Storing Cookies (See : http://ec.europa.eu/ipg/basics/legal/cookies/index_en.htm ) help us to bring you our services at overunity.com . If you use this website and our services you declare yourself okay with using cookies .More Infos here:
https://overunity.com/5553/privacy-policy/
If you do not agree with storing cookies, please LEAVE this website now. From the 25th of May 2018, every existing user has to accept the GDPR agreement at first login. If a user is unwilling to accept the GDPR, he should email us and request to erase his account. Many thanks for your understanding

User Menu

Custom Search

Author Topic: Building a self looping "SMOT"  (Read 296265 times)

MileHigh

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7600
Re: Building a self looping "SMOT"
« Reply #300 on: October 27, 2013, 08:36:24 AM »
Some colour commentary.

Perhaps that example of the old trick of putting a magnet under the table attracting and catching a metal ball that's rolling around on the top of the table is easier to look at.  That's identical to the ball rolling up the ramp and assuming no hole to fall through, it ends up stuck at the center of the "sticky spot."  In both cases you end up with the metal ball stuck in the center of the "sticky spot."

In both cases above the ball is now at the bottom of a magnetic potential energy well.  It's in its lowest potential energy state and you have to do physical work to move it from that spot.  As you move the ball away from the center spot you do work to make it move.  The energy you expend to make the ball move becomes the magnetic potential energy of the ball.

People must understand this concept to understand why the two inclined tracks in the video clip will never work.  For people that are getting it, they should be starting to see the light.  With the inclined tracks at right angles you lose most of the kinetic energy that is in the ball when it gets to the end of the track.  That leaves the metal ball at the bottom of a potential energy well, and no magic source of energy to get it out of the well.

Like I originally stated, when the ball drops through the hole at the end of the track it simply leaves the magnetic environment entirely.  The second track may as well be 10 feet below, it's a separate track with it's own magnetic environment that has almost no relation to the first track's magnetic environment.

MileHigh

MileHigh

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7600
Re: Building a self looping "SMOT"
« Reply #301 on: October 27, 2013, 08:51:30 AM »
Chet, TK:

That JL Naudin experiment is absolutely wretched.  I hate these moments when people that are supposed to have credibility in the realm of free energy produce junk.  The problems with significant figures and eyeballing distances are irrelevant - the experiment is totally flawed, pure junk that doesn't even make sense.  I may post about it in a day or two.  The sad thing is I am probably not going to be the first one that has mentioned these issues but people will keep on referring to it in the future.  I bet you nearly nobody will even acknowledge it when I explain how bad things are.

Tinman:

Quote
So to have a SMOT work in a loop,would not violate any laws of physics. What it would mean,is we have worked out how to use the energy stored within the magnet.

This is an incorrect statement.  The notion of "using the energy stored in a magnet" until the magnet "runs dry" is pure fiction and I know many people believe it.  If you can understand my previous postings about the ramp experiment you will be making progress.  It's important to understand the energy dynamics of magnets if you are going to try to make a SMOT, which should really be called a SMUT, but that's a bad word acronym.

MileHigh



tinman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5365
Re: Building a self looping "SMOT"
« Reply #302 on: October 27, 2013, 10:28:10 AM »
Chet, TK:


Tinman:

This is an incorrect statement.  The notion of "using the energy stored in a magnet" until the magnet "runs dry" is pure fiction and I know many people believe it.  If you can understand my previous postings about the ramp experiment you will be making progress.  It's important to understand the energy dynamics of magnets if you are going to try to make a SMOT, which should really be called a SMUT, but that's a bad word acronym.

MileHigh
MH
We will have to agree to disagree on this. What is to say my understanding of magnets and there properties is incorrect,and yours is correct.
Do a simple test,like i stated above. Take a PM DC motor,and replace the PM's with blocks of iron or steel of the same size and shap as the PM's. The motor will have less power output than it had with the PM's in place. So where dose that extra energy come from when the PM's are used in the motor,when useing the same P/in as we did with the iron blocks?

