Language: 
To browser these website, it's necessary to store cookies on your computer.
The cookies contain no personal information, they are required for program control.
  the storage of cookies while browsing this website, on Login and Register.

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

Tesla Paper

Free Energy Book

Get paid

Donations

Please Donate for the Forum.
Many thanks.
Regards, Stefan.(Admin)

A-Ads

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 Members: 84049
  • *Latest: Asuka

  • *Total Posts: 893952
  • *Total Topics: 15710
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 3
  • *Guests: 21
  • *Total: 24

Author Topic: How this was done in 1821.....  (Read 39729 times)

Offline steve_whiss

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 59
How this was done in 1821.....
« on: July 12, 2007, 01:09:05 AM »
Demos - How Faraday handled this situation

Nearly 200 years ago, guys playing with magnets and electricity were making great breakthroughs, discovering new stuff, coming up with 1sts and overturning established ideas.

Big names here - Ampere, Oersted, Faraday plus more on the sides.

How did they handle these sort of situations ?Prove it !? situations?


Ampere was the formal ?Let's build it nice and proper, in a woodgrain display case? sort of guy. Really, he commissioned lab techs to build stuff.


Faraday was the ?Dunno about the maths, let's see what works - give me that glue gun - let's do it!? guy (he had some very nice ideas too...)

Ring any bells?


Anyhow, Faraday did got something to work. This was a true giant 1st.

Apart from muscles and crude steam engines, this was the FIRST demonstration of deliverable mechanical power. This was the seed from which electric motors grew.

How did Faraday get people to know? :)

All in the (readable and interesting book) ?Electrodynamics from Ampere to Einstein? by Olivier Darrigol, Oxford University Press.

Read page 1 (this mostly background) then bottom page 2 then a pic of the ?give-away? on page 3.

Just look how simple he made the model.

:) Nice!


Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

How this was done in 1821.....
« on: July 12, 2007, 01:09:05 AM »

Offline steve_whiss

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 59
Re: How this was done in 1821.....
« Reply #1 on: July 12, 2007, 01:15:25 AM »
These of course all powered.

Notice that to save time, Faraday floated rotational experiments. That saved time playing with bearings...


Offline Omnibus

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5330
Re: How this was done in 1821.....
« Reply #2 on: July 12, 2007, 01:32:10 AM »
@steve_whiss,

The ?Faraday? part of the job has already been done as far as overunity goes?production of excess energy and violation of CoE has been proven beyond doubt in SMOT. Therefore, there?s nothing this book can add in this respect. Let alone the fact that mentioning Einstein is most unfortunate, especially if his theory of relativity is had in mind as a great ?discovery?. The truth is that the theory of relativity is just a compilation of trivial errors and nonsense. A ?theory?, such as Einstein?s STR, wrought with internal inconsistencies can by no means be considered a ?discovery?, let alone ?great?.

As for the engineering part beyond ?Faraday?, it is more daunting than building an externally powered electric motor.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: How this was done in 1821.....
« Reply #2 on: July 12, 2007, 01:32:10 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline steve_whiss

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 59
Re: How this was done in 1821.....
« Reply #3 on: July 12, 2007, 01:49:50 AM »
:)

... I hoped to contrast how Faraday presented his works

vs

how Steorn have !

Mailing out little working models was a nice idea.

Offline Omnibus

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5330
Re: How this was done in 1821.....
« Reply #4 on: July 12, 2007, 01:52:53 AM »
Don't forget that much more is at stake here than in Faraday's case. This is a revolution greater than the industrial revolution caused by the steam engine and the discoveries of the likes of Faraday.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: How this was done in 1821.....
« Reply #4 on: July 12, 2007, 01:52:53 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline shruggedatlas

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 549
Re: How this was done in 1821.....
« Reply #5 on: July 12, 2007, 03:21:46 AM »
@steve_whiss,

The ?Faraday? part of the job has already been done as far as overunity goes?production of excess energy and violation of CoE has been proven beyond doubt in SMOT.

That is quite a statement.  Beyond whose doubt?  Definitely yours, but you are one of few true-believers.  All the SMOT shows is that magnets attract ferrous materials.  The added gimmick is an inclined plane, but frankly how is this different that putting a ball an inch under a magnet, letting go, and watching the ball jump up to meet the magnet?  According to you, this would be over unity!  Free energy solved!

The simple question is this, if SMOT is over unity, why hasn't anyone ever closed the loop?  If the ball is leaving with more energy than it began with, surely it has enough energy to make it back to the starting point, or at least to another SMOT alligned next to it, which in turn can return the ball to the original SMOT device?

In truth, despite tremendous effort, no one has ever closed a SMOT loop, and no one ever will.  All it would take is just 101% energy efficiency, and you would be able to close the loop.  Alas, the SMOT is well under 100%.  What force the magnet giveth at start, the magnet taketh away when the ball leaves the SMOT, and when you subtract friction, you end up with less than 100%.

