Talk:Simple Magnetic Overunity Toy

Suggested short description

I wrote this for the short description.

A steel ball is then placed in front of the device, magnetic attraction is converted into kinetic energy and the ball rolls up the ramp. (where the array is positioned closer to the rail) allowing the ball to further accelerate. At the top of the ramp the ball drops out of the magnetic field. Here the projectile launched by the SMOT appears to gain kinetic energy as the ball accelerates from standstill, overcomes distance and has remaining kinetic energy after interaction with the toy.

It was reverted so I would like to improve upon it. The ball does appear to start moving and it does appear to gain kinetic energy. It's suppose to be a research toy. It would be good to have some physics explaining why the ball doesn't stop inside the magnetic gate. It seems to make free energy, that is so fun about the toy? Thanks (Gaby de wilde 11:22, 1 September 2007 (UTC))

VfD result

Lag time is way over, results were:

3	delete
8	keep

Consensus achieved.

Here's the archived VfD tag:

IceKarma 11:58, 2005 Mar 9 (UTC)

Naudin

Come on Reddi, please don't overdo it with linking to Naudin's site. There is lot of fun stuff there, but citing as evidence of actually operating at over-unity? Nah. If someone is coming up with a real working perpetuum mobile, an experiment repeatable also by non-believers, we would hear loudly about it - without the need to consult Naudin's site. --Pjacobi 18:50, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Factual Accuracy

This article seems to be advertising a toy as the single known violation of the first law of thermodynamics. This is badly in need of revision to emphasize more strongly that Simple Magnetic Overunity Toy is a misnomer, and that perpetual motion is considered impossible by the entire scientific community. This article should probably be deleted, which I would like to reopen for consideration. However, if the toy itself is noteworthy enough to justify an article, the article should at least stop using misleading language and citing very questionable research in order to imply that the SMOT somehow obsoletes all of thermodynamics by magic. --jermor 4:15, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, please. True believers will slowly undo it, but it needs to be done. - DavidWBrooks 20:44, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Definitely, when I first read it(a few seconds ago), I thought the article was saying that it actually worked! It took me 4 minutes to figure out that it is just theoretical and it doesn't work...so it needs to be made obvious that the device doesn't work

Quick comment for DWB version: Naudin is a fringe scientist at best; in particular, he promotes "over-unity" which his peers feel would be a violation of thermodynamics, so he can probably be characterized as a clear-cut example of a pseudophysicist. ---CH 00:24, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Surely this article should mention that these toys don't actually work. If the ball did drop once it reached the top of the ramp then you could close the loop and have perpetual motion. The magnet can't be strong enough that it can raise the ball and weak enough that gravity can reclaim the ball. The ball will just stop at the top of the ramp. --MrFlit 15:01, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Pointing out that this doesn't work would be like going to water and adding "Trivia: Is wet" at the bottom.

perfectblue 08:17, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Yet there is a 'construction' section. How to construct a thing that can't be built?MrFlit 06:00, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Better Example of how it works

Everyone agrees that it's not an over unity device. However, it is a good demonstration of the laws of physics as are other supposed perpetual motion machines so it should be left. However, someone should give a better explaination and remove that 113% efficiency figure. The SMOT works the same way as a spring. While the ball's gravitational potenial energy increases as it goes up the hill, it's magnetic PE decreases as it gets closer to the magnets. By the first law of thermodynamics, these two PEs + the KE are equal. The SMOT would work as a perpetual motion machine in a frictionless environment (SMOTs in a loop) because the net energy moves between KE gravitational PE and magnetic PE. However, to calculate the efficiency, the formula should be E_final/E_initial = KE/(PE_gravitic+PE_magnetic)

Note please: Naudin is NOT a scientific or in any way scientifically working site. The errors in most conclusions are laymans errors and the interpretation of incorrectly collected data leads to vast misinterpretations. If you want to know what it is NOT, look to this site, but do not quote it in wiki articles please. This website deserves better references. A wikiauthor from another language, best regards 149.217.40.222 07:04, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that's an explanation. Friction can't be the reason it doesn't work. It's theoretically possible to use a very-low friction material, and if the friction loss is less than the machines "gain", then it's still over-unity. Besides which, friction produces heat, which is energy. If it lost energy through friction, running forever it would make a useful heater.

