Author Topic: Building a self looping "SMOT" (Read 298174 times)

norman6538 · « **Reply #180 on:** October 17, 2013, 01:48:50 AM »

Quote from: elecar on October 17, 2013, 12:22:34 AM

Hi Norman, I changed the track a bit, I have run aluminum rod through the center, but have still not found a satisfactory way to space the rails. The friction needs to be much lower than I am able to get from the pipes, but I shall persevere with it until I have to admit defeat.
I managed to get it to loop which is an improvement on the 50mm I was short on the first replication. Not anything to get overly excited about ATM but I hope to improve it further still.
Well anyway, 2 rotations of the track is more than anyone here has ever produced or even seen.

I shall attempt to add the video here on this post so it is "PRESERVED" for the know it all.

WOW - that is excellent elecar. I have my work cut out for me. To space the two tubes I
drilled two holes in a piece of wood then cut lengthwise so there was half a hole and
it might take two or three cuttings to get the right distance so the ball does not
drop and touch the board. I have holes every inch and that gives me some wiggle room
and then I put a piece of paper under the ball to make sure it never pinched the paper.

thanks elecar.......
Now will the naysayers please shut up and go away......

Now it is important to replicate this... My magnet setup is way to small...

Norman

powercat · « **Reply #181 on:** October 17, 2013, 02:34:07 AM »

Quote from: JouleSeeker on October 17, 2013, 01:45:18 AM

The usual scenario is unfolding, the builders say it might work because one builder has seen it-- after much work and trial-and-error he has seen a model loop for a number of times. He is working on to produce a continuous self-running replication. And other builders are jumping in to try to help.

Meanwhile, the skeptics (really, pseudo-skeptics) say it is impossible and they resort to attacking any builder who says it might work. well I'm very sorry but I cannot see how cheap pot-shots on the builders are going to get us to something that will run my home; certainly the belief or faith of the pseudo-skeptics does not help us get to the reality of a device that actually works.

So the pseudo-skeptics should stop wasting their time attacking builders that challenge pseudo-skeptics' claims that it cannot possibly work, and allow the builders to get on with replication.

Meanwhile the pseudo-skeptics have no credibility sitting back and taking cheap pot-shots.

History says enough, you're eight times over unity thread was a huge disappointment, why don't you just tell the truth in the beginning that you're doing experiments and hoping for promising results instead of making claims that you cannot match and neither can anybody else,
all that happens in the long run is more people think that everyone on this forum is a scam artist or a liar. so many threads over the years with somebody claiming they have done it, but every time they say it nobody can ever successfully replicate their claim, Show me I'm wrong, show me the self looping device that actually works as claimed.

I really do hope this device works, but hearing the familiar excuses why the working model can't be shown and the lack of successful replications sounds like history repeating itself, and attacking skeptics for suggesting it doesn't work is hardly going to help the situation, but feel free to carry on regardless.

Newton II · « **Reply #182 on:** October 17, 2013, 07:18:44 AM »

Quote from: elecar on October 08, 2013, 10:46:14 PM

...... in the meantime I will be happy to answer any questions.....

I have got one question.

Basic property of any OU device is that its output energy should go up with every completed cycle especially when the loop is closed and should reach some maximum value depending on various constants.

In this case the energy of ball hence velocity of ball should go up with the completion of every cycle and after few cycles it should become uncontrollable and should move up and fall out of straight portion of the track. Are you proposing any brake for it? I didnot see any blocking plate at the end of the track in your diagram.

I think in olden days when people were designing perpetual machines, they were proposing brakes for the machines because if output energy becomes uncontrollable the machine may break and parts may fly all over the place causing injury.

JouleSeeker · « **Reply #183 on:** October 17, 2013, 07:44:27 AM »

Quote from: powercat on October 17, 2013, 02:34:07 AM

History says enough, you're eight times over unity thread was a huge disappointment, why don't you just tell the truth in the beginning that you're doing experiments and hoping for promising results instead of making claims that you cannot match and neither can anybody else,
all that happens in the long run is more people think that everyone on this forum is a scam artist or a liar. so many threads over the years with somebody claiming they have done it, but every time they say it nobody can ever successfully replicate their claim, Show me I'm wrong, show me the self looping device that actually works as claimed.

