Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy
Mechanical free energy devices => mechanic => Topic started by: steve_whiss 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!
-
These of course all powered.
Notice that to save time, Faraday floated rotational experiments. That saved time playing with bearings...
-
@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.
-
:)
... I hoped to contrast how Faraday presented his works
vs
how Steorn have !
Mailing out little working models was a nice idea.
-
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.
-
@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%.
-
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.
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.
-
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!
-
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?
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.
-
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.
-
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.
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.
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.
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.
-
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.
-
You don't get it, do you? Please don't impose your confusion on others.
-
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.
-
Yours are not statement of ideas. Yours is a plain and simple confusion.
-
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!
-
OK guys,
Here is my point >>> Why could Steorn not have done this?
Because they have no working prototype.
-
OK guys,
Here is my point >>> Why could Steorn not have done this?
Because they have no working prototype.
What makes you so sure?
-
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 (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.
-
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.
-
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.
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.
-
You're not getting it and are only wasting bandwidth of the forum by posting on this topic.
-
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.
-
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.
-
... 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
-
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.
-
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!
-
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
-
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
-
@bitRAKE
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.
-
@NerzhDishual,
The excess energy produced by the SMOT comes from nothing. It is different from the cases you mention, such as, say, fuel cells or heat pumps whereby there is an actual source of energy (e.g. at the expense of the energy of the environment, for instance). In SMOT there's no such source, the additional energy produced comes, as mentioned above, out of nothing. Obviously, after having this experiment conclusively proving that CoE can be violated, we have to change our understanding of the nature of energy. Energy is a more general concept than hitherto thought, and is an expression of the motion of matter; for the appearance of energy it is not always necessary to have some pre-existing quantity which the energy would arise from.
-
@Ommibus
If you carefully read what I was trying to say you will see that we could actually agree ???. I try to be more accurate and clear as possible, should my English permit it.
According to you, the energy comes from 'nothing'.OK. But what is 'nothing'? That is the question. A very philosophical one.
Is it always necessary to have a pre-existing quantity which the energy could arise from?
According to homeopathy: seems not. You do not need a single molecule of the active substance to get an effect. It is just the 'memory of water'. I do agree with this. But, what is the 'substratum' of memory, if any? IMHO, the same question arises about the controversed question of a life after death. Does it not?
Best
-
:) :)
The big Q is - is this energy new?
IF it is new, then Law of Conservation of Energy is <somehow> broken. Its unlikely the maths is bad (it's been raked over too many times) - so to my mind more likely some assumption or real-world aspect the maths ignores - makes some physical difference.
It seems to me that likely, the energy is from someplace else - so already exists in some invisible, undetectable form.
For instance, zpe. Humans can only see say 10^-4m by eye and down to 10^-18 m or so by electron microscope.
But we know from Wheeler in the 1960's that at foam sizes (10^-35m) that space itself is seething with massive, massive energy ... far greater then the E=mc2 energy we are used to.
So why not that?
I do not know how this can ever be proven.
:( what is special about magnets?
Anyhow, how do they work? Another thread perhaps.
Steve
-
@bitRAKE
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!
ThatÂ’s incorrect. Please see above my analysis which explains why youÂ’re incorrect.
Well, when you stop pretending the magnetic field isn't there then we can have an honest discussion. You cannot turn on the magnetic field after the bearing is placed on the track. No where in your analysis do you cover the pre-rail magnetic field effect on the bearing.
-
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.
That's a great closed loop, except for one thing. A hand is magically appearing and lifting the ball back to its starting position. I think I see your plan for free energy! Hire cheap labor to move little balls.
-
@Steve_Whiss
Frankly, I have no definitive opinion about 'energy' and, BTW, the purpose of life :).
Does this energy comes from 'nothing'?
Does it comes from 'Eather'?
You know what? I just do not care!
The theory of the steam engine is appeared after the invention of real machines.
I do beleive that Free-Energy is possible. I sometimes make some experiments about it and write articles in a French fringe magazine...
Are the maths bad?
I have been told that Maxwell was using Quaternions and had 20 equations. Then Heaviside and Lorentz simplified/mutilated/altered/symetrised his equations.
So, now, we have only these (in)famous 4 equations taught at university.
