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 296266 times)

TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13958
Re: Building a self looping "SMOT"
« Reply #450 on: November 01, 2013, 01:51:01 PM »
Quote LibreEnergia: I don't doubt that there are untapped energy sources waiting to be found.
Quote LibreEnergia: However I would draw the line at devices such as SMOTs and other magnetic or gravity based devices.

An oxymoron post,and would only be true if both magnetism and gravity were fully understood-which they are not,and that is fact.

Here is another fact. The ball will loose some kinetic energy as it make's the 90* turn at the bottom of the exit ramp. I have posted the question many time's-where in the smot device lies the potential to almost eliminate this loss,without effecting any of the potential energy within the system. Neither you Libre,TK or MH have seen this gain.
And neither have you, you only falsely assume that you have.
The question isn't how to eliminate the loss, but rather "where is the gain". You can eliminate all the losses like the one you are (falsely) worried about and you STILL cannot self-loop because THERE IS NO GAIN MECHANISM.
Quote
Insted we get 1 posting statements that are unfounded,in that neither magnetism or gravity are fully understood.
I never said magnetism and gravity are fully understood. What I said, if you actually read and think about my post, is that we understand them _pretty darn well_ and and I will say further that we use them in ways that utterly refute your false assumptions. Read up on the Cassini mission!

Quote

2-some one who spends more time looking for others errors,and trying to disprove the experimenter.

Is this a reference to me? Would you like to continue in your silly errors or would you like someone to point them out to you if you don't find them yourself? And I am not trying to "disprove the experimenter" because so far, there is NOTHING TO DISPROVE... has someone presented a self-looping SMOT, or not? I have yet to see one, and neither have you seen one, in spite of the claims made by elecar and others. On the contrary, I am demanding that people who make claims must present evidence for those claims. Where is your evidence of any gain in any of the SMOT systems? Nowhere but in your false assumptions.

Quote
And 3-one who mocks a fellow forum member-experimenter by posting funny pictures,purely because that fellow member can see something they did not.
Here is another fact. You guys are stuck in the here and now,and seem to have no room for exspansion-that is until some one else come's up with the solution to the problem. You base every conclusion on what is known only today,and have no room for change on todays science.

And because you guys like to deal with fact's,here is another fact.
lets look at the yildis magnet motor.Now i also have my doubt's about this-just so as you know. But i (nor anyone else here)can or have proven that his claims are faulse,and that the motor dosnt work. And this fact is based on the reality that magnetism isnt  yet fully understood-right along with gravity.
Our asumptions are base only on what we know today-another fact.
Only when you or some one else has taken the yildis motor apart and found the batteries,then to say that it dosnt work is only based around what we know so far-and we dont know all there is to know-fact.

@TK
As you love browsing post
Oh... I thought I should read every post in the thread. Sorry... maybe you can put a little disclaimer on the ones you don't want me to read.

Quote
and looking for peoples error's
They are hard to miss when they are so gob-smacking obvious, like "half the speed means half the KE".

Quote
lets have a look at some of yours

Please do. Please be sure, like I ALWAYS DO, to provide checkable outside references that support your analysis of my errors. So far... you haven't done so, you simply repeat your mistaken assumptions.
Quote

Quote to Chet: Water is not a fuel. In fact it is an "ash",

Wrong. Water is a fuel in it's raw product,the same as crude oil is the raw product of gasoline.The human body is a machine,and water is one of it's fuel sources in it's raw product.Carbohydrates contain equal parts of hydrogen, carbon, and oxygen,and water is the source of that hydrogen and oxygen.The good thing about burning or useing hydrogen and oxygen as a fuel,is like you stated-the ash is water. So we now once again have our raw fuel.What do you end up with once you have burnt your gasoline?.
You are defining "fuel" in a non-standard way. Water is NOT a fuel. It does not provide energy. It takes more energy to split water into H2 and O2 than you can recover by burning the hydrogen and oxygen together.  If you think otherwise, then perhaps you should write a thermodynamics textbook, because according to you they are all wrong. However.... the existing texts have strong experimental support. Where the experimental support for your assumptions? Nowhere.

Quote

Then there was your comment to me about the rock sitting on the ground dosnt get tired. Im guessing that is because it isnt doing any work. We can also say that it has no potential energy either. Well the same could be said for a bucket sitting on the ground. The bucket isnt doing any work,and has no potential energy. But if we combine the two,and place the rock in the bucket,the rock then has the potential to create energy-even though it isnt moving,and is still on the ground via the bucket that is also on the ground,and not moving.This potential energy the rock posses actual comes from the sun,and gravity.

