GDPR and DSGVO law

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.
Amazon Warehouse Deals ! Now even more Deep Discounts ! Check out these great prices on slightly used or just opened once only items.I always buy my gadgets via these great Warehouse deals ! Highly recommended ! Many thanks for supporting OverUnity.com this way.

User Menu

Powerbox

Smartbox

3D Solar

3D Solar Panels

DC2DC converter

Micro JouleThief

FireMatch

FireMatch

CCKnife

CCKnife

CCTool

CCTool

Magpi Magazine

Magpi Magazine Free Rasberry Pi Magazine

Battery Recondition

Battery Recondition

Arduino

Ultracaps

YT Subscribe

Gravity Machines

Tesla-Ebook

Magnet Secrets

Lindemann Video

Navigation

Products

Products

WaterMotor kit

Statistics


  • *Total Posts: 498716
  • *Total Topics: 14782
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 4
  • *Guests: 30
  • *Total: 34

Author Topic: Successfully looped SMOT  (Read 15206 times)

Offline blueplanet

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 364
Re: Successfully looped SMOT
« Reply #15 on: January 24, 2018, 05:59:33 PM »
This is the website about JNL's experiment involving three ramps:


http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/3smtlnk.htm


Immediately after his experiment, I have communicated with a physicist to ask for his opinion.  He told me in email that he "believed" the magnetic linear propulsion thing might have been classified before. It was a long time ago. I cannot remember all the details.


The sticky point argument has no leg because many people have succeeded in overcoming it.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Successfully looped SMOT
« Reply #15 on: January 24, 2018, 05:59:33 PM »

Offline postingsite

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 53
Re: Successfully looped SMOT
« Reply #16 on: January 25, 2018, 01:47:57 AM »
My first thought was something under the table. 
In the second scene the camera moves around slightly,  so that at least is authentic .

Magnet-motors,  if any actually function successfully,  would be nothing compared to  self-powered-motor-generators,  that is,  a motor turning several generators on the same shaft ( each generators rotor completely  ‘un-aligned’  with the rotors of the other generators to completely erase cogging-torque(en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cogging_torque),  the result being that the generators would present no load at all to the motor,  and even better if the shaft is completely levitating( 100% ) on a magnetic-bearing.
However,  an alternative to the above description of  self-powered-motor-generators( where the generators have windings on iron-cores on their rotors, or vice versa ),    would be,   that the generators would simply be magnets on rotors sweeping past coils( on the outer radius ) to generate current  with  no-cogging-torque/load  to the motor,  and,  there’s also core-less( air-core ) generators( but I cannot see how they claim to have no cogging-torque )   
     If they're  wrong about successful magnet-motors,  they may also be wrong about these functioning successfully .

This link  http://overunity.com/16284/new-here-several-questions/msg474324/#msg474324   takes you straight to the exact position on the page of an interesting post

(  I don't know exactly how Finsrud's device works,  only that it is specifically designed to destroy symmetry in an very anarchic way, too difficult to be practical,  so it may not be relevant  )

Offline Newton II

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 303
Re: Successfully looped SMOT
« Reply #17 on: January 25, 2018, 05:23:43 AM »

Maybe you'd like to order some Chinese antigravity spray from Ebay.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNCAYbh55Dg


If I drink that spray, can I float in air?

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Successfully looped SMOT
« Reply #17 on: January 25, 2018, 05:23:43 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline blueplanet

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 364
Re: Successfully looped SMOT
« Reply #18 on: January 25, 2018, 05:52:48 AM »
It will unlikely run forever.
The metal ball has its own eddy current which produces a magnetic field that opposes its movement.
When the ball has lost its own momentum, which is the key to overcome so-called sticky points, it will be sucked somewhere.
However, the problem of this experiment does not necessarily mean perpetual motion machines do not exist.


My first thought was something under the table. 
In the second scene the camera moves around slightly,  so that at least is authentic .

Magnet-motors,  if any actually function successfully,  would be nothing compared to  self-powered-motor-generators,  that is,  a motor turning several generators on the same shaft ( each generators rotor completely  ‘un-aligned’  with the rotors of the other generators to completely erase cogging-torque(en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cogging_torque),  the result being that the generators would present no load at all to the motor,  and even better if the shaft is completely levitating( 100% ) on a magnetic-bearing.
However,  an alternative to the above description of  self-powered-motor-generators( where the generators have windings on iron-cores on their rotors, or vice versa ),    would be,   that the generators would simply be magnets on rotors sweeping past coils( on the outer radius ) to generate current  with  no-cogging-torque/load  to the motor,  and,  there’s also core-less( air-core ) generators( but I cannot see how they claim to have no cogging-torque )   
     If they're  wrong about successful magnet-motors,  they may also be wrong about these functioning successfully .

