch (2.5 cms or so) do not make any sense.

With iron plates face to face into the ramp you can use less
magnets.
So each side ramp stator side will then have 2 iron plates !
this makes the fields also more equal inside the ramp and
then the ball can be sucked up into more height and can
also better dropped.

It all depends on the field setup inside the ramp.

Also at the end to turn the iron plates by 90 degrees above the
ramp gives a much easier exit as Greg Watson has shown
in his recent ramp magnet field simulations.


Regards, Stefan.
Title: Re: SMOT
Post by: PaulLowrance on April 25, 2005, 08:13:28 AM
I take the following post very seriously.

I just wanted to warn everyone that IMHO this SMOT is either a scam or people are really wasting their time.  I am firm believer in free energy research but this is one of the worst and most obvious designs I have ever seen.  This is so obvious that I can only conclude this is an attempt to waist the time of legitimate researchers.

Please read the thread:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Prometheus_Effect/message/233

In the thread I offer two valid tests to see if this is free energy.

After studying this Prometheus Effect, here are my two conclusions:

1. I am 100% certain that the ball dropped straight down will experience more friction loss than the ball that dropped with more horizontal velocity.
2. I am very certain, not 100%, that there is no free energy in this SMOT or Prometheus Effect.

If I am wrong then I would be more than happy to be quiet and sit down.  I see videos dated back to 1999.  I am told the only people who claim over unity never revealed their secret designs.  Additionally I see posts as such,

"If you would make a few movies of the rotational device, so one could see for clear, that it is no fake and postthis widely on the Internet, you will get instantaneously much interest in it and will also ATTRACT MUCH RESEARCH MONEY to develop it further."

Sincerely,
Paul
Title: Re: SMOT
Post by: hartiberlin on April 25, 2005, 09:56:11 AM
Paul,
you simply ignore the facts...
You just don?t have studied it enough when we
did study it already in 1999.

I agree, that it would better to have a longer much
higher ramp to see the effect much better or have Greg shown
his closed loop device.

Regards, Stefan.
Title: Re: SMOT
Post by: FreeEnergy on April 25, 2005, 10:28:27 AM
here is a video
Title: Re: SMOT
Post by: FreeEnergy on April 25, 2005, 10:33:55 AM
:)
Title: Re: SMOT
Post by: PaulLowrance on April 25, 2005, 05:05:06 PM
Dear Stefan,

--- In Prometheus_Effect@yahoogroups.com, "overunity2001" <harti@h...>
wrote:
>
> Paul,
> you simply ignore the facts...
> You just don�t have studied when we
> did study it already in 1999.

I ignore the facts? Seems the other way around Stefan. You still can't point out the error in my assessment. You just keep saying it
doesn't matter, yet you even just now finally admitted it would be better to change the tests.


> I agree, that it would better to have a longer much
> higher ramp to see the effect much better or have Greg shown
> his closed loop device.

Thank you for at least admitting the tests need improvement. Making the ramp higher is not going to prove anything Stefan. I am working on free energy research but it is this constant fuzzy logic that destroys the reputation of this industry. I am embarrassed to mention my research to any real scientist.

I gave you two legitimate separate tests. One of them is extremely simple, cheap, and would take hardly any time. Why can't you address that? I have asked you numerous times. What exactly happens if you place a flat horizontal surface such as glass or whatever at the end of the SMOT? Does the steel ball break free from the permanent magnets? If so, which I very much doubt, then could someone upload a video of it?

Sincerely,
Paul
Title: Re: SMOT
Post by: PaulLowrance on April 25, 2005, 05:07:55 PM
Dear FreeEnergy,

I am uncertain if your posts pertain to my suggested test.  If so then it's not relavent because you are still dropping the ball down to a lower level then where it started.  Could someone just be straightforward here and tell me what happens when you replace the ramp with a flat surface? ... at the same level where the ball moves up to of course.

Paul
Title: Re: SMOT
Post by: Kysmett on April 25, 2005, 05:36:01 PM
Paul,

The ball will not break free if there is a level area at the top.  I fail to see, however, how that discredits this from being significant.  I agree with you that there is a friction loss at the fall, because all of the verticle momentum is lost on impact.

Here is what I propose as a cure for this:

At the top, in order to transition to the original level a quarter round piece should be used so that the verticle momentum is translated into the horizontal.  This will give the momentum needed to reach the next 'gate'.

If this is done, then the next step will be to try and get measurable 'work' out of this.  To take it from novelty to application.  If you look at the jpegs I posted, I have already hypothesized how this can be accomplished.
Title: Re: SMOT
Post by: PaulLowrance on April 25, 2005, 07:23:34 PM
Dear Kysmett,

The ball will not break free if there is a level area at the top.? I fail to see, however, how that discredits this from being significant.? I agree with you that there is a friction loss at the fall, because all of the verticle momentum is lost on impact.

This would be a way to prove free energy.? The fact that the ball cannot break free from the magnets is that much more evidence this is not a free energy or OU system.? Additionally it provides a near zero friction method of proving free energy.? If they can't get the ball to break free from magnets then it proves no OU.? If it truly is OU then all they would have to do is lower ramp angle so that the magnets will pull the ball even faster.? In other words, the ball would climb at a more level angle.? If it is truly OU then there should be a low enough angle where the ball would escape the magnets.? I would even accept low angles such as -> ball starting level is 30mm, ball ending level after magnets is 30.5mm.? If it's 13% efficient then surely the ball could break free with only 0.5mm height difference.? As you know, the magnet fulling force remains the same but since the magnets don't have to pull the ball up as steep angle then he ball will accelerate faster.? I don't think they can do it because this whole idea is crazy.? I see it as a balanced system. In other words, first half of cycle the magnets pull against gravity, then second half of cycle is just a reverse of gravity pulling against magnets.


Here is what I propose as a cure for this:

At the top, in order to transition to the original level a quarter round piece should be used so that the verticle momentum is translated into the horizontal.? This will give the momentum needed to reach the next 'gate'.

If this is done, then the next step will be to try and get measurable 'work' out of this.? To take it from novelty to application.? If you look at the jpegs I posted, I have already hypothesized how this can be accomplished.

If I get time I'll look at your idea, but this thing about friction is easy to disprove.? Why not use Teflon 1/4 tube with lubricant.? The friction would drop considerably, but they'll find that the ball will never go higher than it started.? The videos I saw start at 30mm and went to 23mm.

I am told this distraction has been taking place since 1997.? Hey, they don't need to kill scientists anymore.? They only need to have dozens of people flood this community with garbage and noise as distractions.? Extremely clever if true.? Since it's such a clever and obviously effective idea then don't you think they would do it, at least the trillion dollar oil companies?? It's perfectly legal.? It's so easy to waiste peoples time.? Look at how much of my time is already wasted on this SMOT.? IMHO the RV is yet another example.

I'll be happy when the world gets free energy.

Sincerely,
Paul
Title: Re: SMOT
Post by: TechStuf on April 25, 2005, 09:26:30 PM
The SMOT demonstrates principles that are largely misunderstood and far from optimally exploited.? One could do better to consider an overbalancing wheel option which employs similar dynamics but for a reversal of materials and makes use of magnetic induction on the falling side such that a capacitor collects energy and provides power for a well timed EM pulse by way of an efficient electromagnet.


This breaks a single magnet free to close the loop.


"All for one and one for all"


You get the idea....


Or is it:


"All for one and two for tea" you see...



Naudin has singed his wings......on various occasions.

Title: Re: SMOT
Post by: Kysmett on April 25, 2005, 11:15:26 PM
Here is something interesting.  If you applied the convention vertically in stead of horizontally, mounting the balls on a non-ferrous arm and outside of the track that they travel place your magnets, so that there is only one magnet breaking free at a time and the force of attraction of the remaining (in the concept picture posted: 7) balls would overcome the sticking point for the one that is breaking free.  There would not be a balance point. 
I call it the ferrous wheel, in hommage to TS's apparent affinity to word play.

Comments?
Title: Re: SMOT
Post by: TechStuf on April 26, 2005, 12:03:14 AM
Well, I can't say it's all play, and my greater affinity is for infinity.......hey,? I see what you mean!

 ;)


P.S.

Ferrous Wheel,? I liked that!? And the descriptor below the diagram....."He that seeks to master the wheel, must first possess ______ of ______"


Kysmett,? I gotta say....I like your style of inspiration.  You might be close to something new, here.

