Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Mechanical free energy devices => mechanic => Topic started by: Latch on September 23, 2013, 09:30:02 PM

Title: Is SMOT an example of overunity??
Post by: Latch on September 23, 2013, 09:30:02 PM
I think so. It seems to take a ball in one kinetic state move it vertically and horizontally then returned to the same kinetic state.
If that is so then why wouldn'ta V-Gate and a DaVince machine should work. It has all the same elements, a ramp, a falling off point, and the magnets to power it.
Title: Re: Is SMOT an example of overunity??
Post by: elecar on September 23, 2013, 09:59:10 PM
If you can loop a SMOT it has to be OU even if it is not producing enough excess energy to run anything but itself, because when you factor in friction and other losses if it is still self running then it is OU.  And nobody can argue otherwise.
Title: Re: Is SMOT an example of overunity??
Post by: happyfunball on September 23, 2013, 10:33:51 PM
A SMOT is no different than picking up a steel ball and dropping it. No OU at all.
Title: Re: Is SMOT an example of overunity??
Post by: LibreEnergia on September 23, 2013, 11:58:12 PM
A SMOT that could self loop would be overunity. However no one has ever produced one that can and theory predicts that they cannot.

There is no arrangement of permanent magnets alone that can give rise to an excess energy over a closed cycle.
Title: Re: Is SMOT an example of overunity??
Post by: Low-Q on September 24, 2013, 01:58:02 PM
I think so. It seems to take a ball in one kinetic state move it vertically and horizontally then returned to the same kinetic state.
If that is so then why wouldn'ta V-Gate and a DaVince machine should work. It has all the same elements, a ramp, a falling off point, and the magnets to power it.
The steelball in a SMOT is moving by natural causes. It is not over unity, and will never be.


Vidar
Title: Re: Is SMOT an example of overunity??
Post by: elecar on September 27, 2013, 12:19:00 AM
Hi LibreEnergia.


happyfunball said  "A SMOT is no different than picking up a steel ball and dropping it. No OU at all."

Low-Q  said   "The steelball in a SMOT is moving by natural causes. It is not over unity, and will never be."


You said "A SMOT that could self loop would be overunity. "
 
I agree with that 100%

You also said  "However no one has ever produced one that can and theory predicts that they cannot."

I disagree because I have produced a self looping "SMOT" however that is the name generally used by people on the FR forums and is not the name I have given mine.

You also said "There is no arrangement of permanent magnets alone that can give rise to an excess energy over a closed cycle."

As above I have done it, and the very fact that it self loops and uses nothing but permanent magnets and gravity means it must be OU when factoring in friction and other losses.

Just look at the comments from happyfunball and LowQ above, a self looping smot is not overunity ? Perhaps they would like to explain what it is then.

I know whats coming and it is why I have been loathe to openly say it on the forums because the next expectation is for me to prove it.
In good time I will but unlike many here I am not here to give my work away for "the common good"
The next thing I will be accused of being a scam artist and what ever else people think will get me to display it. But in order to be a scam artist you have to be asking people for something. And I am NOT asking anyone for anything.
When I have protected my work I promise you I shall reveal it here first.




Title: Re: Is SMOT an example of overunity??
Post by: happyfunball on September 27, 2013, 01:05:13 AM
Hi LibreEnergia.


happyfunball said  "A SMOT is no different than picking up a steel ball and dropping it. No OU at all."

Low-Q  said   "The steelball in a SMOT is moving by natural causes. It is not over unity, and will never be."


You said "A SMOT that could self loop would be overunity. "
 
I agree with that 100%

You also said  "However no one has ever produced one that can and theory predicts that they cannot."

I disagree because I have produced a self looping "SMOT" however that is the name generally used by people on the FR forums and is not the name I have given mine.

You also said "There is no arrangement of permanent magnets alone that can give rise to an excess energy over a closed cycle."

As above I have done it, and the very fact that it self loops and uses nothing but permanent magnets and gravity means it must be OU when factoring in friction and other losses.

Just look at the comments from happyfunball and LowQ above, a self looping smot is not overunity ? Perhaps they would like to explain what it is then.

I know whats coming and it is why I have been loathe to openly say it on the forums because the next expectation is for me to prove it.
In good time I will but unlike many here I am not here to give my work away for "the common good"
The next thing I will be accused of being a scam artist and what ever else people think will get me to display it. But in order to be a scam artist you have to be asking people for something. And I am NOT asking anyone for anything.
When I have protected my work I promise you I shall reveal it here first.

