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
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... 33   Go Down

Author Topic: SMOT! - (previously about the OC MPMM)  (Read 181189 times)

Omnibus

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5330
Re: The OC Magnetic Perpetual Motion Machine
« Reply #45 on: January 06, 2008, 02:20:41 AM »
@Low-Q,

While for the example with the apple, residing in one conservative field, CoE holds without a doubt, when there is a favorable superposition of two conservative fields so that they can assist each other CoE can be violated and energy can be produced out of nothing.

This is the case with the device shown schematically here: http://omnibus.fortunecity.com/smot.gif

Thus, as seen in the above link, when an amount of energy |(mgh1 ? (Ma ? Mb))| is necessary to be imparted to the ball to raise it from A to the apex B then obviously the ball should lose exactly the same amount of energy |(mgh1 ? (Ma ? Mb))| if it is to return from B to A. CoE is obeyed. However, if the same amount |(mgh1 ? (Ma ? Mb))| of energy is imparted to the ball and the ball doesn't settle with B as an apex but, as experiment shows, instead reaches another apex C then, obviously, when the ball returns back at A the ball loses amount of energy different from the amount |(mgh1 ? (Ma ? Mb))| imparted to it. This is in clear violation of CoE.

Having already the above argument available (which you should study carefully to understand it well) from now on you should never post unsubstantiated statements claiming that CoE can never be violated.
Logged

bobinaccounting

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 20
Re: The OC Magnetic Perpetual Motion Machine
« Reply #46 on: January 06, 2008, 02:46:43 AM »
Logged

RunningBare

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 809
Re: The OC Magnetic Perpetual Motion Machine
« Reply #47 on: January 06, 2008, 03:02:02 AM »
Quote from: bobinaccounting on January 06, 2008, 02:46:43 AM
so this is it ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PIvZJ9xGutI

Yes, thats the one

Oh and omnibus thanks for screwing up a perfectly good thread on the steorn forum.
Logged

Butch

  • Guest
Re: The OC Machine, LaFonte Group building three for testing
« Reply #48 on: January 06, 2008, 03:18:30 AM »
The LaFonte Group is building at this time three OC motors to be tested at three different locations. If it proves sucessful, we will video the test on a glass top table and we are also building the rotor out of clear plastic. If the motor continues to run, we will set up a web cam so it can be viewed by any one at any time. Mark is fabricating at this time and has magnets being sent two day delivery.
Will post test results.
Thanks,
Butch LaFonte
Logged

Low-Q

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2847
Re: The OC Magnetic Perpetual Motion Machine
« Reply #49 on: January 06, 2008, 11:59:54 AM »
Quote from: Omnibus on January 06, 2008, 02:20:41 AM
@Low-Q,

While for the example with the apple, residing in one conservative field, CoE holds without a doubt, when there is a favorable superposition of two conservative fields so that they can assist each other CoE can be violated and energy can be produced out of nothing.

This is the case with the device shown schematically here: http://omnibus.fortunecity.com/smot.gif

Thus, as seen in the above link, when an amount of energy |(mgh1 ? (Ma ? Mb))| is necessary to be imparted to the ball to raise it from A to the apex B then obviously the ball should lose exactly the same amount of energy |(mgh1 ? (Ma ? Mb))| if it is to return from B to A. CoE is obeyed. However, if the same amount |(mgh1 ? (Ma ? Mb))| of energy is imparted to the ball and the ball doesn't settle with B as an apex but, as experiment shows, instead reaches another apex C then, obviously, when the ball returns back at A the ball loses amount of energy different from the amount |(mgh1 ? (Ma ? Mb))| imparted to it. This is in clear violation of CoE.

Having already the above argument available (which you should study carefully to understand it well) from now on you should never post unsubstantiated statements claiming that CoE can never be violated.
You forget that the magnetic field in point C, which is the strongest field, is breaking down the balls natural acceleration of 9.81m/s2 in the first few centimeters of the "free" fall towards point A. Hence CoE is still obeyed. So maybe you should be more careful when pointing fingers towards others. Those who does, allways gets several pointing fingers back ;)

Vidar
Logged

Omnibus

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5330
Re: The OC Magnetic Perpetual Motion Machine
« Reply #50 on: January 06, 2008, 03:18:53 PM »
@Low-Q,

Not so. Read what I told you carefully, try to understand it and then post.
Logged

Omnibus

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5330
Re: The OC Magnetic Perpetual Motion Machine
« Reply #51 on: January 06, 2008, 04:45:49 PM »
@All,


I feel this needs to be said. The importance of the analysis I?m emphasizing so much cannot be overestimated by any standard. Only a brief look at the various forums where this is discussed immediately shows what wall of resistance is arising from all segments trying to push the idea by any means available that this absolutely cannot be overunity. Facts are slapping them in the face but they?ll say literally anything to avoid even the faintest idea that this might be overunity, that CoE can be violated. The behavior of the constructor of the device @alsetalonkin is especially curious. The self-appointed skeptic (not very versed in the subtleties of science, as I have found out before in discussions with him) now provides a most convincing evidence and yet in the same breath insists that with 99.999% certainty it will turn out to be an artifact since CoE cannot be violated. Yes, but we now know categorically, due to the analysis carried out long before the experiment in question, that CoE can be violated and such machines are possible. Therefore, he cannot escape along that route. The only thing he can now say is that he has faked the video. Yes, but he isn?t saying that. He insists the video is genuine. He even promised to show next week an even longer video of better quality. What now remains is what we saw in the video to find independent verification and we?re on the way. Good luck to all in this exciting exploration.
Logged

Low-Q

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2847
Re: The OC Magnetic Perpetual Motion Machine
« Reply #52 on: January 06, 2008, 04:48:14 PM »
Quote from: Omnibus on January 06, 2008, 03:18:53 PM
@Low-Q,

Not so. Read what I told you carefully, try to understand it and then post.
Hi there.