 8)
Title: Re: SMOT
Post by: kenbo0422 on April 26, 2005, 12:25:26 AM
Geeeeez!  Am I the only one who sees my posts??? 
Title: Re: SMOT
Post by: Kysmett on April 26, 2005, 03:55:14 PM
Ken, 

Yes, I saw it.  In fact I drew quite a bit from it.  There is another post that I tried to illustrate that I think has fallen on deaf ears, and in hindsight it was inferior to this one.  I take in everything I read and try to build on it.  Thanks for the inspiration and I hope that I have returned the favor.  Sorry for the lack of recognition.  I read so much that half the time I forget where I am drawing from, only that 'I read somewhere.."
You said you were working on something to this effect, I hope that I haven't stepped on your toes or anything.  Let me know how this is going.
Title: Re: SMOT
Post by: prometheus_effect on April 26, 2005, 04:15:12 PM
Hi Kysmett,

I don't think you will get too much success by going horizontal after the drop. Better to do a direct return to the start but stay on the magnetic centre line.

Prometheus Effect
Title: Re: SMOT
Post by: kenbo0422 on April 26, 2005, 04:30:55 PM
Kysmett,

Its not the recognition I was looking for, but just wanting to know that this train of thought had been 'presented' so as not to keep repeating ourselves.  I think I'm guilty of it as well....   :-[
Title: Re: SMOT
Post by: Kysmett on April 26, 2005, 06:06:28 PM
First off, I'm moving.   ;D  So time to actually do stuff has dwindled to about zilch.

However, I plan on putting this to the test with an actual prototype of the ferrous wheel when I finish the move sometime in the next two weeks. 

Prometheus, I'm not sure what you are objecting to.  Please clarify the problem as well as your suggestion.

Thanks
Title: Re: SMOT
Post by: PaulLowrance on April 28, 2005, 05:12:24 AM
Dear Kysmett,

I appreciate your design and it seems legitimate to me.  Although I have suggested that these poor people, who have been sucked into what I call a distraction project, just go along with what Greg says; i.e., the ball must drop.  Otherwise they will never hear the end of Greg.  Therefore I have suggested a near zero friction based system.  Instead of a tube, they need to use a flat curved ramp, like a skateboard ramp.  Additionally and very important, the ramps surface should be made of Teflon that is lubricated with thin oil.  The ramp could be made of wood and then a thin sheet of Teflon would cover the wood ramp.  This would be cheap and highly efficient.  I have said many times that the efficiency would approach 100% but never over 100%.

They will see that the ball will come close to its starting height but never over.  In the case of famous SMOT video, the ball starts at 30mm and ends at 23mm.  That is only 77% efficiency people!

Please people, just have someone build it and get this out of your system once and for all.  This 8 year SMOT work saddens me at how much valuable free energy research time has been wasted.

Kind regards,
Paul
Title: Re: SMOT
Post by: prometheus_effect on April 28, 2005, 10:34:20 AM
Posted on the Prometheus Effect discussion group:

--- In Prometheus_Effect@yahoogroups.com, "softwarelabus"
<softwarelabus@y...> wrote:
>
> there is no way in this world you are or anyone is going to
> beat me by getting me to waist valuable time and money building
> this machine.

Beat you? At what? Making a OU device? You lost that round in 1997
when I published the SMOT plans.

Well as least you have finally exposed yourself and revealed your
true intentions. To cast doubt, foster your own ambitions, goals and
theories.

By the way Paul, flux gate motors are not OU.

> I am here to discuss with anyone factual data, any
> step-by-step processes, and to help these people see the "the
> light."

See what "Light"? The "Light" of YOUR theories? Who appointed you or
even asked you to do this? How dare you insult the intelligence of
the other list members by talking down to them like this.

If your time is so pressed, then maybe you should stop wasting it in
this forum and show the world how you can make a OU flux gate motor.

Greg
Title: Re: SMOT
Post by: PaulLowrance on April 28, 2005, 06:01:34 PM
Greg,

Why do you simply copy the same message and post it in numerous places?  This is the FOURTH place you have posted this exact same message.  Are you OK?

Again, here is my reply:

+++++++++++
Greg,

"prometheus_effect" <prometheus_effect@y...> wrote:
> > there is no way in this world you are or anyone is going to
> > beat me by getting me to waist valuable time and money building
> > this machine.
>
> Beat you? At what? Making a OU device? You lost that round in 1997
> when I published the SMOT plans.

You don't seem to understand? I have clearly stated that IMHO the SMOT & so-called prometheus effect project is a distraction. So if I am convinced the SMOT and prometheus effect are false then why would I allow myself to build the machine when others have already done so. If I allowed myself to fall victim to your distraction then I would be beaten.
Cast doubt? Well, it seems I am the one who is offering science and math at your Yahoo forum. On numerous occasions I have challenged anyone to find error in my math or step-by-step process-- still no takers. I have asked you repeatedly for this so-called document that contains proof. Still to this day you have not point to the exact location of this document. You would have to know that I would find any errors in such a document if they existed.

I lost the round in 1997, Greg???  I just found out about the SMOT & so-called prometheus effect just recently this year, as in about a month or so ago.  Don't you recall?  You were the one who came to the Yahoo Group forum that Sterling so kindly created for me and you attempted to bring it down by false science claims.  You tried to find error in my research and you failed miserably.  Don't you recall the major mistake you made in the permeability & RL time constant-- how I so clearly pointed out your error?  That's how I found out about the so-called prometheus effect.  It would seem that you are the one who lost the round Greg on my forum and also back in 1997 when you claimed a looping SMOT.  Many people including Stephan talk about your old claims of looping the SMOT.  So if you had the smoking gun 8 years ago Greg, then what happened?  Can you in good conscience take these poor people another 8 years?  I'll pray tonight that these people will see the truth in you.



> By the way Paul, flux gate motors are not OU.

BTW Greg, I never said flux gate motors are OU. You are the one who
believes in Over Unity. I have repeatedly claimed that I am not a
follower of OU, but rather I prefer to use the term Free Energy.  Please quote me!  I'll be waiting.



> > I am here to discuss with anyone factual data, any
> > step-by-step processes, and to help these people see the "the
> > light."
>
> See what "Light"? The "Light" of YOUR theories? Who appointed you or
> even asked you to do this? How dare you insult the intelligence of
> the other list members by talking down to them like this.

So you think that it should be a dictatorship society? That people
cannot come to your prometheus_effect forum to offer math and step-by-step processes to disprove you?



> If your time is so pressed, then maybe you should stop wasting it in
> this forum and show the world how you can make a OU flux gate motor.

Please by all means show these people where I stated the flux gate motor is OU? You are the one who believes in OU. I have clearly stated many times that I am not a follower of OU but rather free energy.  There is a vast difference. I think you are now grasping at straws to the point of trying to put words in my mouth. You put words in my mouth without quoting me.  I'll be waiting and will remind you of it.

I think your days are coming to an end Greg.  People are now posting your 8-year-old posts.  Even people such as Joe are now questioning you.  My motives are to help people free themselves with Truth.  I am not trying to judge you.  Believe me Greg, there is a far greater judge then I!!!

Wasting my time?  I think about the well being of other people Greg. Do you understand getting past the Me Me Me stage?  Why do so many people in modern society have such difficulty with being of service to others; i.e., getting past the "Me" stage, spending ones time helping others.  I have signed up for numerous local projects to help the community.  It's called Unconditional Love.  It's called being spiritual.  It's called being a good person.  It's called Pure Logic.  Even the character portrayed in Star Trek known as Spoke said while sacrificing his life to others, "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few."

Sincerely,
Paul
Title: Re: SMOT
Post by: prometheus_effect on April 29, 2005, 12:23:25 PM
Guys,

I would like to enlist the aid of some of the members of the
OU / Free Energy community to independently verify the
virtually no magnetic dragback exit of the Prometheus Effect.
To that end I will provide a SMOT device and the new lossless
measurement system at no cost. In return you will be asked
to do a series of measurement on the SMOT device and report
back your results & comments either way. The SMOT device
and the measurement system will be yours to keep.

To that end I would like to ask the following for their so kind assistance:

1) Bill Beaty (Vortex)
2) Scott Little or Hal Puthoff (Vortex)
3) Jed Rothwell (Vortex)
4) Terry Blanton (Vortex)
5) Keith Nagel (Vortex)
6) Jean-Louis Naudin (JLN Labs)
7) Stefan Hartman (Overunity.com)
8) Cyril Smith (OU Builders)
9) David Squires (OU Builders)

Now it's just engineering effort, time and money,
Greg
Title: Re: SMOT
Post by: hartiberlin on April 29, 2005, 10:29:29 PM
Okay Greg, sounds good.
Let me know, when you have it ready.I will
then post a video of my measurements.

