Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy
Mechanical free energy devices => mechanic => Topic started by: Zeremor on March 09, 2006, 05:42:32 AM
-
It really was selfless of him to share his data about the EMILIE device. He shared so much information in good faith, so much so that ppl could almost have replicated it. I understand completely why he regrets sharing his knowledge. However, if I constructed something using some of pauls theories I would offer all of my construction data and feed back to paul as an act of faith, the same way he entrusted us with his knowledge. Its unfortunate, but Paul is probably doing the right thing by retracting all his published data. I wish the world was a better place.
Zeremor
-
Indeed, it was nice of Paul to share his achievement with us. However, I'm afraid now, after Wesley Snyder's demonstration,, showing an all-magnet self-sustaining magnetic motor, designs with external energy input have become obsolete. How can Wesley Snyder be contacted?
-
Paul said he would be back in 5 months with irrefutable proof.....i.e. the self sustaining motor....and I believe him. Of course, when this breakthrough is released, he is going to be a very famous person, and may not have much time for our little forum. Everyone who has an interest in this technology understands how important and "earth changing" this breakthrough will be for mankind. Imagine what the world will look like when we no longer have to buy oil from unfreindly nations. Except for lubricating oil, we will no longer have any need for petroleum. The world will be a better place.
I have looked at the other designs posted to this forum, and truthfully, they are not the same idea as Pauls. That does not mean that some of the other designs cant ultimately be successful as well. Just look at all of the different types of "conventional" motors out there....AC: three phase, single phase, split phase, shaded pole, repulsion / induction....and hundreds of variations of each. There are as many DC types...and every one of them are successful designs, having different sizes, starting torques, RPM's and other qualitys. I believe that Pauls motor will ultimately be just one of many types, all possessing different characteristics. But as it is right now, his is the first, in my opinion, to demonstrate actual "overunity".
I dont blame him for removing the information. He was very generous to share with us the information he did.... he has to be careful every step of the way forward now. His breakthrough could easily be lost to people who would do ANYTHING to stop him. I think the world is going to change for the better in 4 or 5 months. I wish I could invest in his idea, because I strongly feel that he has a real breakthrough on his hands. We have not heard the last of Paul.....or EMILIE.
-
That is the nature of the patent system; the deal is that you
reveal what you wish to patent, and if it is "novel" and there is
an "inventive step", then you should get a patent in due course.
The catastrophe for US inventors is that the US patent office
is sloppy. It is better to use the European Offfice which is far
more strict, and which fails many inventions early on before too
much money is wasted. Unfortunately, the US office failed to
pick up on Yasunori Takahashi's work because although he
disclosed a great deal, he did not take out a patent on it.
-
Do you really think his device will make it to market? ::) Have you not listened to Dr. Steven Greer? Free energy devices have been around since the 1900's and not ONE has made it to market. The only way it will become a public reality is through a grass roots effort. Patent, smatent....it makes no difference. You want to help humanity, let us replicate it beyond supression.
Rich >:(
-
What we need is something thats easy to replicate for practically anyone and get it all over the internet. You can't keep it a secret if you have 1 million people with working devices.
-
I think this is the one that does it. And I think that his design it's just simple enough that anyone with a modest electronic background will be able to build it. I fool around with basic stamp micro-controllers, and it would be simple enough to "shape" and "time" the pulse to the electro magnet using simple flag and / or hall effect sensors. A few lines of code, and your in business. Pauls real genius, I think, was his use of a micro controller to "shape" and control the timing of the magnetic pulse from the electro magnet. I can tell that there were a lot of other "refinements" that he worked out over many, many months....like the exact type of electro magnet, the magnet spacing, shape and strength. I cant speak for Paul, but after the big day, when his self powering machine is revealed to the world, and he has full credit....perhaps he will give us "fans" the details we would need to replicate his device. Due to financial constraints, I would have to build on a very small scale.... But a small army of "believers", displaying working models all over the world would go a long way to break through the barriers that you all know are going to come up.
-
Do you really think his device will make it to market?? ?::)? Have you not listened to Dr. Steven Greer?? Free energy devices have been around since the 1900's and not ONE has made it to market. The only way it will become a public reality is through a grass roots effort.? Patent, smatent....it makes no difference.? You want to help humanity, let us replicate it beyond supression.
Rich? >:(
It's not going to make it to the market because it doesn't work. Yes, free energy devices have been around since the 1900's and not one has made it to the market. But it's not because they're being suppressed. It's because they don't work. They are fantasy. Sure, Sprain's motor is a real device. But it sure as heck doesn't put out more energy than it consumes. The universe won't let that happen.
Sprain says he'll have a better device in five months, one that will leave no doubt. But you can rest assured that in five months he will not have a device that works. He is claiming the impossible. Basically, he is telling us all that he can fly by reaching down and pulling up on his shoe laces. And now he's telling is that since pictures of his shoes aren't good enough to convince the skeptics, he'll be back in five months with shoes with new laces.
Personally, I'm not holding my breath.
-
He is claiming the impossible. Basically, he is telling us all that he can fly by reaching down and pulling up on his shoe laces.
What do you think about Wesley Snyder's device? Do you think he is also trying to fly by pulling up on his shoe laces?
-
It's not going to make it to the market because it doesn't work.? Yes, free energy devices have been around since the 1900's and not one has made it to the market.? But it's not because they're being suppressed.? It's because they don't work.? They are fantasy.? Sure, Sprain's motor is a real device.? But it sure as heck doesn't put out more energy than it consumes.? The universe won't let that happen.
You do not understand the nature of the zero point field. Learn some quantum physics if you
want to understand the nuts and bolts. We are not dealing with the law of conservation of
energy as applied to bunsen burners heating flasks of water in chemistry labs. It is said that
there is enough energy in an empty bucket to boil the Atlantic ocean dry.
-
It's not going to make it to the market because it doesn't work.? Yes, free energy devices have been around since the 1900's and not one has made it to the market.? But it's not because they're being suppressed.? It's because they don't work.? They are fantasy.? Sure, Sprain's motor is a real device.? But it sure as heck doesn't put out more energy than it consumes.? The universe won't let that happen.
You do not understand the nature of the zero point field. Learn some quantum physics if you
want to understand the nuts and bolts. We are not dealing with the law of conservation of
energy as applied to bunsen burners heating flasks of water in chemistry labs. It is said that
there is enough energy in an empty bucket to boil the Atlantic ocean dry.
Sprain's device has nothing to do with "the zero point field". It's just an arrangement of permanent magnets and an electromagnet.
The claim for this device is that the mechanical energy output exceeds the electrical energy input. One need not understand how the device works or where any excess energy is coming from to apply conventional thermodynamics to evaluate "overunity or not overunity". The quality and detail of the input and output measurements don't even begin to support the claims of overunity.
I don't understand this rabid need to believe. Virtually every guy with a claimed perpetual motion machine is greeted with enthusiastic congratulations and dozens of people working to replicate it. But then he fades into the background and nobody is ever quite able to replicate his claims. Every single time. Sprain is no different.
-
How about Wesley Snyder's device? Is the effect of spinning the rotor without energy input real or not?
-
He shared so much information in good faith, so much so that ppl could almost have replicated it.
The key word in your sentence is "almost". I read his patent. He doesn't give enough information there to replicate his device, without a lot of expensive and time-consuming experimentation.
-
The key word in your sentence is "almost". I read his patent. He doesn't give enough information there to replicate his device, without a lot of expensive and time-consuming experimentation.
I agree with regard to Paul Sprain. The jury is still out concerning his claims. Something much more interesting happened recently, however. Wesley Snyder demonstrated in a video the functioning of a self-sustaining device. Is Wesley Snyder showing a real effect or not in his video?
-
berferd wrote:
"Sprain's device has nothing to do with "the zero point field".? It's just an arrangement of permanent magnets and an electromagnet."
Then what maintains the electron's magnetic spin moment?
Terry
-
Then what maintains the electron's magnetic spin moment?
Laws of Quantum Mechanics do. Laws of Quantum Mechanics, however, have nothing to do with the mechanical forces between two interacting macroscopic permanent magnets which obey Classical Mechanics and, at best, Classical Electrodynamics.
-
Those "laws" of Quantum Mechanics are exactly what predicts the energy of the zero point, a direct result of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.
Tapping the magnetic moment of the electron is not unlike what Puthoff writes about here:
http://www.earthtech.org/publications/PRDv35_3266.pdf
Terry
-
Those "laws" of Quantum Mechanics are exactly what predicts the energy of the zero point, a direct result of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.
Tapping the magnetic moment of the electron is not unlike what Puthoff writes about here:
http://www.earthtech.org/publications/PRDv35_3266.pdf
Terry
As I said, these predictions (of Quantum Mechanics) are irrelevant in the case of Magnetic Motors.
-
Huh?
Are you familiar with the Casimir effect?
Terry
-
Casimir effect is not relevant in this case as well.
-
Yes, but it shows that zero point energy exists and can do real work. And it is likely the balance between the zero point field and the angular acceleration of the electron which keeps the electron from collapsing into the nucleus of the hydrogen atom. And it is likely that it is zero point energy which maintains the spin momentum of the electron.
Hence, it is entirely possible that magnetic systems are non-conservative in the classical sense.
Terry
-
Here is incontrovertible evidence that magnets are non-conservative:
http://student.ccbcmd.edu/~norman/magwork.html
Terry
-
Its If you serve Lust(Mammon) or love(Give),
however those who serve Mammon(seeking to get rich and be a glory seeking hypocrite), their devices never make it to the shelf,
and free Energy is a No no guys - to the Market-system. (although , we could have plenty for everyone and no crime, - the rich prefer to steal more)
because we are on the outside, looking at their 'Just us' system - and they don't give a whatsoever about this planet.
however, he should have no Regret what-so-ever(For Revealing), that is the devil playing Mind games to Him(Focusing only on stupid little things such as paper money, instead of Mass extinction , and to help Replenish the Earth, and heal It.).
He Should NOT off REMOVED Those Plans off the -Net .
-
How about Wesley Snyder's device? Is the effect of spinning the rotor without energy input real or not?
The guy holding the device is putting energy into it with subtle hand motion. A colleaque down the hall has a similar SMOT on his desk where a rotor is levitated between magnets much like a workpiece on a lathe is held between the headstock and tailstock. If you put the rotor in place off-axis and release it, the rotor definitely spins up as the wobble decreases. But it's only a transfer of energy from one motion to the other, with that energy initialy coming from your hand as you push the rotor into the magnetic fields. Really, quite visually impressive. And if you don't catch what's going on, you'd swear you're seeing a working perpetual motion machine.
That's exactly what you're seeing with Snyder's machine. And you'll never see a demonstration of the machine supported on a stand with the rotor released from a carefully cenetered position, because you need the subtle hand motion to keep it spinning.
-
If indeed what you?re saying is true then there is nothing to Wesley Snyder?s motor. It would be trivial and would not deserve attention.
However, I?m not inclined to believe that what you?re saying is the case. Not only because I don?t see the described hand motions in Snyder?s video http://overunity.com/snyder/snyder_magnetmotor02.avi (http://overunity.com/snyder/snyder_magnetmotor02.avi) but, more importantly, because of your description of what a SMOT does.
I don?t know what SMOT you have in mind but the SMOT that is widely known does something completely different from what you describe.
Unlike what you describe, a SMOT demonstrates a real periodical production of excess energy.
Indeed, suppose we have the ball at a position underneath the device. Call it the initial position.
When lifting the ball to place it at the input of the device we spend a certain amount of work. Once placed at the input of the device the magnetic field of the SMOT magnets lifts the ball spontaneously up the ramp. Spontaneously (without us spending any work for that). At the end of the ramp the ball is at a greater height than its height was at the input. In other words, at the end of the ramp the ball has greater potential energy than its potential energy it had at the input of the ramp. Now read this carefully ? the greater potential energy the ball has at the end of the ramp compared to its potential energy at the input has been acquired free, spontaneously, without us spending any work for that purpose.
At the end of the ramp, the steel ball falls under the action of its own weight to its initial position. Recall the initial position was the position underneath the device where the experiment was started. In doing so (returning to the initial position) the steel ball recovers the energy which was spent by us to place it at the input of the device and in addition gives us as a ?present? the energy it has acquired when the magnetic field lifted it to the end of the ramp. Again, for this excess energy, for this ?present? we have spent no energy, we have paid nothing.
Now we can again lift the ball to place it at the input of the device and once again let the ball go through the whole above described process until it again falls back to its initial position. Thus, another portion of excess energy will be produced. We will be given another energy ?present? for which we have paid nothing.
We can go on and on in obtaining these energy ?presents? (for which we have paid nothing) periodically until we feel like doing it.
Therefore, your opinion that the SMOT does not produce excess energy is incorrect. On the contrary, SMOT is a device which does produce periodically excess energy.
I have explained this before in this same discussion group. Obviously, I had to do it again.
Of course, it will be interesting to apply the above principle in technically cleverly built device so that this production of excess energy would become continuous (and not periodic as in the SMOT). This a trivial, engineering pursuit which would utilize a proven concept of production of excess energy. Of course, a lot of engineering ingenuity is required in achieving this goal and anyone who achieves it should be valued highly.
For the first time, direct demonstration of continuous production of excess energy was done recently by Wesley Snyder. I do agree, however, that one more step is needed to announce it as a historic event ? Wesley Snyder has to show the self-sustaining motor suspended on a stand with no involvement of the experimenter whatsoever so that even the most enthusiastic critics can be silenced forever. I understand that they are working on that and it will be shown soon (in the matter of days or couple of weeks, at most). It should be noted, however, that even if Wesley Snyder does not succeed in this final engineering effort, the production of excess energy by the SMOT will still be a real phenomenon.
-
E(Gesamt)=mcv2+mv(v2)/2,this shows us the magnetic-ball-"gun" slowly!
Imagine electric current like magnet-balls !