I just guess that this vector calculus is not so 'appropriate'. Imagine a wall and to twin big guys. One of the guy is pushing one side and the other guy is pushing the other side. According to vector calculus the result force is zero. Obviously, something (the potential) is missing. The quaternions can deal with this.
Best
-
@bitRAKE,
Please read what I write and try to think before posting such nonsense:
Well, when you stop pretending the magnetic field isn't there then we can have an honest discussion. You cannot turn on the magnetic field after the bearing is placed on the track. No where in your analysis do you cover the pre-rail magnetic field effect on the bearing.
Here is my analysis from which you should somehow try to understand that I am ignoring nothing.
The analysis of a ball going around a closed loop as in http://data.image.zabim.com/o-wa51V9glc9.jpg reveals the following:
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 + ...] 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 which is in clear violation of CoE.
-
@shrugged atlas,
That's a great closed loop, except for one thing. A hand is magically appearing and lifting the ball back to its starting position. I think I see your plan for free energy! Hire cheap labor to move little balls.
That's nonsense. Read my analysis, try to understand it and stop posting nonsense such as the above.
-
@Omnibus, clearly we are speaking different languages. Without a translator I doubt the exchange can progress much further. Thank you for taking the time.
-
@bitRAKE,
@Omnibus, clearly we are speaking different languages. Without a translator I doubt the exchange can progress much further. Thank you for taking the time.
I'm speaking the language of Science and Reason. If you need a translator for that language, find one and don't waste the bandwidth of discussion forums such as this by filling them with nonsense.
-
@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.
The simple question is this, if SMOT is over unity, why hasn't anyone ever closed the loop?
In truth, despite tremendous effort, no one has ever closed a SMOT loop, and no one ever will.
What is your proof for this statement?
A SMOT ramp gives extra potential energy (at the rate of MxGxH) to the ball.
The energy equation clearly indicates OU. The fact that the idea has not been
turned into a circle yet does not mean that this will not happen tomorrow.
Paul.
-
Typing an equation doesn't make it true. A test needs to measure input and output energy to determine if there is a gain from the SMOT - no such test has been presented and the analysis here is incomplete.
-
@bitRAKE,
[quoe]Typing an equation doesn't make it true. A test needs to measure input and output energy to determine if there is a gain from the SMOT - no such test has been presented and the analysis here is incomplete.[/quote]
A test measuring input and input energy which clearly determines the gain from SMOT is made. The equations presented reflect that. You don?t understand that and continue to fill the forum with nonsense.
-
@Omnibus, the nonsense is your conversion of input energy - which hasn't been measured. Some measurements of output energy have been made (ex. http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/smotidx.htm ). Using your rational one could say a door hinge is OU. Your equations reflect nonsense.
-
@bitRAKE,
@Omnibus, the nonsense is your conversion of input energy - which hasn't been measured. Some measurements of output energy have been made (ex. http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/smotidx.htm ). Using your rational one could say a door hinge is OU. Your equations reflect nonsense.
You?re continuing with your nonsense. The input energy is mgh1 (in fact, it is less than mgh1 and is mgh1 ? (Ma ? Mb). The output energy is mgh1 + mgh2 + [kinetic + ?].
mgh1 < mgh1 + mgh2 + [kinetic + ?]
input_energy < output_energy
Both input and output energy are measured since to measure heights h1 and h2 as well as m is straightforward (g is a constant) and [kinetic + ?] is always greater than zero.
If the input energy when lifting a ball from the floor to the table at height h1 is not mgh1 and the output energy when the ball falls back to the floor is not mgh1 then CoE will be violated any moment. It?s not. In lifting the ball from the floor to the table and then letting the ball fall back on the floor CoE isn?t violated.
CoE, however, is violated in SMOT, as I?ve shown.
You don?t understand the above and continue to fill the forum with nonsense.
-
Type it as many times as you want - it doesn't make it true.
mgh1 is not equal to the input energy
mgh1 ? (Ma ? Mb) is not input energy either
you have not measured input energy
Your reasoning is the nonsense.
-
Both input and output energy are measured since to measure heights h1 and h2 as well as m is straightforward (g is a constant) and [kinetic + Â…] is always greater than zero.
Okay, so your equations don't include a magnetic field - I thought you were talking about a SMOT?
-
@bitRAKE,
You don't understand this matter so you may withdraw from the discussion. Enough of your nonsense.