I also dissagree with your statement that a steel ball is never repelled by magnetic field's-as i know through experiments that this is not true. When a steel ball is placed between two magnets with like fields facing each other,the steel ball is pushed out of that field,as the ball carries the field of the magnetic poles closest to it. So now we have 3 like fields all apposing each other. As the two PM's are fixed in position,and cannot move,the ball that can move is forced away from the magnets-i have done the test that show this very clearly. It is the same as placing a steel bolt on one end of a magnet-we know the bolt will carry that field.

In time you will see why i stand by what i believe to be true,as not all has been shown yet.

JouleSeeker

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 685
Re: Building a self looping "SMOT"
« Reply #303 on: October 27, 2013, 01:16:07 PM »
Tinman:
Quote
I also dissagree with your statement that a steel ball is never repelled by magnetic field's-as i know through experiments that this is not true. When a steel ball is placed between two magnets with like fields facing each other,the steel ball is pushed out of that field,as the ball carries the field of the magnetic poles closest to it. So now we have 3 like fields all apposing each other. As the two PM's are fixed in position,and cannot move,the ball that can move is forced away from the magnets-i have done the test that show this very clearly.

Thanks for these experiments, Tinman.  As always, "experiment always trumps theory".
That's how we find out, through experiments.

ramset

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8073
Re: Building a self looping "SMOT"
« Reply #304 on: October 27, 2013, 01:27:13 PM »
TinMan
 
The credibility that an actual experimenter [Like yourself] brings to the table is priceless.
 
Just a few of the experimental observations you have mentioned in the last few posts on this topic would seem able to manifest  something the world has never seen ?
 
TK
Quote
I'll bet Chet won't award his prize to me..........
 
------------------
Its not "Chets Prize" !
All manner of men will be contributing ,One group in particular
"The League of extraordinarily Benevolent But terrible businessmen "  Is still on the fence,
if they get involved the prize could go through the roof.
 
and  yes Tinsel of course you would be awarded a prize,as a show of good faith I bear gifts for you.
 
thx
Chet
 

Newton II

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 309
Re: Building a self looping "SMOT"
« Reply #305 on: October 27, 2013, 01:52:53 PM »

..... When a steel ball is placed between two magnets with like fields facing each other,the steel ball is pushed out of that field....



I think the above siad  principle is made use of in repulsive smot. 

http://magnetmotor.go-here.nl/smot/text/


Quote:


REPULSIVE SMOT

"The repulsive SMOT is some what less powerful and less popular. The ball rolls up the ramp while being attracted to the 2 rows of magnets. This causes the ball to become a magnet it self. As both sides of the ramp are of the same polarity both sides of the ball will become the same other polarity. The ball being slightly magnetized at the beginning of the ramp has 2 north poles and 2 south poles. BUT when it moves up the ramp the field intensity increases the flux grows exponential (the ball is even moving) So in stead of 4 poles the ball now becomes a magnet with only 2. This causes the attraction at one side of the ball to fail and allows for a time window where the ball may drop out of the fields"

End of quote.


I think his explanation is wrong.  4 poles cannot become 2poles.   2 like poles will be concentrated (compressed) at the  centre of the ball which will be stronger than 2 single poles on the circumferance of the ball.  Hence ball will be repelled out of ramp magnetic field.







TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13958
Re: Building a self looping "SMOT"
« Reply #306 on: October 27, 2013, 02:17:44 PM »
@tinman:
Why do the inaccuracies always go in favor of the overunity claims? Because inaccurate "results" that don't support the claims aren't reported! You and I can both point to many cases of claims of OU and poor measurements... when the measurements get better the degree of OU gets smaller and smaller, until the best measurements reveal that there was no OU there from the beginning. And the same thing has been done with SMOT ramps already. Perform accurate measurements, ensure that you are not adding any energy with Mister Hand by positioning things at the start... and the overunity measurements always..._always_... go away, disappearing into the noise.
We can also both point to many cases where JLN has "replicated" some claims and found OU. But he is still running his home and lab on the national electric grid, from nuclear power in France, the very dirtiest and unsafest form of electrical power generation there is.
Next, you are wrong about the energy used to magnetize a PM. It is quite small, compared to the energy needed to keep even a simple SMOT going for any substantial amount of time. Further, once a NdBFe magnet is magnetized, there isn't much that will demag it, other than high heat or exposure to a similarly strong demagnetizing pulse. I know of no motor that actually runs by demagnetizing its magnets. Do you?
Next, your example of replacing magnets in electric motors with iron blocks itself disproves your point. If the "extra power" was coming from the magnets, from the energy used to magnetize them, it would soon run out. I have little electric motors (in my helicopters and airplanes) that run very strongly, have done so for years, and aren't getting any weaker. The presence of the magnets is like the presence of a hard track for a runner. Put the runner on sand or mud and see how fast she runs, then put her on a solid track and compare the difference. Is the difference due to the stored energy in the track? Does the track lose its stored energy as runners run across it? No, it is because the track provides a solid surface for the runner's muscles to react against. Same with magnets in motors: without them the electric field from the coils is largely wasted.

@Chet:
Your offer of a prize as incentive to work on SMOT self-looping is done in good faith, I know... but it is a cynical and safe bet nevertheless. First.... doesn't elecar already claim to have what you are offering your prize for? Check the first page of this thread. I don't think you should offer a prize until elecar either shows that his claims are true, or withdraws them.  But regardless.... your prize money is safe. Heck, I'll even pledge ten bucks to the prize fund myself..... because I know two things: the task is impossible so the money is safe, and anything that would win the prize money is worth BILLIONS and would turn conventional physics on its head.
Your offer of a prize is going to make some people dig in even deeper, spinning their wheels, buying magnets and ramp material, wasting their time with a true obsession. Plus, there are already several large prizes out there that would easily be won by such a device. Hal Puthoff's "one watt challenge" would be easy to win, just set up your SMOT and let it run. Each cycle it will be producing some milliWatts of excess power... or it would not keep running, making little sounds and pushing air out of the way (not to mention eddy current losses, etc.) So let it run a thousand cycles: there's your one or more Watts of excess power. Stefan Hartmann's Overunity Prize would also be easy to win with a self-looping SMOT.
But it will never happen. Are any of the researchers here going to try more things, more configurations than, say, Howard Johnson did?  Finsrud has never applied for any overunity prizes with his clockwork sculpture, that should tell you something right there.

Your "beating a dead horse" cartoon is very apt, because that is just what SMOT builders are doing. Now you are offering a prize for someone to beat the dead horse back to life. It ain't gonna happen, but people will beat and beat, using bigger and more expensive clubs.... that horse is staying dead.

ramset

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8073
Re: Building a self looping "SMOT"
« Reply #307 on: October 27, 2013, 02:58:33 PM »
TK
I like the Drop ,{Elecar said the Noise got to him after a while] I think a trap can be set for the ball as it approaches the top of an array [MUCH higher than 35mm].
 
OR a high ramp which hooks straight down at the end ?
 
Tinsel you are not the only one who is allowed to have fun around here ,this whole concept would make a wonderful "Toy" and as you stated it would change the world.
regarding costs ? Ceramic magnets can be harvested from amy number of things for free [speakers]....
 
BTW The little Gift was not meant to imply anything derogatory towards you,it's just
Funny and I hope it made you laugh.
 
Thx
Chet

Newton II

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 309
Re: Building a self looping "SMOT"
« Reply #308 on: October 27, 2013, 03:41:30 PM »

 .....anything that would win the prize money is worth BILLIONS and would turn conventional physics on its head......


