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 296268 times)

tinman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5365
Re: Building a self looping "SMOT"
« Reply #615 on: November 08, 2013, 02:32:15 PM »
@sarkeizen-COA..im waiting,where are you goddam you.i want YOU(nobody else)to slightly,just ever so slightly,reduce the power coming out of an common O2 concentration cell here in public.im challenging you.
Profitis
What is an O2 concentration cell?.-im all ears

powercat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1091
Re: Building a self looping "SMOT"
« Reply #616 on: November 08, 2013, 02:32:22 PM »
So is it your claim that the crack pipe remark is where my attitude to you changed ?
You must read further back. I do give you some credit though you did at least admit that the balls performance was better with the magnets than without them. I did have to pry that from you because it meant you would have to show a difference of opinion to TK.
Even so I thank you for your honesty on that occasion.

Anyone reading your response to my suggestion will see that the remark about the crack pipe is aimed at my suggestion as well as me. It would appear you're only form of deference when you don't like suggestions or questions is to be rude and derogatory towards people.

Here we are again I make a reasonable suggestion about the video and rather than answer that question you decide arguing with me about what you said is more important than proving your honesty.

So I will repeat the question again.

Can you please post the video you sent Libre on YouTube so everyone can see it or can a third party post it ?

You state that video is genuine but Libre says it is not, I'm sure most of us would like to get the truth and avoiding the issue just makes you look guilty.

markdansie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1471
Re: Building a self looping "SMOT"
« Reply #617 on: November 08, 2013, 02:33:43 PM »
Bill did a great attempted smot a few years ago, i met the inventor of the first one, he lives in Australia. its a fun challenge to try and beat and good luck with that. Ultimately you have to overcome some laws of nature, never say never..but unlikely.
Best of Luck
PS TK is respected because of his logic and brilliance
Kind Regards
Mark


conradelektro

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1842
Re: Building a self looping "SMOT"
« Reply #618 on: November 08, 2013, 02:45:43 PM »
And please do not pretend to not know what TK is all about, tell me conrad what does TKs latest replication video bring to the discussion ? Answer: Nothing at all it nothing but an attempt at mockery, it does nothing extraordinary except prove as I stated he is a moron, an idiot, a prick.

Well, TinselKoala might be sarcastic, but why not? The claims we hear in this OverUnity forum ask for more than sarcasm. In the last few years I never followed a discussion in this forum where TinselKoala was  a moron or an idiot. None of his arguments has ever been proven wrong. And all the OU claims (about 3 or 4 per year) never materialised. And I have to admit, I like sarcasm more than unproven claims.

Now lets consider the following scenario:

Conrad meets Elcar and says: "Hi Elcar, I have this self looping set up which runs for hours. Nobody has ever achieved that, but I have after many trials and much work."

Elcar replies: "Oh, interesting, how does it work?"

Conrad answers: "Sorry, I can not tell you, it has to remain a secret till I have secured the idea. But you have to believe me, it is true, it really works."

Elcar says: "Well, I never believe anything which is not proven, sorry."

Conrad starts to be pissed: "I do not have to tell you anything. The only thing I can tell you now is that it really works and that you will have to wait for details till I am ready to give them to you."

Elcar is also heating up: "There is nothing to discuss till you provide details. Conventional science says it can not work. Come back to me when you are ready. For me the discussion is over."

Conrad cries out: "I need respect here. You insulted me by your insinuations. I am leaving now and will never talk to you again. You dare doubt my statements, prove that my machine can not work."

Elcar leaves an thinks that Conrad is an idiot. Conrad leaves and thinks that Elcar is an idiot.

Greetings, Conrad

profitis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3952
Re: Building a self looping "SMOT"
« Reply #619 on: November 08, 2013, 03:09:17 PM »
@tinman..it is an oxygen concentration cell.2 same oxygen electrodes with different concentrations of oxygen upon them in a single electrolyte.

JouleSeeker

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 685
Re: Building a self looping "SMOT"
« Reply #620 on: November 08, 2013, 03:21:47 PM »
  IMO

  One of these days, someone is going to successfully tie into a previously UNTAPPED SOURCE OF ENERGY and share his result freely with others. And someone will successfully replicate.
   This will not violate any "laws of physics," but rather, will represent a breakthrough energy source.

  IMO.

truesearch

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 328
Re: Building a self looping "SMOT"
« Reply #621 on: November 08, 2013, 03:32:05 PM »
@elecar:


So is the bottom line here that nothing "real" or "productive" will be shown until at least Nov. 19th??


