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: Is this the first selfrunning overunity motor w/o batteries ? Mike?s motor  (Read 572517 times)

Omnibus

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5330
@CTG Labs,

The reality of overunity (violation of the principle of conservation of energy) has been proven beyond doubt in the case of SMOT (cf. analysis of http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2383887636280790847 schematically shown in http://omnibus.fortunecity.com/smot.gif).

Practical application of the fact that overunity is real is only an engineering problem. Not an easy one, at that. Some who are attempting to put it in practice may succeed others may not succeed. The fact that there will be researchers who will not succeed in clothing the phenomenon of overunity in a practical engineering device doesn?t overturn the reality of overunity.

To prove that a device violates the principle of conservation of energy is only necessary to show that the output energy is more than the input. It is not at all necessary to show that it can run itself, as appears to be your understanding. You say your device doesn?t run itself (yet). However, does it produce more energy than the energy consumed? If so, can you show data (scope shots etc.) which can demonstrate that?

corona

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 41
It is quite difficult to prove conclusively that something is overunity on paper by measureing all inputs and outputs, because how do we measure the exact amount of energy that is going into the friction of the system, or quantify all possible energy sources involved (radio waves being picked up by windings?) and even if you do get everything and it tallies up, it's going to be hard to present these findings to the world, as everyone's more than likely to say you must have made a mistake somewhere.

On the other hand if you've got something that runs itself, it is clearly obvious to any untrained eye that you have something special, and it is easy to demonstrate what you have. This is why I believe it is crucial to get something that is a clearly obvious 'overunity' type device which can run in a closed loop.

Please don't start posting other so called overunity devices, the smot is not proven overunity, as you haven't measured all energy in and out (remember to include all the energy imparted by your hand placing the ball in the smot, and the energy used to hold the ball still initially before letting it go, not just the basic potential energy based on it's height and gravity). btw that gif doens't appear to work, I just get a fortunecity logo.
If anything in putting out more energy than is going in, it has to be possible to make it run itself, ie if you are getting 101% out you should be able to tap off the extra 1% and use the 100% to keep it running.

Omnibus

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5330
?It is quite difficult to prove conclusively that something is overunity on paper by measureing all inputs and outputs, because how do we measure the exact amount of energy that is going into the friction of the system, or quantify all possible energy sources involved (radio waves being picked up by windings?) and even if you do get everything and it tallies up, it's going to be hard to present these findings to the world, as everyone's more than likely to say you must have made a mistake somewhere.?

This is incorrect. There is science and it applies the scientific method. If you want to disregard the scientific method, that?s another story.

In the case of the discussed SMOT, as shown in the cited links, the inputs and outputs are understood very well even if the SMOT is not in a closed loop and is not self-running. SMOT is an overunity device beyond any doubt.

That SMOT is violating beyond doubt the principle of conservation of energy is easier to demonstrate than to try to manufacture a working self-sustaining device for that purpose. Manufacturing of self-sustaining device meets with enormous purely engineering (not scientific) problems and inability to make one is in no way a proof that the principle of conservation of energy isn?t violated. It only proves that the concrete researcher is unable to practically construct a self-sustaining device.

Of course, it won?t hurt to show a self-sustaining device for the purposes of proving violation of the principle of conservation of energy. However, as already said, it is not mandatory.

Again, SMOT is proven beyond any doubt that is an overunity device and all of its input and output energies are very well understood.

hydrocontrol

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 281
Quote
The reality of overunity (violation of the principle of conservation of energy) has been proven beyond doubt .....
This maybe true however nothing beats having a mechanical device running WITHOUT a battery and powering a couple of LED's (if possible) at the same time. The average layperson is more impressed with this then with a battery attached even if the battery is being charged. Too many 'slight of hand' demonstrations has lead to a 'souring' of the perception of even units that appear to be producing anything close to overunity. The people performing 'slight of hand' demonstrations is long and growing longer each day. Tilley being one at the top of the list but there are a lot of others which add to the 'scam' labeling of possible working units...  ::) Sigh.. An now we have Mr. Bedini casting shadow on Mike's video by stating that something is 'strange' if you step though it frame by frame without actually coming out stating what is the concern and where in the video the concern is located... :-\ On top of that we have claims of him running a motor with just a capacitor months ago yet only after Mike's video is shown does this new video come to light.. Seems this would have been a 'important' milestone and should have been pushed a little sooner. ???  I wonder if the cavemen fought as much over who discovered fire. :D
 Now on the other hand people are going to argue about how much energy was put into the magnets and can you get that energy out without depleteing the magnets. Still I am working on my replication with the hope of having a novelty sitting one my desk spinning away WITHOUT a battery..  ;D

Hoppy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4135
Re: Here it is ! The first documented selfrunning overunity motor w/o batteries !
« Reply #199 on: February 20, 2007, 04:25:32 PM »
We should not forget that the magnets used in the WM are made with energy taken from an external source. Does anyone know how much electrical energy is required to produce lets say a ceramic grade 8 magnet? With this information, we could then determine for how long the WM would need to continuously run before the true accumulative energy produced by the WM generator plus energy consumed by the motor equals the energy used to create the magnets. If this time was exceeded then I'm happy to declare it OU. This issue has been raised before but somewhat dismissed in my opinion by saying that the magnets will not loose strength. However, this will only be proved or disproved by running the WM for a long enough period of time.

