Cookies-law

Cookies help us to bring you our services at overunity.com . If you use this website and our services you declare yourself okay with using cookies .More Infos here:
http://www.overunity.com/5553/privacy-policy/
If you do not agree with storing cookies, please leave this website now. Many thanks for your understanding.
Amazon Warehouse Deals ! Now even more Deep Discounts ! Check out these great prices on slightly used or just opened once only items.I always buy my gadgets via these great Warehouse deals ! Highly recommended ! Many thanks for supporting OverUnity.com this way.

FireMatch

FireMatch

CCKnife

CCKnife

Poplamp

poplamp

CCTool

CCTool

LEDTVforSale

Magpi Magazine

Magpi Magazine Free Rasberry Pi Magazine

Battery Recondition

Battery Recondition

OverUnity Book

overunity principles book

Arduino

Ultracaps

YT Subscribe

Gravity Machines

Tesla-Ebook

Magnet Secrets

Lindemann Video

Navigation

Products

Statistics

  • *Total Members: 81889
  • *Latest: jdlewis

  • *Total Posts: 489746
  • *Total Topics: 14415
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 5
  • *Guests: 209
  • *Total: 214

Facebook

Author Topic: Ring Magnet SMOT  (Read 6517 times)

Offline webby1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2985
Re: Ring Magnet SMOT
« Reply #15 on: September 21, 2016, 02:07:21 AM »

Webby1:  The effect of Mr Hand was present in both experiments, in both cases the ball was placed to the same height by Mr Hand. 


Gyula

From my builds of this setup I will say that there is more input from Mr. Hand than just the height in gravity.

There are fun ways to train a bunch of ramps together,, I think the longest train I assemble was like 30 sections,, I had it going down and up and around,, I made a large oval shaped track even.

You can use a "ramp" to lift the ball up a fair distance even,, better yet you can do it all with only magnets,, then you loose that pesky repulsive distance,, high enough to have the "ramp" tilt over and eject the magnet,, but then you have to lift the ramp back up,, and before you get to far down the path,, using a spring or sensitive balance for the reset takes away the energy of the fall.

The thing is, after so many ramps you would expect an acceleration,, 30 should of provided for a noticeable increase in speed but there was none.

Placing the ball within the sphere of influence is pre-loading  the magnetic potential,, that very pre-load must be loaded again but without Mr. Hand that does not come so easy.

I have tried a lot of variants on the "ramp" concept, to date I have not had one that accelerated enough to loop by itself using just magnets and metal.

Watch the ball drop and hit the curve just at the bottom of the drop, you can see it better when the ball rolls back down into it,, I wonder how the ball hitting that little kicker curve affects how far it rolls up the tube,, is there a difference in the sound of that hit??

I am not sure if there is or not with this one, I am just asking questions and going by my own observations of my own builds,, would 3 ramps not have made a noticeable increase in speed,, I think it would of.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Ring Magnet SMOT
« Reply #15 on: September 21, 2016, 02:07:21 AM »

Offline vineet_kiran

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 323
Re: Ring Magnet SMOT
« Reply #16 on: September 21, 2016, 02:09:33 AM »

The first magnet will actually pull back on the ring magnet, with less force than the second one that is lower BUT that force reduces the Force of acceleration the ring magnet receives in the forward direction,, same with the 3rd magnet compared to the second,, and so on.


I agree with it.  Since the array is inclined, the ring magnet experiences greater force in forward direction hence its acceleration goes on increasing after passing every top magnet.

The question here is that whether the final acceleration gained by ring magnet is enough to take it out of the last magnet?

If mass of the magnet, angle of inclination of the top array and strengths of magnets are correctly designed, the acceleration gained by ring magnet definitely takes it out of the last magnet.  Once the ring magnet comes out of first array it has to be allowed into second similar array to repeat the same type of motion.  If several such arrays are placed in a circular track, the ring magnet should execute perpetual motion.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy


Offline Low-Q

  • without_ads
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2436
Re: Ring Magnet SMOT
« Reply #17 on: September 21, 2016, 08:20:59 AM »
In the second experiment, the ramp magnets are involved to some extent - because they are there. If he did not need that SMOT-ramp at all, he could likely removed the magnets completely and used a magnetless ramp. In that case the experiment will fail anyways.
What he should do next is not to tilt those magnets at all. Only then you can measure the energy involved for the ball to enter the SMOT. If he do not change the SMOT ramp, I am quite sure the ball will roll up that tube just as far as in the first experiment.