Don't take me wrong, I really would like to see a working design, but after so many have proved out wrong, we get cynical.  :(


truesearch

Liberty

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 524
    • DynamaticMotors
Re: Building a self looping "SMOT"
« Reply #622 on: November 08, 2013, 03:47:11 PM »
Bill did a great attempted smot a few years ago, i met the inventor of the first one, he lives in Australia. its a fun challenge to try and beat and good luck with that. Ultimately you have to overcome some laws of nature, never say never..but unlikely.
Best of Luck
PS TK is respected because of his logic and brilliance
Kind Regards
Mark

"TK is respected because of his logic and brilliance"

There would be more respect and brilliance if he would come up with his own over-unity device by making it public here, rather than trying to forcefully uncover "how other devices fail", or by trying to disprove devices from other individuals.  If the device doesn't work, it will be obvious all by itself, when it is time for it to perform, or when it is explained by the individual.

Regards

TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13958
Re: Building a self looping "SMOT"
« Reply #623 on: November 08, 2013, 04:08:57 PM »
Hilarious!

Sure, if I come up with a real overunity device, this is the very first place I'll be telling anyone about it. Right.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h6itJ1GkTqI

Let me drop a few names into your black hole funnel:

Archer Quinn.
Mylow.
Wayne Travis.
Rosemary Ainslie.

Fakers, liars and frauds each one, and each one had multiple threads here, wasting people's time and money with their false claims.

Quinn took money from people, never produced what he claimed, and vanished into the outback.
Mylow.... took money from people, got his brother to lie outrageously for him live on camera, invited Sterling to a site visit to see his apparatus, made many videos ... and was soundly proven to be a faker, by video analysis.
Wayne Travis could not produce credible evidence of his claims, had TWO site visits from Mark Dansie... and is now being sued by early investors for failure to deliver on his claims, and still cannot produce any evidence.
Rosemary Ainslie..... after years of insulting behaviour and false claims, being banned from this forum multiple times and other forums as well, even abandoned by her former supporters, also got other people to lie for her; tried to publish falsified data and was finally humiliated in public when she and her crew tried to reproduce their data AND COULD NOT DO IT in more-or-less public demonstrations that I had nothing at all to do with-- and was forced to issue retractions, even though she still dishonestly allows her "papers" with the fabricated data to exist on the internet.

Call me a moron and a prick all you like, it doesn't bother me. Mylows, Quinns, Travises, Ainslies, and the rest are much more creative in their insults. Each and every one of them levied many stronger insults against me, Ainslie even threatened me multiple times. The more I am insulted by claimants, the more certain I am that they cannot produce what they claim, and there is a LOT of history supporting that position. When the claimant even descends into insulting our host as elecar has begun to do, and even, like Ainslie, threatens HIM... then I know for certain that the claimant cannot produce credible evidence.



TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13958
Re: Building a self looping "SMOT"
« Reply #624 on: November 08, 2013, 04:17:32 PM »
I find amusement in the fact that TK's snot video supports Elecars claim.

TK took the SMOT concept and boiled it down into a very simple setup, magnet in and out, gravity in and out and friction just out.

This is, with some artistic license,, the usual setup, and so if one were to work, then it must be a unique setup,, which is what Elecar claimed,, a unique method.

As a small side note,, TK might of provided a solution to the SMOT problem without realizing it,,  to me is also funny :)
You think the video supports elecar's claim... but it doesn't seem like elecar agrees with you!

I told you before I posted the video that I could show you how to minimize losses in your track. I fully realize what I've shown and demonstrated. Let me say it again: Any "self looping smot" must incorporate the start position/ramp, whatever, into the looping. Mine does not, and neither do any of the videos from elecar that I have seen. Elecar CLAIMED a unique method but what he SHOWED is the same old, same old tired SMOT that doesn't work and doesn't ever bring the ball back up to the starting elevation. If he's got something else, he is perfectly free to show it off. If he actually has a patent application on the books, that right there is legal protection of his IP, retroactive to the date of his application.... IF the patent is actually granted.
You may note from several of elecar's recent posts that he can't figure out how to do what he has claimed he can do. Look at the trouble he _says_ he had making the video of several completed loops for LibreEnergia!



sarkeizen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1923
Re: Building a self looping "SMOT"
« Reply #625 on: November 08, 2013, 05:02:01 PM »
ok short-circuit it for 6weeks then check if it bounces straight up to its original power.ok short-circuit it for 12weeks and check if it reboots.ok short-circuit it for 24weeks and check if it reboots .ok short-circuit it for 48 weeks and check if it reboots.ok short-circuit it for 96 weeks and check if it reboots.you cant flatten it.you simply can-not even reduce it
So according to you anything that works for 96 weeks must work forever?

happyfunball

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 405
Re: Building a self looping "SMOT"
« Reply #626 on: November 08, 2013, 05:22:58 PM »
You have some kind of problem with comprehension. I don't think anyone --  except you -- would say, from reading this thread, that elecar did NOT claim to have a SMOT that was OU, that he was trying to patent it and that he was trying to sell it to a toy company. Further, he pretended to be able to teach us how to make an OU smot ourselves. Just as LibreEnergia and others have pointed out: any SMOT that self-loops is OU. What is the title of this thread?

What he "claimed to SHOW" is different from what he claimed to have.