+Electric-current transformer-cycle +magnet-cycle
Look to the invention of a japanese named Kango IIda (Hydraulic Converter),
left direction+ right direction wheel concentration=effect ?
"Energy is not destroyable" ergo-logo accumulative !!!
Sincerely
? ? ? ? ? ? de Lanca
-
If indeed what you're saying is true then there is nothing to Wesley Snyder's motor. It would be trivial and would not deserve attention.
What I'm saying is true. And Snyder's 'motor' is trivial.
However, I'm not inclined to believe that what you're saying is the case. Not only because I don't see the described hand motions in Snyder's video http://overunity.com/snyder/snyder_magnetmotor02.avi but, more importantly, because of your description of what a SMOT does.
You don't see the hand motion in the video??? Yes, it's subtle, but you can see it. And look at how much the thing swings at times!
I don't know what SMOT you have in mind but the SMOT that is widely known does something completely different from what you describe.
SMOTs come in many different flavors. All are intended to appear like perpetual motion machines, and the good ones can fool real scientists upon first glance.
Unlike what you describe, a SMOT demonstrates a real periodical production of excess energy.
Actually, the magnet in the SMOT you describe acts like a spring, which you "compress" when you place the ball in its initial position, with this "spring" pushing the ball up the ramp when you release it.
Indeed, suppose we have the ball at a position underneath the device. Call it the initial position.
When lifting the ball to place it at the input of the device we spend a certain amount of work. Once placed at the input of the device the magnetic field of the SMOT magnets lifts the ball spontaneously up the ramp. Spontaneously (without us spending any work for that).
But two sentences before that you said that you spend a certain amount of work placing the ball at the input.
At the end of the ramp the ball is at a greater height than its height was at the input. In other words, at the end of the ramp the ball has greater potential energy than its potential energy it had at the input of the ramp. Now read this carefully - the greater potential energy the ball has at the end of the ramp compared to its potential energy at the input has been acquired free, spontaneously, without us spending any work for that purpose.
But you are neglecting the work you expended placing the ball into its initial position, where you converted the mechanical energy from your muscles into magnetic potential energy (which in turn gets converted into kinetic and gravitational potential energy of the ball).
Springs appear to create free energy if you ignore the work you do to compress them.
At the end of the ramp, the steel ball falls under the action of its own weight to its initial position. Recall the initial position was the position underneath the device where the experiment was started. In doing so (returning to the initial position) the steel ball recovers the energy which was spent by us to place it at the input of the device and in addition gives us as a "present" the energy it has acquired when the magnetic field lifted it to the end of the ramp. Again, for this excess energy, for this "present" we have spent no energy, we have paid nothing.
Now we can again lift the ball to place it at the input of the device and once again let the ball go through the whole above described process until it again falls back to its initial position. Thus, another portion of excess energy will be produced. We will be given another energy "present" for which we have paid nothing.
In one sentence you say the ball falls by itself to its initial position, recovering the energy spent to place it at the input. And in a following sentence you say that after it falls you can "again lift the ball to place it at the input of the device and once again let the ball go through the whole above described process".
So, if the ball falls back to its initial position, why is it necessary for you to pick it up and place it into its initial position to execute another cycle?
Answer: the ball does not fall back to its initial position.
This isn't a trivial detail. If it truly were overunity, you would not need to do work on the ball to start another cycle. It would be able to cycle itself.
We can go on and on in obtaining these energy "presents" (for which we have paid nothing) periodically until we feel like doing it.
Therefore, your opinion that the SMOT does not produce excess energy is incorrect. On the contrary, SMOT is a device which does produce periodically excess energy.
Your SMOT does not produce excess energy. You "compress a spring" by placing the ball into its initial position. The "spring" then pushes the ball up the ramp.
And to run it another cycle you need need to "compress the spring" again by picking up the ball and placing it into its initial position.
Again, the need to manually place the ball back into its initial position is not a trivial detail. The work you do in doing so is what makes the ball move up the ramp.
I have explained this before in this same discussion group. Obviously, I had to do it again.
Too bad you don't understand how the device works.
Of course, it will be interesting to apply the above principle in technically cleverly built device so that this production of excess energy would become continuous (and not periodic as in the SMOT). This a trivial, engineering pursuit which would utilize a proven concept of production of excess energy. Of course, a lot of engineering ingenuity is required in achieving this goal and anyone who achieves it should be valued highly.
Funny how these ball & ramp SMOTs have been around for decades, yet nobody has ever been able to accomplish that "trivial engineering pursuit" of getting the ball to wind up at its initial position by itself so it cycles by itself.
That's because it's impossible. You are deluding yourself by thinking that where the ball winds up is equivalent to where the ball started. Again, if the ending position of the ball was absolutely equivalent to the starting position, there would be no need to manually move the ball to execute another cycle.
For the first time, direct demonstration of continuous production of excess energy was done recently by Wesley Snyder.
Snyder showed nothing of the sort. The video simply showed somebody holding a rotor levitated by magnets, and making it spin through subtle hand motions.
I do agree, however, that one more step is needed to announce it as a historic event - Wesley Snyder has to show the self-sustaining motor suspended on a stand with no involvement of the experimenter whatsoever so that even the most enthusiastic critics can be silenced forever. I understand that they are working on that and it will be shown soon (in the matter of days or couple of weeks, at most). It should be noted, however, that even if Wesley Snyder does not succeed in this final engineering effort, the production of excess energy by the SMOT will still be a real phenomenon.
Don't hold your breath. I predict Snyder will crawl back under the rug just like Sprain.
-
If indeed what you're saying is true then there is nothing to Wesley Snyder's motor. It would be trivial and would not deserve attention.
What I'm saying is true. And Snyder's 'motor' is trivial.
This is an opinion supported by nothing. People utter opinions but it does not mean that all their opinions express truth.
However, I'm not inclined to believe that what you're saying is the case. Not only because I don't see the described hand motions in Snyder's video http://overunity.com/snyder/snyder_magnetmotor02.avi but, more importantly, because of your description of what a SMOT does.
You don't see the hand motion in the video??? Yes, it's subtle, but you can see it. And look at how much the thing swings at times!
No, you?re imagining things.
Of course, as I said Wesley Snyder must demonstrate the turning of the rotor without holding the device in his hand. This is the only way enthusiastic critics like you could be silenced.
I don't know what SMOT you have in mind but the SMOT that is widely known does something completely different from what you describe.
SMOTs come in many different flavors. All are intended to appear like perpetual motion machines, and the good ones can fool real scientists upon first g
Not at all, SMOT doesn?t come in different flavors. SMOT is a device shown here http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/smotidx.htm (http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/smotidx.htm). Someone may be fooled by analyzing the SMOT but a good scientist won?t.
Unlike what you describe, a SMOT demonstrates a real periodical production of excess energy.
Actually, the magnet in the SMOT you describe acts like a spring, which you "compress" when you place the ball in its initial position, with this "spring" pushing the ball up the ramp when you release it.
No, the SMOT I describe does not act like a spring. The energy I have put in to place the ball at the input, lifting it from the initial position, is returned when the ball gets back into the initial position at which I also get an additional excess energy (which I call ?present?) for which I have not spent energy. The ?present? is due to the spontaneous lifting the ball along the ramp by the magnetic field, for which I have done no work.
Indeed, suppose we have the ball at a position underneath the device. Call it the initial position.
When lifting the ball to place it at the input of the device we spend a certain amount of work. Once placed at the input of the device the magnetic field of the SMOT magnets lifts the ball spontaneously up the ramp. Spontaneously (without us spending any work for that).
But two sentences before that you said that you spend a certain amount of work placing the ball at the input.
You have misunderstood what I said. Read what I said again. Read carefully, because otherwise one may think that in order to make a point you deliberately change the meaning of what has been said,
At the end of the ramp the ball is at a greater height than its height was at the input. In other words, at the end of the ramp the ball has greater potential energy than its potential energy it had at the input of the ramp. Now read this carefully - the greater potential energy the ball has at the end of the ramp compared to its potential energy at the input has been acquired free, spontaneously, without us spending any work for that purpose.
But you are neglecting the work you expended placing the ball into its initial position, where you converted the mechanical energy from your muscles into magnetic potential energy (which in turn gets converted into kinetic and gravitational potential energy of the ball).
Springs appear to create free energy if you ignore the work you do to compress them.
First of all, understand what ?initial position? means. Initial position, as I said twice in the text, is the position underneath the device where the ball gets spontaneously after every cycle. The ball gets there spontaneously. I don?t spend energy to place it there.
I have spent energy initially to assemble the apparatus, to fix the magnets and the ramp and all the rest of the nitty-gritty, including the very first placing of the ball at the said initial position. Once the apparatus is assembled, however, I never again do any work to fix magnets, ramp, nitty-gritty, including placing the ball at the initial position.
Once I assemble the apparatus I, however, may do the described experiment thousand, million times,over and over again, each time getting an energy ?present?.
Read more carefully my explanation and then comment.
At the end of the ramp, the steel ball falls under the action of its own weight to its initial position. Recall the initial position was the position underneath the device where the experiment was started. In doing so (returning to the initial position) the steel ball recovers the energy which was spent by us to place it at the input of the device and in addition gives us as a "present" the energy it has acquired when the magnetic field lifted it to the end of the ramp. Again, for this excess energy, for this "present" we have spent no energy, we have paid nothing.
Now we can again lift the ball to place it at the input of the device and once again let the ball go through the whole above described process until it again falls back to its initial position. Thus, another portion of excess energy will be produced. We will be given another energy "present" for which we have paid nothing.
In one sentence you say the ball falls by itself to its initial position, recovering the energy spent to place it at the input. And in a following sentence you say that after it falls you can "again lift the ball to place it at the input of the device and once again let the ball go through the whole above described process".
So, if the ball falls back to its initial position, why is it necessary for you to pick it up and place it into its initial position to execute another cycle?
Answer: the ball does not fall back to its initial position.
This isn't a trivial detail. If it truly were overunity, you would not need to do work on the ball to start another cycle. It would be able to cycle itself.
I say more than what you have quoted me to have said. Read more carefully what I say and don?t misquote me.
I said not only that when the ball falls back to its initial position (yes, it does fall back to its initial position ? understand first how SMOT works and then try to comment) the energy I spent to place it at the input of the device is fully recovered but also I said that an additional energy ?present? is also obtained due to the additional potential energy which was imparted to the ball when the magnets spontaneously lifted it up the ramp. Additional energy ?present? is also obtained ...
Read carefully what I say and then comment. Don?t try to misquote me or change the meaning of what I have said.
We can go on and on in obtaining these energy "presents" (for which we have paid nothing) periodically until we feel like doing it.
Therefore, your opinion that the SMOT does not produce excess energy is incorrect. On the contrary, SMOT is a device which does produce periodically excess energy.
Your SMOT does not produce excess energy. You "compress a spring" by placing the ball into its initial position. The "spring" then pushes the ball up the ramp.
And to run it another cycle you need need to "compress the spring" again by picking up the ball and placing it into its initial position.
Again, the need to manually place the ball back into its initial position is not a trivial detail. The work you do in doing so is what makes the ball move up the ramp.
On the contrary, my analysis shows that SMOT is producing excess energy periodically but, as evident from what you said in this post, you don?t understand how.
Again ? in addition to ?compressing the spring? when I place the ball from its initial position to the input of the device, there is an additional energy ?present? which I get (returned to me when the ball finally gets back at its initial position) due to the spontaneous lifting of the ball up the ramp as a result of the magnetic field and thus spontaneously imparting on it potential energy for which I have paid nothing.
You don?t understand this and before you do don?t try to place commentaries relying on changing the meaning of what I have explained.
I have explained this before in this same discussion group. Obviously, I had to do it again.
Too bad you don't understand how the device works.
On the contrary. As is evident from your post, you are the one who does not understand how the device works.
Of course, it will be interesting to apply the above principle in technically cleverly built device so that this production of excess energy would become continuous (and not periodic as in the SMOT). This a trivial, engineering pursuit which would utilize a proven concept of production of excess energy. Of course, a lot of engineering ingenuity is required in achieving this goal and anyone who achieves it should be valued highly.
Funny how these ball & ramp SMOTs have been around for decades, yet nobody has ever been able to accomplish that "trivial engineering pursuit" of getting the ball to wind up at its initial position by itself so it cycles by itself.
That's because it's impossible. You are deluding yourself by thinking that where the ball winds up is equivalent to where the ball started. Again, if the ending position of the ball was absolutely equivalent to the starting position, there would be no need to manually move the ball to execute another cycle.
The fact that no one has so far been able to apply the concept in an engineering design cannot be used as an argument against the validity of the principle. You don?t understand how scientific method works and what the viable scientific arguments are when analyzing an effect.
Because of that, the statement you make ?That's because it's impossible? is frivolous. Anybody can utter anything. It?s a free country. The statements that cut the mustard, however, are only those which are based on the scientific method. As I said, your statements are not.
Again, the ball at the initial position (read again in my text what is meant under ?initial position?) has exactly the same state after every cycle. States of the ball at the initial position after every cycle are equivalent. The ball gets to the initial position spontaneously after each cycle.
The need to bring the ball manually from the initial position to the input of the device is required by the engineering design of this particular device (the SMOT). As I said, however, this energy spent is more than recovered when the ball gets back at the initial position ? not only the energy to bring the ball from the initial position to the input is recovered but also an additional energy ?present? is obtained.
For the first time, direct demonstration of continuous production of excess energy was done recently by Wesley Snyder.
Snyder showed nothing of the sort. The video simply showed somebody holding a rotor levitated by magnets, and making it spin through subtle hand motions.
On the contrary, Snyder did show in the video directly continuous production of excess energy. Your claim that he didn?t, based on alleged motion of his hands, is frivolous and, therefore, should be ignored.
-
Again, the ball at the initial position (read again in my text what is meant under ?initial position?) has exactly the same state after every cycle. States of the ball at the initial position after every cycle are equivalent. The ball gets to the initial position spontaneously after each cycle.