Regards, Stefan
Title: Re: SMOT
Post by: PaulLowrance on April 29, 2005, 10:40:51 PM
I would like to enlist the aid of some of the members of the
OU / Free Energy community to independently verify the
virtually no magnetic dragback exit of the Prometheus Effect.
To that end I will provide a SMOT device and the new lossless
measurement system at no cost. In return you will be asked
to do a series of measurement on the SMOT device and report
back your results & comments either way. The SMOT device
and the measurement system will be yours to keep.

To that end I would like to ask the following for their so kind assistance:

1) Bill Beaty (Vortex)
2) Scott Little or Hal Puthoff (Vortex)
3) Jed Rothwell (Vortex)
4) Terry Blanton (Vortex)
5) Keith Nagel (Vortex)
6) Jean-Louis Naudin (JLN Labs)
7) Stefan Hartman (Overunity.com)
8) Cyril Smith (OU Builders)
9) David Squires (OU Builders)

Are you asking all these people to validate the same design?  If so then what good is that going to do Greg?  So far you don't have any proof of FE much less OU.  Why don't you work on your own research and until you have real proof then drag everyone into this distraction.  I just don't understand your motives.

Paul
Title: Re: SMOT
Post by: hartiberlin on April 29, 2005, 11:11:00 PM
Paul calm down,
just only, because you don?t understand the working of a SMOT,
does not mean, everybody is thinking this way...
Title: Re: SMOT
Post by: PaulLowrance on April 29, 2005, 11:55:35 PM
Paul calm down,
just only, because you don?t understand the working of a SMOT,
does not mean, everybody is thinking this way...

I kind of feel sorry for you Stefan.  I'm probably 10 times calmer than you but I don't feel the need to tell people to calm down.

Stefan, I have asked you repeatedly to show your math and science.  You never take me up on my offer and all you do is make claims.

May I ask what your last project was that you were pushing?

Paul
Title: Re: SMOT
Post by: hartiberlin on April 30, 2005, 12:00:50 AM
Paul,when I get a SMOT from Greg  I will test it.
In this moment I am busy with 2 years worth of TAX reports, that
keep me away from building something.
ALso in about 2 weeks when the reports are done,
I will continue the Marcus Wagner circuit first,
which is still lying on my table in parts.


Then I will also see with a 3D magnetic simulator,
how a much longer SMOT ramp can be modeled with less parts and
2 iron plates on each side of the smot ramp and get an easier
blue hole exit.

Regards, Stefan.
Title: Re: SMOT
Post by: prometheus_effect on May 01, 2005, 09:17:51 AM
Okay Greg, sounds good.
Let me know, when you have it ready.I will
then post a video of my measurements.

Hi Stefan,

Thanks for that.

I should have the SMOT kits, with the new measurement system, ready in about 2 - 3 weeks. Can you send me, via private email, your delivery details?

Greg
Title: Re: SMOT
Post by: prometheus_effect on May 01, 2005, 01:20:20 PM
Hi Stefan,

I tried to attach a 2.5mb animated GIF but your server refused it. It was the latest and biggest animated GIF in the Video section of the PE site. Maybe you could post it somewhere others could get a look. It amazing to see a SMOT climb and drop in slow motion, especially the exit as the ball losses it KE, almost stops, just rolls over the edge and drops vertically straight down.

Greg
Title: Re: SMOT
Post by: hartiberlin on May 01, 2005, 06:34:31 PM
Hi Greg,
this GIF is too big,
I am attaching to this message an AVI file which In converted to 1 frame/sec
which is only about 400 Kbytes big !
Regards, Stefan.
Title: Re: SMOT
Post by: felix on May 01, 2005, 08:08:27 PM
Rollaround is illusion
I have investigated a long time the SMOT and came to the final conclusion,
that a real rollaraound is illusion.
Maybe you may get one or two rounds, but this is due to the initial
energy you gave to the ball when placing it at the start location.
It is like a spring that you load. This gives the ball an inititial impulse
which lasts for a moment, if you are very, very lucky one or two
rollaraounds. But then the game is over ...
J.L.Naudin calculates an OVERUNITY for the SMOT.
This is nonsense, because he does not include the energy
which he needs initially to "load the spring".
If you use an ordinary spring, load it, and measue then the
jump of the ball, you will get the same result.

Sorry I have to communicate you this result.

Keep working on other projects, my best candiadte is Testatika!

Regards
            Felix
Title: Re: SMOT
Post by: Sojourner on May 02, 2005, 12:27:36 AM
Did I just see what i think I just saw? Isn't this overunity?

Soj

Hi Greg,
this GIF is too big,
I am attaching to this message an AVI file which In converted to 1 frame/sec
which is only about 400 Kbytes big !
Regards, Stefan.
Title: Re: SMOT
Post by: prometheus_effect on May 02, 2005, 01:05:20 AM
here is something kind of like it.
http://www.diac.com/~ekwall2/ffsmot

Hi Steve,

The very big problem here is the ball rolling track losses will be really large due to the inner track being of a tighter radius than the outer track. The ball will skid along one track and lose a lot of energy. Have a look at the SRRS design in the files section of the Prometheus Effect group web site for a better solution.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/prometheus_effect/

Greg
Title: Re: SMOT
Post by: prometheus_effect on May 02, 2005, 01:06:57 AM
Rollaround is illusion
I have investigated a long time the SMOT and came to the final conclusion,
that a real rollaraound is illusion.
Maybe you may get one or two rounds, but this is due to the initial
energy you gave to the ball when placing it at the start location.
It is like a spring that you load. This gives the ball an inititial impulse
which lasts for a moment, if you are very, very lucky one or two
rollaraounds. But then the game is over ...
J.L.Naudin calculates an OVERUNITY for the SMOT.
This is nonsense, because he does not include the energy
which he needs initially to "load the spring".
If you use an ordinary spring, load it, and measue then the
jump of the ball, you will get the same result.

Sorry I have to communicate you this result.

Keep working on other projects, my best candiadte is Testatika!

Regards
? ? ? ? ? ? Felix


Hi Felix,

There is no spring effect here. The ball is drawn into the entry of the SMOT. Have a look at the slow motion videos on the Prometheus Effect site.

Greg
Title: Re: SMOT
Post by: prometheus_effect on May 02, 2005, 01:08:01 AM
Hi Greg,
this GIF is too big,
I am attaching to this message an AVI file which In converted to 1 frame/sec
which is only about 400 Kbytes big !
Regards, Stefan.

Thanks Stefan.

Greg
Title: Re: SMOT
Post by: kenbo0422 on May 02, 2005, 02:18:55 AM
prometheus effect,

Yes, it is drawn into the magnet area.  AND it accelerates.  Is there any reason this object has to be a ball?  And for that matter, on a track?  My thinking leads me to putting about 5 of those 'objects' on extension arms connected to a single axis.  With 6 magnet 'ramps', but in this case they aren't ramped, just allow the 'ball' to pass between them.  Curved magnets with the same arc as the circle they surround will give you equal distance on both sides of the path of the ball.  Each one of the ramps is pulling.  Has anyone tried doing this without the ramp and dropoff?

Not picking on you in particular, but you made a point that I agree with.   I think that with some minor ingenuity this will work better than expected.
Title: Re: SMOT
Post by: prometheus_effect on May 02, 2005, 03:08:45 AM
prometheus effect,

Yes, it is drawn into the magnet area.? AND it accelerates.? Is there any reason this object has to be a ball?? And for that matter, on a track?? My thinking leads me to putting about 5 of those 'objects' on extension arms connected to a single axis.? With 6 magnet 'ramps', but in this case they aren't ramped, just allow the 'ball' to pass between them.? Curved magnets with the same arc as the circle they surround will give you equal distance on both sides of the path of the ball.? Each one of the ramps is pulling.? Has anyone tried doing this without the ramp and dropoff?

Not picking on you in particular, but you made a point that I agree with.? ?I think that with some minor ingenuity this will work better than expected.

Hi Ken,

Understand that for the Prometheus Effect to work the ferromagnetic material must exit the inline magnet array's field at 90deg and at a very specific spot otherwise there is a dragback field at the end of the arrays which will dragback ALL the KE gained during the acceleration.

Greg
Title: Re: SMOT
Post by: kenbo0422 on May 02, 2005, 04:31:23 AM
Then twist the magnets....
Title: Re: SMOT
Post by: hartiberlin on May 02, 2005, 04:48:00 AM
You could twist the magnet ramp upside 90 degrees  or 90 degrees down and also use endplates
of iron to make the "blue hole" bigger and make the exit much eaiser without drag back.

It needs a good magnet simulation or magnet viewing paper to see this.

Regards, Stefan.
Title: Re: SMOT
Post by: prometheus_effect on May 02, 2005, 06:06:23 AM
You could twist the magnet ramp upside 90 degrees? or 90 degrees down and also use endplates
of iron to make the "blue hole" bigger and make the exit much eaiser without drag back.