Because of my experience with research through the years, the ups and downs, dead-ends and windy paths, I did not find the "eight times" thread a disappointment. Even the title of it ended with a question mark "?" , and that work continues. That research continues, but I'm not talking much about it here.

I attended ICCF-18 in July 2013 at the University of Missouri. (International Conference on Cold Fusion - 18) And presented some of my recent results, and discussed these with colleagues there. The work continues.

And YES - most of my colleagues there face naysayers and complainers. Yet we continue, despite the cheap pot-shots of the naysayers.

My own claims back in 1989 have been experimentally verified, but that required YEARS.

Much more remains to be understood. That is the nature of research.

powercat · « **Reply #184 on:** October 17, 2013, 10:34:11 AM »

JouleSeeker, I'm not doubting your capabilities but the 8 x OU thread was disappointing because we didn't even end up with 1 x OU, that is my point, exaggerating and making grand claims that end up with no over-unity give this community a bad name.

LibreEnergia · « **Reply #185 on:** October 17, 2013, 12:46:49 PM »

Quote from: norman6538 on October 17, 2013, 01:48:50 AM

WOW - that is excellent elecar. I have my work cut out for me. To space the two tubes I
drilled two holes in a piece of wood then cut lengthwise so there was half a hole and
it might take two or three cuttings to get the right distance so the ball does not
drop and touch the board. I have holes every inch and that gives me some wiggle room
and then I put a piece of paper under the ball to make sure it never pinched the paper.

thanks elecar.......
Now will the naysayers please shut up and go away......

Now it is important to replicate this... My magnet setup is way to small...

Norman

No, the naysayers are not going away because all we see is deception presented as fact and people fall for it time and again.

The video presented by 'elecar' is in this category. Sure the device completes a single loop but I'm very suspicious of the editing at the beginning of the clip. The hand placing the ball could easily have imparted some kinetic energy to the ball to allow it to complete a rotation.

How about posting a clip which shows the balls being placed carefully into position and starting with a stationary ball, to eliminate that as a factor.

ramset · « **Reply #186 on:** October 17, 2013, 12:54:51 PM »

Powercat
I suppose that the sceptic is the much easier path to take for folks who love to win ....
you get to polk and jab from the arm of the old wooden chair and never have to worry about "your reputation" or looking like a looser
its is so very Brave and safe!

you can pull all manner of examples from your posterior and fling them at will whilst quoting "for the good of the community" !!

sigh ..............

I actually find this behavior Bizzare and a bit Insane [dillusional]
to sit in a forum where no one has ever shared a working OU device {EVER} and take this stand in this thread ??

screwy!!

I have nothing but Grattitude for men like Jouleseeker ,he does much more for this planet then the people who sit on their Butt's and throw stones at the fish in the barrel from their lofty perch's.

And I suppose Being completely anonymous whilst throwing stones at Known persons must really be Fun................

Thx
Chet

happyfunball · « **Reply #187 on:** October 17, 2013, 01:24:24 PM »

Quote from: LibreEnergia on October 17, 2013, 12:46:49 PM

No, the naysayers are not going away because all we see is deception presented as fact and people fall for it time and again.

The video presented by 'elecar' is in this category. Sure the device completes a single loop but I'm very suspicious of the editing at the beginning of the clip. The hand placing the ball could easily have imparted some kinetic energy to the ball to allow it to complete a rotation.

How about posting a clip which shows the balls being placed carefully into position and starting with a stationary ball, to eliminate that as a factor.

There is no indication at all of pushing in this video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=--3rugO_RMg&feature=youtu.be

Maybe you're hallucinating

elecar · « **Reply #188 on:** October 17, 2013, 01:31:13 PM »

Quote from: Newton II on October 17, 2013, 07:18:44 AM

I have got one question.

Basic property of any OU device is that its output energy should go up with every completed cycle especially when the loop is closed and should reach some maximum value depending on various constants.