This makes no sense to me. Go ahead and put a rock in a bucket, sitting on the ground. Now, show me it doing some work, powering something. Go ahead, it's simple enough according to you. I really really want to see this.

Quote

My point is guy's,that what seems impossable,can actualy become a reality-no mater how stupid it sound's.
What you need to do,is to open your mind a little,and start to look at what is actualy possable.
I mean,who ever has heard of a solar/gravity powered rock?.

Yes... start to look at what is _actually possible_. That is what I have been saying all this time. SMOT self looping is impossible, so don't waste your time, energy, creativity, etc. on it. There are sound physical reasons why it is impossible and nobody, nowhere, no time, has ever refuted those reasons.  Some things that we can think of are indeed impossible. Don't believe me? Then swim to Tasmania, nude, carrying a 200 pound block of concrete, and do it in three hours.  Why can't you? Open your mind a little. According to you it can actually become a reality, no matter how stupid it sounds.

You can swim, can't you? You can get nude. You can probably even carry a 200 pound block of concrete. And I know you can get to Tasmania in three hours. Now all you have to do is put them all together. Simple. I'll be waiting for your YT video.

ramset

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8073
Re: Building a self looping "SMOT"
« Reply #451 on: November 01, 2013, 01:51:27 PM »
MH
I would have to say that every single thing on this planet can be Fuel .all is locked into submission to a task ATM.
However There is a key to that task Lock [what makes a rock a rock],LENR Is merely a shadow of the possibilities and Methodology.
 
on another note more specific to the Topic and its plausibility
here is a man who claims a verifiable magnetic anomoly?
he wants to change the curriculum in our schools?
 
http://www.energy-ingenuity.com/index.html
Duncan has started a discussion over here
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/14534-use-force-luke-use-force.html
 
thx
Chet

TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13958
Re: Building a self looping "SMOT"
« Reply #452 on: November 01, 2013, 02:05:08 PM »
MH
I would have to say that every single thing on this planet can be Fuel .all is locked into submission to a task ATM.
However There is a key to that task Lock [what makes a rock a rock],LENR Is merely a shadow of the possibilities and Methodology.
 
on another note more specific to the Topic and its plausibility
here is a man who claims a verifiable magnetic anomoly?
he wants to change the curriculum in our schools?
 
http://www.energy-ingenuity.com/index.html
Duncan has started a discussion over here
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/14534-use-force-luke-use-force.html
 
thx
Chet

You can define things however you like, but the farther you stray from legitimate, agreed-upon definitions, the fewer and fewer people will understand you.
Quote
fu·elˈfyo͞oəl/nounnoun: fuel; plural noun: fuels1. material such as coal, gas, or oil that is burned to produce heat or power.synonyms:gas, gasoline, diesel, petroleum, propane; Morepower source; petrol "the car ran out of fuel"firewood, wood, kindling, logs; coal, coke, anthracite; oil, kerosene, propane, lighter fluid; heat source "she added more fuel to the fire"
short for nuclear fuel.
food, drink, or drugs as a source of energy."any protein intake can also be used as fuel"synonyms:nourishment, food, sustenance, nutriment, nutrition More"we all need fuel to keep our bodies going"
a thing that sustains or inflames passion, argument, or other emotion or activity."the remuneration packages will add fuel to the debate about top-level rewards"synonyms:encouragement, ammunition, stimulus, incentive; Moreprovocation, goading "his antics added fuel to the opposition's cause"

verb: fuel; 3rd person present: fuels; past tense: fuelled; past participle: fuelled; gerund or present participle: fuelling; past tense: fueled; past participle: fueled; gerund or present participle: fueling1. supply or power (an industrial plant, vehicle, or machine) with fuel."the plan includes a hydroelectric plant to fuel a paper factory"synonyms:power, fire, charge More"power stations fueled by low-grade coal"
fill up (a vehicle, aircraft, or ship) with oil or gasoline.
(of a person) eat a meal."arrive straight from work and fuel up on the complimentary buffet"

2. cause (a fire) to burn more intensely.sustain or inflame (a feeling or activity)."his rascal heart and private pain fuel his passion as an actor"synonyms:fan, feed, stoke up, inflame, intensify, stimulate, encourage, provoke, incite, whip up; Moresustain, keep alive "the rumors fueled anxiety among opposition"

Middle English: from Old French fouaille, based on Latin focus ‘hearth’ (in late Latin ‘fire’).
Sorry, formatting in the original.