I'm sure it doesn't work, but I'm not sure WHY! This needs a better explanation, because this is a very convincing machine. It's fatal flaw isn't obvious, but since the laws of thermodynamics have held up thus far, I'm sure there is one. 92.40.254.96 (talk) 11:09, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

This thing is funny as heck. I would like to point out several things:

• I've seen dozens of videos of this thing 'working', but not one where the ball actually goes around and starts over. If someone can get a .gif of it 'working' in a closed track that would be nifty.
• JLNaudin has done about a million Free Energy/Over Unity experiments and roughly 99% have been successful, as opposed 0% for everyone else. You make your own conclusions. ;)
• The device could also work by gradually weakening the magnets, so it might work for a bit, then stop, and producting fresh magnets would use up more energy than it made.
• The patent cited at the bottom is misleading. Often FE/OU inventors will get patents for thier devices by not making clear to the patent office that it is a perpetual motion device. Then use the patent to 'prove' to investors that it is a legitimate (working) device.

I do have to admit that saying something doesn't work just because it violates all known laws of physics (without testing) is a little annoying. Someday you just might be wrong, but probably not today.

Tiki God 15:26, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Stating that something doesn't work because it violates a basic law of physics is perfectly reasonable. I can run faster than the speed of light, and I have a video tape and some crayon drawings to prove it. But no one takes me seriously, so I'm forced to conclude that I'm a persecuted visionary with ideas ahead of my time, right? --Jermor 00:30, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Jermor, Your insane hyperbole is misfitting for the general tone that is taken with anyone who considers a SMOT something worthy of investigation. It's pretty obvious that a SMOT can be built to drag a ball up a ramp and drop it off the end, as there are at least 10 different builds of the device that you can watch on YouTube. Whether these can ever be chained together remains yet to be seen, but, the SMOT principle is not wholly unreasonable to test and investigate. JudgeX (talk) 03:18, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Jermor, if you ran faster than the speed of light then, according to special relativity, you would literally be ahead of your time 123.236.162.31 (talk) 14:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Well I am happy to see that this diskussion is really done factually here,I tried to install an SMOT article on the german wikipedia and it was deleted very fast.Now I send the link of the english side to the admin.I heard nozhing then on the editing talk side from him.Paul Horn

To all pro-perpetual motion people: Stop demanding proof that it's not a perpetual motion machine. The thing is so simple it hurts. Nobody is saying that the reason it isn't over-unity because "it would violate basic laws", though it might be a very good statistical clue pointing to unworkability. If I had to bet a million dollars either way, I'd go with the established laws. It is not a perpetual motion machine, because anyone who knows high school physics looks at the thing, and says "ah I know this one, let me write up the equations for it". As 149.217.40.222 pointed out, it's a spring. If you hang a ball on a spring, suspend it from the ceiling, and pull on it, does it become a perpetual motion machine? NO? Well yeah, no it doesn't, right? Everyone knows that! Though if you used a heavy enough ball, and a strong enough spring, then it will keep going up and down for a VERY LONG time, giving the ILLUSION of perpetual motion. Well this is the EXACT SAME thing but with magnets instead. If you don't believe me, look it up in a high school physics book, ask a physics teacher, etc. 213.163.40.100 (talk) 12:27, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

picture

how about a picture of what this thing looks like?

perfectblue 08:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Got a pic from the patent. Might hand draw one later. J. D. Redding 22:45, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

No perpetual motion SMOTs have ever been built?

As of 09:16, 10 May 2007, ScienceApologist removed, in his opinion, a "uncited" claim.

These things have been built by people.

• "Simple Magnetic Overunity Toy". Alternative Method. (Video; ed. site occasional drops offline but returns thereafter)

J. D. Redding 23:04, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Not a reliable source. Try again. --ScienceApologist 13:42, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Removal of sources and information

ScienceApologist is on a POV jihad. Until such time as he allows referecnces and neutral views, this article will stay in the sorry shape that it is. Sincerely, J. D. Redding 15:12, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Removed

Many attempts have been made to use magnetism to overcome conservation of energy, without success.‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.›  No perpetual motion machines have ever been demonstrated to actually function.‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.›  Adherents claim the device must be carefully tuned to work, and failures are usually attributed to poor adjustment in the device.