It needs a good magnet simulation or magnet viewing paper to see this.

Regards, Stefan.

Hi Stefan, Ken & others,

I tried that but I could never get it to work. I feel there is a gravity / magnet interaction going on here which makes gravity necessary but I don't have the equipment yet to research it deeper.

Stefan how big is the 3d magnetic simulator you have? I ask only because of email limitations. I have a 1.5mb broadband connection so if you can stick it on a web site somewhere I can download it and check it out.

Greg
Title: Re: SMOT
Post by: hartiberlin on May 02, 2005, 06:11:31 AM
Greg I did sent you a private email.
Title: Re: SMOT
Post by: PaulLowrance on May 02, 2005, 08:08:35 PM
I have the answer to all this SMOT stuff.  I have a very simple test that requires no modification to your SMOTs that will clearly show if this is truly OU or FE or not.

If you have a video camera and a SMOT then you can help settle this 8 year thing.

I would appreciate as many SMOT truth seekers as possible to video the following simple test ->

Video the ball going up your SMOT and falling down. Video the ball falling down about 10" down.  Please try to video this from a level angle-- no tilts or skewed angles.  I need to see the ball from as true side angle as possible.

Then remove the magnets, place the ball on the edge, and then allow the ball the gently fall off the edge. Also video this several times.  Make sure the ball doesn't touch or rub against the side of the table as it falls.

Also please try to keep the video in its original resolution and uncompressed.  Although you can zip file.

Last, please video both tests several times, say 5 each.

Below is a simple picture of what I had in mind just to show you the point of view I want.

I will keep this honest and provide the exact data.  This is very very basic PE and KE formulas that even Greg cannot deny.

Sincerely,
Paul
Title: Re: SMOT
Post by: hartiberlin on May 02, 2005, 10:36:42 PM
Hi Paul,
this is exactly what Greg is measuring with his measurement device at his SMOT !
You want to do it via video, Greg is doing it with a Light barrier setup.
He is measuring the falling speed at a few inches below the ramp.
You want to do this via video, he already measured it via his
setup and came to the conclusion, that the speed is not smaller due to
any dragback forces. See the Excel spreadsheet in the Prometheus-YahooGroup files folder.

Regards, Stefan.
Title: Re: SMOT
Post by: prometheus_effect on May 03, 2005, 02:16:50 AM
Hi Paul,

Stefan is right. I guess you have not read the early postings on the PE site where I explain how the Prometheus Effect measurement system work. Maybe I should repost them for later joiners.

Basically I start a high resolution (200ns) 24 bit timer when the vertically falling ball crosses a IR beam 25mm above a level reference base. The timer is stopped when  a electret microphone picks up the impact of the ball with the base. The timer value is then sent via RS232 to a PC, converted into final KE and displayed in real time. The design also includes a Hall effect sensor to allow flux density measurement. It's value is sent to the Pc 4 times a second and also displayed in Gauss.

Mechanial drawings, the circuit schematic and the PIC firmware are avaliable on the PE site.

Greg
Title: Re: SMOT
Post by: PaulLowrance on May 03, 2005, 03:16:40 AM
Dear Greg,

You posted the same text at your yahoo forum.  So rather than double post I have already posted a reply at your yahoo forum.  Basically I have some serious questions regarding your data.

Sincerely,
Paul
Title: Re: SMOT
Post by: PaulLowrance on May 04, 2005, 08:10:34 PM
Greg's test is riddled with problems.  Also I have searched through all the files at his forum and see no data for the second test which is measuring the ball falling from a SMOT without magnets.  In other words, I would also need to see the data of the ball falling from a ramp that has no magnets.

I know there are people here who have a smot and access to a video camera.  Could you please just do two simple tests ->

1. Of the ball being pulled up the ramp by the magnets and then falling at least 1 foot.
2. Of the ball at the top of the ramp without any magnets on the ramp and the ball falling at least 1 foot.

If this is OU or FE then don't you want to know?  I sure do.

Thanks,
Paul
Title: Re: SMOT
Post by: billmehess on May 12, 2005, 04:49:52 AM
I have built a smot using a smaller size steel ball about 5mm in diameter. I have the ball travel inside a u shapped alum rod instead of on top of the edges. I use very strong magnets and can get the ball to go up the 8" ram at a 40% angle. This gives me a drop of about 2 inches.
I  drop the ball into a 1" ID clear plastic tube that has 3 levels each one slightly lower than the last so that the ball moves down hill to the start of the smot where it "drops" into the u channel. It pulls up to the top but because my magnets are so strong I have been unable so far to exit the end. In other words I can get 95% around and up the ramp. The tube is about 18" in diameter.
Forget the math and the theories build the damn thing it either works or it dosn't.
God I love this stuff!!!
Bill
Title: Re: SMOT
Post by: gyulasun on May 12, 2005, 03:34:54 PM
Hi Bill,

I have yet to build a smot but I read (from Greg and others) some info on it in other forums as follows:

1) Make the upper part of the ramp shorter (about 0.5 -- 1.5cm less) than the length of the side magnets  and/or
2) Try holding a separate magnet with correct pole near the area where the steel ball is supposed to drop down (make sure the extra magnet would not catch the ball) and /or
3 Try using magnetic shunt at the upper part of the ramp to reduce magnetic strength at the very ends (such shunt is like an U shaped iron piece with nonmagnetic spacers to adjust the effectiveness of the shunt).
4) Maybe you can keep larger distance between the two side magnets to make magnetis field-strength less strong at the upper ends of the ramp.

regards

Gyula
Title: Re: SMOT
Post by: PaulLowrance on May 12, 2005, 04:13:40 PM
Forget the math and the theories build the damn thing it either works or it dosn't.

Why?  There are nearly countless free energy machines.  The SMOT has one of the all time lowest possibilities of any OU or FE.   I would much rather spend my time with another machine such as Tom's MEG.


God I love this stuff!!!
Bill

Yes, I hear you.  For a lot of people it is like living a science fiction adventure movie.  There is nothing wrong with that, but it is also healthy to live in reality.  In other words, if a person is truly seeking FE or OU then chose your machine wisely.

Sincerely,
Paul
Title: Re: SMOT
Post by: Kysmett on May 13, 2005, 04:20:08 PM
Paul,

Your oppinions on this device are more than noted.  I do not see anything constructive comming from your rants against SMOTs.  There are people pursuing this and that is as it should be.  Modify what doesn't work until it does.  If people dropped everything after the first few attempts, we wouldn't be anywhere close to where we are today. 

It occurs to me that you will not look further down this alley and you convictions lie elsewhere.  That is good.  We should, as a people, be pursuing diverse projects.  Apply your passion where it is strongest and you will make the most of your contribution to science.  To denegrate others for doing the same, merely because your pasisons do not match theirs is counter to this diversity.  When you, or someone else, makes a breakthrough then post that and the rest of us will take notice.  A few people who are passionate about finding something, anything, that works will follow on that success.  There will be others, though, whose conviction will be too strong to be led off of whatever project they are working on, thus maintaning the diversity of our research.

If you want to remind new-commers about your oppinion that this device does not work and will never work, then start a thread entitled "SMOT's suck" or something, or you can host a web page warning people away from research in that area.  Of course doing that will only lump you in to the group of many that claim that research into <insert field here> will never lead to anything new. 

Do the independent work that you are inspired to do, but trust others to follow their own muse.  If something isn't working, then offer fixes, if you don't have any fixes, telling people to abandon their project entirely is not helpful and can actually be quite offensive. 

Thanks

Ed
Title: Re: SMOT
Post by: PaulLowrance on May 13, 2005, 05:19:48 PM
Dear Ed,

It is true that you can't force people.  I understand that just because I can clearly see the probabilities don?t mean most others can see it.  I know this to be a fact because I've done it countless times my entire life; i.e., corrected the errors in others and their work so easily.  Very few people have a gift where they can walk into a laboritory of say scientists who've been pulling their hair out for months on a problem and the person may within a few moments find the answer to their solution.  I offer any facts people want to see.  I have already told the solution to SMOT.  What you are attempting is not achievable but only by G forces that extend into the 1000's.  If you want the see legitimate work done on such research then study the spinning ball experiments done by the late Bruce DePalma.


telling people to abandon their project entirely is not helpful and can actually be quite offensive. 

Yes, I know that society as brought up people to tippie toe around their delicate emotions.  I could write a book about this subject.  People say one thing for the sake of not hurting another's feelings when they are thinking another.  It is a very difficult thing for me to accept, as I rarely get hurt or emotional by the words of another.

