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: 2
  • *Guests: 12
  • *Total: 14

Author Topic: How this was done in 1821.....  (Read 39732 times)

Offline Dingus Mungus

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 859
Re: How this was done in 1821.....
« Reply #75 on: July 19, 2007, 11:20:59 AM »
So with no functioning device and math you either made up or copied from a website you are convinced this is the real thing. You're that sure about your analysis...

What you do not realize is that in the real world the ball has to return to its starting hieght or all it has done is convert gravitaional potential in to kinetic energy.

You keep using -MGh as your input energy... If you applied -MG of force to M it would levitate not lift, as -MG is only at equilibrium with gravity. Its not the energy input. That's a measurement in joules, of the potential energy the mass would have if dropped to its zero level or lowest point. Lets call that lowest point 0mm and pretend we live in no friction land. In JLNLabs device notes, they showed the ball self starting at 31mm which gives the ball a starting potential energy of 4.86576 mJ.

PE = 0.016 * 9.81 * 31 = 4.86576 mJ

The ball then rolled up to 35mm.
Which equates to a gain of 0.62784 mJ.

PE = 0.016 * 9.81 * 35 = 5.4936 - 4.86576 = 0.62784 mJ

But then the ball is trapped in a cog point untill gravitation potential is converted to overcome it. This is done by dropping the ball rather than continuing allong the same trajectory.

So the ball is dropped from 35mm to 0mm which converts all potential to kinetic.
Taking back the 0.62784 mJ gained and BORROWING the other 4.86576 mJ.

PE = 0.016 * 9.81 * 35 = 5.4936 mJ

This is where Naudins math goes way off from mine... I have no idea how high his ball reached nor is it clear the distance achieved up the grade, but it is clearly shown it doesn't roll out of the track whick has a max hieght of 30mm. If the ball was not able to reach its initial hieght of 31mm all you've done is converted gravitational potential to kinetic energy. The 4.86576 mJ of borrowed energy was not returned in full. Pure simple straight foreward. It's PE is a lesser value at the end of the run so gavity has been converted in to motion.

This assesment was based on a PHYSICAL MODEL with REAL DATA. While my conclusion varies greatly from the sites conclusion, Anyone who understand basic physics can see the obvious loss in PE!

http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/smotidx.htm
http://jnaudin.free.fr/images/smtstdia.gif

I don't want to be thought of as a "nay sayer" but its blatent!
~Dingus Mungus

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: How this was done in 1821.....
« Reply #75 on: July 19, 2007, 11:20:59 AM »

Offline Omnibus

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5330
Re: How this was done in 1821.....
« Reply #76 on: July 19, 2007, 12:05:50 PM »
@Dingus Mingus,

I?m not going to engage myself in that nonsense. Your ?analysis? is ridiculous and you should stop this. Read what I wrote above, try to understand it, see the experiment here: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2383887636280790847, do whatever but stop posting nonsense.

Offline Dingus Mungus

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 859
Re: How this was done in 1821.....
« Reply #77 on: July 19, 2007, 01:05:02 PM »
@Dingus Mingus,

I?m not going to engage myself in that nonsense. Your ?analysis? is ridiculous and you should stop this. Read what I wrote above, try to understand it, see the experiment here: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2383887636280790847, do whatever but stop posting nonsense.

Once again all that shows is you can drop a 16g ball 8.75 inches.
You don't even need magnets for that.

The ball is placed on a track 8.75" high, the ball is lifted 0.25" to a height of 9", and then dropped 8.75". A grand total loss of 34.88436 mJ of potential energy! Congrats!

Starting PE = .016 * 9.81 * 222.25 = 34.88436 mJ

Ending PE = BIG FAT 0.00

I can't even imagine how you don't understand this. Please go now and spend 5 minutes reading the wiki page on the definition of PE aka MGh. I promise it'll make sence then.
~Dingus Mungus

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: How this was done in 1821.....
« Reply #77 on: July 19, 2007, 01:05:02 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline Dingus Mungus

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 859
Re: How this was done in 1821.....
« Reply #78 on: July 19, 2007, 01:14:17 PM »
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potential_energy

"Potential energy is the energy available within a physical system due to an object's position in conjunction with a conservative force which acts upon it (such as the gravitational force or Coulomb force). When an object is moved from some reference position in opposition to a force, energy is expended and a potential difference is created. The energy supplied in attaining the new position is recovered when the object is allowed to return to the reference position (in other words, the energy has the potential to be released)."