The need to bring the ball manually from the initial position to the input of the device is required by the engineering design of this particular device (the SMOT). As I said, however, this energy spent is more than recovered when the ball gets back at the initial position ? not only the energy to bring the ball from the initial position to the input is recovered but also an additional energy ?present? is obtained.
I guess I don't get it. If repeating the cycle requires you to take the ball from the "final initial position" and place it back in the "initial initial position", I don't see how these two positions are equivalent.
Seems to me, if the two positions were absolutely equivalent, they would be one and the same, and subsequent cycles would go by themselves.
-
Again, the ball at the initial position (read again in my text what is meant under ?initial position?) has exactly the same state after every cycle. States of the ball at the initial position after every cycle are equivalent. The ball gets to the initial position spontaneously after each cycle.
The need to bring the ball manually from the initial position to the input of the device is required by the engineering design of this particular device (the SMOT). As I said, however, this energy spent is more than recovered when the ball gets back at the initial position ? not only the energy to bring the ball from the initial position to the input is recovered but also an additional energy ?present? is obtained.
I guess I don't get it. If repeating the cycle requires you to take the ball from the "final initial position" and place it back in the "initial initial position", I don't see how these two positions are equivalent.
Seems to me, if the two positions were absolutely equivalent, they would be one and the same, and subsequent cycles would go by themselves.
No, obviously, you don?t get it.
To understand it, don?t invent positions such as ?initial initial position? and ?final initial position?. Read my explanation and don?t invent things.
As I explained, initial position is the position of the ball underneath the device. After manually picking the ball up from there, placing the ball at the input of the device (initial position is not the input of the device), raising the ball up the ramp spontaneously by the magnetic field and spontaneous fall of the ball when it reaches the end of the ramp, the ball goes back underneath the device.
Recall, the position of the ball underneath the device is its initial position ? equivalent to the position it had underneath the device before we started the first cycle.
We may then carry out a second cycle (lift the ball from initial position manually -> place it at the input of the device -> magnetic field raises spontaneously the ball up the ramp -> spontaneous fall from end of ramp -> initial position underneath the device).
We can then carry out the cycle a third time ...
and so on ...
Every time (after every cycle) the ball always falls back underneath the device where, recall, its initial position is. This initial position of the ball after every cycle is entirely equivalent to its initial position after any cycle.
The beauty of the whole thing is that when the ball gets back to its initial position (always one and the same) after every cycle we are given a ?present?, a portion of energy for which we have spent no work, we have paid nothing.
-
We may then carry out a second cycle (lift the ball from initial position manually? -> place it at the input of the device -> magnetic field raises spontaneously the ball up the ramp -> spontaneous fall from end of ramp -> initial position underneath the device).
We can then carry out the cycle a third time ...
and so on ...
Every time (after every cycle) the ball always falls back underneath the device where, recall, its initial position is. This initial position of the ball after every cycle is entirely equivalent to its initial position after any cycle.
The beauty of the whole thing is that when the ball gets back to its initial position (always one and the same) after every cycle we are given a ?present?, a portion of energy for which we have spent no work, we have paid nothing.
So, am I understanding this right? You manually place the ball in the "input to the device", release it, and it winds up in the "initial position", stopping after a single cycle. To get it to go again, you need to manually pick up the ball from the "initial position" and place it in the "input to the device", and release it?
-
So, am I understanding this right? You manually place the ball in the "input to the device", release it, and it winds up in the "initial position", stopping after a single cycle. To get it to go again, you need to manually pick up the ball from the "initial position" and place it in the "input to the device", and release it?
Correct. This allows you to get excess energy periodically.
-
I remember way back when I was just a kid, I used to do the same thing with my Hot Wheels cars. I would set up the track in a "U" shape, raise one side about 4" and let the car go. The SMOT is a great learning device, making balls roll uphill is pretty cool, but it is usless in the real world (as far as I can see right now).
Plus, just think about it. You are moving an item from point "A" to point "B" which in respect is close to point "A". Why fight gravity? Just use it like the hot wheels track?? :D
-
I remember way back when I was just a kid, I used to do the same thing with my Hot Wheels cars. I would set up the track in a "U" shape, raise one side about 4" and let the car go. The SMOT is a great learning device, making balls roll uphill is pretty cool, but it is usless in the real world (as far as I can see right now).
Quite the contrary. SMOT is very useful to the real world. It produces periodically excess energy. Producing energy without paying for it is quite useful to the real world.
Plus, just think about it. You are moving an item from point "A" to point "B" which in respect is close to point "A". Why fight gravity? Just use it like the hot wheels track??
Not clear what you mean ...
-
So, am I understanding this right?? You manually place the ball in the "input to the device", release it, and it winds up in the "initial position", stopping after a single cycle.? To get it to go again, you need to manually pick up the ball from the "initial position" and place it in the "input to the device", and release it?
Correct. This allows you to get excess energy periodically.
So, to get the device to execute each cycle, it is necessary for you to pick up the ball from the "initial position", and move it to the "input to the device". (Personally, I would call these "initial position" and "final position", respectively. But we'll stick with your nomenclature.)
After the ball stops at the end of the cycle (in the "initial position") , is there any magnetic force acting upon it?
When you place the ball in the "input to the device" and before you let go of it, is there any magnetic force acting upon it?
When you move the ball from the "initial position" to the "input to the device", are you moving the ball from one physical location to another? (i.e. are the "initial position" and the "input to the device" separated in space by any distance, or are they precisely the same location?)
-
metacafe-video:magnetic-balls-gun
S
d L
-
After the ball stops at the end of the cycle (in the "initial position") , is there any magnetic force acting upon it?
Magnetic force on the ball, if any, at the initial position is always the same after each cycle.
When you place the ball in the "input to the device" and before you let go of it, is there any magnetic force acting upon it?
Yes there is and it is exactly the same for each cycle. Besides, the magnetic force acting on the ball when placing it at the input of the device is attractive. This makes the work you do to place it there less than the work you would need to place the ball there if there were no magnetic field. This is in favor of producing even more excess energy (in the overall energy balance) than if not accounting for the said attractive force.
When you move the ball from the "initial position" to the "input to the device", are you moving the ball from one physical location to another? (i.e. are the "initial position" and the "input to the device" separated in space by any distance, or are they precisely the same location?)
Sure. When I move the ball from the "initial position" to the "input to the device" I?m moving the ball from one physical location to another. These are two different physical locations.
The work for this motion, which is the same for every cycle, is accounted for in the overall energy balance which comes out positive, that is, excess energy is produced after every cycle.
-
The work for this motion, which is the same for every cycle, is accounted for in the overall energy balance which comes out positive, that is, excess energy is produced after every cycle.
So, you place the ball at the "input of the device" and release it, and the ball moves to the "initial postion" and stops. For it to go again, you must manually pick up the ball and place it at the "input of the device" so it can again move once and and stop.
This is a pretty simple device. Do you have any guesses why nobody has ever succeeded in accomplishing the "trivial engineering task" of getting the ball to get back to the "input of the device" by itself so it recycles by itself?
-
The work for this motion, which is the same for every cycle, is accounted for in the overall energy balance which comes out positive, that is, excess energy is produced after every cycle.
So, you place the ball at the "input of the device" and release it, and the ball moves to the "initial postion" and stops. For it to go again, you must manually pick up the ball and place it at the "input of the device" so it can again move once and and stop.
This is a pretty simple device. Do you have any guesses why nobody has ever succeeded in accomplishing the "trivial engineering task" of getting the ball to get back to the "input of the device" by itself so it recycles by itself?
First answer this ? did you convince yourself that the SMOT produces periodically excess energy?
-
The work for this motion, which is the same for every cycle, is accounted for in the overall energy balance which comes out positive, that is, excess energy is produced after every cycle.
So, you place the ball at the "input of the device" and release it, and the ball moves to the "initial postion" and stops.? For it to go again, you must manually pick up the ball and place it at the "input of the device" so it can again move once and and stop.
This is a pretty simple device.? Do you have any guesses why nobody has ever succeeded in accomplishing the "trivial engineering task" of getting the ball to get back to the "input of the device" by itself so it recycles by itself?
First answer this ? did you convince yourself that the SMOT produces periodically excess energy?
No. I haven't, and it doesn't. I'm just trying to figure out why you think it does. One would think the fact that it stops after one cycle, and requires you to manually place the ball back at the input would be a big clue that it doesn't create free energy. (And if it's a "trivial engineering task" to arrange it so the ball does wind up back at the beginning to cycle itself ad infinitum, why has nobody done it? This would surely blow the skeptics' minds.)
Both gravity and magnetism are conservative fields. No matter how clever you think you are in arranging motion through either field or a combination of both fields, it's impossible to extract energy from a process whose starting and ending points are exactly the same (i.e. the same magnetic potential and the same gravitational potential). The fact that you have to pick up the ball from the ending point (your "initial position") and manually place it at the starting point (your "input to the device") should tell you these two points are not the same.
So, in light of your belief that the device does create free energy, do you have any guesses why nobody has ever succeeded in accomplishing the "trivial engineering task" of getting the ball to get back to the "input of the device" by itself so it recycles by itself?
-
First, you should convince yourself that the SMOT produces periodically excess energy before you ask further questions. You are trying to sidetrack the conversation and in this way to cover up your lack of understanding.
Your lack of understanding shows in the following sentence:
One would think the fact that it stops after one cycle, and requires you to manually place the ball back at the input would be a big clue that it doesn't create free energy. (And if it's a "trivial engineering task" to arrange it so the ball does wind up back at the beginning to cycle itself ad infinitum, why has nobody done it? This would surely blow the skeptics' minds.)
That is incorrect. The fact that it stops and requires you manually to place the ball back at the input cannot serve at all as an argument against the production of excess energy after a particular cycle.
As I explained already several times the work to place manually the ball back at the input is more than fully compensated by the energy the ball releases when it falls back from the output of the device to the initial position. Not only that the said work is recovered but an additional energy is also given off equal to the potential energy which the ball has acquired spontaneously (under the action of the magnetic field) when the field lifted it up the ramp.
You make me repeat this over and over again because you don?t want to hear it. Your lack of desire to hear this argument and to understand it doesn?t constitute a refutation.
Both gravity and magnetism are conservative fields. No matter how clever you think you are in arranging motion through either field or a combination of both fields, it's impossible to extract energy from a process whose starting and ending points are exactly the same (i.e. the same magnetic potential and the same gravitational potential). The fact that you have to pick up the ball from the ending point (your "initial position") and manually place it at the starting point (your "input to the device") should tell you these two points are not the same.
This is incorrect. In the conservative magnetic field of the SMOT part of the motion along the closed loop is done spontaneously, without you spending work (namely, the work to raise the ball up the ramp). On the other hand, the work along this closed loop to raise the ball from the initial position to the input is also compensated fully and spontaneously by the gravity. Thus, the closed loop consists of three parts
1) work spent by you to lift the ball from the initial position to the level where the input is,
2) work returned to you by gravity to bring down the ball from the level the input is to the initial position. This recovered work fully compensates the work spent by you when lifting the ball.
3) plus the work returned to you by gravity which brings the ball from the top of the ramp to the level where input is. This work is in addition to any work that you have spent during the cycle.
You, of course, don?t gain any energy along a closed loop in a conservative field if you have gone along the loop all by yourself. If somewhere along this closed loop you have been helped for free to go along some part of it you do gain energy. Indeed, for the section of the closed loop which causes the ball to go up the ramp you have spent no energy. The energy spent for the said raising is a ?present? to you when you do the overall balance.
Understand this first before you go further with your questions.
-
Understand this first before you go further with your questions.
OK. I will stipulate to whatever you claim about the deivce. Now, please answer this:
This is a pretty simple device. Do you have any guesses why nobody has ever succeeded in accomplishing the "trivial engineering task" of getting the ball to get back to the "input of the device" by itself so it recycles by itself? This would definitely blow the skeptics' minds. Why hasn't anybody done it?
-
Understand this first before you go further with your questions.
OK. I will stipulate to whatever you claim about the deivce. Now, please answer this:
This is a pretty simple device. Do you have any guesses why nobody has ever succeeded in accomplishing the "trivial engineering task" of getting the ball to get back to the "input of the device" by itself so it recycles by itself? This would definitely blow the skeptics' minds. Why hasn't anybody done it?
As I said, before asking questions such as the above, understand what I already explained. You are trying to avoid this step and you think in avoiding it you refute something. No, you don?t.
-
Understand this first before you go further with your questions.
OK.? I will stipulate to whatever you claim about the deivce.? Now, please answer this:
This is a pretty simple device.? Do you have any guesses why nobody has ever succeeded in accomplishing the "trivial engineering task" of getting the ball to get back to the "input of the device" by itself so it recycles by itself?? This would definitely blow the skeptics' minds.? Why hasn't anybody done it?
As I said, before asking questions such as the above, understand what I already explained. You are trying to avoid this step and you think in avoiding it you refute something. No, you don?t.
Oh, come on. I understand exactly what you've already explained. I just don't agree with it.
Whether I believe the device produces free energy or not has absolutely nothing to do with any reasons why nobody has ever accomplished the "trivial engineering task" (your words) of getting the ball to get back to the "input of the device" by itself so it recycles by itself.
I am asking you a simple question. Why do you refuse to answer?
My position is that the device does *not* produce free energy. This is consistent with well known and thorougly tested physical laws, and it explains why nobody has ever "closed the loop". Your position is that the device *does* produce free energy. This goes against well known and thoroughly testes physical laws and raises the question: Why hasn't anybody ever "closed the loop" and shut the skeptics up?
Your refusal to answer the question speaks volumes.
-
Oh, come on. I understand exactly what you've already explained. I just don't agree with it.
This statement is unsupported by viable arguments. People utter various things and claim they agree or disagree. This doesn?t mean that their opinions express truth. Truth in science is only achieved through viable arguments based on the scientific method. You have given none.