-
The equations are your nonsense not mine. You force a bearing into a magnetic field right where you mant it and then you just assume the result you want. You claim to have preformed an experiment that you have not done. Your results are bogus nonsense.
-
You don't have a clue. Read carefully what I wrote and try to understand it. The statements about the magnetic field and the input energy you make are sheer crap. That's embarrassing.
-
What leap of logic allows you to ignore the magnetic field when it suits you and measure from the middle of the experiment?
-
I don't ignore the magnetic field. As I said, you just don't get it.
-
There is no way you could be wrong? That is not science and there is no reason for that assumption except to perpetuate a farce.
I have attached a picture to help you understand. A person cannot place the bearing at B without working against the magnetic field in red. True, this force is pulling the bearing into the SMOT, but work has to be done to place the bearing at rest at position B. You ignore that fact.
Equating an apparatus with a magnet to one without a magnet is nonsense and certainly not science - it is more on par with magic tricks.
-
Not so. Ma > Mb, therefore, (Ma - Mb) > 0. The work to move the ball from A to B is -mgh1 + (Ma - Mb). Magnetic field helps in placing the ball at B. In magnetic field the work to place the ball at B when lifting it from A is less than the work in absence of magnetic field.
-
Not so. Ma > Mb, therefore, (Ma - Mb) > 0. The work to move the ball from A to B is -mgh1 + (Ma - Mb). Magnetic field helps in placing the ball at B. In magnetic field the work to place the ball at B when lifting it from A is less than the work in absence of magnetic field.
An invalid assumption which has not been tested.
The magnetic field density is not linear! It takes more energy to place the bearing at B than it does for it to return to A!
-
An invalid assumption which has not been tested.
This statement only indicates your lack of understanding what gravitational and magnetic potential energy is. Your arrogance is getting to be annoying.
-
This statement only indicates your lack of understanding what gravitational and potential energy is. Your arrogance is getting to be annoying.
You continually keep shifting the discussion to things besides the magnetic field - because you ignore it.
-
You continually keep shifting the discussion to things besides the magnetic field - because you ignore it.
Read again:
This statement only indicates your lack of understanding what gravitational and magnetic potential energy is. Your arrogance is getting to be annoying.
-
Read again:
-mgh1 + (Ma - Mb)
-
You haven't shown that - it's an assumption constructed to reach your conclusion.
-
You haven't shown that - it's an assumption constructed to reach your conclusion.
Nonsense. The fact that you have no clue what a conservative field is doesn't meanthat I'm making assumptions. You have a problem, not I. Lack of education as you demonstrate here doesn't constitute an argument in such a discussion. You may not contionue posting on this subject because the only thing you do is demonstrate your confusion.
-
...and you call me arrogant.
-
Yes, you're arrogant since you allow yourself to express opinions concerning conservative fields without having a clue about their properties. This is nothing but arrogance.
-
What about your opinions about the SMOT? You rattle on about it's OU characteristic and science shattering consequences without having a clue of what is reallying happening. You don't see that as arrogant?
-
What about your opinions about the SMOT? You rattle on about it's OU characteristic and science shattering consequences without having a clue of what is reallying happening. You don't see that as arrogant?
You continue with your arrogance. You have no basis to say the above because you don't know the basics. For instance, you dont know that the work -mgh1 + (Ma - Mb) spent to lift the ball from A to B is not an assumption but comes about due to the properties of the conservative fields involved. This is basic stuff which you don't fully understand but have the audacity to express opinions. Incompetence such as yours is not an argument.
-
I see.
-
:o
*dares to ask a OT question during a heated debate*
Is the "ball" pulled in to the gate by flux and accelerated out of the elevated exit gate? Do you have a good link to pictures and explanation of your measurements.
BTW... I don't want to get flamed but there are more accurate equations in physics to describe what you're doing. Just another equation to plug your numbers in to.
Total energy required to sustain velocity on an object uphill trajectory:
W = fMV + baV^3 + GMV (or) (f+G)MV + baV^3
W = energy needed in watts
f = coefficient of rolling resistance
M = weight in Newtons (1 pound = 4.45 Newtons)
V = speed in Meters/Second (1 mph = 0.45 meters/second)
b = drag factor in kg/m^3
a = frontal area in square meters
G = height of climb/distance of climb (e.g., % grade)
-
No, this is just confusing the issue. There are no equations, especially not those you propose, that will describe more accurately the production of excess energy in SMOT than the ones I've presented. I have given the most succinct and yet rigorous analysis which demonstrates beyond doubt the production of excess energy. See my previous postings.