Offline Omnibus

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5330
Re: How this was done in 1821.....
« Reply #79 on: July 19, 2007, 02:01:57 PM »
No, you don't understand this and I'm not going to waste time to educate you. It's advisable to stop posting your nonsense here.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: How this was done in 1821.....
« Reply #79 on: July 19, 2007, 02:01:57 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline Dingus Mungus

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 859
Re: How this was done in 1821.....
« Reply #80 on: July 19, 2007, 02:14:48 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 (+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.

Ok lets just pretend basic physics is nonsence...
Help me understand your equation better then.

You state:
(+mgh1 +Mb) - (+mgh1 ?(Ma ? Mb)) = +Ma
Where:
+MGh = Potential energy of the mass
What's Ma and Mb?
Its not a form of resistance as it lacks velocity squared and is ADDED to the input.
I understand MGh, h1 and h2, but I need a clear definition of what a and b are.

~Dingus Mungus

P.S. Then I can use your equation to re-crunch Naudins numbers!
Should be interesting to see how it works in refrence to real life.

Offline Omnibus

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5330
Re: How this was done in 1821.....
« Reply #81 on: July 19, 2007, 02:58:01 PM »
No, basics Physics isn?t nonsense. You don?t understand basic Physics. Don?t present your misunderstanding as basic Physics.

Ma and Mb are integrals which are the magnetic potential energy of the ball at A and B and which are equal to the work necessary to do in moving the ball from C to A, respectively, from C to B in the magnetic field.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: How this was done in 1821.....
« Reply #81 on: July 19, 2007, 02:58:01 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline Dingus Mungus

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 859
Re: How this was done in 1821.....
« Reply #82 on: July 19, 2007, 04:05:49 PM »
Yeah your right, wiki's definition of PE aka GMh is way off!!!
You make my head hurt sometimes. Nothing gets through.
Can someone with experience with physics tell me if my calculations
regarding the potential energy of the mass were accurate?

Ok so its own Mass times its own magnetic potential... (attraction)
Whats "a" and "b" measured in?

Help me apply your theory to a real world example now...
You have all of JL Naudins numbers show me how you plug them in.
Like I tryed to do for you... Explain it all.
We should see your equation line up with his real world results.

~Dingus Mungus

P.S. While I can understand the use of a integral to graph magnetic moment, it in no way has made up for the loss of gravitational potential in the fall to a lower track.

Offline Omnibus

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5330
Re: How this was done in 1821.....
« Reply #83 on: July 19, 2007, 07:47:04 PM »
Never mind. Don't bother.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: How this was done in 1821.....
« Reply #83 on: July 19, 2007, 07:47:04 PM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline Dingus Mungus

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 859
Re: How this was done in 1821.....
« Reply #84 on: July 20, 2007, 03:15:54 AM »
Never mind. Don't bother.

I've noticed you are not even willing to push past the theoretical in any term.

Well unfortunately thats not an option, I handed off your equation and JLNLabs physical numbers this morning. An associate of mine who majored in theoretical mathamatics is now reviewing you equation. If his analysis is inconclusive I have other people who would be willing to look at it with even shinier credentials. Either way, if I'm wrong I want to know what is right and how it is right. You don't need to post anything more if you don't want to, but I'll be posting the review once I get it back. You probably blindly assume I'm trying to discredit you or the SMOT, but in reality the bottom line is: If I can't get full answers from you about that equation I have to ask someone else.

~Dingus Mungus

Offline shruggedatlas

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 549
Re: How this was done in 1821.....
« Reply #85 on: July 22, 2007, 11:26:28 PM »
I have a sneaking suspicion that Omnibus is a very sophisticated troll.  I could be wrong though.  I have no equation to prove it.  At any rate, you will never convince him.  Any failure of the SMOT to actually deliver excess energy in a real world experiment will be written off as an "engineering problem." 

The good part is that you do not have to convince anyone that the SMOT is not OU.  The burden of proof about anything as revolutionary as this is always on the proponent of the revolutionary idea.  Let's see the SMOT return the ball to the starting point without the help of the researcher's hand, and then we will have something to talk about.  Until then, no equation is going to convince me that the SMOT is OU.

Maybe a different question should be asked.  Why is it that the SMOT is not able to return the ball to the starting position?  What happens to the excess energy purportedly created by the SMOT?