My position is that the device does *not* produce free energy.
Your position on that matter is wrong and I explained why. You opinion cannot express truth just because it?s your opinion. You have to understand that.
This is consistent with well known and thorougly tested physical laws, and it explains why nobody has ever "closed the loop".
My explanation is consistent with the well known and thoroughly tested physical laws. The fact that you don?t understand that doesn?t mean that my explanation is in violation of these laws.
Closing the loop is not one of the requirements for the explanation I gave to be consistent with the known physical laws. You do not understand that. This lack of understanding bothers you and you keep asking questions irrelevant to the discussion.
Your position is that the device *does* produce free energy. This goes against well known and thoroughly testes physical laws
No, it doesn?t. My explanation doesn?t go against well known and thoroughly tested physical laws. You don?t understand that and you?d better try to understand it before you go any further. Otherwise you will keep asking questions which are irrelevant to this discussion.
and raises the question: Why hasn't anybody ever "closed the loop" and shut the skeptics up?
As I said, closing the loop is not a requirement for the SMOT to produce periodically excess energy.
Periodically ...
Your refusal to answer the question speaks volumes.
This is nonsense. Your question is as childish as the following questions:
Why is it that we have not seen a self-sustained Tokamak and every time we ask the recipients of billions of dollars for the project they always postpone the deadline with 50 years?
Why weren?t computers on our desks 57 years ago? Scam artists then were talking gibberish about some new sort of binary computation that may turn one day useful.
-
berferd, you said that there can not be a free energy, because this violates the conservation lows. That is not so. No low violation here. The free energy comes from orbital movement of the electrons and their magnetic momentum. Some examples:
Let we have a coil with flowing current in it. It will produce a magnetic field.
What will happen if we put in the coil a feromagnetic core? With same power input (U*I) we measure severel thousend times stronger magnetic field!
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/magnetic/elemag.html#c5 (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/magnetic/elemag.html#c5)
If we want to achieve the same intensity without feromagnetic core we have to put in thousend times more energy in the coil!
From conservation lows we know that energy can't come from nothing. But in the case with feromagnetic core we put in the same input energy and the energy of magnetic field is growing up thousend times. This additional energy of the field has to come from somewhere. It is not an electrical energy, because the electriical energy that we put in is the same. Then it has to be the feromagnetic core that gives us this additional energy. And this amount of energy is not a few percents, it' s a thousands times more then energy we put in! If we use "mumetal" it is 20 000 times more energy !
-
As I said, closing the loop is not a requirement for the SMOT to produce periodically excess energy.
And re-depositing money into my bank account is not a requirement for withdrawing $100 from an ATM, as long as I already have $100 in my account to begin with. If that $100 withdrawl depletes my account, I must deposit $100 into my account before I can make another $100 withdrawl. (For some unknown reason, the ATM won't let me withdraw another $100 unless I first deposit $100.)
I can withdraw $100 over and over again, each time depleting my account, as many times as I wish, as long as I deposit $100 into my account before each withdrawl. (This requirment to deposit money into my account isn't really significant. I'm not really depositing money when I put money into my account - just focus on the withdrawls. I simply get a free $100 each time I make a withdrawl.)
No matter how many times I repeat the process, I wind up with $100 in my hand and $0 in my account. This "initial position" is exactly the same every time. It can be repeated as many times as I want.
There! Free money! The fact that I can go to the ATM and withdraw $100 is proof-positive of free money.
Your explanation of the SMOT is no less silly than this.
And the fact that nobody has shut the skeptics up by accomplishing the "trivial engineering task" of close-looping such a simple device (that purportedly creates free energy) so it keeps cycling by itself should tell you something. But obviously that goes way over your head.
-
Your example is the silly one.
Unlike what you have understood, SMOT works like this. I deposit $80 into my account, then the bank deposits into my account another $20 because the bank likes me. Then I withdraw $100 from the ATM. I have gotten a ?present? of $20. Do you understand it or you need more explanation?
Don?t try to confuse yourself again with irrelevant ?close-looping? or trying to find green cheese on the moon. Do as I do and you?ll get free $20 from the bank. You snooze, you lose.
That this whole business is way over your head is more than obvious. What can you do, not everyone is a winner.
-
Your example is the silly one.
Unlike what you have understood, SMOT works like this. I deposit $80 into my account, then the bank deposits into my account another $20 because the bank likes me. Then I withdraw $100 from the ATM. I have gotten a ?present? of $20. Do you understand it or you need more explanation?
Going back to the SMOT: where does the excess energy (the equivalent of your bank's $20 deposit) come from?
Don?t try to confuse yourself again with irrelevant ?close-looping? or trying to find green cheese on the moon. Do as I do and you?ll get free $20 from the bank. You snooze, you lose.
Close-looping is anything *but* irrelevant. As with all supposed free energy devices, tt would be irrefutable proof that the device produces free energy. Until somebody succeeds in close-looping the device (*any* free energy device), all we have to go on is faith that the device produces free energy. While free energy believers accept these claims as articles of their faith, skeptics don't usually take things on faith. We like proof.
It's funny how free energy believers never do the "trivial engineering task" that would shut the skeptics up. Why is that?
Oh, that's right. You already know the device produces free energy, so that step isn't necessary. My bad.
That this whole business is way over your head is more than obvious. What can you do, not everyone is a winner.
ROTFL!
-
Your example is the silly one.
Unlike what you have understood, SMOT works like this. I deposit $80 into my account, then the bank deposits into my account another $20 because the bank likes me. Then I withdraw $100 from the ATM. I have gotten a ?present? of $20. Do you understand it or you need more explanation?
Going back to the SMOT: where does the excess energy (the equivalent of your bank's $20 deposit) come from?
The excess energy comes from the potential energy which the ball acquired spontaneously when it was pulled up the ramp by the magnetic field ? the ball at the top of the ramp has higher potential energy than its potential energy at the input of the device. I have paid nothing for that energy.
Don?t try to confuse yourself again with irrelevant ?close-looping? or trying to find green cheese on the moon. Do as I do and you?ll get free $20 from the bank. You snooze, you lose.
Close-looping is anything *but* irrelevant. As with all supposed free energy devices, tt would be irrefutable proof that the device produces free energy.
That?s ridiculous. If you sneeze at free $20 I don?t. This is a one time deal. One time, not continuous.
Until somebody succeeds in close-looping the device (*any* free energy device), all we have to go on is faith that the device produces free energy. While free energy believers accept these claims as articles of their faith, skeptics don't usually take things on faith. We like proof.
Not so. I got my free $20 and I?m happy. It?s free. You?d like to pass that opportunity ? your choice.
It's funny how free energy believers never do the "trivial engineering task" that would shut the skeptics up. Why is that?
Trivial engineering task has already been done for the periodic production of excess energy. It is called the SMOT. Greg Watson has done it first.
Oh, that's right. You already know the device produces free energy, so that step isn't necessary. My bad.
You really don?t get it. Don?t torture yourself, give it up. Not everyone is a winner.
-
After more than 500 years :
Gallilei /science
versus
Pope/In-quis-ation
Diskussion
or Disput
S
d L
-
Very entertaining discussion guys! I have three simple observations:
1. Bank accounts and how money is deposited, withdrawn or how interest is earned has nothing to do with energy.
2. Omnibus' quote (and belief) that "First, you should convince yourself that the SMOT produces periodically excess energy" is the basis for so many trivial claims to free energy we see today. If the so called inventers of these devices would be more skeptical about what they think they've discovered and actually did some real testing before showing a video of their 'overunity device' almost acheiving overunity, we'd have alot less clutter on this web site.
3. Smot is not overunity.
-
Let us do a step-by-step-evolution:
Bougon US1859764
Henry? ?FR817115
Bode? ? US3895245
Tamke DE3435068
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rust DE10103188? ? ?:? ? ? www.sigmaautomotive.com ;Electrocharger
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rust DE3713965? ? ? ?:? ? ? www.Trinitymotors.net
de Buyst BE438189? ? ? ? ? www.geminielectricmotor.com
HoyerDE2529451
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eustachio EP0051711?: ? ? ?www.e- traction.com ;TheWheel
Zeissler DE19522794
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sincerely
? ? ? ? ? ? de Lanca
p.s.: let us take enough time to develop the appropriate technology for
? ? ? ?the appropriate need !
? ? ? ?There is ever the possibilty of C.O.P.-Overunity,
? ? ? ?there is never the possibility of efficience-Overunity !!!?
? ? ? ?Also ever guilty for each kind of "closed cycle-system"-concept !
? ? ? ?Carnot-Relativity ,ever contribution to the Maxwell/Boltzmann-sphere !
-
1. Bank accounts and how money is deposited, withdrawn or how interest is earned has nothing to do with energy.
Please notice, it is not I who proposed the analogy with the bank. Nevertheless, for those who don?t get it the bank example can serve as a good illustration.
2. Omnibus' quote (and belief) that "First, you should convince yourself that the SMOT produces periodically excess energy" is the basis for so many trivial claims to free energy we see today. If the so called inventers of these devices would be more skeptical about what they think they've discovered and actually did some real testing before showing a video of their 'overunity device' almost acheiving overunity, we'd have alot less clutter on this web site.
This is a sheer pronouncement on your side because it occurs to you that things are not the way they are. Science doesn?t work that way. Science works through facts and argumentation and not through expressing frivolous opinions such as yours.
Real testing has been done and production of excess energy has been unequivocally demonstrated in a SMOT device. Or you want to abolish science because it doesn?t fit your views?
[quite] 3. Smot is not overunity. [/quote]
This is your unsupported opinion only which doesn?t mean it reflects the truth just because you?re expressing it.
Your opinion reminds me of the opinions of a population living in a region not far from Sofia, Bulgaria, called ?Shops?. Shops are very nice people with a peculiar philosophy of their own, sometimes very stubborn. For instance, a Shop says
-- ? There?s nothing higher than Vitosha and nothing deeper that the Iskyr? (Vitosha and Iskyr are their mountain and river).
-- ?Why should I worry since my worry will soon pass??
-- ?I hate to think. When I think it?s like I?m wrestling a bear?.
and so on.
One day a Shop visits the zoo. Suddenly he finds himself in front of the giraffe. The Shop starts staring at the giraffe while the poor thing is chewing quietly on its fodder. The Shop keeps staring and staring until concluding finally: ?There is no such animal?.
This sounds pretty much like your conclusion ? a SMOT is right in front of your eyes, it produces periodically excess energy and you?re saying ?SMOT is not overunity?.
People like you want everything sensational. If you don?t find it sensational (while it may really be such) your conclusion is that it is a fake. In other words, you?re trying to impose your perception of ?sensational? as a criterion for the validity of a claim. That?s not science.
-
Let us do a step-by-step-evolution:
Bougon US1859764
Henry FR817115
Bode US3895245
Tamke DE3435068
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rust DE10103188 : www.sigmaautomotive.com ;Electrocharger
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rust DE3713965 : www.Trinitymotors.net
de Buyst BE438189 www.geminielectricmotor.com
HoyerDE2529451
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eustachio EP0051711 : www.e- traction.com ;TheWheel
Zeissler DE19522794
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sincerely
de Lanca
p.s.: let us take enough time to develop the appropriate technology for
the appropriate need !
There is ever the possibilty of C.O.P.-Overunity,
there is never the possibility of efficience-Overunity !!!
Also ever guilty for each kind of "closed cycle-system"-concept !
Carnot-Relativity ,ever contribution to the Maxwell/Boltzmann-sphere !]
Please expalin. Not clear what you mean.
-
Independently affected by humans or software-automaticaly by machine there has to be an input,
a "stimulating effect" for expansion or compression,because of this action
the output effect will be ever calculated :output-input= under 1
(or under100%).
The listening of patents/publications and in comparison the trial of
commercial/market introducement shall only show what is known and
when there had been the first technical "coming out"!
Sincerely
? ? ? ? ? ? de Lanca
p.s.:I can have a C.O.P. of 10 ,the efficiency will be under 100%;
? ? ? I can have a C.O.P. of 1 Billion,the efficiency will be under 100 %;
? ? ? Technical the reach of C.O.P. 1 Billion is workable(cascade-configuration),
? ? ? this means a gain of (100000000000%-100%) is real,
? ? ? but mathematically we will ever stay in the output(=1)-input(=X)=under 1
? ? ? Neither Gallilei nor the Pope could change this status quo,
? ? ? this was,is and will ever be "the imperial status" of maths(Arithmetik) !
-
the output effect will be ever calculated :output-input= under 1
(or under100%).
Not so with the SMOT. The otput/input ratio with regard to the energy we spend and obtain in SMOT is greater than 1.
-
Your definition is the C.O.P.,not the efficiency !!!
Sometimes physics-maths" is difficult,seems unlogical:
you have to calculate from Max(=100%=output).-Min.(=input) for efficiency
you can calculate from Min(100%=input).-Max.(=output) for C.O.P.,
ever independant of solid,liquid,gas,plasma estate
of the work-medium/object !
We can ever get "energy gain",but we can not invent "new maths"!!!
Remember an old "phrase": GOTT ZAEHLT,Pythagoras
Sincerely
? ? ? ? ? ? de Lanca
-
Not clear what you mean by this:
Sometimes physics-maths" is difficult,seems unlogical:
you have to calculate from Max(=100%=output).-Min.(=input) for efficiency
you can calculate from Min(100%=input).-Max.(=output) for C.O.P.,
ever independant of solid,liquid,gas,plasma estate
of the work-medium/object !
We can ever get "energy gain",but we can not invent "new maths"!!!
Remember an old "phrase": GOTT ZAEHLT,Pythagoras
SMOT is an experimental device which demonstrates periodic production of excess energy. The number which you get for the output energy is greater than the number you get for the input energy What other math?
-
Is internal the SMOT-system none friction ?
Friction decrease the velocity as consequence the output-force !