-
LMAO...
No, that my friend is pure physics. Its fairly obvious you haven't accounted for wind resistance or rolling resistance. Later I hope to further review the accuracy of your equation.
~Dingus Mungus
-
Hi all.....
at a first-order approximation (a decent one) factors like windage and rolling resistance are the same.
What I do not know is: how much energy it takes to put the ball-bearing back to "start" for each of the 2 cases.
What is being shown by the excess momentum? Where did it come from?
IF the hand of the operator had added energy, this would have been felt as a resistance (adding PE) when moving the ball to the start. AND 100% obvious to the operator. That I do not believe, as the magnets seem to want to "grab" i.e. pull out from where it is. Seems to me - the operator energy input is LESS not MORE.
Anybody actually done this?
I do not believe in "energy out of nothing" - yet I do believe in zpe. This energy MUST come from somewhere; I think from foam or one of the many fields associated with the Earth.
Let's work the problem guys. Where did that energy come from?
Ideas??
Steve
-
@Dingus Mingus,
On the contrary. The term [kinetic + rotational + energy losses] accounts for that. Like I said, read what I wrote, try to understand it and don't fantasize.
-
Fantasize about what???
I never said the SMOT or your equation doesn't work,
I was only offering a more standard physics equation...
I also asked two questions: Is the "ball" pulled in to the gate by flux and accelerated out of the elevated exit gate? Do you have a good link to pictures and explanation of your measurements? I would rather read your published notes or data, not a random arguement in a thread.
~Dingus Mungus
-
I was only offering a more standard physics equation...
As I said, the equation you gave is accounted for in the term [keintic + ?] in my analysis. Your equation isn?t the solution to the problem, it describes only part of the output energy (specifically, part of the excess energy).
I?d like to have my arguments published but it?s impossible. Publishing is out of the question because it would open the floodgate in a direction which absolutely goes against the core of the current agenda in Physics. So, that?s out.
The arguments I gave in this thread should be enough.
Also, to answer your question, it seems that the part of +Mb which at C turns into kinetic energy (in addition to +mgh2) allows the ball to escape the sticky spot and to get ?recharged? at A. That is something to be had in mind in practical engineering applications.
-
(specifically, part of the excess energy)
No... I was describing Joules required to maintain velocity up a slope. No excess energy described. Excess would require a new equation and the addition of a second variable for exit velocity. I compulsively want to write it... But its not worth the time.
(I?d like to have my arguments published but it?s impossible.)
I only require a link to a site that shows your measurements and device.
(The arguments I gave in this thread should be enough.)
Well I'll pour over it again, but it was only an equation, no measurements.
(Also, to answer your question, it seems that the part of +Mb which at C turns into kinetic energy (in addition to +mgh2) allows the ball to escape the sticky spot and to get ?recharged? at A.)
??? ok...
At what speed does it exit the gate though?
Faster... slower... same velocity?
-
(specifically, part of the excess energy)
No... I was describing Joules required to maintain velocity up a slope. No excess energy described. Excess would require a new equation and the addition of a second variable for exit velocity. I compulsively want to write it... But its not worth the time.
Never mind what you were describing because it?s beside the point. Read my analysis and, as I said, don?t fantasize and don?t try to confuse the issue.
(I?d like to have my arguments published but it?s impossible.)
I only require a link to a site that shows your measurements and device.
No such link. As I said, the analysis presented in this thread shoud suffice.
(The arguments I gave in this thread should be enough.)
Well I'll pour over it again, but it was only an equation, no measurements.
What measurements? What I?m presenting is a conclusive theoretical analysis. Anyone can measure heights h1, h2 and m.
(Also, to answer your question, it seems that the part of +Mb which at C turns into kinetic energy (in addition to +mgh2) allows the ball to escape the sticky spot and to get ?recharged? at A.)
Huh ok...
At what speed does it exit the gate though?
Faster... slower... same velocity?
The speed doesn?t matter in this analysis. What matters is that there is kinetic energy which is part of the excess energy. Everything else is just engineering details of no consequence for the main point of the analysis.
-
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
-
@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.
-
@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
-
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)."
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Never mind. Don't bother.
-
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
-
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?