Paul
Title: Re: SMOT
Post by: wizkycho on June 21, 2005, 03:14:41 PM
From this day knowone can say that Free Energy doesn't exist

created on stardate 21.06.2005 by Igor Knitel using 0.5% of his brain capacity.

http://starglider.netfirms.com/knitelssmot.htm

let's fly with a rythm

Igor Knitel
Title: Re: SMOT
Post by: pinobot on June 22, 2005, 02:02:38 AM
Wizkycho, you've completely lost the plot.
Title: Re: SMOT
Post by: wizkycho on June 22, 2005, 12:52:15 PM
pinobot

pinobot, If You are not one of the ignorant liers, You will now
provide factual explanation to me and others why do you think that this is not
most advanced SMOT ever made.

thx in advance
Title: Re: SMOT
Post by: wizkycho on June 22, 2005, 01:09:48 PM
Hey guys what happened !

This is really the most advanced and 100% probability to work in OU SMOT that knowone on earth ever seen.
This is finally closed loop SMOT. Who will make it first probably SMOT will get his name.
only pinobot "replyed (hmm)"
Where are You all?

please comment it and stop this annoyng ball circulation (that can last for 2000 years minimum) with facts and nothing but facts
http://starglider.netfirms.com/knitelssmot.htm

igor Knitel
Title: Re: SMOT
Post by: FreeEnergy on June 22, 2005, 02:25:21 PM
http://jlnlabs.ifrance.com/jlnlabs
Title: Re: SMOT
Post by: HardNor on June 22, 2005, 05:21:45 PM
out topic:
why those people never see that real media files suck !?

@wizkycho: i think this smot circle work - i will try to test and improve it
Title: Re: SMOT
Post by: pinobot on June 22, 2005, 11:05:32 PM
pinobot

pinobot, If You are not one of the ignorant liers, You will now
provide factual explanation to me and others why do you think that this is not
most advanced SMOT ever made.

thx in advance
There's nothing to explain, the amounth of power transfered between the balls i whats keeping the balls
from moving past the sticky spot in the first place, so its the same as
having 1 ball only worse because you can't use the full length of the ramp.
Title: Re: SMOT
Post by: wizkycho on June 23, 2005, 08:48:58 AM
http://jlnlabs.ifrance.com/jlnlabs

which part !?! in this SMOT setup Magnets ARE NOT positioned to make Ramp so ball doesn't have to climb but complete gained energy transferes to the other ball which will (there is no reason it wan't)
ROLLAWAY.....!!!!YupiiYaiYe!!!!!!!.to the next SMOT ........ and so the future begins now !
Title: Re: SMOT
Post by: wizkycho on June 23, 2005, 08:50:53 AM
http://jlnlabs.ifrance.com/jlnlabs

which part !?! in this SMOT setup Magnets ARE NOT positioned to make Ramp so ball doesn't have to climb but complete gained energy transferes to the other ball which will (there is no reason it wan't)
ROLLAWAY.....!!!!YupiiYaiYe!!!!!!!.to the next SMOT ........ and so the future begins now !
Title: Re: SMOT
Post by: wizkycho on June 23, 2005, 08:57:34 AM
pinobot

pinobot, If You are not one of the ignorant liers, You will now
provide factual explanation to me and others why do you think that this is not
most advanced SMOT ever made.

thx in advance
There's nothing to explain, the amounth of power transfered between the balls i whats keeping the balls
from moving past the sticky spot in the first place, so its the same as
having 1 ball only worse because you can't use the full length of the ramp.


 In this SMOT setup Magnets ARE NOT positioned to make Ramp so ball doesn't have to climb but complete gained energy transferes to the other ball which will (there is no reason it wan't)
ROLLAWAY.....!!!!YupiiYaiYe!!!!!!!.to the next SMOT ........ and so the future begins now !

                         Have You seen Jeans rollaway test exp.
                         Have You seen Adsitts two balls bumps from magnet exp.

Igor Knitel
Title: Re: SMOT
Post by: HardNor on June 23, 2005, 09:24:57 AM
haha 3 posts for one Answer?
Title: Re: SMOT
Post by: wizkycho on June 23, 2005, 09:33:04 AM
additional explanation

there is only one stycky point (stable point) where ball will stuck and this is where magnetizm is strongest at the end of SMOT unit.
That point is very narrow.

If the other accelerated ball with Ek kick the first ball two things happens:
 ?First ball is more or less removed from it's stable point. (better more than less, depends on Ek of the second ball)
 ?Now both balls tries to get to that stable point.
 ?Scince second ball is still in between magnets, flux will mostly be closed around second ball
 ? ?leaving first ball ALLMOST free to rollaway.....
 ?When second ball stycks (gains stable point) complete mag flux goes through it and second ball is COMPLETELY
 ? ?free to rollaway.....to next smot.

to repeat:
 ? SMOT unit is not ramped - ball is not climbing and it doesn't drop it bumps to next one.

Title: Re: SMOT
Post by: wizkycho on June 23, 2005, 09:35:20 AM
haha 3 posts for one Answer?

connection or session is sometimes lost on my PC not telling if the message was sent or not. sorry
Title: Re: SMOT
Post by: wizkycho on June 23, 2005, 03:16:41 PM
out topic:
why those people never see that real media files suck !?

@wizkycho: i think this smot circle work - i will try to test and improve it

please try it for I don't have NdFeB magnets 25 to 30 cm long. I will but... idea is NOW, replication is...when i get the magnets. You only need two magnets so the north closses with south. One magnet is not sufficient because it will
have opened flux lines at the exit of SMOT so bumped ball might return. and Try to keep distance between
ball (at the exit that will be bumped) and magnets.
Title: Re: SMOT
Post by: Light on June 24, 2005, 06:26:15 AM
"pinobot, If You are not one of the ignorant liers, You will now
provide factual explanation to me and others why do you think that this is not most advanced SMOT ever made...please comment it...Where are You all?".
-  There's nothing to comment. Dead duck. One magnet will hit another, both will move a little bit further, and that's it. Both sit dead. Try if anybody want. I did. Just for fan. Nothing. And can't be.
Title: Re: SMOT
Post by: wizkycho on June 24, 2005, 08:37:54 AM
"pinobot, If You are not one of the ignorant liers, You will now
provide factual explanation to me and others why do you think that this is not most advanced SMOT ever made...please comment it...Where are You all?".
- There's nothing to comment. Dead duck. One magnet will hit another, both will move a little bit further, and that's it. Both sit dead. Try if anybody want. I did. Just for fan. Nothing. And can't be.

sorry for "strong" words but just telling it wan't work without any fact to go with that conclusion...

exp. Your magnets are to close to a ball and/or your magnets are too short 25 to 30 cm 5mm thick requiered (NdFeB).
Why NdFeB ? is a must - so you can make sufficient distance between ball and magnets and still have enough "room" to widen entrance of SMOT and make neccesery mag flux gradinet change that still interacts with ball that enters.
Title: Re: SMOT
Post by: FreeEnergy on June 24, 2005, 09:20:03 AM
video
Title: Re: SMOT
Post by: Light on June 24, 2005, 04:08:46 PM
"telling it wan't work without any fact"
- It is a fact. I never tell anything before i try(but people here do), of course when it make sense...

"...is a must"
- Maybe, but to run a system we need a solid impact (to transfer the impulse), not a soft, as it take place on your scheme.
The stronger magnets the stronger force that does not allow to separate the magnets.
Title: Re: SMOT
Post by: Limoman7 on July 25, 2005, 07:17:29 AM
I just posted in the Finsrud section , did not know there was a SMOT diicussion in Mag Mtrs.

I've read all 9 pages..... Am I right in assuming that no one has gotten a SMOT to circulate more that a couple of times?

My design is very much like a SMOT but the magnets are arranged a bit diiferent.

Fiirst off to the guy that thinks the SMOT is a waste of time.

I am just a regular guy not a scientist or even an avid researcher. I enjoy reading about and "Tinkering" with the idea of
perpetual motion and free energy when I have free time. Instead of reading novels or crossword puzzels I spend my free time on OU & FE.

At first I was thinking of building a Bedini Mtr but after reading about the SMOT I was hooked. It seemed very easy to understand and more importantly cheap to build.


SMALL STEPS... thats how I work.

I first built a SMOT according to Greg's plans.. It worked just like he said it would. I used U-Channel stock as my track.
In my first tests I could get the ball brg to climb right up and exit the ramp onto the table. I thought I really had something there but what I did not take into account was the U-Channel was about a 3/4" tall, so did I really gain that much having the ball brg land on the table? I think I could get the same results or very close just by raising the ramp 3/4" and letting the ball roll off the end.

What I need to do is start on a flat plane and end up on the same plane with some forward motion. Breaking past the magnetic gate wiith momentum was my goal.

I'll let you know as to my progress.


