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: 1
  • *Guests: 11
  • *Total: 12

Author Topic: How this was done in 1821.....  (Read 39728 times)

Offline steve_whiss

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 59
Re: How this was done in 1821.....
« Reply #15 on: July 12, 2007, 12:22:06 PM »
OK guys,

let me SPELL OUT what I was trying to show.

1. The issue "how are amazing things shown to people" has been tackled before - successfully.

2. We have Ampere, a formal by-the-numbers guy who would not do anything unless he had the math nailed, and Faraday who basically played with stuff on a workbench till he got it to work.

So, how did Faraday show his great invention off (- and please do realise - in those days THIS WAS UNKNOWN and just as amazing then as an OU device today)

He simplified it to the bone - then built a couple of dozen and mailed the models out to people - with instructions how to use.


Here is my point >>> Why could Steorn not have done this?


Too many people re-invent the wheel.

Most of human life and the various factors and situations in it have HAPPENED BEFORE - there is no need to re-invent ways of dealing with situations.

Just look see what worked before.


Also, this is a good book. Einstein did take us up a blind alley in some ways, but just because his name is in the title does not mean that a recommendation is discredited.


For instance, did you know that there was a Lorentz and a Lorenze? They lived a few hundred miles apart and were always being mis-quoted and guilty of cribbing each others work. Also Maxwell is important - if you go by Bearden, Maxwell is THE great hero of science. And his story is in this book.

I'm not saying it answers OU issues, just that here it is, it's fun to read and it has nice ideas in it.

Some of those ideas are very strange too - it is interesting to see how near-genius level thinkers work a problem, given only 10% of what we know now (example - electron unknown till late 1800s. So, how did people explain magnets before?)


Back to Faraday.

He used what worked and did the job. So he floated experiments - it's simple, bearing friction is removed, there is less fiddly mechanics. I'm wondering if a Steorn demo laid flat - using magnets about a floating rotor (this would look like a water-filled plate) would not show the effects simply.

Just - as an easy way to build the thing. Hey, get cooling from water too!


Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: How this was done in 1821.....
« Reply #15 on: July 12, 2007, 12:22:06 PM »

Offline shruggedatlas

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 549
Re: How this was done in 1821.....
« Reply #16 on: July 12, 2007, 02:49:51 PM »
OK guys,

Here is my point >>> Why could Steorn not have done this?


Because they have no working prototype.

Offline Omnibus

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5330
Re: How this was done in 1821.....
« Reply #17 on: July 12, 2007, 02:55:07 PM »
OK guys,

Here is my point >>> Why could Steorn not have done this?


Because they have no working prototype.
What makes you so sure?

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: How this was done in 1821.....
« Reply #17 on: July 12, 2007, 02:55:07 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline shruggedatlas

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 549
Re: How this was done in 1821.....
« Reply #18 on: July 12, 2007, 03:01:47 PM »
Yours are not statement of ideas. Yours is a plain and simple confusion.

Really, then clear up my confusion.  You claim SMOT is over unity.  Well then, where does the extra energy in the ball go, if there is not even enough there to get back to the starting point?  A $5 electric motor can do this, with current technology (meaning a little track for the ball).

Oh wait, I know.  We have not developed circular track technology that works with magnets, right?  This is an engineering problem, right?  We need another few hundred years, I guess.  Give me a break.  Make the track non-ferrous, if that is the issue.  But don't tell me we have no engineering solution to get the ball back to its original location.  The real problem is that the ball does not have enough energy.

Read Simanek's article - http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/museum/smot.htm.   I find no flaw with his refutation of your device.  If you spot a flaw, let me know.