In this case the energy of ball hence velocity of ball should go up with the completion of every cycle and after few cycles it should become uncontrollable and should move up and fall out of straight portion of the track. Are you proposing any brake for it? I didnot see any blocking plate at the end of the track in your diagram.

I think in olden days when people were designing perpetual machines, they were proposing brakes for the machines because if output energy becomes uncontrollable the machine may break and parts may fly all over the place causing injury.

I will assume this is a serious question. Firstly I have not and still do not claim overunity . There is no deliberately fitted brake, however if you watch the video of the replication of Normans track you will see the ball being sucked into the magnet array and then rolling out of the array down the ramp. As the ball hits the end of the ramp you see the ball momentarily slow as it exits, because the magnets are still working against the ball. Just not with the same value as gravity.
Do not worry Newton, the fabric of the universe will stay intact, a little steel ball doing some circuits of a track will leave that track if it travels to fast and will come to a stop when it hits the floor.

powercat · « **Reply #189 on:** October 17, 2013, 01:33:54 PM »

Quote from: ramset on October 17, 2013, 12:54:51 PM

I suppose that the sceptic is the much easier path to take for folks who love to win ....
you get to polk and jab from the arm of the old wooden chair and never have to worry about "your reputation" or looking like a looser
its is so very Brave and safe!

you can pull all manner of examples from your posterior and fling them at will whilst quoting "for the good of the community" !!

sigh ..............

I actually find this behavior Bizzare and a bit Insane [dillusional]
to sit in a forum where no one has ever shared a working OU device {EVER} and take this stand in this thread ??

screwy!!

I have nothing but Grattitude for men like Jouleseeker ,he does much more for this planet then the people who sit on their Butt's and throw stones at the fish in the barrel from their lofty perch's.

Thx
Chet

You still don't get it, I'm complaining about people making claims they cannot support and that includes exaggerating and lying or misinterpreting measurements, they are many good threads on here where over-unity, self-running is a goal, not something that had been already achieved , come on show me the thread that says "I've done it" and they have ?

For your information I have done experiments on this forum okay not recently, But attacking me for not getting involved is typical of believers when a claim can't be proved, so instead of attacking, why not do the experiment yourself ?

The whole point of science is being able to prove what you say with facts.

happyfunball · « **Reply #190 on:** October 17, 2013, 01:39:24 PM »

Quote from: elecar on October 17, 2013, 01:31:13 PM

I will assume this is a serious question. Firstly I have not and still do not claim overunity . There is no deliberately fitted brake, however if you watch the video of the replication of Normans track you will see the ball being sucked into the magnet array and then rolling out of the array down the ramp. As the ball hits the end of the ramp you see the ball momentarily slow as it exits, because the magnets are still working against the ball. Just not with the same value as gravity.
Do not worry Newton, the fabric of the universe will stay intact, a little steel ball doing some circuits of a track will leave that track if it travels to fast and will come to a stop when it hits the floor.

Question: if, as you said, the actual device loops continuously for hours, do you at least claim 'unity,' not factoring in friction?

Thanks

elecar · « **Reply #191 on:** October 17, 2013, 01:48:59 PM »

Quote from: happyfunball on October 17, 2013, 01:24:24 PM

There is no indication at all of pushing in this video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=--3rugO_RMg&feature=youtu.be

Maybe you're hallucinating

Hi happyfunball, the simple fact is no matter how I present any of my findings the skeptics will always have the same collection of reasons as to why it did what it did. I imparted potential energy into the system by placing the ball into with my hand.

I have shown every single step of how the effect works, I am doing my best to try and replicate it here. I have shown a ball roll into a magnet array, be lifted higher than it started and roll back out of that array. I have shown that it can even do it when the ball starts at a lower level than the ramp.
I have shown in the replication of Normans track, the ball get pulled into the ramp in the middle of the array (4mm higher than it was when I placed it in front of the array. It then rolls down the ramp, escapes the magnetic field and makes its way back toward the beginning.

happyfunball · « **Reply #192 on:** October 17, 2013, 02:03:55 PM »

Quote from: elecar on October 17, 2013, 01:48:59 PM

Hi happyfunball, the simple fact is no matter how I present any of my findings the skeptics will always have the same collection of reasons as to why it did what it did. I imparted potential energy into the system by placing the ball into with my hand.