Cheers!
Title: Re: SMOT
Post by: sypherios on July 26, 2005, 11:20:31 PM
This is a great discussion, I have built the magnetic tip device and am pleased to sy it works, I will post a vid when i get my digi cam next mth. I think thi smot thats looped sould work and remember a thousand different designs are avail.. shit . I can think of two ways to make this more efficient, using an electro magnet right before the sticky spot that is optically tripped to accellerate the impacting ball and it would allow for easier release of the impacted ball I suppose it could be above the track. Im sure to the proper scale it would be ou even with elecmags. so the elec mag is on when the ball reaches half then the ball accellerates hits the other ball then rests in the sticky spot to await a kick in the ass! shit its basically a lev train!!! and the other tweek I  suppose you could also accellerate the bal with declines after the ball is released from the sticky spot.
Title: Re: SMOT
Post by: schriss on June 11, 2006, 05:34:20 PM
so....
topic dead, nothing works and no new videos?
Title: Re: SMOT
Post by: Liberty on June 11, 2006, 06:07:54 PM
so....
topic dead, nothing works and no new videos?

It looked like it worked in the video, but the strength from such a motor would be very slight and slow.
Title: Re: SMOT
Post by: stiffy on June 11, 2006, 07:41:03 PM
so....
topic dead, nothing works and no new videos?

The video shows the ball coming up the ramp, drop and roll away. Brilliant. So what is stopping people to make a longer ramp to lift the darn ball 10 cm vertically and use a plastic tube to bring the ball to the beginning?

Videos please.

Title: Re: SMOT
Post by: schriss on June 11, 2006, 08:33:01 PM
Maybe people realized that for such thing to be useful and able to powerup a small city the balls would have to be HUGE probably bigger than earth, with magnets outside of solar system :)

Anyway, videos are always welcomed :)
Title: Re: SMOT
Post by: Light on June 12, 2006, 02:43:44 AM
Here's two  SMOTs of mine.
Yes, they lift a ball, and after adjustment even it falls and rolls, but... as soon as a level of the beginning of movement correspond to a level where the ball falls, it does not roll, only remains, where has fallen. It is impossible to deceive a magnetic field...
Title: Re: SMOT
Post by: schriss on June 12, 2006, 06:34:09 PM
can you make the ball to NOT fall horizontally? I mean (my bad english), put something there so the ball doesn't fall all the way down but rolls down and away, increasing it's velocity, encountering another smot on it's way?
Title: Re: SMOT
Post by: gn0stik on June 12, 2006, 07:28:12 PM
Seems to me, with a few simple modifications the ball drop could be controlled, and more energy could be preserved off the end of the ramp. If you cut the track at a radius angle to allow a smooth transition off the end of the ramp, and cut a small clearance notch in the bottom of the track to allow for the ball passage, it should guide the ball off the ramp at a higher momentum, and allow you to control the transition.

Also, if you cut the ends of the bar magnets away from the track at the end, the magnetic flux would have a different orientation, and a strength gradient, that would help to guide the ball off the end of the ramp, instead of applying back force on it at the end of the ramp.

Also if you had the ramp lift slightly above the level of the mags at the end of the ramp, such that the magnets transition from pulling from the sides to pulling from the bottom, we may get better results, but I'm just guessing. I've always thought that if a SMOT ramp, transitioned to an adsitt ramp, we'd get better transitions off the end of the track. I didn't add this, because I'm not sure. I am however positive the first two suggestions would help.

Attached are some illustrations to show you what I'm talking about.

Regards,
Gn0stik.



Title: Re: SMOT
Post by: schriss on June 12, 2006, 09:04:18 PM
you always wan't to drop the ball :)
I have attached what meant.
Title: Re: SMOT
Post by: gn0stik on June 13, 2006, 12:49:31 AM
What you don't seem to understand schriss, is that we've all tried to figure out ways to do that. That is in fact THE problem to overcome with a SMOT. And without using gravity to break free of the magnetic field, so far, we've been unsuccessful. That's why we "drop" the ball. However we might be able to avoid dropping all the way back to the beginning point by doing it this way and preserving some of the forward momentum.

If we use the forward momentum to slingshot the ball around the radius, perhaps we can get a little more downward momentum on the otherside of it, to propel it into a track at a higher level than we started.

But who knows perhaps that would work. I haven't tried the modifications I suggested, so who knows.
Title: Re: SMOT
Post by: Light on June 13, 2006, 04:58:27 AM
It's made exactly the same way, but this is not a point. We can make the ball run, but we can not make it run to higher level. The point is, when levels are the same the ball can't roll away from the ramp, not enough power to overcome the field. When it fall far enough from field, yes it can roll...but level is to low to let him get back to ramp.
But like  gn0stik  said "who knows", needda more practice...
Title: Re: SMOT
Post by: omnicognic on June 13, 2006, 06:14:49 AM
Ok,
 I'm kinda new to this so forgive me if I sound a bit backward...
I know this has been hashed over quite a bit and I plan on trying out a few ideas (which I will share, of course) in the meantime, I have a question. How about using stronger magnets and steeper ramps?

P.S. I found a site that carries some interesting items including awesome magnets:
http://www.unitednuclear.com/supplies.htm (http://www.unitednuclear.com/supplies.htm)

Title: Re: SMOT
Post by: schriss on June 13, 2006, 10:23:57 AM
Fine, then can you move what I added, halfway down? So the ball WILL drop, but not on the ground, but on the curved surface that will make it start rolling? What's the problem here, are the magnets on top still holding the ball?

Nevermind the above, just saw the latest movie and the ball rolls away can't it just roll into another smot?
Title: Re: SMOT
Post by: lancaIV on June 13, 2006, 02:09:37 PM
US1859764 "magnetic device",Bougon
Linear movement to rotative movement !
S
  dL
Title: Re: SMOT
Post by: gn0stik on June 13, 2006, 05:48:32 PM
Fine, then can you move what I added, halfway down? So the ball WILL drop, but not on the ground, but on the curved surface that will make it start rolling? What's the problem here, are the magnets on top still holding the ball?

Nevermind the above, just saw the latest movie and the ball rolls away can't it just roll into another smot?

Yes it can, in fact J.L. Naudin did that in one of his experiments called "SMOT 2.0". However the second smot had a lower starting point than the first one, and the final height was even lower than the second one. Basically what you've got here is a slinky, which also can be seen to be self motive, but you've never seen one going up the stairs have you?
Title: Re: SMOT
Post by: Liberty on June 13, 2006, 05:54:32 PM
May I suggest looking at Don Adsitt's ramp?  It is interesting to watch the movies that he has made.  The ramp track has hills in it in the last movie.

Here is the web site:

http://www.theverylastpageoftheinternet.com/menu/adsitt.htm (http://www.theverylastpageoftheinternet.com/menu/adsitt.htm)
Title: Re: SMOT
Post by: stiffy on June 13, 2006, 05:58:25 PM
Fine, then can you move what I added, halfway down? So the ball WILL drop, but not on the ground, but on the curved surface that will make it start rolling? What's the problem here, are the magnets on top still holding the ball?

Nevermind the above, just saw the latest movie and the ball rolls away can't it just roll into another smot?

The SMOT ramp should be longer and steeper, and from what I see from J. Naudin, the ball really drops down and away from the smot. The lifting height, however, is not high enough to let the ball drop onto a uniformly declining circular track. If we can lift the ball three to four times its own height, say, and still manage to have it drop down, then you have enough space to put a track underneath its exit point to bring it back.

Anyone up for a challenge to make the SMOT ramp a little steeper and longer for higher lift? We really need some more lift.
Title: Re: SMOT
Post by: gn0stik on June 16, 2006, 10:17:20 PM
Yes, somewhere I've seen a video of one of these turning quite quickly. It wasn't a wheel though, it was two balls, one on each end of a spinning armature style rotor.

Where was it? PESWiki maybe?
Title: SMOT has not overunity
Post by: backchan on June 27, 2006, 05:27:04 AM
sorry I'm english beginner

I make SMOT and experiment

but I can't confirm overunity

start point hieght : 6cm , ending point height 5.5cm

SMOT is an optical illusion

Title: Re: SMOT
Post by: gn0stik on June 27, 2006, 06:01:10 AM
It looks like you've only elevate the magnets and not the ramp. In other SMOTs the ramp is more elevated than yours.

Regards,
Gn0stik
Title: Re: SMOT
Post by: penguin hood on June 27, 2006, 01:00:29 PM
Quote
start point hieght : 6cm , ending point height 5.5cm
I agree with gn0stik.
I did the SMOT experiment time ago and the steel ball really move up the ramp from lowest to highest point. No doubts about this and it is amazing. However I don't claim SMOT overunity.