Water doesn't seem to be mentioned, except in the context of hydroelectric generation. And of course the fuel that gets the water behind the dam in the first place for that is the sun's nuclear reactions.

Poit

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 295
Re: Building a self looping "SMOT"
« Reply #453 on: November 01, 2013, 02:08:05 PM »
face it.. all of you... all everyone is doing in this thread is what i like to call 'mental masterbation'.... there will never be a video (or the real deal in any shape or form).. the END.. why waste your time aruging over something? its just stupid.



TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13958
Re: Building a self looping "SMOT"
« Reply #454 on: November 01, 2013, 02:09:24 PM »
MH
I would have to say that every single thing on this planet can be Fuel .all is locked into submission to a task ATM.
However There is a key to that task Lock [what makes a rock a rock],LENR Is merely a shadow of the possibilities and Methodology.
 
on another note more specific to the Topic and its plausibility
here is a man who claims a verifiable magnetic anomoly?
he wants to change the curriculum in our schools?
 
http://www.energy-ingenuity.com/index.html
Duncan has started a discussion over here
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/14534-use-force-luke-use-force.html
 
thx
Chet

Insert ROFL animated gif here.

ramset

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8073
Re: Building a self looping "SMOT"
« Reply #455 on: November 01, 2013, 02:25:22 PM »
Tk
Here I have yours
Sorry I forgot to give it back
 
---------------------------
So what do you know about Steve Ward?
thx
Chet
PS
I don't see Rocks in your "year 0002 fuels we know of chart" either {thorium].?

Hopeful1

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 1
Re: Building a self looping "SMOT"
« Reply #456 on: November 01, 2013, 05:46:50 PM »
Quote LibreEnergia: I don't doubt that there are untapped energy sources waiting to be found.

Great!  agrees with JouleSeeker and seems like just about everyone else on the forum.

I agree too! 
Hope y'all don't mind if I jump in.

To me, its like Newton playing with a few pebbles on the seaside.  Playing and thereby learning.  Sure, why not?
Play is not a waste of time and may lead to something.

I say, play on...  and keep your eyes open.  enjoy the journey.  why not?

tinman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5365
Re: Building a self looping "SMOT"
« Reply #457 on: November 01, 2013, 07:53:51 PM »

Water doesn't seem to be mentioned, except in the context of hydroelectric generation. And of course the fuel that gets the water behind the dam in the first place for that is the sun's nuclear reactions.
You forgot gravity-to go along with the sun.If there was no gravity,your water would never fall behind the dam wall.

Quote TK: I never said magnetism and gravity are fully understood. What I said, if you actually read and think about my post, is that we understand them _pretty darn well_ and and I will say further that we use them in ways that utterly refute your false assumptions. Read up on the Cassini mission!

And that comment wasnt aimed at you.

Quote TK: This makes no sense to me. Go ahead and put a rock in a bucket, sitting on the ground. Now, show me it doing some work, powering something. Go ahead, it's simple enough according to you. I really really want to see this.

I guess you missed my post to MH.

powercat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1091
Re: Building a self looping "SMOT"
« Reply #458 on: November 01, 2013, 08:31:25 PM »
32 pages and still no actual evidence of a successful self looping SMOT, what we do have is the usual skeptics and believers confrontations, why can't the believers ever understand that the only evidence that counts is an actual working device, but they seem to prefer pages and pages of argument with no working evidence.

Before all the believers jump down my throat, I'm not saying it can never work, but why are you saying it can work and yet are incapable of showing it working.  Wouldn't it be more productive to say I believe it might work and I want to research and experiments and hope one day to produced a self looping working device, but I think that would be too easy as most of the believers seemed to enjoy the confrontation of words and blind faith, rather than civilized communication with fellow members.

TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13958
Re: Building a self looping "SMOT"
« Reply #459 on: November 01, 2013, 11:32:24 PM »
Tk
Here I have yours
Sorry I forgot to give it back
 
---------------------------
So what do you know about Steve Ward?
thx
Chet

Do you mean the Steve Ward that is listed on this page? Who wants to change the curriculum in schools so that they teach his confused garbage?
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Electromagnetic
lol
It's hard to see what advantage he has, considering all the other electromagnetic free energy and overunity devices and theories that work.