You have to think from the TOTAL POWER=100%
and this is the stadium before the friction losts !
Sincerely
? ? ? ? ? ? de Lanca
-
Friction has nothing to do with the production of excess energy in SMOT. The excess energy produced is the difference between the potential energy at the output of the device and the potential energy at the input of the device. This difference is acieved spontaneously, by the magnetic field, without external energy input. The experimenter doesn't expend energy for the obtainment of the said difference.
-
actually, the potential energy of the ball is less at the top of the ramp. Its gravitational potential has increased, yet its magnetic potential has decreased. The magnetic potential is expodentialy stronger then the gravitational potential in this partical case, but as the ball falls away its gravitational potential vs its magnetic potential is less then equall. giving is a c.o.p of less then 1.....this is why the ball will not roll around to its starting place.
-
The energy spent by the experimenter to lift the ball from its initial position (see definition of ?initial position? in my previous posts) to the level where the input of the device is is exactly equal to the energy recovered when the ball is returned from the level where the input of the device is back to the initial position. In this way, that part of the loop now is taken care of and all the energy the experimenter has spent is fully recovered.
In addition, to close the overall loop, there is one more segment ? lifting of the ball up the ramp from the level where the input to the device is and then falling of the ball off the end of the ramp to the level where the input to the device is.
For the lifting of the ball up the ramp the experimenter spends no work. This lifting is spontaneous. Upon this lifting kinetic energy and gravitational potential energy are spontaneously imparted to the ball. Also, magnetic energy, which is exponentially stronger than gravitational energy, is decreased.
Now, when under the action of gravity the ball spontaneously falls off the top of the ramp to the level where the input is, the following happens:
1) The ball spontaneously restores the same greater magnetic potential it had when at the input to the device. Therefore, there was no gain or loss magnetic wise in this segment.
and in addition
2) The ball spontaneously produces excess energy due to the height difference it had acquired spontaneously when moving up the ramp (never mind the kinetic energy it also acquired).
-
lets have the ball run up 10 consecutive ramps in a linear fashion...each ramp being slightly higher then it starting point....its should place the ball signifigantly higher then the starting point....then the ball can roll around to the starting point and start the process over defeating the frictional loss....this does not happen...i have created this scenario....the ball wont start again....dont get me wrong...i believe there is "free energy" out there....this just is is not the way to acheive it
-
That's a second step. Before doing that, convince yourself that a single SMOT produces excess energy periodically.
-
This periodical engergy you speak of happens because you place a ferromagnetic material within a known magnetic field....thereby increasing its magnetic potential...it loses this potential at the top of the ramp
-
this should be in a different section....start a smot section to discuss this topic
-
This periodical engergy you speak of happens because you place a ferromagnetic material within a known magnetic field....thereby increasing its magnetic potential...it loses this potential at the top of the ramp
... but then spontaneously recovers it when falling off the ramp under gravity. In addition, excess energy is produced due to the spontaneous imparting of gravitational potential energy which the ball releases when it falls off the ramp. I explained this more thoroughly in my previous text.
-
I disagree, the problems of the magnetic motors are closely connected with SMOT. I should even say that it is the SMOT that keeps my attention on the subject of magnetic motors.
-
If it spontainiously recovers this energy....then it should be able to start itself....which it doesnt
-
The idea of Sprain's motor (which is the current topic) is also based on SMOT although lacking its most attractive part -- the sudden spontaneous interruption of the magnetic field action (this is why Sprain has to apply energy externally).
-
If it spontainiously recovers this energy....then it should be able to start itself....which it doesnt
You don't know that. The fact that it hasn't been done so far doesn't mean it couldn't be done.
As I said, however, before getting into this second step, convince yourself first that a single SMOT is producing excess energy periodically.
-
I agree....if the rotor was allowed to drop over a vertical oriented magnetic gate then you would see smot oriented energy gain
-
im not fighting agianst free energy...im trying to figure it out by building it...which i have done unsuccessfully
-
Hostility wont help here....constructive thinking will solve this puzzle
-
im not fighting agianst free energy...im trying to figure it out by building it...which i have done unsuccessfully
That's why I'm saying, convince yourself first that single SMOT does the job. If you have built a single SMOT and it works then you have been successful in periodic production of excess energy.
-
Friction has nothing to do with the production of excess energy in SMOT. The excess energy produced is the difference between the potential energy at the output of the device and the potential energy at the input of the device. This difference is acieved spontaneously, by the magnetic field, without external energy input.
Achieved "spontaneously" as long as you ignore the influence of the operator each time he picks the ball up from the final position and places it at the input.
The experimenter doesn't expend energy for the obtainment of the said difference.
This is an article of faith to you, isn't it?
-
SMOT is an experimental device which demonstrates periodic production of excess energy. The number which you get for the output energy is greater than the number you get for the input energy What other math?
What numbers? You have posted no numbers. All we've seen are your empty assertions that you get energy out without putting energy in.
Let's see a full "first law" analysis of this system accounting for gravitational potential energy, magnetic potential energy, and kinetic energy at each step in the process. If you are careful, you will see that the ball winds up at a lower potential (combined gravitational/magnetic) than where it starts, and that the operator is raising the ball's potential by removing it from the final position and placing it at the input to start another cycle.
Your repeated statement "First you must convince yourself that the SMOT produces excess energy." is very typical of a cult mentality. The indoctrinee must accept certain assertions as true before any further discussion can take place. Sorry, science doesn't work that way.
So, please post a full first law analysis accounting for gravitational potential energy, magnetic potential energy, and kinetic energy at each step in the process.
Empty assertions don't cut it -- especially when they violate physical laws. Let's see your analysis.
-
Friction has nothing to do with the production of excess energy in SMOT. The excess energy produced is the difference between the potential energy at the output of the device and the potential energy at the input of the device. This difference is acieved spontaneously, by the magnetic field, without external energy input.
Achieved "spontaneously" as long as you ignore the influence of the operator each time he picks the ball up from the final position and places it at the input.
Not at all. The work done by the operator is fully compensated when the ball falls back to the initial position.
The experimenter doesn't expend energy for the obtainment of the said difference.
This is an article of faith to you, isn't it?
Not so. This is a point which you don?t understand. Don?t accuse others for your lack of understanding.
SMOT is an experimental device which demonstrates periodic production of excess energy. The number which you get for the output energy is greater than the number you get for the input energy What other math?
What numbers? You have posted no numbers. All we've seen are your empty assertions that you get energy out without putting energy in.
Numbers to that matter exist. See here http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/smotidx.htm (http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/smotidx.htm)
The person whom I replied to (lancaIV) didn?t post numbers although he was mentioning numbers. What numbers? He posted no numbers. All we?ve seen are his empty assertions about numbers.
Let's see a full "first law" analysis of this system accounting for gravitational potential energy, magnetic potential energy, and kinetic energy at each step in the process. If you are careful, you will see that the ball winds up at a lower potential (combined gravitational/magnetic) than where it starts, and that the operator is raising the ball's potential by removing it from the final position and placing it at the input to start another cycle.
The ball ends up exactly at the same position where it started. The combined gravitational-magnetic potential at the end is exactly the same as at the beginning. You don?t need numbers to figure that out. A ball at one and the same position (at the beginning and at the end) cannot have two different potentials. Your requirement to give numbers to that effect only speaks about your confusion.
Numbers play a role before that ? when along the loop the ball covers a section of it spontaneously, gaining spontaneously gravitational potential energy and then spontaneously releasing it.
You don?t get this and never will. Give it up. Don?t torture yourself.
Your repeated statement "First you must convince yourself that the SMOT produces excess energy." is very typical of a cult mentality. The indoctrinee must accept certain assertions as true before any further discussion can take place. Sorry, science doesn't work that way.
So, please post a full first law analysis accounting for gravitational potential energy, magnetic potential energy, and kinetic energy at each step in the process.
Empty assertions don't cut it -- especially when they violate physical laws. Let's see your analysis.
This is nonsense which needn?t be answered. See explanation above.
-
The SMOT ball gains potential energy, m x g x h. It is as
simple as that, Berferd.
With reference to the Paul Sprain motor, the
interesting point is why Yasunori Takahashi, the father
of VCRs with many patents behind him, did not patent his device.
I think it is because his view was that there was no real
"Inventive Step" between Minato's patent and his motor. It
was not worth the risk and cost.
The US office granted Paul's patent. Why they did not
quote Minato is odd. But they are sloppy people. The EPO
has failed to move to a grant as yet, and that is significant.
-
The SMOT ball gains potential energy, m x g x h. It is as
simple as that, Berferd.
But it gains gravitational potential energy at the expense of magnetic potential energy. This is completely ignored by the believers, and is why the operator must pick up the ball and place it at the input to make it go again.
Yes, the ball is at a higher gravitational potential at the top of the ramp, and it goes back to the initial gravitational potential after it falls. But it's at a lower magnetic potential than when it started. That is why it only runs once. The ball "goes downhill" in the combined gravitational/potential well regardless of whether it's going up the ramp or falling off the end. And the operator, by picking up the ball and placing it at the input, provides the energy to "lift up" the ball to the higher starting potential so it can go again.
You can't ignore the magnetic potential energy. The universe doesn't, and that's why the device only runs once before it stops.
-
Rust DE10103188? ? ?:? ? ? www.sigmaautomotive.com ;Electrocharger
Rust DE3713965? ? ? ?:? ? ? www.Trinitymotors.net
de Buyst BE438189? ? ? ? ? www.geminielectricmotor.com
Eustachio EP0051711?: ? ? ?www.e-traction.com
You have a habit of posting interesting stuff, that has nothing to do with the topic under discussion.
While the above are examples of cool new technology, none of them involve overunity.
-
Hey OMNIBUS,
when did I defined that friction shall have impact of excess energy?
Friction is resistance ergo ever a lost !
The Greg Watson SMOT variation based by Emil Hartmann "ramp" work(US4215330) and also to recommend Daniel Baker(US4074153)
will give through the combination of the different force kinds/vectors and the
"free"permanent magnetic force an calculated and physical measure-able
gain/positive difference result between output-input .
But there are also "excess gain"-machines like heatpump,hydraulik ram pump,
compressed air motors(Robert Neal),
but the efficiency maths will ever be (1-X)/1=ever under 1 !!!
You can construct a plane with a fuelless motor,
you can construct a fuel-free car-engine,
you can construct a fuel-free city-energy-infastructure,
but,excuse me, (1-X)/1=ever under 1,
"Fiat lux !"=Impuls(=X) and not an italian car !!!
Sincerely
de Lanca
-
The SMOT ball gains potential energy, m x g x h. It is as
simple as that, Berferd.
But it gains gravitational potential energy at the expense of magnetic potential energy. This is completely ignored by the believers, and is why the operator must pick up the ball and place it at the input to make it go again.
You never understood that the energy the operator spends to pick up the ball and place it at the input is fully compensated when the ball returns to the initial position. In addition to this energy (which I said is compensated) the operator gets an additional portion due to the spontaneous lifting of the ball up the ramp.
Yes, the ball is at a higher gravitational potential at the top of the ramp, and it goes back to the initial gravitational potential after it falls. But it's at a lower magnetic potential than when it started.
You never understood that the ball is not at a lower magnetic potential at the initial position after it falls than the magnetic potential it was at when it started from the initial position. At the initial position the ball is always at one and the same magnetic potential be it at the beginning or at the end of a cycle.
One and the same spatial position can only have one value of the magnetic potential at all times, not two.
That is why it only runs once.
No, that is not why it only runs once. It runs once because of the constructional characteristics of the device. The device is made for the ball to run once.
The ball "goes downhill" in the combined gravitational/potential well regardless of whether it's going up the ramp or falling off the end. And the operator, by picking up the ball and placing it at the input, provides the energy to "lift up" the ball to the higher starting potential so it can go again.
You can't ignore the magnetic potential energy. The universe doesn't, and that's why the device only runs once before it stops.
No, the magnetic potential energy is not ignored in the analysis.
Think it this way. The closed loop which the ball goes along consists of two parts:
First part ? the ball is lifted from its initial position (somewhere under the SMOT) to the top of the ramp.
Second part ? the ball falls off the top of the ramp to its initial position.
At that, the net work due to the magnetic field is zero. The net work due to the gravity, however, is not zero ? in the above-mentioned first part there is a section (from the input of the device to the top of the ramp) where the experimenter doesn?t spend work and yet a gravitational potential energy of the ball, corresponding to the level at the top of the ramp, is achieved. Now comes the interesting part ? the above-mentioned second part, however. recovers the gravitational entire potential energy (from the top of the ramp to the initial position). Obviously, part of that recovered energy is free. This is the energy that doesn?t compensate any energy spent by the experimenter.
-
de Lanca, your explanation doesn?t apply to the SMOT. Please, see why in my reply to berferd.
-
To FREDWALTER:
The question is: has a post to be topic related when there are inside controversial views about the topic object or object-related comparisons ?
The Electrocharger (Sigmaautomotive) is the only not direct overunity-related
technology,
but indirectly because of the same Inventor Peter Rust,
and all other named patents-numbers/companies are really overunity-related ,
with each of them I can construct a closed-cycle-system
Impulse-Motor-Generator-outputunit recycling as Impulse
Sincerely
de Lanca
-
With regaurd to the SMOT... when the ball is placed at the intial position, its magnetic potential is higher. As the ball travels up the ramp, its magnetic potential lowers. If its magnetic potential were the same at all positions, the ball would not move.
-
The SMOT ball gains potential energy, m x g x h. It is as
simple as that, Berferd.
But it gains gravitational potential energy at the expense of magnetic potential energy.?
At the expense of "magnetic potential energy"? What on earth
is this?
There is no energy expended allowing the ball to roll back
to the start. It is a matter of careful engineering. People
(on Jlnlabs, I think) have connected two ramps together to get
extra height,? and therefore extra energy.
The engineering problems are very fiddly and the speeds and
positions of the components are crucial.