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: How this was done in 1821.....
« Reply #85 on: July 22, 2007, 11:26:28 PM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline hartiberlin

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7975
    • free energy research OverUnity.com
Re: How this was done in 1821.....
« Reply #86 on: July 22, 2007, 11:46:35 PM »
@shruggedatlas

please calm down.
Omnibus is a physics professor.

The SMOT is indeed overunity.

The ball is sucked automatically into the ramp fields.
No energy needed to place it there.

User Expitaxy( who unforntunately died in a car accident) and Greg Watson did  get to run the ball
looped around for 5 to 6 times through a SMOTstator track and then the ball was too magnetized and
then sticked to one magnet stator sidetrack.

It is very difficult to setup mechanically such a selflooping system.
It must be all very precise to the 1/10 th of a millimeter, otherwise the forces will accelerate
the iron ball too fast or too slow.It must go through the "blue hole" at the top and then fall far more below to escape
the permanent fields and then be brought again up.

All the rolling friction normally cancels the gain via the SMOT ramp,so it is really only engineering problems to
get a looped system.

Offline shruggedatlas

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 549
Re: How this was done in 1821.....
« Reply #87 on: July 23, 2007, 12:29:14 AM »
@shruggedatlas

please calm down.
Omnibus is a physics professor.

The SMOT is indeed overunity.

The ball is sucked automatically into the ramp fields.
No energy needed to place it there.

All the rolling friction normally cancels the gain via the SMOT ramp,so it is really only engineering problems to
get a looped system.

Very well, so Omnibus is on the level.

As the the smotstator, the rolling friction can be made minimal.  After all, this is a metal ball that is rolling.  Nothing is being dragged.  I am not saying there is no friction, but with the energy gains claimed (I saw 113% efficiency claimed somewhere, correct me if I am wrong), surely these frictional effects can be overcome easily, and this should not be such a huge engineering problem.

Here is a video of an attempt to create a SMOT loop, and it does not work.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pmsu9NbLxGk

I realize that maybe these people did not do it right and there is too much friction somewhere, but you have to admit, the experiment took alot of work to set up. 

I would really be impressed if I saw the ball go around even twice.   Is there a video of Epitaxy's experiment available?

Offline psychopath

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 62
Re: How this was done in 1821.....
« Reply #88 on: August 16, 2007, 09:07:08 AM »
Why is it that people are still trying to minimize friction? If it relies on the absence of friction, then it will eventually stop.

Quote
and then the ball was too magnetized and
then sticked to one magnet stator sidetrack.


I don't understand how this could work, since the domains in the metal ball are continually aligned in only one direction, and that is the direction we want, so if it stays aligned that way, well, that is alright isn't it? Anyway, even if it did get too magnetized, this could be solved by making the drop point a little higher, so the ball gets a little demagnetized everytime it drops.

By the way, although I believe that overunity through SMOT type devices is possible, I do not think an endless smot has been built yet. Anyway, even if it was, it is a totally different device and would need a new name.


Offline sm0ky2

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3340
Re: How this was done in 1821.....
« Reply #89 on: September 21, 2007, 11:39:01 PM »
you guys are missing an important fact here. the ball does not require a drop to Point A - this drop is set there for a convienence. once the ball leaves the magnetic field there is kenetic energy imparted on the ball its travel UP the ramp. Someone needs to give this set-up a secondary ramp BACK DOWN, at a slightly lesser grade, so that the ramp ends at point B, where the ball started. NOT below it.

The input energy = the energy needed to lift the ball through the gravitational field to point B MINUS the energy imparted on the ball at slightly before point B when it starts to PULL the bal INTO the ramp!!!
The output energy = the Kenetic energy of the moving ball PLUS the potential energy gained by the incline.

An accurate measurement of this devices Intput vs Output will be the energy rremaining to transport the ball from point C BACK DOWN a secondary (nonmagnetic) ramp around the point B. - If the ball does not have the energy to do that, then te device is obviously not OU. 

BUT dropping the ball all the way down to Point A makes arguing over this a mute point, for the simple fact that the energy to lift ball from point A UP to point B is MUCH more than the energy put into the system initially.

Take point A out of the equation and do NOT let the ball drop BELOW point B. This is the only way you will get it to work, unles your smot ramp is approx 3 feet longer to compensate for the losses you incurr moving from A to B.

 

OneLink