Storing Cookies (See : http://ec.europa.eu/ipg/basics/legal/cookies/index_en.htm ) help us to bring you our services at overunity.com . If you use this website and our services you declare yourself okay with using cookies .More Infos here:
https://overunity.com/5553/privacy-policy/
If you do not agree with storing cookies, please LEAVE this website now. From the 25th of May 2018, every existing user has to accept the GDPR agreement at first login. If a user is unwilling to accept the GDPR, he should email us and request to erase his account. Many thanks for your understanding

User Menu

Custom Search

Author Topic: New video on site of possible OU test fixture  (Read 14567 times)

psychopath

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 62
Re: New video on site of possible OU test fixture
« Reply #15 on: August 17, 2007, 10:40:18 AM »
@Omnibus,

Can you please provide a link where you show conclusively that the SMOT violates CoE.

Sorry if this is alraedy posted somewhere else, but I don't find it on this forum. Thanks.

Albert

I too would like to see this!

Tim

Here is a video that shows what he means:

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

The video shows that even if you do not have a superior loop, you can make use of that extra energy. As you can see, the person in the video does not give the ball a headstart or an initial kick, he simply removes the ruler.

Some sceptics claim that you put in the energy when placing the ball on the ramp. This is not true, and we even have evidence in this video. You see, even if it did take up energy to place the ball there, the ball was placed the same way once the magnets were removed, so the hand still put in the same energy(assuming it does), yet the ball traveled further when the magnets wre present.

I think this DOES prove that a SMOT violates CoE! Same ramp, same person, only difference is the magnets!


Omnibus

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5330
Re: New video on site of possible OU test fixture
« Reply #16 on: August 17, 2007, 12:04:16 PM »
In addition to what @psychopath says, here?s an even more convincing video conclusively proving that SMOT violates CoE:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2383887636280790847

hartiberlin

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8154
    • free energy research OverUnity.com
Re: New video on site of possible OU test fixture
« Reply #17 on: August 17, 2007, 12:49:32 PM »
In addition to what @psychopath says, here?s an even more convincing video conclusively proving that SMOT violates CoE:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2383887636280790847

Video not found.

Did you mean this one ?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5163427245750490858

Regards, Stefan.

Humbugger

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 290
Re: New video on site of possible OU test fixture
« Reply #18 on: August 17, 2007, 01:25:09 PM »
In addition to what @psychopath says, here?s an even more convincing video conclusively proving that SMOT violates CoE:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2383887636280790847

Video not found.

Did you mean this one ?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5163427245750490858

Regards, Stefan.


Both videos come up no problem for me...how either proves a CoE violation is not self-explanatory to me, however.  All I get is that magnets pull on steel balls.  I already knew that. 

Omnibus

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5330
Re: New video on site of possible OU test fixture
« Reply #19 on: August 17, 2007, 02:32:51 PM »
@Stefan,

The link to the magnetic propulsor you gave avove also demonstrates a device which violates CoE. However, the first video in my previous posting is actually of a SMOT.

Honk

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 497
Re: New video on site of possible OU test fixture
« Reply #20 on: August 17, 2007, 03:32:39 PM »
Both videos come up no problem for me...how either proves a CoE violation is not self-explanatory to me, however.
All I get is that magnets pull on steel balls.  I already knew that. 

I would also like to read a good and simple explanation of the OU theory behind the CoE violation.
How could this setup ever provide excess energy?

acp

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 178
Re: New video on site of possible OU test fixture
« Reply #21 on: August 17, 2007, 03:44:52 PM »
I am in full agreement. Is there some kind of full mathamatical description of where ou occurs? I don't mind working through some lengthy math if it explains or shows that excess energy is being produced.

Albert

Omnibus

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5330
Re: New video on site of possible OU test fixture
« Reply #22 on: August 17, 2007, 03:52:47 PM »
I'm reluctant to discuss this already resolved issue. You may look around in this and other forums and find my arguments posted in various threads and explained in various ways. For instance, you may take look at this thread: http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,2733.30.html:

@bitRAKE,

Please read what I write and try to think before posting such nonsense:
Quote
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.


Honk

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 497
Re: New video on site of possible OU test fixture
« Reply #24 on: September 28, 2007, 09:55:44 PM »
Deleted
« Last Edit: September 28, 2007, 10:52:48 PM by Honk »

Low-Q

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2847
Re: New video on site of possible OU test fixture
« Reply #25 on: September 28, 2007, 10:52:04 PM »
In addition to what @psychopath says, here?s an even more convincing video conclusively proving that SMOT violates CoE:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2383887636280790847

Video not found.

Did you mean this one ?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5163427245750490858

Regards, Stefan.
If you look closely, the wood-part attached to the water level is not parallell. I bet if he turn the water level 180 degrees, or remove the wood part, it will prove that the table, or the mechanical setup, is not in water level.

Vidar