If your SMOT fails I recommend you:
-Check that poles nearest to the top of the inclined plane are closer to the track than they are at the bottom.
(The SMOT works because the magnetic force is greater when the magnets are closer to the steel ball, and since the net force is towards the top of the ramp, the motion of the ball is also that direction, making the ball move up the track. This is why it is imperative that the magnets are constantly getting closer to the ball, in order to create a net force upwards.)
-Use a lightest steel ball.
-The track must be no magnetic material, for example aluminium, plastic, etc.
Title: Re: SMOT
Post by: c0mster on June 27, 2006, 04:29:46 PM
I also did extensive testing of the SMOT.  My findings were that there was no gain in the height of the ball at the other end of the ramp. It came very close to the same elevation as the drop point put not enough to make a closed loop. It seems that as the ball passes the end of the SMOT the pull of the magnets on the ball as it clears the gate are enough to remove 95% of any momentum gained on the ramp.   

Camster
Title: my SMOT image
Post by: backchan on June 27, 2006, 05:02:38 PM
ramp is plastic
running ramp is aluminium

and if SMOT ramp is long or short or magnet so high or so lower then a bead can't escape SMOT

also My SMOT is height gain
Title: Re: SMOT
Post by: gn0stik on June 27, 2006, 11:30:36 PM
This is a much better angle than your first picture.

If you go back in the thread, you'll see my suggestions for improving the smot.

You might want to try those. Cutting a radius into the end of the ramp, and a notch out, as well as shaping the last two magnets, and spacing them away from the track a bit farther, to change the flux at that point.

I haven't personally tried them, but I've heard it works.

If I were working on a ramp, I think it would be the adsitt design personally, I think it looks more promising.
but I think Don shows all the different techniques necessary to close the loops in his experiments, he just doesn't put them all together for you.

There are benefits and drawbacks to both the adsitt, and the smot.

With the adsitt ramp, you have to get permalloy sheet metal(good luck). And with the smot, you will never have very good torque after it drops out of the ramp.  Even if you can get it to enter another one, a motor is only as good as it's weakest point.
Title: Re: SMOT
Post by: penguin hood on June 28, 2006, 12:30:40 PM
Missing something... If the steel ball ejects from ramp with very high kinetic energy, Overunity Forum take no responsibility for damage using free energy. ;D

Backchan, what is your native language?
I want to let you know that also I'm learning english in self taught manner and I have developed some useful methods, at least for me. If you is interested can contact me.
Title: Re: SMOT
Post by: backchan on June 29, 2006, 04:37:37 AM
I live in Korea(south)
Title: Re: SMOT
Post by: penguin hood on June 29, 2006, 03:59:26 PM
Backchan,
Unfortunatly our native languages are too differents (my language is spanish). However I recently wrote a small program to open automatically the lyrics texts while listen the song from a radio over internet that can be useful for all languages.
It Serves to exercise the sense of hearing by read the exact english text from the listened songs.
The program is for Linux operative systems. Linux is in mather's software the equivalent to free energy is in matter's energy. The operative system Windows is the "fossil fuel".
If anybody want try Linux for first time I recommend visit http://damnsmalllinux.org. It is not the better Linux version but it is the easier to test because can be fast downloaded from internet and run from one Live CD without affect the hard disk.
Title: Re: SMOT
Post by: gn0stik on June 29, 2006, 04:08:40 PM
Gnoppix is better for a livecd version of linux. It runs very quickly off of a cd, and has a full graphical (Gnu) (KDE)desktop for knoppix.  It's mostly for fixing problems on computers, and surfing around but there are some games and multimedia applications on there as well. It also runs well from a virtual machine like VMware server, or virtual pc. Or bootstrap if you run mac.
Title: Re: SMOT
Post by: TheOne on June 29, 2006, 04:42:20 PM
debian is best, very easy to install and update
Title: Re: SMOT
Post by: penguin hood on June 30, 2006, 01:09:49 PM
I agree with TheOne, if I decide to install a operative system, I should install Linux Debian.
But if I must recommend to someone that never have installed neither a operative system nor Linux, the problem is that Debian must be installed to hard disk and this can be hardly for a newbie. The newbie want see fast results to know what is without danger can lose by mistake information on his computer. Moreover if he have not another computer to test.
Then the better option is a Linux Live CD option because are a good way to demo or preview an operating system without having to install it to a hard drive.
Now I agree with gn0stik, Gnoppix is a great version. Infact it is Debian based and can run from live CD. But Gnoppix require download one 650 MB file. (Too time to download still using broad band) while this another Linux Debian based version called Damn Small Linux require download only 50 MB and it can run pretty well on very old computers where others can't.

The procedure to use Damn Small Linux is easy (more info http://damnsmalllinux.org):

1. Download the dsl-3.0.1.iso file from:
ftp://ibiblio.org/pub/Linux/distributions/damnsmall/current/

2. Burn a CD with the file as explained here:
http://www.damnsmalllinux.org/wiki/index.php/Burning_a_Bootable_CD

3. Reboot the computer and welcomed to the wonderful world of Linux
Title: Re: SMOT
Post by: FreeEnergy on October 10, 2006, 10:31:47 AM
better yet see www.xubuntu.org or www.ubuntu.com


peace
Title: Re: SMOT
Post by: djancak on October 19, 2006, 08:41:37 PM
So has anybody built a closed loop SMOT yet? I don't see why it wouldn't work. I attached a 3d animation of a SMOT.
Title: Re: SMOT
Post by: FreeEnergy on October 19, 2006, 10:49:59 PM
So has anybody built a closed loop SMOT yet? I don't see why it wouldn't work. I attached a 3d animation of a SMOT.

that is what i think, but most people insist on saying it wont work. why?
i have heard it works for a bit and stops for some reason? anyone?
Title: Re: SMOT
Post by: FreeEnergy on October 19, 2006, 10:53:10 PM
see video http://www.hcrs.at/VIDEOS/SMOTA.MPG
Title: Re: SMOT
Post by: djancak on October 20, 2006, 12:09:21 AM
I am annoyed by the fact that I have seen no videos of a working or a non-working closed-loop SMOT.  :-\
Title: Re: SMOT
Post by: alan2here on November 01, 2006, 09:18:58 PM
why not make the whole thing circular?

Like this




(http://www.hcrs.at/BILDER/SMOT3.JPG)
Title: Re: SMOT
Post by: Omnibus on November 01, 2006, 10:07:50 PM
@alan2here,

This looks just fine but is it making full turns?
Title: Re: SMOT
Post by: alan2here on November 04, 2006, 01:19:39 PM
I found the picture on the internet, I havn't built it myself, just making the point that if the ball fell onto the start it would be ready to go again, so make it spiral shaped, with the magnets starting at one end and ending above them having gone around a complete turn. so not quite like picture that but simmerlar.
Title: Re: SMOT
Post by: Paul-R on November 04, 2006, 03:47:23 PM
why not make the whole thing circular?

This is turning into the TOMI track:
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Magnetic_Motors:PM3
Paul.
Title: Re: SMOT
Post by: shipto on November 06, 2006, 01:10:53 PM
I would like people to take a look at what I have come up with so far (drawings only)
(http://us.f6.yahoofs.com/blog/454e0fa5z20e652b3/1/__hr_/b124.jpg?mg4WzTFBKMWWJAxG) I hope this works if not then check out my blog:
http://uk.360.yahoo.com/shiptodruid (http://uk.360.yahoo.com/shiptodruid)

edit: oops its come out full size anyone tell me how I alter it to a thumbnail?
Title: Re: SMOT
Post by: shipto on November 06, 2006, 08:07:48 PM
added the bottom part of my idea now. I look forward to any comments about it
Title: 16 modified Reverse - SMOTs in a circle
Post by: peter_schmalenbach on November 15, 2006, 09:08:51 PM
What's your opinion?

(http://www.schmalenbach.de/bild_01.jpg) Patent pending


Videos here:

http://www.schmalenbach.de/video3.mpg

http://www.schmalenbach.de/video2.mpg

Best view with Windows Media Player.

Best regards
Peter

Title: Re: SMOT
Post by: alan2here on November 15, 2006, 09:47:36 PM
yep :?) like a said, circular, only the end needs to finish higher than the start, shurly that can happen with the conevtonal (two rows of magnets spaced out with spacers) SMOT method, just in a circle so the end finsihes over the start?

You'r thing does look verry impressive though.
Title: Re: SMOT
Post by: FreeEnergy on November 15, 2006, 09:52:44 PM
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-100545142554902085&q=magnet+motor&hl=en

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-117648347574834757&q=magnet+motor&hl=en
Title: Re: 16 modified Reverse - SMOTs in a circle
Post by: djancak on November 16, 2006, 01:35:41 AM
What's your opinion?