Fact tag bombing is inappropriate. The final sentence is pandering to pseudoscience. --ScienceApologist 15:13, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Replication

• "Simple Magnetic Overunity Toy". Alternative Method. (Video; ed. site occasional drops offline but returns thereafter)

General information

• Simanek, Donald E., "Testing a SMOT". LHUP, June 23 2004.
• de Queiroz, Antonio Carlos M., "An Electrostatic Linear Motor". 24 January 2002.
• Naudin, Jean-Louis, "A Rotating SMOT". JLN Labs, 07 Jun 1997.
• Naudin, Jean-Louis, "Two Linked S.M.O.Ts - Tests v 1.02". JLN Labs, 28 May 1997.
• Watson, Greg, "Smot & Dmec Flux Gate". (via amasci.com)

Just a few notes for future editors .... J. D. Redding 16:38, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Guidelines and AGF

The above soureces are not reliable and will be removed if reinserted. --ScienceApologist 15:13, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Please stop POV pushing ScienceApologist, they are reliable concerning this topic (eg., experiments and researchers ... testing devices and displaying the test material and research).

J. D. Redding 02:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC) (PS, how can the primary source (eg., Alternative Method) of actual replication be non-reliable ... do you support ignoring the replication of the device and it's testing? ... this is simply ignoring facts ... )

Wikipedia is a tertiary source of information. It should rely on secondary source analysis. Primary source claims of overunity energy generation are simply not reliable for inclusion in our encyclopedia. --ScienceApologist 12:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

No ... Wikipedia is a secondary source (if possible) ... see Wikipedia:History#Sources (for more info) ... Wikipedia would be considered a secondary source on some occasions.

Any honest scholar will tell you that one should look at the primary sources 1st and foremost .. then add secondary sources if possible ...

Primary sources are reliable ... they are usually authoritative and fundamental documents concerning the subject under consideration.

J. D. Redding 02:12, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Please read WP:FRINGE#Sourcing and attribution. Thanks. --ScienceApologist 11:11, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

That is wrong ... Wikipedia is meant to be a secondary source of information, if possible .. and a tertiary source of information as a last resort... sorry ...

J. D. Redding 12:23, 18 May 2007 (UTC) (ps., I imagine that you have POV'ed that _guideline_ [not policy]; again, any honest scholar will tell you that one should look at the primary sources 1st and foremost ...)

WP:NOR#Sources: quote: "Wikipedia itself is a tertiary source." --ScienceApologist 12:28, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

What's more: "Although most articles should rely predominantly on secondary sources, there are rare occasions when they may rely entirely on primary sources (for example, current events or legal cases). An article or section of an article that relies on a primary source should (1) only make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and (2) make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims. Contributors drawing on entirely primary sources should be careful to comply with both conditions." Consensus seems pretty clear. --ScienceApologist 12:30, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

It's wrong ... as the the history guidelines have been in place much longe that that guideline .. and wikipedia has been a secondary source on many ocassions ...

You can try to Push your POV into a guideline ... but that doesn't mean that editors have to follow your POV ....

Do note this ... Primary sources about research and investigations should only be used to verify the text ... you are not allowing primary source at all to verify the text ...

These are not being relied upon exclusively ... so there is no violation of Wikipedia's ban on original research.

I think the fringe page is confusing original research with primary sources, also ...

You are not editing in good faith and are editing to prove a point ... please stop acting this way "ScienceApologist". J. D. Redding 12:34, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Remember, Reddi, WP:AGF. If you have a problem with any of the guidelines I'm quoting, take it up on the relevant guidelines talkpages. Announcing that these guidelines are "wrong" and editting contrary to them is not the way to conduct oneself at Wikipedia. --ScienceApologist 12:36, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

AGF wear thin when the cited guideline are twisted to suit a editor's purpose. J. D. Redding 12:42, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

See also WP:SPS. --ScienceApologist 12:32, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Are you serious? This is funny ... because the only link/ref you have keep is a self-published website ... HA! Too funny ...