Until you have 'protected your work' and can show it, I will assume you are blatantly lying.
Title: Re: Is SMOT an example of overunity??
Post by: elecar on September 27, 2013, 01:09:14 AM
Hi happyfunball, that is your prerogative. Perhaps though you can explain how a self looping "SMOT" is not overunity.
Title: Re: Is SMOT an example of overunity??
Post by: happyfunball on September 27, 2013, 01:22:23 AM
Hi happyfunball, that is your prerogative. Perhaps though you can explain how a self looping "SMOT" is not overunity.

I didn't claim a looped SMOT wouldn't be overunity.

I stated that a SMOT is not overunity, and therefore cannot be looped.

But of course yours does, though we'll never actually see it.
Title: Re: Is SMOT an example of overunity??
Post by: Magluvin on January 30, 2014, 06:25:01 AM
I found this interesting. If the ball being released is not a magnet, and hopefully the ball exiting is not a magnet, what would keep this from being able to go back and forth, if set up to do so? Other than the magnet getting beat up. ;D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CoHGGZfERE0

http://www.teachersource.com/product/magnetic-accelerator/electricity-magnetism

Mags
Title: Re: Is SMOT an example of overunity??
Post by: Newton II on January 30, 2014, 08:18:12 AM
I found this interesting. If the ball being released is not a magnet, and hopefully the ball exiting is not a magnet, what would keep this from being able to go back and forth, if set up to do so? Other than the magnet getting beat up. ;D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CoHGGZfERE0

http://www.teachersource.com/product/magnetic-accelerator/electricity-magnetism

Mags


Steel ball, when released from height is attracted by the magnet and it hits the magnet with greater force and momentum than under normal gravity.  So the last steel ball on right side  is ejected away from the channel with tremendous speed.

The ejected steel ball if comes back, it cannot hit the magnet with same force becuase this time the magnet is covered by another steel ball on right side which acts as shield and prevents any attractive force on the ball coming towards magnet.  So this arrangement will also make few oscillations and stop as in the case without magnet.

If he uses only one stationary ball with magnet, this ball will be held very tightly with magnet and it will not be ejected out with same force as in the case when two stationary balls are used.

So, in any case this arrangement cannot be made ever colliding perpetual magnetic accelerator!  If it were possible, he would have made it and sold it for 1 billion dollars instead of 29 dollars!!

Title: Re: Is SMOT an example of overunity??
Post by: conradelektro on January 30, 2014, 02:19:25 PM
I know whats coming and it is why I have been loathe to openly say it on the forums because the next expectation is for me to prove it.
In good time I will but unlike many here I am not here to give my work away for "the common good"
The next thing I will be accused of being a scam artist and what ever else people think will get me to display it. But in order to be a scam artist you have to be asking people for something. And I am NOT asking anyone for anything.
When I have protected my work I promise you I shall reveal it here first.

@elcar:

It's fine that you want to protect your work. I have no problem with that.

I even understand your motivation to talk about something you are not willing to prove. You want fame and recognition without giving anything. I also have not problem with that, it is human nature.

But I have a problem with your expectations:

Why would any sane person take you seriously without proof? What do you expect? Should people say and think: "Oh, there is a genius who has done the impossible, let's just believe in him, and let`s forget he does not want to prove it."

In short, the only thing a person gets who is making tall claims without proof is ridicule! Or said differently, if you are not willing to provide proof, shut up till you are willing, whatever you say till then is just useless waffle. There is nothing to discuss.

Greetings, Conrad
Title: Re: Is SMOT an example of overunity??
Post by: TinselKoala on January 30, 2014, 03:19:51 PM
I've demonstrated that it only requires a few _microJoules_ to be replaced for a steel ball to circle "perpetually" around a simple circular track, and I've shown how tiny roughnesses or other losses can wipe this out and cause the ball to stop.

SO, because of _my work_ we know how to make a SMOT testbed, we know how to measure the actual stored GPE from entry ramp height if one is used, we know how to calculate the KE of the ball on-the-fly, we know how to establish a baseline so that we can tell if any gate or magnet arrangement somewhere on the track or entry ramp replaces any of the microJoules of losses around the track. (Actually it is possible to position magnets so that the drag from the _track_ is reduced, but this is paid for by increased drag from the magnets and also eddy currents in the ball itself.)

No magnet arrangement or gate, arranged near the SNOT's circular ramp, produces _any_  overall decrease in drag or provides _any_ of the microJoules of KE that is needed to sustain SNOT's motion..... only pumping energy into it with its electromagnet does. (The JalapeƱos worked pretty well, though   ;)   )

I've demonstrated all of this, making precise measurements of ball velocity and kinetic energy, with under 50 dollars worth of parts and supplies. I do not recall _any_ of the many SMOT builders and testers I've seen who have provided actual measurements of KE and losses like I have done. Nor have I seen a configurable test bed that allows the researchers to conduct _true experiments_  with measurements that can reveal whether their modifications and trials have actually made any improvement over a baseline, known non-OU, condition.