I have shown every single step of how the effect works, I am doing my best to try and replicate it here. I have shown a ball roll into a magnet array, be lifted higher than it started and roll back out of that array. I have shown that it can even do it when the ball starts at a lower level than the ramp.
I have shown in the replication of Normans track, the ball get pulled into the ramp in the middle of the array (4mm higher than it was when I placed it in front of the array. It then rolls down the ramp, escapes the magnetic field and makes its way back toward the beginning.

I'm not asking you to show any more or assuage the professional skeptics. I'm simply asking if you feel the actual device, as you describe, would at least be considered 'unity.'

elecar · « **Reply #193 on:** October 17, 2013, 02:03:56 PM »

Hi powercat, I really do not mind the skeptics taking part in the thread, I do take exception to being called a scam, fraud, liar when those skeptics have not even given me enough opportunity to show the effect working.
I have never asked anyone here for anything, I have already said it, but not now and not in the future. There is nothing here for sale.
Yeah I will attack idiots with the same vigor they attack me, I mean TK I kind of understand because I dared call him out when he was leading the attacks on an elderly lady and stalking her, purely for his own gratification.
Watch the pattern Powercat, TK makes a comment and then his minions feel brave enough to step into the affray.

But more importantly watch how they never concede any ground even when they are shown they are wrong. Remember I asked you to dare to state whether the ball performed better with or without the magnets ?

Now show me where the 2 cretins gave any ground ? you can not and will not be able to, because the only reply from one of them on that matter was simply an attempt at moving the goal post and changing "what they meant"
They are not here for anything but their own gratification, heck, they do not even believe OU is possible. Think about that powercat, I hate golf, I think its a waste of time....... So guess what kind of forum I wont be joining !!

elecar · « **Reply #194 on:** October 17, 2013, 02:29:47 PM »

Hi happyfunball, I am not a scientist, I barely understand the concept of CoE or 2LOT, I played with magnets trying to get a conventional SMOT to work, I was inspired by Bills videos. During the course of trying it out I noticed strange (to me) behaviour when one side of the magnet array was removed. I toyed with it until I got the ball to rise to the top of the ramp and then roll back out of the ramp whilst still in the magnetic field.
I do not know what it is classed as, I tried to find out by posing a question on another thread which disintegrated in pretty much the same way as this one.

Here is my take as best as I can describe and my own understanding. The magnets can "pull" the ball up a ramp.
The ball is able to reverse and escape the field of that ramp from a height greater than it started. So in this case magnets = up - gravity = down.
All the threads I ever read said pretty much the same thing, " a smot can not be looped because the ball always leaves the ramp at a height equal to or lower than the point it started."
That was not what I was experiencing when using the effect instead of the conventional smot ramp with 2 arrays.
One thing I can tell you is that when making any application you must steer clear of OU or perpetual because it will not even be entertained. And that is why I have never and still do not claim either.

News:

User Menu

Author Topic: Building a self looping "SMOT" (Read 298174 times)

norman6538

Re: Building a self looping "SMOT"

powercat

Re: Building a self looping "SMOT"

Newton II

Re: Building a self looping "SMOT"

JouleSeeker

Re: Building a self looping "SMOT"

powercat

Re: Building a self looping "SMOT"

LibreEnergia

Re: Building a self looping "SMOT"

ramset

Re: Building a self looping "SMOT"

happyfunball

Re: Building a self looping "SMOT"

elecar

Re: Building a self looping "SMOT"

powercat

Re: Building a self looping "SMOT"

happyfunball

Re: Building a self looping "SMOT"

elecar

Re: Building a self looping "SMOT"

happyfunball

Re: Building a self looping "SMOT"

elecar

Re: Building a self looping "SMOT"

elecar

Re: Building a self looping "SMOT"