-
@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.
-
@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 (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?
-
Why is it that people are still trying to minimize friction? If it relies on the absence of friction, then it will eventually stop.
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.
-
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.
-
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.
This is an incorrect analysis because instead of reading what I wrote you're trying to fantasize groundlessly. Restrain from posting such gibberish. The correct analysis is already given above and the only thing you need to do is to read it carefully and to try to understand it.
-
(+mgh1 +Mb) - (+mgh1 ?(Ma ? Mb) - Mb) = +Ma + Mb = +Ma +mgh2 + [kinetic ...+]
i believe this is YOUR equation? ou are missing something at the end, which is a subtraction of energy from Point A to Point B which the cycle must undergo to sustain itself - hence energy taken away from the ball from the time it reaches point A until it reaches point B and restarts the cycle.
the end of he equation should include ::
- mgh(B - A) where B and A are the heights of the point respectively. This ammount of energy is put INTO the system to start the next cycle, and is not ACCOUNTED FOR in your equation above.
HOW does the ball get FROM point A TO point B WITHOUT this additional energy subtracted from the system?
if you feel i am wrong about this, then please explain to to me where that energy is accounted for.
that is a pure vertical climb from point A to point B, which i believe in your particular model is approx. 8.75" ????
the ball MUST make this climb in order to repeat the cycle, and the energy value for which is represented as
- mgh(B - A), the ONLY way to change this so it fits your original equation is to place both points A and B at the same height.
-
(+mgh1 +Mb) - (+mgh1 ?(Ma ? Mb) - Mb) = +Ma + Mb = +Ma +mgh2 + [kinetic ...+]
i believe this is YOUR equation? ou are missing something at the end, which is a subtraction of energy from Point A to Point B which the cycle must undergo to sustain itself - hence energy taken away from the ball from the time it reaches point A until it reaches point B and restarts the cycle.
the end of he equation should include ::
- mgh(B - A) where B and A are the heights of the point respectively. This ammount of energy is put INTO the system to start the next cycle, and is not ACCOUNTED FOR in your equation above.
HOW does the ball get FROM point A TO point B WITHOUT this additional energy subtracted from the system?
if you feel i am wrong about this, then please explain to to me where that energy is accounted for.
that is a pure vertical climb from point A to point B, which i believe in your particular model is approx. 8.75" ????
the ball MUST make this climb in order to repeat the cycle, and the energy value for which is represented as
- mgh(B - A), the ONLY way to change this so it fits your original equation is to place both points A and B at the same height.
Like I said, read carefully my analysis, try to understand it and stop writing stupidities such as the above. Enough of this.
-
The only gibberish posted in this thread is from Omnibus.
You might have convinced Stefan that you are a physics professor, in my eyes and in the eyes of many others you have no idea of physics and you are a complete ill mannered, arrogant idiot.
Please note that I am writing this under my real name with a real photograph and a real website and e-mail address and don't shield under an idiotic name like Omnibus.
Hans von Lieven
Incidentally, SMOT is NOT a religion, so don't attack anyone who questions it as a heretic.
LET THE FLAMES BEGIN !
-
Listen, you incompetent idiot. Not only that you don't understand Physics and therefore have no say in the matters at hand but you are arrogant and are continuously offending me not only by calling me names but mainly by ignoring my legitimate arguments. Stupid jerk, shut up or you will hear more of these characteristics which you most definitely deserve. Enough is enough. Someone must put a stop to the stupidities, ignoring of the scientific method and the offensive language the likes of you are practicing.
-
You don' have legitimate arguments you nitwit! You are the most offensive person on this forum! Do you really want me to post a collection of your vile utterings here, because I will if you don't tone it down.
Just as a sample look at this:
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?action=profile;u=1784;sa=showPosts
Do you want me to look for more??
I am not the only one who had enough of your venom.
Hans von Lieven
-
Enough of this. You are incompetent and, as seen, the only thing you can do is re-post texts which are beside the point of discussion. You have no place here. You're impudent and don't get it but I will remind you if you continue with your nonsense.
-
See what I mean??
Condemned by your own posts.
Hans von Lieven
-
Hey, impudent incompetent, stop spamming the thread. As seen, you contribute nothing to the question under discussion and are only spewing crap.