This link  http://overunity.com/16284/new-here-several-questions/msg474324/#msg474324   takes you straight to the exact position on the page of an interesting post

(  I don't know exactly how Finsrud's device works,  only that it is specifically designed to destroy symmetry in an very anarchic way, too difficult to be practical,  so it may not be relevant  )

Offline blueplanet

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 364
Re: Successfully looped SMOT
« Reply #19 on: January 25, 2018, 07:39:31 AM »
How about Daedalus' bicycle wheel:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4VBNn-ids6M

This one has no issue of eddy current, sticky spots or whatever you like to call.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Successfully looped SMOT
« Reply #19 on: January 25, 2018, 07:39:31 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline Newton II

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 303
Re: Successfully looped SMOT
« Reply #20 on: January 25, 2018, 09:43:37 AM »
How about Daedalus' bicycle wheel:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4VBNn-ids6M
This one has no issue of eddy current, sticky spots or whatever you like to call.

Google searched on it.  Got this -

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4762778/How-riddle-bike-wheel-finally-solved.html

Quote

However, he made it clear from the start that his machines were fake, calling himself a ‘court jester in the palace of science’. Dr Jones, who lived in Jesmond, Newcastle, said that he had included ‘conjuring tricks’ and ‘cunning distractions’, and scientists had been ‘remarkably gullible’ in failing to solve the riddle.



Offline sm0ky2

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3000
Re: Successfully looped SMOT
« Reply #21 on: January 25, 2018, 03:57:13 PM »
It will unlikely run forever.
The metal ball has its own eddy current which produces a magnetic field that opposes its movement.
When the ball has lost its own momentum, which is the key to overcome so-called sticky points, it will be sucked somewhere.
However, the problem of this experiment does not necessarily mean perpetual motion machines do not exist.


There are eddy currents in the ball, as well as aluminum tracks, however, it is the field potential
gradient which creates the ‘sticky spots’, also the momentum to break them.
It is important to understand the distinction.
Unlike mechanical systems, which have direct energy input and output,
These systems gain energy from the field potential.
Very similar to gravity. Sure, there is wind resistance and friction with gravity,
But the ball doesn’t care. It will fall to the point of least potential (or until it is stopped)
The ball does the same thing in the magnetic field.


In the simple smot, field strength (and by proxy: potential) is controlled by distance
between ball and magnet. (simple smot is two solid magnets)
in these devices, gravitational potential is gained from transition through the magnetic
field gradient, then consumed to escape the field. depending on the variables and how
they are applied, the results can be underunity, unity, or overunity.


A complex smot (complex simple toy, right...) uses multiple magnets in 2 arrays.
In a complex smot, or HJ configuration, there is field compression.
(like poles forced together, which alter the shape of the fields)
In some designs, there is also field dispersion (diversion through a paramagnetic material)
this is done on the opposite (inactive) side of the magnets, and/or points between them.




an uncompressed magnetic field is generally symmetrical.
in this form, field symmetry can be applied and energy in=out.
uncompressed magnetic fields are ‘conservative fields’, like gravity.


A magnetic field becomes “compressed” when two like poles are forced together.
This alters symmetry by changing the orientation and density of the field.
compressed magnetic fields (when compression is assymetrical) are non-conservative fields.


This means that the magnetic potential gradient does not follow the standard magnetic curve
over a given distance. There may be points of lower or higher potential within the field, in
addition to the overall potential gradient of the field as a whole. This leads to fields with
‘net potential’. This is the ability to perform work. Unity cannot be a condition.
These systems are inherently underunity or overunity.


the change in force across an assymetrical magnetic field is dependent upon the distance
and the change in field strength. (irrespective of time)
Momentum, on the other hand, is dependent upon velocity (2nd integral of time)
When the field changes gradually over a longer distance then changes abruptly over a
shorter distance: this can lead to a condition where momentum exceeds the change in force
over time (because distance is short).
This is why the ball can exit passed the ‘sticky spots’.


Gravity is also employed in many designs to add force to the momentum of the ball,
in opposition to the magnetic attraction. While it is a helpful tool, it is not necessary.


Howard Johnson made use of a dual-gradient. (double smot) in his linear accelerator.
or simplified magnetic gate.
Many of you have seen this on my YouTube.
(Yes, I noticed the middle name, and decided to not update that detail, but rather
 leave it intact as a historical Mandela Marker)


In the linear gate, field compression takes place between the rotor and stator.
The Tri-Force expanded upon this by adding secondary compression effects
within the stator(s). As well as dispersion to re-establish the potential gradient.
(the balls disperse the field more uniformly than 2 fields in free space)


An important feature of field compression, is field expansion on the opposite
poles. This also, can be assymetrical.
And can be dispersed. (or diverted through a paramagnetic material)


the so-called “entry repulsion” of a linear gate can be reduced through manipulation
by dispersion, compression, or field cancellation.
———————————————————————————-
I shall accept the challenge presented to me. But ask that if anyone wishes to also
partake in this adventure, that we do so in an economically responsible manner.