You are not editing in good faith and are editing to prove a point ... please stop acting this way. J. D. Redding 12:37, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

You should read more carefully: "...may be acceptable when produced by a well-known, professional researcher (scholarly or non-scholarly) in a relevant field." That's what the link on this page is. --ScienceApologist 12:43, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

The other sites fall into the "may be acceptable when produced by a well-known, professional researcher (scholarly or non-scholarly) in a relevant field" ...

Donald E. Simanek's site is at the same level as some of the others that you removed ... Simanek doesn't even test a real device; it's all "theoretical" ... the other sites are more scholarly ....

I cannot see that this editing is in good faith and the editing is being done to prove a point ... AGF wears thin when the cited guideline are twisted to suit a editor's purpose. J. D. Redding 13:00, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Taking a break ... as this is frustrating ... J. D. Redding 13:05, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Back on Point

The major problem with this article is this: perpetual motion is not accepted by the mainstream scientific community, so any statement implying that this device "works" doesn't belong. It is fine to present the claims of the creator and other perpetual motion enthusiasts, but presenting them as either fact or scientific consensus is just not appropriate. There is a huge body of evidence supporting the laws of thermodynamics, and, according to any reputable scientific journal or organization, there has never been a violation. You can cite all the primary sources you like to explain how the device is supposed to work, but the fact is that it doesn't. This article needs to be rewritten, and editors need to cite appropriate sources (peer reviewed journals, established popular science magazines, etc.). Also, a patent is a document describing how something is designed. It is not proof that it works. Jermor 01:11, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

The claims of the SMOT designers are obviously wrong, but the device itself can be built and will "work" in a certain sense. It is plainly uncontroversial that one can use magnets to get balls to roll uphill. However, it is patently impossible to create a perpetual motion machine out of this. SMOT will not create overunity energy as the article plainly states nor will it result in perpetual motion as the article also states. --ScienceApologist 01:19, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

The article looks better than it has in a while. Thanks for putting in so much effort, ScienceApologist. Jermor (talk) 00:53, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Minor cleanup

Just a couple bits of clean-up. Most notably, there's no such thing as "magnetic energy." Magnetic attraction and repulsion are forces, not energy.

Useful source??

Here's a video of one of these things: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4dCs5b-TbEI. There are a few SMOT videos on YouTube. Doesn't actually produce any form of perpetual motion or energy obviously, but it proves that these toys exist and have attracted a following of inquisitive engineers who like playing with magnets. ^_^ • Anakin ^{(contribs • complaints)} 00:16, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Look at this

Check this video, I have no idea on the current status of this guy or the machine but if this is true then this would be the biggest breakthrough in the history of earth. If anyone can get anything else on this particular machine or others like it please respond here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SvB3PiPBozU&feature=related&session=MyI5HHuPzA1NW2f0AEf0nHnlApWw_X-OXCHN6dcMdizEFfZil2pRXMY-ncDrbrItOkTqsd04UTXXf5uCzcvV-SnNftjlFHNXDmrlwucROWdVyhQana0x1iStu4D4GnLINMCAYGbLpEG9VXC--TwQ2sHW-wJwqTMc4RVkqEa_-ZC2kcR6P1EFjwsBR4LIig_zNpPSykQ2li8OHfu6GN1XEhnJp6qq_YSaHduUzrV33Wur5TIPCaNKGUXvSEtqANaaEgSbqi33eTXYzpNIbicBhE9LCWvKA79nVI4VaKWLhhxrFsPvz7DRSN9dXGdZBZmRXMkZNaeCa-i6mFnfs2WNjA==

Analysis of Operation

Shouldn't this section simply state that the ball stops when it reaches the top of the incline? It should say something along the lines of "If this were a true OU machine, the ball would return on its own to the starting position, and start up the track again. However, in application, the ball stops at the top of the incline." The present description seems to imply that the ball of a SMOT can continue "oscillating" up the incline as long as a pendulum would. --Bertrc (talk) 21:46, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the pendulum reference.--Bertrc (talk) 00:00, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Apparently, my understanding of SMOTs was incorrect. The ball does fall after reaching the top of the incline. I will correct my edits.--Bertrc (talk) 17:28, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Any Physicists out there?