-
http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,751.msg4447.html#msg4447
"Imagine you have the ball somewhere beneath the device ? that is the ball?s initial position. You spend energy when lifting it from its initial position to the device input. The device lifts the ball up the ramp for which you spend no work. At the end of the ramp the ball falls under the action of its own weight to the initial position"
Firstly this statement fully re enforces smoky2's point...
Which you belittled him for.
Can you show us one REAL LIFE example of the closed loop you claim to have invented or does the phenomenon only exist in your fantasies and day dreams? What institution do you work for? I would be glad to PRIVATELY call and confirm your tenure. If I discover that you really are a physics professor with something I don't understand (and terrible communications skills), then I'll be glad to apologize, but in the mean time you sound and behave like a angry fascistic a-hole most of the time and have no credibility or evidence. Anyone else who comes to this forum with a claim has to provide real proof. Physical tangible evidence of some sort. YOU HAVE NEVER DONE THIS! You are not special and you will be treated just like the rest of us. Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof.
Was Humbug really banned from the site due to a conflict with Omnibunk?
~Dingus Mungus
-
http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,751.msg4447.html#msg4447
"Imagine you have the ball somewhere beneath the device ? that is the ball?s initial position. You spend energy when lifting it from its initial position to the device input. The device lifts the ball up the ramp for which you spend no work. At the end of the ramp the ball falls under the action of its own weight to the initial position"
Firstly this statement fully re enforces smoky2's point...
Which you belittled him for.
Can you show us one REAL LIFE example of the closed loop you claim to have invented or does the phenomenon only exist in your fantasies and day dreams? What institution do you work for? I would be glad to PRIVATELY call and confirm your tenure. If I discover that you really are a physics professor with something I don't understand (and terrible communications skills), then I'll be glad to apologize, but in the mean time you sound and behave like a angry fascistic a-hole most of the time and have no credibility or evidence. Anyone else who comes to this forum with a claim has to provide real proof. Physical tangible evidence of some sort. YOU HAVE NEVER DONE THIS! You are not special and you will be treated just like the rest of us. Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof.
Was Humbug really banned from the site due to a conflict with Omnibunk?
~Dingus Mungus
There are several people in this thread, you included, who need to carefully study the basics, read what I've proved and try to understand it before posting arrogant nonsense. Do your homework before posting here.
-
Please ALL,
please stay ontopic or post in a new thread.
I am going to delete all flamewar messages now...
-
Good Stefan, it is not helpful
Hans von Lieven
-
(+mgh1 +Mb) - (+mgh1 ?(Ma ? Mb) - Mb) = +Ma + Mb = +Ma +mgh2 + [kinetic ...+]
i believe this is YOUR equation? ou are missing something at the end, which is a subtraction of energy from Point A to Point B which the cycle must undergo to sustain itself - hence energy taken away from the ball from the time it reaches point A until it reaches point B and restarts the cycle.
the end of he equation should include ::
- mgh(B - A) where B and A are the heights of the point respectively. This ammount of energy is put INTO the system to start the next cycle, and is not ACCOUNTED FOR in your equation above.
HOW does the ball get FROM point A TO point B WITHOUT this additional energy subtracted from the system?
if you feel i am wrong about this, then please explain to to me where that energy is accounted for.
that is a pure vertical climb from point A to point B, which i believe in your particular model is approx. 8.75" ????
the ball MUST make this climb in order to repeat the cycle, and the energy value for which is represented as
- mgh(B - A), the ONLY way to change this so it fits your original equation is to place both points A and B at the same height.
Like I said, read carefully my analysis, try to understand it and stop writing stupidities such as the above. Enough of this.
i have read and RE-read your analysis, and cannot find where this ammount of energy is accounted for, Rather than projecting vulgar insulats at me for questioning your tactics,. perhaps you could EXPLAIN where this energy is accounted for? your analysis DOES NOT account fo this energy, and UNLESS you are going to show us a video of your "looped system" you shall explain where this energy comes from. Failure to do so will hereby deem your SMOT system as NON-Working for the fact that this energy is NOT accounted for.
You can sit here and call me a stupid, or claim that i am "not seeing things the way you are", but until you can explain to me EXACTLY HOW I AM WRONG, nothing is being accomplished here.
So quit attempting to belittle the people on this msg board and put your ideas into coherent sentences. We have all tried to point out why this system does not work in the way you have portrayed it, If you are unable/unwilling to look at other peoples idea's, the least you could do is explain why they are not valid to your patricular systrem, instead of attacking their character, and posting rediculous rebuttles with no logical explainations to address theirs concerns.