I don't think that invention of a PMM would turn the conventional physics on its head -  It might only open a new branch in physics.  Because we have infinite number of machines infront of us which work confirming to the law of conservation of energy and laws of thermodynamics.   

If a PMM is ever invented,  it might divide conventional physics into two main branches :

1)  Systems in which energy is conserved -  Newtonian Mechanics

2)  Systems in which energy is created  -  Overunity SMOTics





MileHigh

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7600
Re: Building a self looping "SMOT"
« Reply #309 on: October 27, 2013, 05:56:11 PM »
Tinman:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MEOit3ff4Hg

In the case of the ramps in the Michael Q Shaw video clip the metal balls are being drawn into an increasingly strong magnetic field as they roll up the ramp.  If there was no hole in the track the moving ball would come to a stop at the top of the track.  At that point the ball will resist moving in either direction.  That's the bottom of the magnetic potential energy well.

It doesn't even matter if you think the ball might be pushed or pulled when you look at the energy.  The only thing that counts is the magnitude and direction of the force.  They are the same in both cases and the force is always in the direction of the bottom of the well.

Look at the table example.  Imagine you have a big magnet under the table and you are looking at the trapped metal ball on the table.  The ball is at the bottom of the potential energy well caused by the magnet.  If you had a strain gauge and a setup to pull on the ball, in small steps you could measure the force x displacement required to move the ball away from the sticky spot.  You could imagine drawing concentric circles around the sticky spot.  One circle could be labeled the "One Joule" line.  That means it takes one joule of mechanical work to move the ball from the center of the sticky spot to any point on that circle.  A larger circle could be the "Two Joule" circle and so on.   Do you see what you would be doing?  You would be mapping out the magnetic potential energy well caused by the magnet under the table.

The ramp segment is fundamentally the same energy system as the magnet under the table.   In both cases the ball is drawn to the center of a magnetic potential energy well.  It's like the ball is rolling down a hill into a hole and settling at the bottom.  In this case it's an invisible "magnetic hole" but it is just as real in terms of energy analysis as a real hole.

So each track is a magnetic potential energy well that the ball "falls" into.   So that means when you get to the end of the first track, you can't just "hitch a ride" on the next track and continue moving forward.  Your starting position is at the bottom of a well.  If you are following along, you realize that your destination is another potential energy well.  In fact all four corners of a completed four-track system will be potential energy wells.  You can think of all four corners having the gravitational cricket balls.  It would be the same deal, each cricket ball in a corner would be the bottom of a gravitational potential energy well.  In simple terms, there are four sticky spots and each sticky spot pulls balls towards the center.

So think of the operation:  The ball rolls up the first ramp.  It's now supposed to "hitch a ride" on the second ramp to continue on it's journey.  You know that the second ramp is supposed to do the same thing as the first ramp.  But what many people are forgetting, is that the ball has to be pulled out of the well.  The ball is in a sticky spot and that sticky spot is very close to the ball itself, as opposed to the second ramp which wants you to keep rolling downhill into a new potential energy well.  It's not going to happen because the ball is trapped in the much closer well.

So that's why this setup will never work.  You are making the mistake of seeing a ball fall into a magnetic potential energy well and thinking that that means that magnets are a source of energy.  It's almost like seeing water fall in a power dam and thinking that gravity is the source of the energy.  The real answer of course is that the Sun is the source of energy because it lifted the water.  In cases of the these magnetic systems, it's more often "Mr. Hand" that is the source of the energy.

The thing to think about is that this example can be applied almost anywhere.  Whenever you see two magnets interacting or a magnet and metal interacting you can be conscious of the magnetic potential energy available, and where the magnetic potential energy wells are in any system.  This doesn't even have to do with the magnetic fields themselves, just the energy effects of the magnetic fields.