Before I make my next edit, I am going to give any physicists out there a chance to comment. Please correct me if I am wrong, but if I were to pass a ball through the magnetic field of a magnet repeatedly, wouldn't the magnet eventually lose its strength? (It make take billions of passes to be noticeable) I mean, unless the magnet could be kept at absolute 0, wouldn't the molecules become misaligned, eventually? I have noticed that the magnets I played with when I was 10 are no longer as strong as when I was a little kid. --Bertrc (talk) 00:19, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

not really any effort you put in to hold back the ball as it falls into the magnetic field is recovered when it comes out - without loss. Magnets can fade over time but not due to to this. 109.207.29.2 (talk) 17:39, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Remove Analysis Section?

The "Analysis of Operation" section seems to be original research. I propose that it be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bertrc (talk • contribs) 23:15, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Loose ends

The video referenced above has been withdrawn. There is no evidence (and there never has been any credible evidence) that this device is "overunity".

With reference to the question for "physicists", it doesn't require one. Magnets are not demagnetized by interaction with other magnets. They can be demagnetized quickly by heat and very VERY slowly by disuse. Magnets store potential energy provided from the outside. They are NEVER a source of energy. Nor are they mysterious. Due to inumerable experiments for things like maglev trains and hard drives in which magnets play a crucial role, they are very well understood.

I think this article should remain. The SMOT is an item of folklore and a lot of people need to know what it is, what it does, and more importantly what it does not do.

Finally, the links below are an excellent resouce for the whole issue of supposed overunity magnet motors:

http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/museum/annex.htm#magwheel http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/museum/cheng2.htm

Maryyugo (talk) 22:16, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean by "disuse"? Do you mean if they are not used? Also, I am rather certain that magnets do not "store" potential energy. I can impart potential energy into an iron ball, by moving it a certain distance from the magnet, but that potenetial is not "stored" in the magnets. FYI, I don't think anybody proposed deleting the entire article. I was only proposing the deletion of the "Analysis of Operation" section. --Bertrc (talk) 20:54, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Delete this topic

This topic isn't very notable and should probably be deleted. Anyone agree/disagree? IRWolfie- (talk) 16:28, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I find the concept intriguing but don't see that this particular example is especially notable. It has earned the attention from some academics and may have a role as an interesting example for explaining the concept of over unity and how it violates physical laws. I think there is a place in this project for a more general article about magnet-based perpetual motion proposals where SMOT would be mentioned or have an external link. Jojalozzo 23:41, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Many people have speculated about perpetual motion machines, it's certainly a topic with a lot of interest. It's also nice to have a sane source to rebut the many insane sites (and ESPECIALLY bloody Youtube videos!) that claim perpetual motion. 92.40.254.96 (talk) 11:15, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Patent

How do we know the patent corresponds to the topic? IRWolfie- (talk) 16:19, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Circular SMOT

The obvious thing to do would be to build a curved SMOT, lengthen it until it is a complete circle, and feed its output end to its input. Obviously this wouldn't work, because of the conservative field principle, but an analysis in detail of the kinematics would be really interesting to read. Perhaps someone should set this as a mathematical exercise for first-year physics students. -- The Anome (talk) 14:19, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh joy! Someone's done it, with the expected results: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nbYDkDo3dco -- The Anome (talk) 14:27, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Even better: the magnet motor enthusiasts are well aware of this phenomenon, and have a name for it: the "sticky point". "Fixing the sticky point" is apparently the holy grail of magnetic perpetual motion research... -- The Anome (talk) 14:31, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Invention dates at least back to 1562

This article claims that the SMOT was invented in 1985 by Greg Watson. However there are records that the same device was already imagined by Johannes Taisnierus in 1562 and later described by John Wilkins in 1670. [1][2]. --Geek3 (talk) 12:41, 10 August 2021 (UTC)