What he DID show is the video I analyzed, which clearly shows just what I said it does, and I provided evidence for all to examine in the still frames from that video: energy storage in the system, that is all the energy returned, and no evidence of any progress towards a real self looping SMOT.

He also arrogantly claimed other things that aren't true, especially that nobody has ever seen a smot making two full turns. (We will ignore his paranoid accusations that I have "minions" who do my bidding and are interested in suppressing real Overunity... a claim that has been made before, but never with any shred of evidence in support.) Well, now you have seen the evidence that that last statement of his isn't true, and isn't even very difficult to do if one has a bit of skill in building and knowledge of just where losses come from. Most especially, it is easy if the input ramp isn't part of the "looping".

You complain about the cheese? Fine, you don't have to eat it. It's really not very good cheese anyway, a fake "light" mozzarella with basil.
But you DO have to look at the evidence: My apparatus uses a ramp that is not part of the loop; so does the device in elecar's video. My apparatus does NOT provide any extra energy by "cocking the magnetic spring" or "flicking the ball" into the track; elecar's does. My video clearly shows, with no hint of fakery, the ball making more than two full turns around the track... twice; elecar's does not.

Further, we now have a statement from someone who seems to know his business, that another video, clearly presented to LibreEnergia as _proof_ that elecar had what he CLAIMED TO HAVE, which is an OU SMOT self-looping ...... almost certainly has been faked. I haven't seen that video myself... and I don't know LibreEnergia, but his statements are a lot more credible on the face of it than elecar's are.

These are not straw man arguments, there, mister Happyfunball.

Quite the contrary, they are examinations of evidence that elecar himself provided in support of his claims of OU, and which clearly fail to do so. As I said in my analysis, even before LE began his, it appears that elecar may be willing to cheat to get his point across. Such things have happened before, even down to the insults and campaigns against the skeptics like me. Do you not recall Mylow?

In my analysis, supported by frame extracts from the video elecar posted, it can be clearly seen that he places the ball down on the track within the influence of the magnets, then pulls the ball back to the left, storing energy in the magnetic "spring", then flicks the ball to the right, giving it an additional KE boost into the track system. Elecar protests that he did not flick the ball... but the video clearly shows him doing so and the still frames clearly show the position of his fingers when the ball is being released: well to the right of the initial placement of the ball. Nobody but elecar has yet disputed my analysis. 

Furthermore.... we have LibreEnergia's analysis of the other video which nobody else has seen yet, which arguably took more work than mine, and which seems to reveal much more willingness to cheat on elecar's part. Where does any of this fit into the definition of a "straw man" argument? In fact, happyfunball, it is you who are engaging in various fallacious arguments, including the straw man, but more than that, you are attacking ME personally rather than confronting the issues. You have no credibility, and with every insult, every instance of avoiding the issues, you are just proving that point more and more. Where is your work refuting my analysis, refuting LibreEnergia's analysis? Nowhere. Where is your work supporting elecar's claims, which most certainly include claims of OU performance from an apparatus he claims to possess? Nowhere. Instead, you choose, just as I predicted, to carry on your personal attacks against me, and you can't even provide proof or evidence for those. You especially can't provide any evidence of "mendacity" on my part.

Keep it up, you are only proving my points.

Eclair didn't claim that the setup HE SHOWED is OU. TK the attack dog felt the need to 'prove' it does not do what no one ever claimed it does. You complaining about being insulted is amazing. It seems what you considered insulting was being referred to as a megalomaniac. Surely there is no doubt about that being factual.

profitis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3952
Re: Building a self looping "SMOT"
« Reply #627 on: November 08, 2013, 06:04:37 PM »
@sarkeizen aye,yes.any buttoncell that can be shorted for 96 weeks and reboot completely will last forever(except nuclear buttoncells) 

sarkeizen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1923
Re: Building a self looping "SMOT"
« Reply #628 on: November 08, 2013, 10:32:29 PM »
@sarkeizen aye,yes.any buttoncell that can be shorted for 96 weeks and reboot completely will last forever(except nuclear buttoncells)
What?  Now all of a sudden there's like five poorly defined qualifiers on your statement.  Dishonest as usual EOA,

MeggerMan

  • TPU-Elite
  • Sr. Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 497
Re: Building a self looping "SMOT"
« Reply #629 on: November 08, 2013, 11:26:19 PM »
@Elecar
In the remake of the video for LibreEnergia could I suggest that you mark the ball bearing with a permanent marker pen, some dots or stripes.
I found this useful in finding out how the bearing spins slightly on its axis when passing the magnet array.


It is unfortunate that you will be leaving the forum here - can you PM me to let me know where you are going.
It would be great news if LibreEnergia can confirm to us that he has a genuine video that shows the ball completing around 20 loops.
So I look forward to seeing a post from him confirming this.


If you are local to me I could lend you a Sony HD camcorder + tripod to take a better video.


Meggerman