Suspend your disbelief, Berferd, unless you are scared of having
your well ordered reality upset.
Paul R.
-
With regaurd to the SMOT... when the ball is placed at the intial position, its magnetic potential is higher. As the ball travels up the ramp, its magnetic potential lowers. If its magnetic potential were the same at all positions, the ball would not move.
Correct.
This doesn?t go against the production of excess energy by the SMOT (read my explanation in the previous posts).
-
Paul uses the same principle as in SMOT, but he uses a magnet instead of steel ball. The advantige of this is that we have no unwanted magnetising like in the case with steel ball. The field here is more stable and predictable. But here remains the SMOT problem output - intput that appears when we close the loop. I have made schemes of the magnetic field to illustrate that. The rotor magnet moves because of the asimetry of the magnetic field. Until we have asimetry with constat value and direction, we have a force with constant value and direction wich moves the rotor magnet and we can drain excess energy from the device. But when we try to close the loop, there where the end of spiral of stator magnets has to be connected to it's beginig the field is hard deformed. The asymetry changes it's value and direction and the rotor magnet stops.
-
And here the scheme with the problem
-
1.The SMOT experiment shows 34% lost,important for the construction
? of a closed-SMOT- cylcle ! 1-0,34=0,66 means 66% max.conversion potential !
2.SMOT V2 as next step is more Daniel Baker-ramp related !
3.The mainly interest-I think-is not this little-sweety demonstration object
? with an extraordinary result of 0,424mJ (3600000J=1KWH) action gain but
? the exposed Magnet-Motors designs from Greg Watson and JL Naudin !
Closed-ball-Cycle concepts:Thrumball or Batelle-Institute
Sincerely
? ? ? ? ? ?de Lanca
-
Paul uses the same principle as in SMOT, but he uses a magnet instead of steel ball. The advantige of this is that we have no unwanted magnetising like in the case with steel ball. The field here is more stable and predictable. But here remains the SMOT problem output - intput that appears when we close the loop. I have made schemes of the magnetic field to illustrate that. The rotor magnet moves because of the asimetry of the magnetic field. Until we have asimetry whit constat value and direction, we have a force with constant value and direction witch moves the rotor magnet and we can drain excess energy from the device. But when we try to close the loop, there where the end of spiral of stator magnets has to be connected to it's beginig the field is hard deformed. The asymetry changes it's value and direction and the rotor magnet stops.
That?s correct. That?s why Paul uses the most intuitive approach ? applying energy from without to overcome the sticky spot. It appears that this problem is solved in a more attractive way in Wesley Snyder?s device (of course, we?re still waiting for the video of its independent run). It is interesting to see how he achieves that constant asymmetry leading to a net force tangential to the rotor just by the specifics in construction. It would be nice if this could be modeled in a way similar to the schematics you gave.
-
the exposed Magnet-Motors designs from Greg Watson and JL Naudin !
Closed-ball-Cycle concepts:Thrumball or Batelle-Institute
de Lanca, has Naudin achieved experimentally a closed-loop experiment (Closed-ball-Cycle concepts) or these are just ideas? If so, could you please post a link?
-
Their work is exposed in the jnaudin-webpage,
from SMOT to SMOT V2/SMOT MK3 to RMOD/RMOG,
but remark the last update:1999 !
It is time to ask them about :progress ?
"Thrumball(?)/Batelle-Institute"? each of them developped
Closed-Cycle-systems,but not based by magnetism/steel balls or fluids,
they used balls as Energy-Transmitter !
Excuse me,but I can not more remembering the right parameters to refind the
information,my last relation with that info:+/- 10 years before !
Sincerely
? ? ? ? ? ? de Lanca?
-
The Electrocharger (Sigmaautomotive) is the only not direct overunity-related
technology
Please explain why you believe their battery charger is 'overunity-related technology'.
all other named patents-numbers/companies are really overunity-related,
with each of them I can construct a closed-cycle-system
Impulse-Motor-Generator-outputunit recycling as Impulse
Since you don't own any of their motors, how can you claim to construct 'a closed-cycle-system' with their motors?
How can you say with any confidence that their products are 'overunity-related'?
-
Only because own solid-physical experiments,based with connection
of motor/generator,Transformer-modulations,Trafo-Magnet-integration,
"Rust-Trinitymotor"-technics comparision and...,and....;
Not only "overunity.com"-reader/commentator,also self-made searcher !
Sincerely
? ? ? ? ? ? de Lanca
-
At the expense of "magnetic potential energy"? What on earth is this?
It's as important as the gravitational potential energy in analyzing the SMOT. Your failure to consider it is the precise reason you and Omnibus think the device produces excess energy. When you consider this term, you see that the device behaves in accordance with all known physical laws and it's obvious that it does *not* produce excess energy. Such failure to consider all the relevant issues is at the heart of most free energy schemes.
Consider gravitational potential energy. This is an object's potential energy due to the gravitational field of the earth. Defining the surface of the earth as our datum, an object has zero gravitational potential energy at the surface. At any location above the surface, the object has gravitational potential energy. Moving down and up is the same as moving toward and away from the earth. The greater the distance (the higher the object) the greater the gravitational potential energy.
Magnetic potential energy is exactly analogous to gravitational potential energy. It is an object's potential energy due to the magnetic field of another object, such as a permanent magnet. Defining our datum as the point where the object (ball) is in contact with the permanent magnet, the magnetic potential energy is zero when the ball is in contact with the magnet. At any distance from the magnet, the ball has magnetic potential energy. The greater the distance, the greater the magnetic potential energy. In short: moving toward and away from the earth decreases and increases an object's gravitational potential energy. Moving toward and away from a permanent magnet decreases and increases a steel ball's magnetic potential energy.
There is no energy expended allowing the ball to roll back to the start.
You are neglecting the magnetic potential energy. Note that because of the way the magnets are angled, the ball in the final position (Omnibus' "initial position") is closer to the magnets that at the starting position (Omnibus' "input"). This means the magnetic potential is lower than at the starting position. To get from the final position to the starting position, you need to raise the ball's magnetic potential energy back to it's starting value. It is this adverse potential gradient that prevents the ball from rolling back to the input by itself.
Contrary to Omnibus' claim, the starting and ending points of the process are *not* the same. You cannot ignore this issue without misleading yourself.
Look at the figure I've attached. On the vertical axis I plot gravitational potential energy. On the horizontal axis I plot magnetic potential energy. I also plot diagonal lines indicating the sum of the gravitational and magnetic potentials. Moving up and down on the graph is equivalent to moving further from and closer to the earth. Moving right and left on the graph is equivalent to moving further from and closer to the magnets. Moving along one of the diagonal lines is a lossless tradeoff between gravitational and magnetic potentials. ("Lossless" is unobtainable in the real world due to air resistance, hysteresis losses at the ball/ramp contact point, etc. It can be approached, but never reached or exceeded. So without any outside influence, any real world motion along one of the diagonal lines will actually trend slightly below the line as the second law of thermodynamics takes its cut of the energy.)
Point A indicates the starting point of the ball at the bottom of the lower end of the ramp (Omnibus' "input"). Point B indicates the top of the ramp. Point C indicates the final position of the ball, at the original elevation but under the raised end of the ramp (Omnibus' "initial position", which is really a misnomer because it's not where the ball starts out).
The ball rolls up the ramp because the magnetic force parallel to the ramp is greater than the component of gravitational force parallel to the ramp. The magnetic field does work on the ball to raise its gravitational potential. As the ball rolls up the ramp, its gravitational potential is rising, but its magnetic potential is falling (the magnets are angled so they're closer to the ball at the top of the ramp). When the ball rolls off the top end of the ramp, it falls because the vertical component of the gravitational force is greater than the vertical component of the magnetic force. As the ball falls, the gravitational field does work on it. In falling, the ball gets further from the magnets, so its magnetic potential increases. When the ball reaches the initial elevation, its gravitational potential is back to the level where it started. But since the ball in its final position is closer to the magnets than when it started out (again, note the magnets are angled), it is at a lower magnetic potential than when it started.
To get it to go again, you need to raise the ball's potential by picking it up and placing it at the "input". Since the two locations are at the same elevation, you are not increasing its gravitatonal potential. But you *are* increasing its magnetic potential because the "input" is further than the final position from the magnets. Regardless of how much Omnibus disagrees, the ending point is at a lower combined gravitational/magnetic potential than the starting point.
Note that the SMOT could be arranged so that the ball falls completely away from the ramp and not just to its original elevation (say, off the edge of the table). This would raise the magnetic potental to a level higher than the starting point, but the gravitational potential would be significantly lower. To get the back to the input, you would need to raise its gravitational potential.
No matter what you do, the ball winds up at a lower combined potential than when it starts.
It is a matter of careful engineering. People (on Jlnlabs, I think) have connected two ramps together to get extra height, and therefore extra energy.
Refer to my graph: Points BB and CC indicate the states on a second ramp higher than the first. You can see that BB is indeed higher than B, but this is at the expense of even more magnetic potential energy. Along any real world path (such as A-B-C-BB-CC), no matter how convoluted, the combined gravitational/magnetic potential *always* decreases. (Note how the paths cut across the diagonal lines.) No matter how you arrange things, the ball will *always* wind up at a lower combined potential than when it started, and it will *always* require an outside influence (e.g. force from your hand) to raise it back to its starting potential so it can go again. This is exactly why nobody has ever succeeded in "close looping" these things.
The engineering problems are very fiddly and the speeds and positions of the components are crucial.
The "fiddliness" only determines how close points A and C are. In the real world, points A and C are always separate and distinct, and the combined gravitational/magnetic potential at point C is always less than at point A. As much as you and Omnibus would like to believe otherwise, points A and C are *not* the same. If they were and the ball had excess energy when arriving at the final position, it would be a "trivial engineering task" to arrange the device so the ball makes its way back to the input by itself. But, sadly, they are not the same and we're required to add energy to the system to get it to go again.
Suspend your disbelief, Berferd, unless you are scared of having your well ordered reality upset.
ROTFL! My "well ordered reality" is just fine. It's your "well ordered fantasy" that requires one to ignore important issues to create the impression that free energy is being created.
-
Many words, no substance:
At the expense of "magnetic potential energy"? What on earth is this?
It's as important as the gravitational potential energy in analyzing the SMOT. Your failure to consider it is the precise reason you and Omnibus think the device produces excess energy. When you consider this term, you see that the device behaves in accordance with all known physical laws and it's obvious that it does *not* produce excess energy. Such failure to consider all the relevant issues is at the heart of most free energy schemes.
Consider gravitational potential energy. This is an object's potential energy due to the gravitational field of the earth. Defining the surface of the earth as our datum, an object has zero gravitational potential energy at the surface. At any location above the surface, the object has gravitational potential energy. Moving down and up is the same as moving toward and away from the earth. The greater the distance (the higher the object) the greater the gravitational potential energy.
Magnetic potential energy is exactly analogous to gravitational potential energy. It is an object's potential energy due to the magnetic field of another object, such as a permanent magnet. Defining our datum as the point where the object (ball) is in contact with the permanent magnet, the magnetic potential energy is zero when the ball is in contact with the magnet. At any distance from the magnet, the ball has magnetic potential energy. The greater the distance, the greater the magnetic potential energy. In short: moving toward and away from the earth decreases and increases an object's gravitational potential energy. Moving toward and away from a permanent magnet decreases and increases a steel ball's magnetic potential energy.
I already answered this point. The above is taken into account in my analysis.
There is no energy expended allowing the ball to roll back to the start.
You are neglecting the magnetic potential energy. Note that because of the way the magnets are angled, the ball in the final position (Omnibus' "initial position") is closer to the magnets that at the starting position (Omnibus' "input").
Not so. To this day you couldn?t understand this. See my previous explanations. I?m not gonna repeat this over and over again because you don?t understand it.
This means the magnetic potential is lower than at the starting position. To get from the final position to the starting position, you need to raise the ball's magnetic potential energy back to it's starting value. It is this adverse potential gradient that prevents the ball from rolling back to the input by itself.
Not so. It is just the opposite. Furthermore, it is irrelevant in the final balance.
Contrary to Omnibus' claim, the starting and ending points of the process are *not* the same. You cannot ignore this issue without misleading yourself.
This is ridiculous. To this day you did not understand what we?re discussing. The cycle starts when the ball is at the initial position and ends when the ball is at that same initial position. I?ve told you this already at least five times. You don?t get it and I already doubt that you?ll ever get it (unless you?re deliberately confusing the issue to appear you have to say something).
Look at the figure I've attached. On the vertical axis I plot gravitational potential energy. On the horizontal axis I plot magnetic potential energy. I also plot diagonal lines indicating the sum of the gravitational and magnetic potentials. Moving up and down on the graph is equivalent to moving further from and closer to the earth. Moving right and left on the graph is equivalent to moving further from and closer to the magnets. Moving along one of the diagonal lines is a lossless tradeoff between gravitational and magnetic potentials. ("Lossless" is unobtainable in the real world due to air resistance, hysteresis losses at the ball/ramp contact point, etc. It can be approached, but never reached or exceeded. So without any outside influence, any real world motion along one of the diagonal lines will actually trend slightly below the line as the second law of thermodynamics takes its cut of the energy.)
Point A indicates the starting point of the ball at the bottom of the lower end of the ramp (Omnibus' "input"). Point B indicates the top of the ramp. Point C indicates the final position of the ball, at the original elevation but under the raised end of the ramp (Omnibus' "initial position", which is really a misnomer because it's not where the ball starts out).