Oh... wait... none of those things actually _do_ work, do they.
Quote

PS
I don't see Rocks in your "year 0002 fuels we know of chart" either {thorium].?
My chart? I think maybe you have me confused with someone else. 

Sure, thorium rocks and other kinds of radioactive or chemically reactive "rocks" can provide energy. And I'm sure you can trace the real origin of this energy back to its ultimate source.

But what does that have to do with gravitational PE and rocks in a bucket creating work?


By the way.... one very strong sign of "woo" is when the theory or device is self-named by the claimant. Steve Ward, "wardforce".... YGTBKM.


TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13958
Re: Building a self looping "SMOT"
« Reply #460 on: November 01, 2013, 11:38:04 PM »
Let me put forward and example.

I see an area of improvement being the ball exiting the magnetic field.

I have found that this can be done and leave the ball at a higher velocity but I do not know the actual costs.

A level guide rail and a long pole face magnet,, and of course a steel ball.

Hold the guide level and hold the magnet up flush and level with the bottom of the guide.

Release the ball from an appropriate distance so that it is attracted into the magnet, then, at the point the ball is just before the first edge of the magnet release the other end of the magnet and allow it to drop an inch or so.

This needs to be done BEFORE the magnet is over the pole face.  The ball will exit at an increased velocity,, if it goes really fast then you let the magnet move while the ball was over the pole face and that is a cost for sure.

I am not sure that if doing it just prior to the ball reaching the pole face there is a cost or not.

Answers please.
What is the question? You have stored energy in the system by placing your ball  at " an appropriate distance so that it is attracted into the magnet". You have also stored energy by positioning the magnet so that the "other end" can be released and fall. You may have cleverly succeeded in transferring some GPE (the falling magnet end) into the velocity of the steel ball. So? There is no mechanism for gain. Look up "gauss rifle", or look at my videos concerning "nikolayev trailer hitch". Are these OU devices? They sure eject magnets fast.
Quote

And please,  take the answers and consider them, if you disagree with an answer then put forward another solution without referencing the one you do not agree with.
Huh?

maw2432

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 338
Re: Building a self looping "SMOT"
« Reply #461 on: November 01, 2013, 11:57:12 PM »
I don't recall ever saying "it was a fact that LENR was a fallacy,No possible source of energy."  Link please?

I have said, and will continue to say, that the experimental evidence for LENR is controversial and largely questionable, and that I think Rossi is a bigtime fraud, and that I think that Defkalion is a  money-laundering operation, also without any real system.
TK,   you are most likely right.   I have not seen any evidence of a large plant in the US making a Rossi hot water heater that runs on free energy LENR technology.    The scam is all about greed.   Some people think they can become rich by being one of the first investing in the scam technology.   
I think it is too early to judge this SMOT claim as of today.  I think we need some tests that refute his claims.
Bill
 
 

Newton II

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 309
Re: Building a self looping "SMOT"
« Reply #462 on: November 02, 2013, 02:50:16 AM »

32 pages and still no actual evidence of a successful self looping SMOT......



Where is elecar?  Busy in writing book on SMOT -  Elecarian Smotics?  (or Cosmetics)

TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13958
Re: Building a self looping "SMOT"
« Reply #463 on: November 02, 2013, 03:53:02 AM »
The question is if the other end of the magnet falling has a cost, there is the change in GPE of the magnet and if there is no cost then the change in GPE is reversible for the magnet.  If there is a cost of the other end of the magnet falling, not the end next to the steel ball, caused by the steel ball, then there is a cost.

This is, as I stated, what I am not sure of,, does other end of the magnet falling before the steel ball is over the pole face have a cost due to the steel ball.
It does have a cost. Think of your mechanism. It has two states, the magnet up against the track, and one end of the magnet flopped down after it falls. The initial position is the _lower_ state, the "flopped" state, where gravity has pulled the magnet down. This is the "start" position. You must raise this fallen end up and keep it in position, against gravity, somehow until you are ready for it to fall. This is stored energy that you have put into the system.
Now you bring your steel ball in and place it into the field where it will get attracted when you release it. This is also stored energy that you have put into the system, just like pulling out a spring plunger on a pinball machine. (It doesn't matter that you've brought the ball in from "infinity".... because PE is _negative_ . You are storing energy in the system by holding the ball in the attractive field.)