Omnibus

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5330
@hydrocontrol,

First, depletion of magnets is non-issue. To magnetize a piece of magnetic material from scratch one needs to apply field created by several hundred watts for less than a second. Thus, even if full de-magnetization occurs (which is never the case) the energy ?released? would be a couple of hundred joules, not enough to explain the claims of even the most modest inventors of overunity machines.

Also, I agree that it?d be nice to have a device running without a battery while powering a couple of LED?s but this will only be an engineering achievement. As I said, not achieving self-sustaining construction is only a proof that the concrete constructor hasn?t been able to achieve one and not that the principle of conservation of energy isn?t violated which is the scientifically important fact. Scientifically, violation of the principle of conservation of energy is a proven fact and now what remains is to have a handy constructor make a practical self-sustaining device based on that violation.

hydrocontrol

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 281
Omnibus wrote:
Quote
Also, I agree that it?d be nice to have a device running without a battery while powering a couple of LED?s but this will only be an engineering achievement.

But it would be a MAJOR engineering achievement if it can be built repeatably from a simple set of plans and worked EVERYTIME. Not just one out of twenty tries.  ::) The only way to change the 'Mainstream' of science is to sit something in front of people that shows undeniable evidence. Having a device sitting on thousands of peoples desks is one of the best ways to 'change' mass perception. The only way to change the masses is to change the perception and that normally requires hitting them over the head with it.  ;D
One of the best ways I could think of is to produce a table/desk top cool looking novelty item that everyone just 'has' to have. A wally-world $30. item. After it has been sitting on their table/desk running for a year then just point and shout 'there..your proof of overunity'... but then the next thing you know the governments will be 'outlawing' magnets as hazardous for us.  :-[
 Seems just recently a scientist at Purdue U that claimed cold fusion was finally vindicated with positive replication from another University. Will we ever see it to fruitation.. Not likely in our lifetime.. Why.. becuase it is not 'Mainstream' science.. Too bad civilizations are too short sighted...  :'(

seeandbelieve

  • Guest
Re: Here it is ! The first documented selfrunning overunity motor w/o batteries !
« Reply #202 on: February 20, 2007, 05:16:03 PM »
sorry, omnibus, i just can't see any OU in the video.
1  ball enters magnetic field at 8.5 cm -> potential energy goes up (0.5 cm x weight ball)
2  ball falls -> potential energy becomes inertial energy
3  ball leaves magnetic field -> inertial energy becomes less ( as if ball was falling from 8.5 cm height and not from 9.0 cm).

have a nice day, seeandbelieve


Omnibus

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5330
@seeandbelieve,

The best way to understand this is to look at omnibus.fortunecity.com/smot.gif.

The gravitational potential energy spent is mgh1 while the gravitational potential energy lost is mg(h1 + h2), that is, greater than the gravitational potential energy spent which is a clear violation of the principle of conservation of energy. All this in a closed loop in the magnetic field which means that no magnetic potential energy has been spent or lost.

Omnibus

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5330
@hydrocontrol,

The best way is if science was functioning properly, considering the evidence and not resorting to dishonesty as is the case nowadays.

Like I said, there is ample evicence (cf. SMOT) that the principle of conservation of energy is violated, at that, very reproducibly. No more than that is needed for a true scientist to acknowledge the violation.

As for the practical application, it will come in time, as in may other cases when scientific discoveries have found their place in practical devices.

barbosi

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 261
Please use the proper thread for this debate.

Thanks.

Omnibus

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5330
@barbosi,

This is the proper thread.

barbosi

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 261
I'm sorry, I thought this is about a self running motor and atepmts to replicate it.

Since your debate I cannot clasify as News, and is not related to SMOT (no one here in this theard confront thier tests results on different setups), how abot a new thread in " Theory of overunity and free energy" section?

I hardly can see the link between Mike's motor and SMOT.
And people are watching for good news related to Mike's replication.

Me 0.02$

PS: However, if you feel like this is the right place, go ahead; personaly I have no problem ignoring the new trend. Sooner or later another news will put the thread on track.

Regards.

hydrocontrol

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 281
You are correct Barbosi. This should be about the self running motor and replications. My apologies. Going back to replicating now. Should have something to show tomorrow. Now if only my wire arrives..

grunff

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 5
We should not forget that the magnets used in the WM are made with energy taken from an external source. Does anyone know how much electrical energy is required to produce lets say a ceramic grade 8 magnet? With this information, we could then determine for how long the WM would need to continuously run before the true accumulative energy produced by the WM generator plus energy consumed by the motor equals the energy used to create the magnets. If this time was exceeded then I'm happy to declare it OU. This issue has been raised before but somewhat dismissed in my opinion by saying that the magnets will not loose strength. However, this will only be proved or disproved by running the WM for a long enough period of time.

I've heard this myth repeated over and over again in discussions on magnet motors. Magnets do not and cannot "run down" when used in a motor. Magnets do demagnetise over time, but you can't make it happen quicker by for instance opposing two magnets.