Videos here:

http://www.schmalenbach.de/video1.mpg

http://www.schmalenbach.de/video2.mpg


this looks very cool! have you tried holding a magnet above the spot where it stops?

keep trying! i still think you can get it to keep going.
Title: Re: 16 modified Reverse - SMOTs in a circle
Post by: peter_schmalenbach on November 16, 2006, 12:07:04 PM
Hello djancak,

we are looking for companies which have a laser cutter for the hollows (depressions).
Then the ball will pass the last 3 mm.
All stages must have accurately the same characteristics (features).

The sticky point is the connection of the end and the begin of the circle. This is at the moment between (among) the stages 14 and 15. If I adjust the stages 14 and 15 in the same way as the other good stages, then change the stages 11, 12, 13 and 16, 1 and 2 their (its) characteristics. The whole is a coherent (linked) magnetic field.

Werner Heisenberg (Nobel prize winner), Germany, said 1950:
A motor, only built up with magnets is possible, but we scientifically idiots cannot construct it. That only can make an outsider!


Best regards
Peter Schmalenbach

More details (Pictures, drawings, but text in German):
http://www.schmalenbach.de/patent (http://www.schmalenbach.de/patent)

http://www.schmalenbach.de/video3.mpg      (Ball gets more speed during the run in the circle)

Best view: Wind. Media Player
.
Title: Re: SMOT
Post by: Omnibus on November 18, 2006, 01:48:06 AM
@peter_schmalenbach,

Could you please cite the source of Heisenberg?s quotation in your post?

As for the laser cutter, I?m afraid the problem may be more complex than merely the adjustment of stages 14 and 15 as the other good stages through cutting the track with a laser cutter. It seems that because the equal in shape magnets differ in their magnetic properties some kind of a ?superpole? develops when placed in a perfect circle, causing the sticky spot. Thus, to make the magnetic field really homogeneous and symmetric more adjustment of the magnets is needed which may lead to the structure appearing quite non-symmetric.

As an example you may take a look at http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2383887636280790847 where you can probably see that the magnets are not placed symmetrically on both sides of the ramp. The video shows a SMOT which only works if the magnets are adjusted in a certain non-symmetrical fashion. The shown construction, nevertheless, is still not optimized and needs more adjustment. In order for the SMOT to work optimally a lot of tweaking is needed and that does not necessarily mean that the construction will end up being symmetric. It seems that the essence of making a good SMOT (raising the ball to a greater height) and especially of making a closed-loop SMOT is to have a proper construction of the device which would allow for a precise adjustment of the magnets.
Title: Re: SMOT / Heisenberg
Post by: peter_schmalenbach on November 19, 2006, 02:58:52 PM

Could you please cite the source of Heisenberg?s quotation in your post?


Hello Omnibus,

thank you for your reply.

Please search in Google.com "Werner Heisenberg Magnetic Field Energy"  or similar.

http://www.google.de/search?q=Werner+Heisenberg+Magnetic+Field+Energy&btnG=Suche&hl=de&newwindow=1

Best regards
Peter Schmalenbach
Title: Re: SMOT
Post by: Omnibus on November 22, 2006, 07:00:45 AM
@peter_schmalencach,

The only references to Heisenberg regarding the quotations in questions I was able to find were in:

http://www.datadiwan.de/magazin/dz0113e_.htm#impossible

and

http://magneticpowerinc.com/exec.html

These are websites, however, and therefore are unreliable as a source. Do you know of any peer-reviewed publication which might contain these Heisenberg?s words?
Title: Re: SMOT
Post by: peter_schmalenbach on November 22, 2006, 11:10:54 AM
Hi Omnibus,

in this Artikel is noted:

Already around 1950, Nobel prize winner Werner Heisenberg (1901-1976) had said that it should be possible to use magnetism as a source of energy. He added: ?But we science idiots will never make it; it has to be done by outsiders".

More here, but in German:

http://www.google.de/search?hl=de&q=Werner+Heisenberg+Energie+wir+wissenschaftsidioten&btnG=Google-Suche&meta=lr%3Dlang_de

"Dazu geh?ren viele Ger?te, die mit bestimmten Anordnungen von Magneten arbeiten und bisher wenig bekannte Effekte von Magnetfeldern ausnutzen. Bereits Nobelpreistr?ger Werner Heisenberg sagte, es m?sse m?glich sein, den Magnetismus als Energiequelle zu nutzen, wobei er hinzuf?gte: ?Aber wir Wissenschaftsidioten schaffen es nicht; das muss von Aussenseitern kommen?. Dabei wird gem?ss Schneider entweder (a) mechanische Energie in elektrische Energie umgewandelt; (b) durch die Nutzung der Anziehungs- bzw. Abstossungskraft von starken Permanentmagneten mechanische Energie aus dem Magnetfeld erzeugt; (c) direkt elektrische Energie aus rotierenden Magnetfeldern erzeugt (hierher geh?rt die sogenannte ?N-Maschine?); (d) elektrische Energie durch periodische zeitliche oder r?umliche Variation von Magnetfeldern erzeugt (wie in der sogenannten ?Kromrey-Maschine? aus Genf); oder (e) es wird Energie aus dem Vorgang der Ummagnetisierung zur?ckgewonnen (dieses Prinzip ben?tzt z.B. eine Erfindung des Wiener Ingenieurs Franz Seidl)."


Regards
Peter Schmalenbach
Title: Re: SMOT
Post by: Omnibus on November 22, 2006, 11:29:48 AM
@peter_schmalenbach,

Thanks again for the link. Unfortunately, it still appears that this quotation is just an urban legend used by internet enthusiasts to enhance their claims by associating them with a known name. Do you think that thought of Heisenberg can be found in some collected works of his, such as this:

http://libserv.aip.org:81/ipac20/ipac.jsp?uri=full=3100001~!13255~!0&profile=newcustom-aipnbl
Title: Re: SMOT
Post by: sm0ky2 on February 27, 2008, 08:09:58 PM
Update on the SMOT?

Has anyone made a working replication of a Closed-Loop SMOT device?

Title: Re: SMOT
Post by: hartiberlin on April 07, 2008, 01:30:51 PM
All,
have a look at this ramp design.

Also pretty neat for the SMOT:

http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,4428.0.html

You need these 90 degrees iron core pieces to guide the flux away at the ramp?s
end.
Also it helps inside the track to make it more asymmetrical.

Regards, Stefan.
Title: Re: SMOT
Post by: Low-Q on April 08, 2008, 03:31:11 PM
ken i think the reason why it isnt kept on the same plane is that, the ball uses the height of the drop to escape the magnetic field.

As i think otherwise if it was just on a flat plane then the ball would roll past the ends and then get pulled back in.

Kane
when the ball doesn't go upwards, it will have greater speed at the end, and still be able to escape the magnets. The reason why the ball escape at all, is just because the ball is at first released on a spot that is not in balance between attraction of the tracks inside and outside. The escape is therfor already applied by the hand in advance. What a trick ;D

br.

Vidar
Title: Re: SMOT
Post by: Low-Q on April 08, 2008, 03:36:45 PM
All,
have a look at this ramp design.

Also pretty neat for the SMOT:

http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,4428.0.html

You need these 90 degrees iron core pieces to guide the flux away at the ramp?s
end.
Also it helps inside the track to make it more asymmetrical.

Regards, Stefan.
Iron does sure lead the magnetism in another path. That just results in a weaker attraction where it suppose to be an attraction. The result is therfor again at square one.

Br.

Vidar
Title: Re: SMOT
Post by: infringer on April 09, 2008, 05:55:25 AM
you want a magnetic motor I will give you a hint of an idea or epiphany that I had think of a stirling engine or the concept of its power generation then apply that to a magnetic motor if done right bingo magnetic motor untested but in my mind it works while a little dissimalar from stirling in concept it is the same but it would need an inital start and maybe a means to disconnect at a certain speed and let spin perfectly timed think on the order of merry go round if you give it a little tap at the right time in keeps gaining speed untill your hand gets sore, your buddy pukes, or your kid wets his pants :P

It should work give it thought the more I read the more ideas I get... I may elaborate on the idea a bit further if people are interested in testing but will do so in a separate post cause I dont wanna hijack the whole thread.

And no I'm not trying to be cryptic I simply am sickly and need to conserve some brain power for reading or possibly posting on other subjects gotta love them colds!
Title: Re: SMOT
Post by: Low-Q on April 09, 2008, 06:18:26 AM
A motor works because of the magnetic aligments, whitch also alter in a revolution. To alter magnetism mechanicly repuires the same energy as it take to rotate. So the result of a magnetic setup is allways trivial at most.