Offline Omnibus

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5330
Re: How this was done in 1821.....
« Reply #19 on: July 12, 2007, 03:13:40 PM »
Simanek's analysis is incorrect. Analysis of the closed-loop device http://data.image.zabim.com/o-wa51V9glc9.jpg confirms that. Indeed, since the ball doesn?t return along B->A the ball does not lose only the energy portion, imparted to it by the researcher, (+mgh1 ?(Ma ? Mb)) from the energy (+mgh1 +Mb) it has at B, that is, it?s not true that the ball returns at A with the energy

(+mgh1 +Mb) - (+mgh1 ?(Ma ? Mb)) = +Ma (CoE obeyed)

As experiment shows, the ball returns along C->A, therefore, the ball loses in addition to (+mgh1 ?(Ma ? Mb)) also the energy portion (+Mb ? 0) = mgh2 + [kinetic + rotational + energy losses] which the ball had stored at B but was realized at C. Therefore, the ball returns at A with the energy

(+mgh1 +Mb) - (+mgh1 ?(Ma ? Mb) - Mb) = +Ma + Mb = +Ma +mgh2 + [kinetic ...+]

As a result, in SMOT, the initial +Ma is restored and in addition an excess of +mgh2 + [kinetic ...+] is produced.

Harnessing the excess energy produced is an engineering problem beyond the scope of this analysis.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: How this was done in 1821.....
« Reply #19 on: July 12, 2007, 03:13:40 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline shruggedatlas

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 549
Re: How this was done in 1821.....
« Reply #20 on: July 12, 2007, 03:34:26 PM »
Simanek's analysis is incorrect. Analysis of the closed-loop device http://data.image.zabim.com/o-wa51V9glc9.jpg confirms that. Indeed, since the ball doesn?t return along B->A the ball does not lose only the energy portion, imparted to it by the researcher, (+mgh1 ?(Ma ? Mb)) from the energy (+mgh1 +Mb) it has at B, that is, it?s not true that the ball returns at A with the energy

(+mgh1 +Mb) - (+mgh1 ?(Ma ? Mb)) = +Ma (CoE obeyed)

As experiment shows, the ball returns along C->A, therefore, the ball loses in addition to (+mgh1 ?(Ma ? Mb)) also the energy portion (+Mb ? 0) = mgh2 + [kinetic + rotational + energy losses] which the ball had stored at B but was realized at C. Therefore, the ball returns at A with the energy

(+mgh1 +Mb) - (+mgh1 ?(Ma ? Mb) - Mb) = +Ma + Mb = +Ma +mgh2 + [kinetic ...+]

As a result, in SMOT, the initial +Ma is restored and in addition an excess of +mgh2 + [kinetic ...+] is produced.


I will admit I have no idea what the equations mean, but I can tell already that you are mischaracterizing some things.  You mention return along B->A and "returning to A".  The ball did not start at A, so how can it return there?  The ball starts at B.  If it returned to B, that would be something to talk about.  Heck, A could be three feet below the table on the floor, and the ball would hit the ground with quite a whack.  But all it's doing is returning the potential energy it got from you or someone else lifting it up and putting it B.

Quote
Harnessing the excess energy produced is an engineering problem beyond the scope of this analysis.

Correction.  Harnessing the excess energy produced is an engineering problem akin to extracting blood from a turnip.

Offline Omnibus

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5330
Re: How this was done in 1821.....
« Reply #21 on: July 12, 2007, 03:38:53 PM »
You're not getting it and are only wasting bandwidth of the forum by posting on this topic.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: How this was done in 1821.....
« Reply #21 on: July 12, 2007, 03:38:53 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline shruggedatlas

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 549
Re: How this was done in 1821.....
« Reply #22 on: July 12, 2007, 03:47:50 PM »
You're not getting it and are only wasting bandwidth of the forum by posting on this topic.

Sorry, but Simanek was right about people like you.  You will cite equations until you turn blue in the face, but you cannot construct a simple, cheap experiment that shows any extra energy being created, simply because all such attempts demolish your theories.  Good luck with your theoretical over unity device - too bad nothing will ever come of it.

Offline Omnibus

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5330
Re: How this was done in 1821.....
« Reply #23 on: July 12, 2007, 03:56:49 PM »
I can construct and have constructed a device that produces excess energy. That you don't understand what it does is your problem. What will come of it comes after you understand what it's about.