I think this is why elecar has vanished. In the first place he did not have what he claimed to have, and in the second place he sees now how precise measurements can and should be made, and in the third place he probably is still wondering why his great idea still doesn't self-loop, even though it only needs a few microJoules of losses replaced in order to do so.

Also he's probably pretty embarrassed about his faked, looped, video, which was so easily caught out.
Title: Re: Is SMOT an example of overunity??
Post by: Turbo on January 30, 2014, 09:35:20 PM
Thy should not speak o blind koala.
i can wave free energy devices and overunity demonstrations, multiple times, under thy nose without thy even noticing it! so how can thy mingle in a discussion wether a smot is overunity or not if thy does not have the abillity to recognize it in the first place.

I think the only way for thy to notice it is when it bites you in the sense of an electric shock all other things are just commentary it does not matter how many times it will be shown to you one that is blind can not see or so it seems.
Title: Re: Is SMOT an example of overunity??
Post by: TinselKoala on January 30, 2014, 09:42:10 PM
Thy should not speak o blind koala.
i can wave free energy devices and overunity demonstrations, multiple times, under thy nose without thy even noticing it! so how can thy mingle in a discussion wether a smot is overunity or not if thy does not have the abillity to recognize it in the first place.

I think the only way for thy to notice it is when it bites you in the sense of an electric shock all other things are just commentary it does not matter how many times it will be shown to you one that is blind can not see or so it seems.

Contrariwise, Turbot. It is thou who cannot realize that thy construction is in no way unusual or even interesting, much less OU in any way. Go ahead, try me. Wave some overunity demonstrations under my nose and let's see just what I do notice. For one thing... I notice that you are hanging out here, instead of being out becoming filthy rich from your ideas.

I've demonstrated how to test a SMOT gate or ramp of any configuration to see if it produces gains or not. Refute that, if you can. It would be a simple matter for one of your alleged skills to construct a track of your own, based on my design or your own design, so that you could actually compare performance of various SMOT style gates and ramps. I've done so.... and I've shown my work. Where is your demonstration of a SMOT gate that produces a gain in energy? Where are your solid, repeatable instrumental measurements showing OU?  Did I miss it, since I'm so blind to what's under my nose? I don't think so.
Title: Re: Is SMOT an example of overunity??
Post by: onthecuttingedge2005 on January 31, 2014, 12:55:38 AM
Try making a steel cored Gyro instead of a steel ball for the track, the outer equator of the gyro stores Kinetic energy more efficiently. make sure the outer part of the gyro is not magnetic but of decent weight.
Title: Re: Is SMOT an example of overunity??
Post by: Turbo on January 31, 2014, 07:58:57 AM
Contrariwise, Turbot. It is thou who cannot realize that thy construction is in no way unusual or even interesting, much less OU in any way.


First of all, it is not mine construction.

Second, it is unusual.

Third, it is definitely interesting.

Fourth, it is OU.

That's four in a row...


Go ahead, try me. Wave some overunity demonstrations under my nose and let's see just what I do notice.


But i already did, multiple times.
I can not say what you notice, only what you did NOT notice.
Because you did not notice, which is what i said from the beginning.
All you say is go ahead do it and try me bla bla blah whilst in the meantime it has gone under your nose several times it is actually a bit funny it makes me laugh.


I notice that you are hanging out here, instead of being out becoming filthy rich from your ideas. 


This you CAN NOT notice, simply because you do not know anything about me or about the possibilities of becoming filthy rich.
So sorry, but you are definitely pulling your own and meaningless conclusions out of thin air here and you know it.


 I've demonstrated how to test a SMOT gate or ramp of any configuration to see if it produces gains or not. Refute that, if you can.


I won't, i know it's not in a SMOT and i fully agree with what you said it's just that you are always talking about non OU devices and principles which i think is a waste of time, whilst you could write about true and working system, like i do.
Title: Re: Is SMOT an example of overunity??
Post by: truesearch on January 31, 2014, 03:26:56 PM
@Turbo:


I hope that you really have a design that "self-loops". However, we have been strung along by quite a few people that never came through with anything and that makes us very skeptical. . .


It would seem that this argument could be easily won by you IF you can share a design that some of us (including TK) could duplicate.


Wishing you the best  :)


truesearch
Title: Re: Is SMOT an example of overunity??
Post by: mscoffman on February 01, 2014, 06:46:37 PM
@Turbo,


Let me guess;  - Schumann Resonance?


It might be interesting, but then it would not be fair.   :D