Clauzon's test of Watson's SMOT 28-Apr-09 12:19 am Ok Greg, I looked at Professor Clauzon's test
http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/smotnrgt.htm First, I don't know who this guy is but I am looking into whether he actually exists. It doesn't really matter. So this experiment is pretty simple. They are simply trying to see how much energy the ball gains when running through a SMOT. Now, they don't actually test this perfectly but I won't get into those details. Lets just jump to the erroneous conclusion. They find that the ball gains energy from running through the SMOT which is no surprise since the magnets create a non-uniform magnetic field which accelerates the ball up the ramp. They find the energy at the input is 3.186 mJ and the energy at the output is 3.610 mJ. The ratio of these two is 1.133. So far so good. Then they conclude that since 1.133 is greater than unity, the "efficiency" is 113%. Huh? Why do they call that "efficiency"? Anyway, they can choose to call it whatever they want. The point is that there is nothing going on that is not explainable by standard physics. The ball is placed in a position where the magnetic field has potential energy. Since the potential energy has a gradient (variation in one direction), the ball moves in the direction of lower potential which converts the potential energy of the magnetic field into kinetic energy just as physics predicts. Where does the energy come from? It comes from the fact that you have moved two magnets into a position where they have a varying magnetic field and dragged a metal ball against the direction of the field to where it has higher potential energy. Could you get energy out of a SMOT. Sure why not? You get out whatever energy you put in by dragging the ball against the field minus the frictional losses. It is just like saying you are going to build a water tower and use the water pressure to run an electric dynamo and create electricity. OK, you can do that but you need to get the water up into the tower and this requires work or energy. This can be used to store energy but it does create any more energy than you have put in. In fact energy will be lost to frictional forces as heat. So Greg, what the hell are you trying to say? Clauzon indeed proves that the SMOT works if by work you mean that two magnets put at an angle will pull a ball up a ramp. But so what? What does this have to do with over-unity or free energy? Here is a link where another physicist talks about the SMOT and why the idea is completely silly. http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/museum/smo... READ ALL ABOUT GREGGY'S WONDERFUL BREAKTHROUGH HERE http://messages.finance.yahoo.com/Stocks_%28A_to_Z%29/Stocks_E/threadview?m=te&bn=6046&tid=51222&mid=-1&tof=-1&rt=2&frt=2&off=1#-1 (The laws of physics do not apply in the wonderful world of Watson) The fact that the CEO of an energy company cannot understand the most rudimentary physics is completely absurd to me. You definitely make life interesting Greg!