MileHigh
« Last Edit: October 27, 2013, 09:21:13 PM by MileHigh »

MileHigh

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7600
Re: Building a self looping "SMOT"
« Reply #310 on: October 27, 2013, 06:08:14 PM »
Going back to the imaginary setup with the four tracks.  At the end of the of the track the ball changes direction and you lose most of the kinetic energy in the ball.  That kinetic energy was your only hope of getting out of the local potential energy well.  So without any kinetic energy available the ball gets stuck in the potential energy well.

What that means is that if you built all four tracks and set it up perfectly, the thing would not work at all.  There is just no way.  There is a magnetic potential energy well at each corner, and when the ball falls into the well it loses most of its kinetic energy and you are done.   Will all four tracks there is no fist track to "launch" from like where you see the girl in the clip placing balls in the "starting gate."  The "launching" process is killed because, one more time, the "starting gate" is very close to the bottom of a magnetic potential energy well.  The ball will be stuck in the "starting gate" for the real build and resist being moved at all.

MileHigh

TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13958
Re: Building a self looping "SMOT"
« Reply #311 on: October 27, 2013, 06:55:11 PM »
@MH: You are describing the situation very "well".
And if you think about it a bit more you will see, from your description, why Magnetic Potential Energy, and also gravitational PE, are _negative_ values, with the "zero" being in the wells you describe, and more and more _negative_ values the further away you get, with maximum _negative_ PE at infinite distance from the magnet or the gravitating body like the Earth. SMOT builders do not realize that the "well" with the ball stuck to the magnets, or deep inside the "well", is actually the _starting position_, and energy must be supplied, doing work, to get the ball out of this position. You need to put work in, to get the ball further away from the magnet or the planet. This is the only work that is returned when you release the ball in the _more negative_ PE position farther away. This is also why you can set your "zero" value of PE at some arbitrary location. (What is the PE of a ball dropping from a table to a floor... on the 56th floor of a skyscraper?)

We often talk as though PE is a positive value... and in the sense that it takes work to "store" the PE in the object's position, you can think of it that way.... but you will eventually fool yourself into thinking that you can get energy out that you didn't put there in the first place if you continue to think that way.

Why is PE negative:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/pegrav.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potential_energy
http://capone.mtsu.edu/phys2010/Lectures/Part_3__L12_-_L17/Lecture_11/Potential_Energy/potential_energy.html
and many many more.

@Chet:
You have a funny definition of "fun"!  It amuses me greatly to see people like elecar making his claims and stirring up a fuss without providing any proof at all of his claims. But is it fun to beat your head against the wall, trying to get blood out of the stones? Apparently so, for some people.

Bothered by the noise of his perpetual motion machine? Aww... cue tiny violins playing sad music. I do believe that I could put up with even the sound of a perpetual jackhammer, long enough to make a video proving it works as I claim it does. Earplugs! But that's just me.  If all you require as "proof" of a self looping SMOT is for someone to claim he's got one.... I call that religious faith, not a scientific attitude.

Don't you remember Wayne Travis, with all his engineers and big machines and two visits from Mark Dansie? He couldn't meet the objections on this forum, couldn't demonstrate his claims, and finally asked for his thread to be closed, with great insults to all his critics. And now he's in full on damage control mode, being sued by early investors and trying to find someone to buy out all the others before they sue him too, because he cannot produce a self running machine like he claimed to. That's what happens when you substitute religious faith for real scientific scepticism.



mondrasek

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1301
Re: Building a self looping "SMOT"
« Reply #312 on: October 27, 2013, 07:06:11 PM »
Don't you remember Wayne Travis, with all his engineers and big machines and two visits from Mark Dansie? He couldn't meet the objections on this forum, couldn't demonstrate his claims, and finally asked for his thread to be closed, with great insults to all his critics. And now he's in full on damage control mode, being sued by early investors and trying to find someone to buy out all the others before they sue him too, because he cannot produce a self running machine like he claimed to.

Those are very interesting facts you are relaying.  Can you provide any references?  I'd like to learn more about it.
 
M.