The ball rolls up the ramp because the magnetic force parallel to the ramp is greater than the component of gravitational force parallel to the ramp. The magnetic field does work on the ball to raise its gravitational potential. As the ball rolls up the ramp, its gravitational potential is rising, but its magnetic potential is falling (the magnets are angled so they're closer to the ball at the top of the ramp). When the ball rolls off the top end of the ramp, it falls because the vertical component of the gravitational force is greater than the vertical component of the magnetic force. As the ball falls, the gravitational field does work on it. In falling, the ball gets further from the magnets, so its magnetic potential increases. When the ball reaches the initial elevation, its gravitational potential is back to the level where it started. But since the ball in its final position is closer to the magnets than when it started out (again, note the magnets are angled), it is at a lower magnetic potential than when it started.
To get it to go again, you need to raise the ball's potential by picking it up and placing it at the "input". Since the two locations are at the same elevation, you are not increasing its gravitatonal potential. But you *are* increasing its magnetic potential because the "input" is further than the final position from the magnets. Regardless of how much Omnibus disagrees, the ending point is at a lower combined gravitational/magnetic potential than the starting point.
Note that the SMOT could be arranged so that the ball falls completely away from the ramp and not just to its original elevation (say, off the edge of the table). This would raise the magnetic potental to a level higher than the starting point, but the gravitational potential would be significantly lower. To get the back to the input, you would need to raise its gravitational potential.
No matter what you do, the ball winds up at a lower combined potential than when it starts.
This is a flawed explanation. The experiment (each cycle) starts and ends at point C and not the way you have described it. The way you have described it the ball doesn?t close the loop when it?s moving.
Besides, it is not true that in moving from point C (?initial position? -- which is under the SMOT) to point B (?input to the device?) the gravitational energy doesn?t change. Unlike what you?ve indicated, the ball gains potential energy because it is raised from point C to point A. Also. it is not true that the magnetic potential energy increases from point C to point A. Point A is closer to the magnet than point C, therefore, it is just the opposite to what you?ve written.
Suspend your disbelief, Berferd, unless you are scared of having your well ordered reality upset.
ROTFL! My "well ordered reality" is just fine. It's your "well ordered fantasy" that requires one to ignore important issues to create the impression that free energy is being created.
That?s nonsense. What your reality is is seen from your ?explanation?. It?s flawed.
Your explanation is flooded with problems. As a first step, correct the mentioned and other problems in your graph and, hopefully, you?ll understand why excess energy is produced (I?m not holding my breath, though).
-
Can anybody explain simply why he thinks the Sprain motor is overunity?
All he is doing is using an electro-magnet to counter the 'blocking' of the first magnet in his motor so that the rotor can get by it. Why would anybody think that this will result in overunity? You might as well give it a push with a stick.
The input/output measurements done so far involve such small amounts of energy that they aren't worth much.
I'd love to see the thing work, but if other such 'breakthroughs' are anything to go by, in four months, or whatever it is, when the big version of the motor is supposed to be demonstrated, there will be some reason that it can't be shown, and another dealine will be set, and that deadline will be missed, etc.
I don't know if Sprain is allowing people to invest in his motor, but I would not put one cent into it, going by what has been shown so far.
-
Adams, motor.(aint that Pulsed?)
i havent taken the time to look at this fully,
but, Overunity does exist , like with Good_Good(Truth) , evil_evil (lies)
Guys you must Ponder it, Analyze,
also read this, this guy had seen the universes mechanics,
and if you could remember me posting some of the Book of enoch on here, although i shouldnt, then if you did read, what this guy mellen thomas wrote, its mostly correct.
http://100777.com/spiritual/beings_having_a_physical_experience
,
you guys are basicly saying , - Oh thats rubbish how can that work? -
-
Your explanation is flooded with problems. As a first step, correct the mentioned and other problems in your graph and, hopefully, you?ll understand why excess energy is produced (I?m not holding my breath, though).
You seem pretty determined to ignore the energy you're adding to the system when you pick up the ball from your "initial position" (Point C on my graph) and place it in your "input to the device" (Point A on my graph).
You also seem to think that my graph is incorrect. Please correct it. Be sure to consider both the magnetic and gravitational potentials at each point in the cycle.
-
I already pointed out some of the problems in your graph. Read what I wrote and think.
-
I already pointed out some of the problems in your graph. Read what I wrote and think.
All your criticisms are nonsensical. You really can't provide a description of the energy budgeting of the SMOT, can you?
If you insist my graph is wrong, correct it. Don't just tell me it's wrong. Don't just say that the magnets provide free energy. Show the gravitational and magnetic potentials at all points in the cycle, and show me where I'm wrong.
-
I already showed you. Read it and think. I can't waste more time on this.
-
I already showed you. Read it and think. I can't waste more time on this.
No, you did not show me. You told me I was wrong and told me to fix my graph.
I provided a graphical representation of the gravitational and magnetic potential energy budgeting of the SMOT through a complete cycle, and I showed that it is not overunity. My statements are consistent with known physics, and consider all relevant issues.
You refuse to admit that you raise the ball's magnetic potential as you pick it up from the "initial position" and place it at the "input to the device". You tell me I'm wrong, and you tell me to fix my graph.
Please, act like a scientist, and not like a religious zealot. You maintain the SMOT is overunity. SHOW ME. Show me the correct gravitational and magnetic potential energy budgeting over a complete cycle, and show me where I'm wrong.
-
Yeas, I did.
You have already been shown where your errors are. Read that thread carefully again and think. Start with your graph. For instance, notice that gravitational potential energy changes when moving the ball from C (?initial position? ? which is under the SMOT) to B (?input to the device?), unlike what your graph shows.
You don?t get this and never will. Give it up.
One wonders how people like you making such blatant mistakes dare teach others.
-
Yeas, I did.
You have already been shown where your errors are. Read that thread carefully again and think. Start with your graph. For instance, notice that gravitational potential energy changes when moving the ball from C (?initial position? ? which is under the SMOT) to B (?input to the device?), unlike what your graph shows.
You don?t get this and never will. Give it up.
One wonders how people like you making such blatant mistakes dare teach others.
You misread the graph. The "input to the device is not "B". The "input to the device" is "A", the top of the ramp is "B", and the point under the raised end of the ramp is "C" (what you're calling the "initial postion"). Please, reread the discussion I posted along with the graph.
When you pick up the ball from "C" and place it at "A", you are increasing the ball's magnetic potential, but you are *not* changing the ball's gravitational potential (the two points are at the same elevation). You even agreed in a followup that the ball wouldn't cycle by itself the way I drew it.
If you maintain that my analysis is not correct, please provide an analysis that is. Please provide a graph showing the gravitational and magnetic potential at each point in the cycle, and show me where the energy is coming from.
-
This is what you wrote:
Point A indicates the starting point of the ball at the bottom of the lower end of the ramp (Omnibus' "input"). Point B indicates the top of the ramp. Point C indicates the final position of the ball, at the original elevation but under the raised end of the ramp (Omnibus' "initial position", which is really a misnomer because it's not where the ball starts out).
Your graph, considering the above notation, is incorrect:
First, the experiment (each cycle) starts and ends at point C and not the way you have described it. The way you have described it the ball doesn?t close the loop when it?s moving.
Besides, it is not true that in moving from point C (?initial position? ? which is under the SMOT) to point A (?input to the device?) the gravitational energy doesn?t change. Unlike what you?ve indicated, the ball gains potential energy because it is raised from point C to point A. Point C (below the SMOT) and point A at the input of the SMOT are not at the same elevation. Also, it is not true that the magnetic potential energy increases from point C to point A. Point A is closer to the magnet than point C, therefore, it is just the opposite to what you?ve written.
Cut this out. You don?t understand it and never will. It?s just wasting of bandwidth on your side.
-
Omnibus here is this machine simplified, see atachement,
A is a strong magnet
e is a iron ball atracted by the magnet (oes up the ramp due atraction of the magnet...)
When the ball arrives to B it droops from in the hole and goes down again by the ram below due gravity and starts again...
Please expalin me why it works or why it does not work.
Have in mind that Berferd is trying very hardly to explain about a exactily a machine like this.
-
Maybe he does not understand, that the steel ball is sucked in automatically at the start into the track ?!
It does not have to be pushed in ! I am currently at my PDA and can?t see the graphics...
-
Don't see attachment ...
OK, now I see it ...
-
_GonZo_, the machine in the graph you've shown is not what we're discussing. We're discussing a SMOT and what you've shown is not a SMOT. Please, go back in the discussion to acquaint yourself with the setup we are talking about.
-
Belive it or not it is the same machine, but much more simple.
I have no idea what is a SMOT, but looking at this grafic I do not need to see how it is... this grafic correspond to a machine like the one I posted even if you think that no, I am sure Berfer will tell you that it is correct.
(http://www.overunity.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=815.0;attach=932;image)
-
You never understood that the energy the operator spends to pick up the ball and place it at the input is fully compensated when the ball returns to the initial position.
It would be, if the ball returned to the initial position. The problem is that the ball doesn't return to the initial position.
It starts "here" (before the ramp) and ends "there" (after the ramp.)
That it ends up at the same height is irrelevant, because you're not taking into account the magnetic field.
If you make a SMOT that ends at a higher point than the start, the magnetic drag at the end will not allow the
ball to escape the field and roll back to the input. It is sitting at the bottom of a potential energy pit.
The SMOT device has been around for 20 years and no one has made a continous looping version.
Closing the loop would be TRIVIAL to do if there were a net energy gain in the system.
The fact that no one has a perpetually cycling SMOT sitting on their desk now, after the total number of manhours
and heaps of money that have been poured into this little toy worldwide, strongly suggests to me that it is impossible.
-
2 people had it already running in a loop, Greg Watson and Epitaxy, unfortunately he died in a car crash. Watson said, that it was too unreliable and now sell his new solar cubes. Only a very few guys in the world tried it until now and in my opinion this must be build very big and exact, so that the ramps are at lest 1 Meter long and every single magnet has to be made adjustable, otherwise it will have too much different field changes..so it is not easy to build, if you have not much time and space and patience for it...
-
2 people had it already running in a loop, Greg Watson and Epitaxy, unfortunately he died in a car crash. Watson said, that it was too unreliable and now sell his new solar cubes. Only a very few guys in the world tried it until now and in my opinion this must be build very big and exact, so that the ramps are at lest 1 Meter long and every single magnet has to be made adjustable, otherwise it will have too much different field? changes..so it is not easy to build, if you have not much time and space and patience for it...
It's mighty strange that virtually every successful perpetual motion machine ever built is either lost after its inventor dies, or is abandoned just because it's too finnicky or too much trouble.
-
Belive it or not it is the same machine, but much more simple.
Gonzo, for kicks I've uploaded a graph for a variation where the ball winds up at the starting magnetic potential but lower gravitational potential.
I'm really baffled how people can think these things make free energy. If they're confused by something this simple, there's little hope.
-
Belive it or not it is the same machine, but much more simple.
No, it?s not. It?s similar but is not the same machine. Read the beginning of the thread carefully to see the difference.
I have no idea what is a SMOT, but looking at this grafic I do not need to see how it is... this grafic correspond to a machine like the one I posted even if you think that no, I am sure Berfer will tell you that it is correct.
No, I have said it several times already, the graphic doesn?t correspond to the machine we?re discussing (not the one you have posted but the machine we?re discussing).
I?ve posted this several times and I?m repeating it specially for you. Read it carefully so that I won?t be forced to continue repeating it:
Point A indicates the starting point of the ball at the bottom of the lower end of the ramp (Omnibus' "input"). Point B indicates the top of the ramp. Point C indicates the final position of the ball, at the original elevation but under the raised end of the ramp (Omnibus' "initial position", which is really a misnomer because it's not where the ball starts out).
Your graph, considering the above notation, is incorrect:
First, the experiment (each cycle) starts and ends at point C and not the way you have described it. The way you have described it the ball doesn?t close the loop when it?s moving.
Besides, it is not true that in moving from point C (?initial position? ? which is under the SMOT) to point A (?input to the device?) the gravitational energy doesn?t change. Unlike what you?ve indicated, the ball gains potential energy because it is raised from point C to point A. Point C (below the SMOT) and point A at the input of the SMOT are not at the same elevation. Also, it is not true that the magnetic potential energy increases from point C to point A. Point A is closer to the magnet than point C, therefore, it is just the opposite to what you?ve written.
-
It would be, if the ball returned to the initial position. The problem is that the ball doesn't return to the initial position.
On the contrary, in the experiment we?re discussing the ball returns to the initial position. I?m talking about the experiment we?re discussing and not about who knows what experiment you have in mind.
Before setting to discuss something you must first understand well what is being discussed and not impose some fantasies of yours that have nothing to do with the discussion at hand.
It starts "here" (before the ramp) and ends "there" (after the ramp.)
That it ends up at the same height is irrelevant, because you're not taking into account the magnetic field.
If you make a SMOT that ends at a higher point than the start, the magnetic drag at the end will not allow the
ball to escape the field and roll back to the input. It is sitting at the bottom of a potential energy pit.
Not so. This is not what is being discussed. Please acquaint yourself first with the essence of the discussion and then post opinions.
The SMOT device has been around for 20 years and no one has made a continous looping version.
Closing the loop would be TRIVIAL to do if there were a net energy gain in the system.
The discussion at hand is not about continuous production of excess energy, therefore, invoking looping is irrelevant. What is being discussed is periodic production of excess energy.
It?s very annoying to have to answer irrelevant posts.
The fact that no one has a perpetually cycling SMOT sitting on their desk now, after the total number of manhours
and heaps of money that have been poured into this little toy worldwide, strongly suggests to me that it is impossible.
That?s nonsense. The discussion at hand is not about perpetually cycling SMOT. You may think that it is but it is not.
Read carefully the thread so far and acquaint yourself well with what is being discussed before posting frivolous posts.
-
It's mighty strange that virtually every successful perpetual motion machine ever built is either lost after its inventor dies, or is abandoned just because it's too finnicky or too much trouble.
That isn?t true.
Wesley Snyder is very much alive and well and his machine isn?t lost or abandoned at all.
Neither is lost or abandoned the machine invented by Walter Torbay.
People who talk nonsense like you and badmouth the inventors are worse than scam artists.