Now you release the ball and it's sucked toward the magnetic potential well, the "sticky spot". It gets going, converting MPE into KE as it goes. This MPE is what you stored by placing the ball. Maybe you even "pushed" the ball a little with your hand when you released it; this adds KE to the total energy of the ball, but it came from your breakfast this time. Now it's time to release the other end of the magnet. If the ball is already too close, the magnet won't drop because it's attracted to the ball, unless the magnet is really heavy. But maybe if you do it at just the right time, it swings away, and like a spring attached to the ball, maybe it pulls the ball a bit more, adding more KE to the ball. Where did this KE increment come from? It was stored in the system as GPE when you raised the magnet and latched it into position at the start. The heavier the magnet, the more stored PE... and the more you have to replace when you reset for the next _full_ cycle.

So to get a device like this to self-loop, not only do you have to arrange for the ball to come back to the start point without your assistance, you also have to raise the magnet back up and latch it into position. Maybe the first part can happen just by rolling around, and in a totally frictionless and eddy current lossless, etc. environment, it might just do that. A frictionless flywheel in vacuum can turn at a constant rate for a long time... until you put any drag on it at all, then it starts to slow down. Maybe the "boost" from the magnet end falling adds enough KE to overcome some of the rolling losses. But raising up and latching that magnet end, to reset the system for another loop,  has an inevitable cost in energy. Where does this come from? You have to put it there somehow, and whatever you put there is all you will get back.

Edit to add: The Cassini mission is one scientific mission that shows "science" understands gravity and magnetism "pretty darn well." Another great one is the Gravity Probe B experiment. Look it up! Check out its gyros, the most perfectly spherical things that humans have ever made, and how they are suspended, spun up, and how they produce data.

TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13958
Re: Building a self looping "SMOT"
« Reply #464 on: November 02, 2013, 04:16:56 AM »
TK,   you are most likely right.   I have not seen any evidence of a large plant in the US making a Rossi hot water heater that runs on free energy LENR technology.    The scam is all about greed.   Some people think they can become rich by being one of the first investing in the scam technology.   

I think it is too early to judge this SMOT claim as of today.  I think we need some tests that refute his claims.
Bill

Every failed SMOT, constructed by _believers_,  is a refutation of elecar's claims. Let him provide his evidence! It is not the responsibility of skeptics to refute a claim that is made and given without evidence!

My position is clear, at least to me.

If  a claimant wants to make a claim that goes against "conventional physics" then he/she should provide evidence that can be examined critically. If you don't provide this evidence then you should expect to be severely challenged by people like me, MileHigh, and others. No, we don't know everything but we do know some basic physics, that has never been refuted in literally hundreds of years of trying, and the claimants seem to lack this basic, unrefuted and unrefutable, knowledge a lot of the time.

If a claimant does provide evidence that supports their claims and is willing to discuss, analyze, examine, etc. in the spirit of Open Source research and development, fine, let's have at it. Anyone who knows my work knows that I will, if possible, construct and test devices according to the exact instructions from the claimant and I will report my results and conclusions willingly and for free. Generally, I report my work in "lab notebook" videos on YouTube for all to see and criticise, and I try to provide complete details so that anyone can repeat what I've done and check my work and my conclusions for themselves. Often I just illustrate things that I think are interesting, and I try to help people who have genuine questions. Sometimes a really good idea happens, like MileHigh's op-amp motor controller, which eliminates a lot of Bedini-problems but produces the same kind of HV spikes that Bedini and his fans think are so magical, and these can be used "downstream" in battery chargers, etc, just like his devices. And with the same effects, too!

Why haven't you seen my work with SMOT ramps and balls, etc? It's because I have nothing new or interesting to add. I can tell you how to make your ramps easily and cheaply, I can tell you how to measure velocities and displacements (Webby's use of shims of known thickness is a great idea) and I can tell you how to crunch your data to make it meaningful. I can challenge false claims of extreme precision when the measurements cannot be that precise, and I can even teach you how to use your oscilloscopes and other test equipment properly. What I cannot do is overcome the Laws of Thermodynamics!  And...sadly... neither can anyone else that I've seen.

Why haven't we seen elecar's demonstration of the validity of his claims? I'll leave that as an exercise for the reader.


By the way, I could say, for instance, that I have an antigravity drive that works, runs by swinging a triple magnetic pendulum through a HHO gas chamber using Tesla longitudinal scalar technology, floats up by itself for hours and hours, but is too noisy to show on video. Patent Pending of course. Negotiations with a major airplane manufacturer are underway, and as soon as they cut me a check I'll reveal all to you.

What, you don't believe me?
Is it up to you, to disprove my claim? Or is it up to me, to provide evidence that supports it?