And please, spare us the measurements of energy before and after.  I do not doubt there are some measurements that would seem to support your position, and I have seen these bandied about before.  However, the plain fact remains that a mere 1% over unity would be enough to close the loop, and no one has yet to produce this 1%.

Offline Omnibus

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5330
Re: How this was done in 1821.....
« Reply #6 on: July 12, 2007, 03:39:00 AM »
Quote
That is quite a statement.  Beyond whose doubt?  Definitely yours, but you are one of few true-believers.  All the SMOT shows is that magnets attract ferrous materials.  The added gimmick is an inclined plane, but frankly how is this different that putting a ball an inch under a magnet, letting go, and watching the ball jump up to meet the magnet?  According to you, this would be over unity!  Free energy solved!
 
Correct, free energy solved. Scientifically. The fact that you don?t understand that and are saying things such as in the above quote doesn?t mean a thing. There? science, reason, scientific method and there are not very few, yourself included, who don?t have a clue and are happily ready to demonstrate it.
Quote
The simple question is this, if SMOT is over unity, why hasn't anyone ever closed the loop?
No, this question is irrelevant when discussing the violation of CoE by the SMOT. The above question concerns only the engineering aspect of the SMOT application and has nothing to do with the scientific issue of whether or not the CoE is violated (which, in fact, is). Not one bit.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: How this was done in 1821.....
« Reply #6 on: July 12, 2007, 03:39:00 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline shruggedatlas

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 549
Re: How this was done in 1821.....
« Reply #7 on: July 12, 2007, 03:58:31 AM »
No, this question is irrelevant when discussing the violation of CoE by the SMOT. The above question concerns only the engineering aspect of the SMOT application and has nothing to do with the scientific issue of whether or not the CoE is violated (which, in fact, is). Not one bit.

I think this question has everything to do with it.  It would be trivial to set up an electric motor which added 10% energy to the ball, and have that motor continuously toss a ball down a low-friction ramp and have the ball return to the starting point via some kind of small roller-coaster type setup.  Yet your over unity device cannot accomplish this simple task.  You write this off to an "engineering problem."  What's the problem?  No one can engineer SMOTS to be in circle?  No one can engineer a little track to return the ball to its starting position?  Surely this is not the case.  The "engineering problem" smacks of a cop-out.

If the SMOT is over unity, let's see it put that extra energy to use.  Where does the extra energy go, if there is not even enough to return the ball, with assistance from gravity, to its starting location?  The SMOT is a funny machine - it not only adds free energy, but it also takes it away after it is done!

Offline Omnibus

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5330
Re: How this was done in 1821.....
« Reply #8 on: July 12, 2007, 05:13:27 AM »
Quote
I think this question has everything to do with it.  It would be trivial to set up an electric motor which added 10% energy to the ball, and have that motor continuously toss a ball down a low-friction ramp and have the ball return to the starting point via some kind of small roller-coaster type setup.  Yet your over unity device cannot accomplish this simple task.  You write this off to an "engineering problem."  What's the problem?  No one can engineer SMOTS to be in circle?  No one can engineer a little track to return the ball to its starting position?  Surely this is not the case.  The "engineering problem" smacks of a cop-out.
No it doesn?t. The problem is the same as when during the fifties the science of computers was around but they didn?t have laptops on their desks. Trivial as it may sound now. Or during the times of Goddard. Why didn?t Goddard fly to the moon since he was so sure of his inventions. In one word, it?s ridiculous to put forth an engineering application as a requirement for the acceptance of a scientific discovery. It has never been the case and never will. Otherwise, we won?t have Compton effect, Davisson-Germer experiment, Rutherford?s discoveries etc., etc. Where?s their application to enhance the neighborhood?
Quote
If the SMOT is over unity, let's see it put that extra energy to use.  Where does the extra energy go, if there is not even enough to return the ball, with assistance from gravity, to its starting location?  The SMOT is a funny machine - it not only adds free energy, but it also takes it away after it is done!
Again, no. Utilitarian tasks are not attributes of Science. Engineering handles utilitarian applications.

And, by the way, that?s not what SMOT does, as you describe it. You?d better learn the theory behind SMOT before uttering such opinions.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: How this was done in 1821.....
« Reply #8 on: July 12, 2007, 05:13:27 AM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline shruggedatlas

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 549
Re: How this was done in 1821.....
« Reply #9 on: July 12, 2007, 05:37:03 AM »
No it doesn?t. The problem is the same as when during the fifties the science of computers was around but they didn?t have laptops on their desks. Trivial as it may sound now. Or during the times of Goddard. Why didn?t Goddard fly to the moon since he was so sure of his inventions.

Your analogy is extremely poor.  Goddard's rockets actually worked in the way he intended.  Sure, they could not take him to the moon, but the rocket did provide propulsion as outlined in his theories.