To keep things simple, I’ll build my demos using a complex smot design.
(personally I’m partial to the HJ double-smot, but we can start simple)


Basically the complex smot comes in 2 forms: (there are others, but 2 mains ones)


One where all the magnets are alligned on a single plane, which is then angled
towards the track at one end. Each side of the track is opposite polarity.


And another uses a staircase design, which is divided into 2 categories:
 First - a same number of magnets are positioned in a staircase approaching the track.
And secondly- a staircase is formed by an increasing number of magnets.


my demos will primarily focus on the first staircase type for simplicity.
This allows for explicit control over field compression variables, while maintaining
consistent field strength maximums.


Now I will NOT engage in discussions over what brand of magnets to use.
Nor will I be answering any questions regarding which brand I will use.
The last time we played with balls and magnets we inadvertently put a toy company
out of business, and we can’t even get those magnets anymore....
But I will say that their cheap knock-off (while the magnets are crap) have nice
steel balls, so those products may be a good source, or steel ball bearing balls.


Your choice of balls and magnets, I leave up to you. And as such, I will try to keep
my discussions in terms of the conditions desired, rather than the specifics of components.


One important condition is the relationship between the mass of the ball and magnetic strength.
If it was not evident by the above stated (simple) smot condition, I will say now, that
the smot devices are affected by magnetogravitics.
It is not the driving force, but a very important variable to consider.


A simplified explanation of this, is that there is a force differential between the
downward force of gravity and the forces through the magnetic potential.
If magnetism is too strong or the ball too light, the ball will defy gravity and fly towards
the magnets.
If it is too weak, or the ball too massive, gravity (and inertia) wins and the ball stays put.
In the ramp configuration, the ball will roll downwards.
So there is a balance of forces to contend with.
The condition desirable in these experiments is such that the magnetism is strong enough
to roll the ball along the track, but gravity still provides enough force to keep it ON the track.
To understand this, push along a road or car uphill, vs lifting a car.
Applied force subtracts from gravitational force and vice versa.
We want the magnetic force to be a little stronger but not too strong.


A good way to get a handle on this is to take your ball, and a magnet:
place the ball on a flat surface and approach with the magnet from above but at an angle.
Locate the distance at which the ball moves to under the magnet, but does not lift off the surface.
At this distance you are within the desired range.
It is a range of differentiated forces.
further away the ball will be accelerated with less force,
closer- with more force.
Our variable should be constricted to within this range.


Often, the set-up will present a situation where the exit-end of the track falls outside of this range.
In this condition, the ball will stick to the end of the track, held against gravity, by the magnets.
This can be dealt with by increasing the distance between magnet and ball, thus decreasing
the magnetic force.
This is done by diverting the path of the ball, changes in the track, to increase distance.
The momentum of the moving ball can be used to overcome the attraction force, and allow this to
occur. But also this condition can be achieved by manipulation of the field itself. Caution must be used
in this approach to avoid undesirable magnetic potentials, mid-track.


How you design your particular smot is less important than how the ball behaves within it.
It is the potential through the field that imparts force onto the ball.


It is the velocity of the ball (momentum) that exceeds the end-potential force.
Or this can be done by allowing the gravitational force to exceed the magnetic.
Or a combination thereof.


The condition is prerequisite, that the ball, when allowed to enter the array from a stationary
state, travels through the array and exits the influence of the field with some non-zero velocity.
Any attempt to loop the devices or connect them in a continuous linear path is futile without
first meeting these requirements.


The first step, is therefore, to create a single smot, that functions in this manner.



Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Successfully looped SMOT
« Reply #21 on: January 25, 2018, 03:57:13 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline sm0ky2

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3000
Re: Successfully looped SMOT
« Reply #22 on: January 25, 2018, 04:12:15 PM »
The second step (although often non-intuitive) involves the final velocity
of the ball after exiting the effective field of the array, and any subsequent
remaining gravitational potential vertical from the initial starting point.


This is the “energy” quotient available for reentry into the array or entry into
a sequential array. (or energy output from a difinitive analysis)


The entry/reentry mechanism (path or otherwise) must be engineered to within
the above outlined specifications. Less than required entry force results in a
failed entry, too much can cause the ball to go off-path, or alter the time-variant
acceleration caused by the momentum to magnetic force conversion.


Meeting this condition is the second prerequisite.


Only after both of these are met, can discussions take place about the
geometrical variations of looped or continuous linear arrays.