-
It's mighty strange that virtually every successful perpetual motion machine ever built is either lost after its inventor dies, or is abandoned just because it's too finnicky or too much trouble.
To this day you could not understand that the ball in the experiment we?re discussing ends up at the same gravitational as well as magnetic potential as when it started.
You will never understand that. Don?t torture yourself. Give it up and don?t waste bandwidth in the forum.
-
Omnibus:
Still not answered why that simple ramp device works or does not work.
Please study basics Newton fisics.
Your posts have no sense at all.
I can see that you do not understand nothing that we talk about.
You think for example that something that is turning or moving with no stop (perpetual motion) is a overunity device and that is an error.
Belive it or not it is the same machine, but much more simple.
Gonzo, for kicks I've uploaded a graph for a variation where the ball winds up at the starting magnetic potential but lower gravitational potential.
I'm really baffled how people can think these things make free energy.? If they're confused by something this simple, there's little hope.
Yes you are right Berferd, the difference is that the ramp should going down instead of up but the result is the same you know, but did not find a image of a device with the ramp going down to the magnet...
I did not wanted to post a wheel with the magnet down because then it will be to complicate for Omnibus brain as momentuns will be implied...
-
Still not answered why that simple ramp device works or does not work.
Please study basics Newton fisics.
Your posts have no sense at all.
I can see that you do not understand nothing that we talk about.
The device you have shown doesn?t work. However, this is not what present discussion is all about.
That you don?t understand not only the SMOT device we?re discussing but also what overunity is is confirmed by your following statement:
You think for example that something that is turning or moving with no stop (perpetual motion) is a overunity device and that is an error.
On the contrary. A device which is turning by itself, that is, a device producing energy, without energy being spent for its turning, is the ultimate overunity device ? a perpetuum mobile (perpetual motion machine).
Belive it or not it is the same machine, but much more simple.
Gonzo, for kicks I've uploaded a graph for a variation where the ball winds up at the starting magnetic potential but lower gravitational potential.
I'm really baffled how people can think these things make free energy. If they're confused by something this simple, there's little hope.
Yes you are right Berferd, the difference is that the ramp should going down instead of up but the result is the same you know, but did not find a image of a device with the ramp going down to the magnet...
I did not wanted to post a wheel with the magnet down because then it will be to complicate for Omnibus brain as momentuns will be implied...
No, that?s incorrect. In the device we?re discussing the ball starts and ends up at the same magnetic and gravitational potential ? the ball starts at point C (?initial position?) and ends up at point C (?initial position?). In the device we?re discussing the ball goes along a closed loop. One cycle in the device we?re discussing consists of a closed loop. You?d better understand that first before posting your replies because otherwise they will always be incorrect.
-
It's mighty strange that virtually every successful perpetual motion machine ever built is either lost after its inventor dies, or is abandoned just because it's too finnicky or too much trouble.
To this day you could not understand that the ball in the experiment we?re discussing ends up at the same gravitational as well as magnetic potential as when it started.
You will never understand that. Don?t torture yourself. Give it up and don?t waste bandwidth in the forum.
You're making unsubstantiated claims. Please show me a graphical representation of the gravitational and magnetic potential energy budgeting of the SMOT, and show me where the excess energy comes from.
The ball in the SMOT moss assuredly winds up at a lower potential than when it starts (but is raised to the starting potential when the operator picks it up and places it at the "input" again.
Stop your arm waving and prove your point. I've proven mine, so prove yours.
-
You're making unsubstantiated claims. Please show me a graphical representation of the gravitational and magnetic potential energy budgeting of the SMOT, and show me where the excess energy comes from.
I already did that on several occasions in this thread. Go back and read what I explained. I cannot post the same thing over and over again just because you don?t understand it. It will turn into a perpetual discussion if I?d do that which is useless (unlike a perpetual motion machine which is not).
The ball in the SMOT moss assuredly winds up at a lower potential than when it starts (but is raised to the starting potential when the operator picks it up and places it at the "input" again.
As I said, in the device we?re discussing the ball starts and ends up at the same magnetic and gravitational potential ? the ball starts at point C (?initial position?) and ends up at point C (?initial position?). In the device we?re discussing the ball goes along a closed loop. One cycle in the device we?re discussing consists of a closed loop. Therefore, most assuredly, the ball in the device under discussion here winds up at exactly the same potential as its potential when it starts.
Stop your arm waving and prove your point. I've proven mine, so prove yours.
No, you have not proven your point. You think you have but you haven?t.
-
On the contrary. A device which is turning by itself, that is, a device producing energy, without energy being spent for its turning, is the ultimate overunity device ? a perpetuum mobile (perpetual motion machine).
An elecron turning and vibrating around the nucleous never stops (perpetual motion) and it is not given out any enegy and it is not taking any energy to turn.
A satelite turning around the earth never stops (perpetual motion) and it is not given out any enegy and it is not taking any energy to turn.
The earth turning around the earth never stops (perpetual motion) and it is not given out any enegy and it is not taking any energy to turn.
Etc.
Almost all of the devices posted in this forum if acelerated by hand and then realesed, will turn for ever by itself and never stop. And they will not need any energy to keep turning and they will not give out any energy, they just will keep theyr momentum. :o
But there is friction in the earth so they stop >:(
That is the newton law of conservation of the momentun that aparently you have no idea what it is...
Every post you do are just supositions, your "demostrations" are not based on observation or on theory or on calculations, they are just supositions...
Why I say this:
I have not seen any deviced constructed by you.
I have not seen any theory or calculartions made by you on any post.
Just only supositios like: if that were and if and if and if... man, phisiscs does not work that way, you have to write down the formulas, you have to do grafs, you have to experiment. To do so you need to know the laws, the formulas, the theorya, etc... and you do not know them, so stop talking about things that you do not know and dont understand.
Just listen, observe and learn.
-
An elecron turning and vibrating around the nucleous never stops (perpetual motion) and it is not given out any enegy and it is not taking any energy to turn.
Mechanical turning of an electron around the nucleus is a notion from the high school textbooks. This is not the current professional view of the behavior of the electron.
A satelite turning around the earth never stops (perpetual motion) and it is not given out any enegy and it is not taking any energy to turn. The earth turning around the earth never stops (perpetual motion) and it is not given out any enegy and it is not taking any energy to turn.
Etc.
This is a wrong analogy. You figure it out why.
Almost all of the devices posted in this forum if acelerated by hand and then realesed, will turn for ever by itself and never stop. And they will not need any energy to keep turning and they will not give out any energy, they just will keep theyr momentum. Shocked
But there is friction in the earth so they stop
Not so. Snyder?s and Torbay?s devices will not stop turning because there is friction. And, yes, they give out energy.
That is the newton law of conservation of the momentun that aparently you have no idea what it is...
Newton?s law of conservation of momentum is mentioned here out of context.
Every post you do are just supositions, your "demostrations" are not based on observation or on theory or on calculations, they are just supositions...
Not so, Snyder?s and Torbay?s demonstrations are not suppositions but actual experiments.
Why I say this:
I have not seen any deviced constructed by you.
I have not seen any theory or calculartions made by you on any post.
Just only supositios like: if that were and if and if and if... man, phisiscs does not work that way, you have to write down the formulas, you have to do grafs, you have to experiment. To do so you need to know the laws, the formulas, the theorya, etc... and you do not know them, so stop talking about things that you do not know and dont understand.
Just listen, observe and learn.
Obviously, you?re not an accomplished scientist. If you were you would know that you don?t need to have done every experiment yourself so that you can draw theoretical conclusions. Besides, quality theoretical conclusions in physics can be drawn also without formuli. Math is only a helping hand in physics, to make life easier. Physics makes math not vice versa.
See, you don?t know these things probably because you haven?t been engaged in serious research, publishing in peer-reviewed journals etc. The way you present yourself in this discussion is of a person with limited credentials in science.
-
As I said, in the device we?re discussing the ball starts and ends up at the same magnetic and gravitational potential ? the ball starts at point C (?initial position?) and ends up at point C (?initial position?). In the device we?re discussing the ball goes along a closed loop. One cycle in the device we?re discussing consists of a closed loop. Therefore, most assuredly, the ball in the device under discussion here winds up at exactly the same potential as its potential when it starts.
You say the ball starts at point C and ends at point C. I agree, both the gravitational and magnetic potentials are unchanged in going from point C to point C.
But, notice that to get the thing started you need to pick up the ball and place it at point A. In doing this you are raising the ball's combined gravitational/magnetic potential. You are addiing energy to the system. This energy comes back out of the system as the ball moves to point B then to point C.
You say that all the energy you add to the system in doing this is returned, and in addition you get a "present" of some excess energy.
All I am asking is that you illustrate where that excess energy is coming from.
I have provided two graphical representations of the SMOT showing the gravitational and magnetic potential energy budgeting through the entire cycle, and I have shown that the operator adds energy to the system in moving the ball from the "initial position" (C) to the "input to the device" (A). You take issue with this. Please provide what you believe to be the correct energy budgeting through the entire cycle and show where excess energy is coming from.
Don't just tell me I'm wrong. Show me.
-
More interesting as the SMOT(-Watson/Naudin experiment) is the
Naudin "Push and Pull" experiment and the result
and the step-for-step potentials !
(Greater "SMOT" version:butlerlabs)
Sincerely
de Lanca
-
But, notice that to get the thing started you need to pick up the ball and place it at point A. In doing this you are raising the ball's combined gravitational/magnetic potential. You are adding energy to the system. This energy comes back out of the system as the ball moves to point B then to point C.
Only half true. Indeed, in moving the ball from point C to point A you?re raising its gravitational potential (this means you have to correct your graph ? see attachment). However, in doing so you?re decreasing its magnetic potential ? you?re getting the ball closer to the magnet. Point A is closer to the magnet than C.
You say that all the energy you add to the system in doing this is returned, and in addition you get a "present" of some excess energy.
All I am asking is that you illustrate where that excess energy is coming from.
Now that you?ve finally agreed that the cycle starts and ends at the same point C (closed loop) which has one and the same gravitational and magnetic potential you should further understand the following, which I already said several times but will repeat now once again:
Because the ball moves along a closed loop in the conservative magnetic field despite the fact that energy is gained along the first part of the loop C (?initial position?) ? B (?top of ramp?), this energy is lost along the second part of the loop B (?top of ramp?) ? C (?initial position?). Therefore, there is no net energy along the closed loop in the conservative magnetic field.
Not so with the closed loop in the gravitational field. In the gravitational field you do work only to transfer the ball along part of the first half of the closed loop ? from C (?initial position?) to A (?input to the device?). However, for the other part of the first half of the loop, namely, from A (?input to the device?) to B (?top of ramp?) you do no work. Curiously, however, when the ball falls spontaneously along the second half of the loop, namely, from B (?top of ramp?) back to C (?initial position?) the ball recovers all the energy spent to have it raised along the entire first half of the loop, namely from C to B. Therefore, the ball recovers more than you have spent ? recall, you?ve spent energy only along C-A but the first half also has section A-B for which you haven?t spent energy to move the ball along. This part of the energy not spent by you, however, is also recovered along the reverse, second part of the loop B-C. This is the excess energy which the SMOT produces.
I have provided two graphical representations of the SMOT showing the gravitational and magnetic potential energy budgeting through the entire cycle, and I have shown that the operator adds energy to the system in moving the ball from the "initial position" (C) to the "input to the device" (A). You take issue with this. Please provide what you believe to be the correct energy budgeting through the entire cycle and show where excess energy is coming from.
Don't just tell me I'm wrong. Show me.
As I already explained, you graph (see attachment) is wrong and should not be referred to when doing the analysis. As far as the energy balance goes, I have explained it already many times, the last time in this post (see above). The energy balance indicates that the SMOT produces excess energy periodically.
-
As I already explained, you graph (see attachment) is wrong and should not be referred to when doing the analysis. As far as the energy balance goes, I have explained it already many times, the last time in this post (see above). The energy balance indicates that the SMOT produces excess energy periodically.
Again, don't just tell me I'm wrong, show me.
You should have no trouble putting your description of the "correct" energy budgeting of the SMOT into graphical terms.
Please provide a corrected graph. Please show where the excess energy is coming from.
You like to ignore the motion through the magnetic potential field when it's convenient. Putting your description in graphical terms will prevent you from ignoring it.
-
You like to ignore the motion through the magnetic potential field when it's convenient.
This is ridiculous. Read what I've explained and stop demonstrating your incompetence. Enough is enough.
-
Please provide a corrected graph.? Please show where the excess energy is coming from.
You like to ignore the motion through the magnetic potential field when it's convenient.? Putting your description in graphical terms will prevent you from ignoring it.
Berferd, give it up. You might as well be trying to teach a pig to fly. I agree it would be interesting to see Omnibus's version, but it's pretty obvious he can't produce one and you're wasting your time. He has it in his head that the SMOT produces energy, and nothing will convince him otherwise. It was entertaining to see you try to get through to him, but it's time to stop.
By the way, thanks for the explanations and graphs. They make it pretty clear. But again, please, give it up. Some people are beyond help.
-
Berferd, give it up. You might as well be trying to teach a pig to fly. I agree it would be interesting to see Omnibus's version, but it's pretty obvious he can't produce one and you're wasting your time. He has it in his head that the SMOT produces energy, and nothing will convince him otherwise. It was entertaining to see you try to get through to him, but it's time to stop.
By the way, thanks for the explanations and graphs. They make it pretty clear. But again, please, give it up. Some people are beyond help.
Bereferd should give it up for reasons other than you indicate. Bereferd should give it up because he is incompetent. Anyone who cares can look back at the discussion and convince himself in that. It is embarrassing to read the incompetent rants of Bereferd.
You?re thanking him for the graphs but in vain. The graphs Bereferd shows are incorrect and I have explained why at length. You don?t add anything to the discussion either. Just some kind of empty support based on no arguments. Some people, such as you and Bereferd, are beyond help.