In this case, I am not asking the SMOT to power a nation, or a city, or a house, or heck, even a single light bulb for any amount of time.  I am simply asking that the SMOT provide a tiny amount of added energy, enough to return its missile to its starting location.  Engineering-wise, I have described the solution.  Either make a chain of SMOTs, or use a single smot with some kind of track to return the ball to the starting location.  The fact that the SMOT cannot do this is evidence that it is simply not imparting any additional energy to the ball.

I will ask you this, if the ball leaves the SMOT with more energy than it started with, why can it not return to its starting location?  An extremely weak electric motor can do this, and we have the "engineering" required to create the ramp or circle of SMOTs I described.  There is nothing left to create, except a device that can actually add energy to a ball, and the SMOT is clearly not it.

I am beginning to suspect that your definition of "over unity" is not the traditional one.  If you think that a magnet simply pulling a ball once creates energy, then you have your own definition that differs from the traditional.  Unfortunately, your definition of "over unity" is present everywhere and is nothing special and does not lead to an energy producing device.  I really think you are just confusing force with energy.

Offline Omnibus

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5330
Re: How this was done in 1821.....
« Reply #10 on: July 12, 2007, 05:48:03 AM »
Quote
Your analogy is extremely poor.  Goddard's rockets actually worked in the way he intended.  Sure, they could not take him to the moon, but the rocket did provide propulsion as outlined in his theories.
On the contrary, my analogy is just the right one. SMOT proves violation of CoE. To ask for more is the same as asking why Goddard didn?t land on the moon.
Quote
In this case, I am not asking the SMOT to power a nation, or a city, or a house, or heck, even a single light bulb for any amount of time.  I am simply asking that the SMOT provide a tiny amount of added energy, enough to return its missile to its starting location.  Engineering-wise, I have described the solution.  Either make a chain of SMOTs, or use a single smot with some kind of track to return the ball to the starting location.  The fact that the SMOT cannot do this is evidence that it is simply not imparting any additional energy to the ball.
I?m also not asking Goddard for much, only to land on the Moon. I?m not asking him to bring cities and nations to the Moon. Your reasoning is ridiculous. Typical reasoning of a non-scientist only interested in the utilitarian aspect of a discovery:?What will it give me??, ?Will it improve my life?? and so on. Engineering, engineering, that?s the Science. Typical for a lay person.
Quote
I will ask you this, if the ball leaves the SMOT with more energy than it started with, why can it not return to its starting location?  An extremely weak electric motor can do this, and we have the "engineering" required to create the ramp or circle of SMOTs I described.  There is nothing left to create, except a device that can actually add energy to a ball, and the SMOT is clearly not it.
 
You may ask the same question, concerning engineering. as many times as you want and you?ll always get the same answer?that?s not part of the scientific exploration, that is the engineering part of it which is not under discussion when a scientific effect is the subject of the conversation.
Quote
I am beginning to suspect that your definition of "over unity" is not the traditional one.  If you think that a magnet simply pulling a ball once creates energy, then you have your own definition that differs from the traditional.  Unfortunately, your definition of "over unity" is present everywhere and is nothing special and does not lead to an energy producing device.  I really think you are just confusing force with energy.
You?d better begin to suspect what your knowledge of the matter under discussion is and don?t transfer your confusion about force and energy onto others.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: How this was done in 1821.....
« Reply #10 on: July 12, 2007, 05:48:03 AM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline shruggedatlas

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 549
Re: How this was done in 1821.....
« Reply #11 on: July 12, 2007, 06:54:31 AM »
You may ask the same question, concerning engineering. as many times as you want and you?ll always get the same answer?that?s not part of the scientific exploration, that is the engineering part of it which is not under discussion when a scientific effect is the subject of the conversation.

Fine, you have a magical device that produces energy, yet with all our knowledge, we have no way of capturing this energy.  Apparently, harnessing the force of a moving ball is beyond modern science, even though the modern internal combusion engine is hundreds of times more complicated.  I do not believe there is any scenario or set of facts that could possibly be presented that would convince you that the SMOT is not over unity, so I give up.  You see the ball move, and you think "free energy."  Too bad the ball only moves once.  Good luck with your inventions.

Offline Omnibus

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5330
Re: How this was done in 1821.....
« Reply #12 on: July 12, 2007, 07:34:53 AM »
You don't get it, do you? Please don't impose your confusion on others.

Offline shruggedatlas

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 549
Re: How this was done in 1821.....
« Reply #13 on: July 12, 2007, 07:52:02 AM »
You don't get it, do you? Please don't impose your confusion on others.

I could say the same to you, but I respect your right state your ideas, as much as I disagree with them, and so please respect mine.  Until someone kicks me off this forum, I intend to voice my skepticism about some of the devices discussed here.

Offline Omnibus

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5330
Re: How this was done in 1821.....
« Reply #14 on: July 12, 2007, 07:55:21 AM »
Yours are not statement of ideas. Yours is a plain and simple confusion.

 

OneLink