Offline sm0ky2

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3000
Re: Successfully looped SMOT
« Reply #23 on: January 25, 2018, 04:30:46 PM »
My upcoming video series will first show examples of smot types,
then demonstrate each of these effects, as independently as I am able to,
as well as combined results of the conditions as a whole machine.


I present these details in text form, for those who don’t like to watch videos,
and to allow discussion of these points during the time it takes me to prepare
the real-world models and video them.


I welcome any forethought and conjecture, or any additional input from those who
have experimented along these lines.
However, thermodynamically religious rhetoric will probably be ignored on my part...
what is “possible” under theory, and what occurs in reality are not the same thing.
The best example I can give you involves gravity and the “sling-shot” maneuver.
But conditions exist all throughout physics which are thermodynamically incoherent.
So if you are here to preach about “that’s impossible!”
Or “there must be a motor somewhere”
I gladly give you the pulpit.


I’m not here to hide anything, and anyone with a ball and a few magnets can do this.


Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Successfully looped SMOT
« Reply #23 on: January 25, 2018, 04:30:46 PM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline sm0ky2

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3000
Re: Successfully looped SMOT
« Reply #24 on: January 25, 2018, 04:40:16 PM »
You guys are welcome to follow along using a type1 simple smot
Personally I am skipping over this because of the complexity of the variables.


With single-field symmetry, you have a uniformly increasing field strength, and a
field geometry that varies with thickness.


for reasons that aren’t worth getting into here, the simple version works better if the outside
of the magnets are shielded by a metal plate the same area as the back of the magnet.
If the diametrically magnetized bar magnet is thick enough you don’t need to do this.


I’m going to just go straight into the staircase version, but I will also show the planar version.


Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13723
Re: Successfully looped SMOT
« Reply #25 on: January 25, 2018, 05:11:00 PM »
Do you have a "successfully looped" SMOT, or not?

If not, then you are just another one of those people who pretend to teach what they cannot themselves do.

And I'm betting a cheezburger that the answer is "NO". Go ahead, prove me wrong.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Successfully looped SMOT
« Reply #25 on: January 25, 2018, 05:11:00 PM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline sm0ky2

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3000
Re: Successfully looped SMOT
« Reply #26 on: January 25, 2018, 06:53:10 PM »
Here is an introduction video I made
Explaining the functional mechanism
or rather the piece of it that I feel is important
to begin with.


This magnetic situation can take on many shapes and forms
This is about the SMOT (or SMT),
So I will try to keep this contained to that set-up.


https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=xCFHKMou3M8


Offline sm0ky2

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3000
Re: Successfully looped SMOT
« Reply #27 on: January 25, 2018, 08:48:05 PM »
This is the same thing in a different set-up.
To give a more simplified perspective
the ball does not spin in this demo,
and there is only one magnetic array.
this is the north, but the south one does the same thing.


When both are employed, the force is increased.
with precision, two like fields can be used, adding another field compression dynamic.


https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=cRVZ3aGxAdk

Offline sm0ky2

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3000
Re: Successfully looped SMOT
« Reply #28 on: January 25, 2018, 10:03:03 PM »
This can be further simplified with just a ball and a single magnet.


the ball accelerates towards the magnet, and decelerates away from it.
If the velocity at the time of passing is too low, the field will attract the ball back in.
and it will stop at the point closest to the magnet.
If the velocity is great enough, the ball will sling-shot passed the magnet and fly off.


This is a time-dependent variable.


The rate of deceleration divided by the time it is at each point or division of the analyzed field.
The deceleration (or opposing acceleration) changes with distance.


when the change in distance entering and leaving are assymetrical, the force is also assymetrical.
The accelerating condition is different than the decelerating condition.


This is important, when the field symmetry is maintained, the potential energy through the
gradient is conservative. Energy in = energy out (-friction ) and the system fails.
the change in distance entering should occur gradually, and the distance leaving should increase
abruptly.


So that at the end of the transition, the attraction force falls off quickly.




Offline blueplanet

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 364
Re: Successfully looped SMOT
« Reply #29 on: January 26, 2018, 09:17:02 AM »

You know what?
When I first came cross his bicycle wheel, I also felt agitated.
I also had[size=78%] a lot negative things to saying mind.[/size]
[size=78%]The only thing I cannot yell about is 30+ years of self-spinning.[/size]
[size=78%]For you, my only suggestion is to debunk it using your laws of science.[/size]
Period.



Google searched on it.  Got this -

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4762778/How-riddle-bike-wheel-finally-solved.html

Quote

However, he made it clear from the start that his machines were fake, calling himself a ‘court jester in the palace of science’. Dr Jones, who lived in Jesmond, Newcastle, said that he had included ‘conjuring tricks’ and ‘cunning distractions’, and scientists had been ‘remarkably gullible’ in failing to solve the riddle.

 

OneLink