Thank you, and have a great day.
Sm0ky
-
@smOky2,
You're insulting me by not reading carefully what I write and by ignoring the legitimate conclusions from my analysis, impudently pushing nonsense and non-scientific requirements.
Also, this isn't a thread discussing SMOT, therefore, you'd better stop discussing it here but refer to http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,2733.30.html#msg40090 where you will convince yourself, upon proper understanding of what I wrote there, that the excess energy (free energy) comes out from nothing. And when I say "from nothing", I mean it. This is what the analysis shows. You should also stop insisting that in order to prove production of energy from nothing one needs to demonstrate a "looped system". This is unscientific, to say the least. Read carefully my analysis and stop polluting this thread with incompetent remarks.
-
Hello Hans,
I hope you'll pardon my idiotic name and I'd post an actual picture but I've been told it's just too frightening to look at. Other than those points I do agree with your posts.
It is a strange idea to me that a professor would not want to teach particularly on such an interesting idea as OU. That contradiction isn't as noticeable though as the one suggesting this isn't a thread on SMOT's when the first post from the illustrious professor was:
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.
a reference to SMOT's.
It has been a funny thread. I've never seen such a pile of ad hominen in a single thread ever. This is a record.
Bessler007
. . .
Please note that I am writing this under my real name with a real photograph and a real website and e-mail address and don't shield under an idiotic name like Omnibus.
Hans von Lieven
Incidentally, SMOT is NOT a religion, so don't attack anyone who questions it as a heretic.
LET THE FLAMES BEGIN !
-
actually, his contradictions are quite obvious...
still it is indeed strange for someone to claim to be a professor, yet refuse to give a very clear and proper explanation as to why someones serious objection would or would not be valid.
And it is indeed equally strange for that same person to claim the Smot is conclusive proof of OU "beyond doubt", yet refuse to provide that proof beyond any doubt, and then even to deny he introduced the Smot into the discussion in the first place.
If one is to use the Smot as conclusive proof of OU, then one should be able to show precisely how and why the Smot shows OU.
As I have been involved in Smot replication and variation groups, I happen to have experience with the Smot, and in my experience the Smot does indeed need to have the ball pushed into the magnetic attraction zone, which uses some input energy. If the Smot is built so that the ball just barely rolls up the ramp, the ball tends to get stuck at the end of the ramp, because the magnetic fields there are much stronger than at the start, and they tend to hold the ball in place where the flux through the ball is maximum. If the Smot is built so that the ball accellerates enough to leave the ramp, then usually the magnetic field at the bottom of the ramp is so strong that you need to hold the ball back before releasing it, which already gives some accelleration due to the "spring" effect one gets when the ball is already being attracted by the magnetic field. At some point, a "weak spot" was suggested in some Smot groups, sometimes referred to as the "prometheus effect", where a naturally slightly weaker magnetic field region was found at the end of the track, and this might allow the ball to exit the ramp, if properly done. Other solutions were to allow the ball to hit a trigger mechanism which would cause a third magnet to disrupt the magnetic field at the end of the ramp temporarily, thus allowing the ball to drop free from the ramp. To my knowledge no implementation of any of these mechanisms has actually yielded a continuous Smot yet.
One of the most promising designs for a continous Smot device I know of is this one: http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/rsmot.htm
And perhaps this C.O.P. calculation done by mr. Naudin is a bit clearer than the one given earlier in this thread: http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/smotnrgt.htm
I am fairly certain that mr Naudin would have posted his results if he had managed to make a Smot run continuously. The fact that ha has not posted anything of the sort suggests it may not be possible, though it could of course also mean he's just too busy. ;)
-
@Omnibus
After reading your post for a while here im convinced on 2 things..
1 you got beat up a lot as a kid... 2 you think your always right... regardless of what you write back here you bring a real sour tone to any discussion and manage to turn it into an argument at just about every instance... this is not welcomed to calm composed people... In the scheme of life its not really worth it to carry on liek you do or expend that kind of negative energy to people of all kid... So in short try to be nice to folks... otherwise karma might just come up and taser you some day... Funny how that karma thing works.... O yea as well when you go to bed at night i hope you also feel like you accomplished something being and ass. ;D