Talk:Simple Magnetic Overunity Toy

message: 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)
thread_title: Suggested short description

message: 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)
thread_title:  Naudin 

message: how about a picture of what this thing looks like?
perfectblue 08:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Got a pic from the patent. Might hand draw one later. J. D. Redding 22:45, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  picture 

message: 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)
replies: text: Not a reliable source. Try again. --ScienceApologist 13:42, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: No perpetual motion SMOTs have ever been built?

message: 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)
thread_title: Removal of sources and information

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Back on Point

message: 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)
thread_title:  Useful source?? 

message: 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)
replies: text: I've removed the pendulum reference.--Bertrc (talk) 00:00, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Analysis of Operation 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Any Physicists out there? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Remove Analysis Section? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Loose ends 

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

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Circular SMOT 

message: 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. . --Geek3 (talk) 12:41, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Invention dates at least back to 1562