As for Simanek, he should refer what he said to himself. You may cite equations until you turn blue in the face proving definitively excess energy is real but he'll continue to stick to his confusion. Funny thing is that his followers don't even know what they are talking about but quote him as the authority. Blind leading the blind.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: How this was done in 1821.....
« Reply #23 on: July 12, 2007, 03:56:49 PM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline steve_whiss

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 59
Re: How this was done in 1821.....
« Reply #24 on: July 12, 2007, 05:09:53 PM »
... as regards SMOT, I believe this clarifies the situation completely.

There is an excess momentum at least. You get to SEE it.

http://jlnlabs.imars.com/atelab/videos/smotnrg320.avi



Offline Omnibus

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5330
Re: How this was done in 1821.....
« Reply #25 on: July 12, 2007, 05:28:48 PM »
Conclusively production of excess energy in SMOT can be demonstrated in a closed loop as in http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2383887636280790847 shown schematically here: http://data.image.zabim.com/o-wa51V9glc9.jpg.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: How this was done in 1821.....
« Reply #25 on: July 12, 2007, 05:28:48 PM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline bitRAKE

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 129
    • Nothing really
Re: How this was done in 1821.....
« Reply #26 on: July 12, 2007, 07:15:15 PM »
People that measure the SMOT ignore the fact they are placing the bearing and that require more energy when the magnets are present. If the bearing could be dropped onto the rail (from far outside of the magnetic field) with or without the magnets present then it would be proof. But that experiment will not have the desired outcome!

Offline NerzhDishual

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 588
    • FreeNRG.info
Re: How this was done in 1821.....
« Reply #27 on: July 12, 2007, 08:59:50 PM »
Hi (few) skeptic gremlins, patented nay-sayers and blind nit-pickers!

(Of course, Ommibus and the majority of the members of this forum are not part of these designations :)))

My 2C.
OK.

"Over-Unity" is a very usefull (and slightly provocative) denomination (especially for a web forum, for example  ;D) but it is also a confusing oxymoron.

Why? Because this denomination implicates (for some) an *efficiency* greater than One. Now, by definition , efficiency is <= One. Is it not?

We better should talk about COP (Coeficient Of Performance).

A heat pump has a COP of about 4. It's a fact.
That means that you, the operator, gives/spends 1 unit of 'electricity' and this device gives you back about 4 units of heat. Free NRG ;).
The extra energy comes from the environnement.
No CoE is broken here and the environnement is clearly defined.
Of course, the efficiency of the 'motor pump' is less than One.

BTW: according to some, you should be able to close the loop and have your heat pump self running. Obviously, this is not (still) the case. Is it?
Theorically, we should be able to collect some part of the heat, transform it into electricity to feed back the compressor. Not so easy... A matter of "efficiency", I guess. So: that is why a device with a COP >1 cannot be automatically self running.

In case of "Over-Unity" devices, it is the same.
The only CeO (Conservation of Energy) that is broken is the 'official/maistream science' CeO, the Albert Einstein's CeO with his (in)famous fu@*$? 'Void Space'.
Of course if you "beleive" (*you* are the beleivers) in an Empty Space you just will not able to understand how could and "over-unity" device work.
Actually, the NRG comes form 'somewhere' and no 'extended' CeO is broken.
From where?
Actually the 'environnement' here is not still clearly defined; but, do you really *beleive* that the present science is complete?

Best


Offline bitRAKE

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 129
    • Nothing really
Re: How this was done in 1821.....
« Reply #28 on: July 12, 2007, 09:32:15 PM »
Well said. Concepts like "closed system" are just that - concepts and nothing more. It takes a lot of energy to isolate a system.

I think distributing small models to demostrate an idea is great - sure beats reading another text book! :P

Offline Omnibus

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5330
Re: How this was done in 1821.....
« Reply #29 on: July 12, 2007, 10:09:08 PM »
@bitRAKE

Quote
People that measure the SMOT ignore the fact they are placing the bearing and that require more energy when the magnets are present. If the bearing could be dropped onto the rail (from far outside of the magnetic field) with or without the magnets present then it would be proof. But that experiment will not have the desired outcome!
That?s incorrect. Please see above my analysis which explains why you?re incorrect.

 

OneLink