MileHigh

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7600
Re: Building a self looping "SMOT"
« Reply #313 on: October 27, 2013, 07:18:37 PM »
I will give you my take on the Naudin "The SMOT Energy - Efficiency and Gain" clip.

http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/smotnrgt.htm

Hi first measurement is to measure the distance up the tube for a pure gravity drop, which is fine.  That's his reference distance.

He has a magnetic v-gate ramp.  It's the same deal as before.  The v-gate ramp is just another magnetic potential energy well and the bottom of the well is at the end of the ramp.

You can think of the v-gate ramp as being like a slingshot.  But of course it's a slingshot with a major problem, the ball remains connected to the elastic bands when you release the slingshot.  So think of this in terms of the setup, the ball runs up the ramp, past the sticky spot, and continues on.  Eventually the ball will stop from the elastic bands, losing all of it's kinetic energy trying to get past the sticky spot, a.k.a.; the magnetic potential energy well.

So that means, that the "cocking" of the "rail gun" pushes the ball past the sticky spot by a certain distance.  The more magnetic potential energy in the ball before you release it, the farther the ball will travel past the sticky spot before it runs out of energy.  Let's call that the "overshoot" distance.

Think of the setup, the ball emerges from the rail gun with the kinetic energy from the rail gun cocking and the available gravitational energy for the fall.

Your reference is the distance for a pure gravity fall.

That is being compared to some unknown overshoot distance due to the cocking energy plus the expected distance from the gravitational fall.  Note the gravity fall itself is being affected by the effort required to pull out of the magnetic potential energy well.

i.e.; the experiment is this:

[reference gravity fall distance] <= [[unknown kinetic energy distance] + [exit gravity fall distance less well losses]]

So it looks to me by cocking this system with energy from Mr. Hand, that this will give the ball an extra boost and result in it moving further up the tube.  This is a preliminary analysis.  I think its because of this:  The "bonus" unknown extra distance from the kinetic energy is eventually all lost.  However, in a manner of speaking, this "transports" the ball into a region where the the gravity-to-kintetic energy can then continue running the ball up the tube.  In this region the effects of the magnetic potential energy well are greatly reduced and so the ball travels farther overall.

I think the key point is that the magnetic rail gun is energetically neutral.  It doesn't add any energy to the system.  However, it has the ability to move the ball from one side of the sticky spot to the other side of the sticky spot with zero net expenditure of energy.  So it's like you get displacement with no net energy cost for free.  In this case the "free displacement" from the magnetic rail gun results in the ball rolling further up the tube.

I could be wrong but I believe this is the explanation.

MileHigh

TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13958
Re: Building a self looping "SMOT"
« Reply #314 on: October 27, 2013, 07:56:06 PM »

Those are very interesting facts you are relaying.  Can you provide any references?  I'd like to learn more about it.
 
M.
Weren't you in his "inner circle"? You probably know more about it than I do.
Well, surely you don't need any references to the old, closed thread. And you can check mrwaynesbrain.com to see that he has stopped with his public "updates" and has gone into stealth mode. His lawyers finally told him he can't make false claims while soliciting investment in public, I guess.
I've seen material from and about Travis that I am not at liberty to share fully at the moment. I have a video of a 16 minute presentation Travis made but if I show it he is likely to try to sue me, since it is supposed to be "confidential". But on the internet, nothing is really confidential, is it. In the presentation Travis does not claim to have a self running, energy producing machine any more, but he does talk a lot about his business plan, about Tesla and Ford, the Wright brothers and Einstein, about "milestones" and "efforts"... and of course TAZ and ZED and other ridiculous meaningless acronyms. He mentions the lawsuit at 15:32 into the video when he talks about "hard doors closing on us" and trying to find new investors to buy out the old, dissatisfied ones.

The still frame below is presented in accordance with the Fair Use clause of the DMCA: it is for educational use and is part of a critical and forensic review of claims made by Wayne Travis concerning his alleged self-running energy producing machine.