The ball at point B is running towards point C - not only to the right, but also upwards a bit. Right?

Point B has less magnetic field consentrated around the ball than point C, hence this movement towards point C. Right?

The kinetic energy in the ball at point B is less than point C in respect to point A, as point C is higher than point B. Right?

Then we can imagine that the ball will move towards point C, and the acceleration of the ball makes it flip over the edge at point C. Right?

The greater kinetic energy at point C will provide more time for the ball to accelerate towards point A than it will do from point B. Right?

Imagine a track that guides the ball back to point B. Right?

So far, so good.


To the real world:

The magnetic field in point C is so great that it will force the ball to move upwards from point B to point C.

The same magnetic force will act on the ball when it flips over the edge at point C to fall downwards to point A. In fact the ball will almost stall directly beyond point C as point C has the greatest flux.

But the ball have enough speed to flip over, bearly, and going for a fall towards point A.

Point C is still acting on the ball in the fall. This will slow down the acceleration and also reduce the kinetic energy of the ball to less than the desired energy.

As the ball is moving along the track back to point B, the flux in point B will attract the ball. But as the magnetic flux in point B is less than point C, so the gain of kinetic energy adds up to zero.

Losses:
Then you have drag in the ball caused by Eddy-currents as the ball moves from pont B to point C. So the speed of the ball right before point C is less than the desired one. The same Eddy-current slows down the ball when it is going back from point C to point B via point A.

The friction of the ball generates heat and sound as the ball rolls, which is loss of energy.

These two main losses will force the ball to stop a certain distance before it reach point B.

So it will not be possible to close the loop and believe it violates CoE.


Pleas feel free to explain the picture more precisely. So we all understand how it was supposed to work.

Br.

Vidar
Logged

Omnibus

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5330
Re: The OC Magnetic Perpetual Motion Machine
« Reply #53 on: January 06, 2008, 06:44:13 PM »
Low-Q,

This analysis is incorrect.
Logged

Low-Q

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2847
Re: The OC Magnetic Perpetual Motion Machine
« Reply #54 on: January 06, 2008, 09:48:27 PM »
Quote from: Omnibus on January 06, 2008, 06:44:13 PM
Low-Q,

This analysis is incorrect.
So far you have explained to me that |(mgh1 ? (Ma ? Mb))| is different from |(mgh1 ? (Ma ? Mc))| . If not, you should try to explain your drawing again, but please be more specific :) Use PM, so we don't mess up this thread more than we've already have done.

EDIT: The ball are lifted to point B, then it continues to point C, then it drops back to point A, where C to A is greater energy than A to B? I GOT IT!!

Still this is not violating CeO. Because the greater attraction in point C will slow down the balls drop from C to A so the total energy stored in the drop between C and A will be the same as dropping it from B to A.

Vidar
Logged

Omnibus

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5330
Re: The OC Magnetic Perpetual Motion Machine
« Reply #55 on: January 06, 2008, 11:33:29 PM »
Low-Q,

Think again. Will the energy loss of the ball along B-A be the same as the energy loss along C-A?
Logged

Low-Q

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2847
Re: The OC Magnetic Perpetual Motion Machine
« Reply #56 on: January 07, 2008, 10:10:22 AM »
Quote from: Omnibus on January 06, 2008, 11:33:29 PM
Low-Q,

Think again. Will the energy loss of the ball along B-A be the same as the energy loss along C-A?
No. The energy loss from C to A via B is the same as the energy loss from C directly to A.
You use energy to lift the ball from level B to level C. This energy you must extract from the distance C to A in order to close the loop. Then the calculation ends up in zero.

Vidar
Logged

Omnibus

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5330
Re: The OC Magnetic Perpetual Motion Machine
« Reply #57 on: January 07, 2008, 10:15:51 AM »
@Low-Q,

"The energy loss from C to A via B is the same as the energy loss from C directly to A."

Of course. Read, however, what I asked you.
Logged

hoptoad

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1009
Re: The OC Magnetic Perpetual Motion Machine
« Reply #58 on: January 07, 2008, 10:53:35 AM »
Quote from: RunningBare on January 06, 2008, 03:02:02 AM
Oh and omnibus thanks for screwing up a perfectly good thread on the steorn forum.
Pity he didn't just stay there! His obsession with SMOT is as outstanding as Steorns failed live demo but not half as interesting!
To "mis"-quote him, "Facts are slapping "him" in the face but he?ll say literally anything to avoid even the faintest idea that this 'isn't overunity' ".
Logged

Low-Q

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2847
Re: The OC Magnetic Perpetual Motion Machine
« Reply #59 on: January 07, 2008, 10:54:52 AM »
Quote from: Omnibus on January 07, 2008, 10:15:51 AM
@Low-Q,

"The energy loss from C to A via B is the same as the energy loss from C directly to A."

Of course. Read, however, what I asked you.
Of course C to A is greater than B to A. I agree, but where and how do you violate the CoE? Wasn't that your claim?

Vidar
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... 33   Go Up
« previous next »