The experiment is not reliable. Really.


Vidar

Offline webby1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2985
Re: Ring Magnet SMOT
« Reply #18 on: September 21, 2016, 01:54:35 PM »
I agree with it.  Since the array is inclined, the ring magnet experiences greater force in forward direction hence its acceleration goes on increasing after passing every top magnet.

The question here is that whether the final acceleration gained by ring magnet is enough to take it out of the last magnet?

If mass of the magnet, angle of inclination of the top array and strengths of magnets are correctly designed, the acceleration gained by ring magnet definitely takes it out of the last magnet.  Once the ring magnet comes out of first array it has to be allowed into second similar array to repeat the same type of motion.  If several such arrays are placed in a circular track, the ring magnet should execute perpetual motion.

I think you can test for this with what you have.

You will need to secure the array in a fixture that is rigid and that allows the ring magnet to roll on out.  as an example you could tape your array to the bottom supports of a chair,, or the legs if they work better.

What you are looking for is not the final value but the incremental increase,, so measure how hard the ring magnet is pulled forward from being under each little magnet, this is why the array needs to be rigidly held.

You will have then the pull strength entering the array, the pull strength from going from each little magnet to the next little magnet and then at the end you will have the strength of pulling the ring magnet away from the last little magnet.

It is important to not use Mr. Hand to hold the array,, that is where a lot of things happen that most might not notice and ends up being the culprit for the added energy.

In the second experiment, the ramp magnets are involved to some extent - because they are there. If he did not need that SMOT-ramp at all, he could likely removed the magnets completely and used a magnetless ramp. In that case the experiment will fail anyways.
What he should do next is not to tilt those magnets at all. Only then you can measure the energy involved for the ball to enter the SMOT. If he do not change the SMOT ramp, I am quite sure the ball will roll up that tube just as far as in the first experiment.


The experiment is not reliable. Really.


Vidar

What measurement is missing??

The one that counts,, and that one is how high the ball drops from and how high it gets to within the output ramp.

Regardless of all other things those measurements should of been provided,,  The ball would need to reach at least the same height it was dropped from,, I kind of don't think it does and I kind of think that double click sound on the non-magnet drop is the ball hitting the kicker ramp and deflecting instead of rolling down and around,, it then hits the ramp instead of rolling up it.  Those two impacts and redirection would have more than enough losses to reduce the height the ball reaches,, and yet BOTH of the methods could result in the ball not reaching its starting height,, we do not know without having the height measurements.


Offline Floor

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 681
Re: Ring Magnet SMOT
« Reply #19 on: September 21, 2016, 02:22:26 PM »
@vineet_ Kiran

I am so glad to see that you are still at it.

OU designs require the ultimate in bullet proof, proof.

Personally I think it is possible  to accomplish what you are working on.

If you can transition your magnet array, into something like the type of array
presented in the  Thin Magnetic Ramp experiment topic  (here at OU. com.) (combine yours with it).

                       cheers
                            floor

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Ring Magnet SMOT
« Reply #19 on: September 21, 2016, 02:22:26 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline gyulasun

  • without_ads
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3461
Re: Ring Magnet SMOT
« Reply #20 on: September 21, 2016, 08:20:27 PM »
In the second experiment, the ramp magnets are involved to some extent - because they are there. If he did not need that SMOT-ramp at all, he could likely removed the magnets completely and used a magnetless ramp. In that case the experiment will fail anyways.
What he should do next is not to tilt those magnets at all. Only then you can measure the energy involved for the ball to enter the SMOT. If he do not change the SMOT ramp, I am quite sure the ball will roll up that tube just as far as in the first experiment.


The experiment is not reliable. Really.


Vidar

Vidar,

You still seem to have not understood Naudin's tests. Ask yourself how the ramp magnets placed sideways to a steel ball could influence pro or con the 'just about to fall' ball??  Because the ball was deliberately placed by hand to the very edge of the ramp and carefully let it fall into the glass pipe. In this scenario the magnets have no any 'cheeting' effect pro or con: the ball was simply let fall down by its own weight after Naudin carefully put it to the very edge of the ramp. 

Please when you have a few minutes, go through the test described in this link: http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/smotnrgt.htm  it is very clear. It compares two potential energy levels obtained by the ball when Test 1 and Test 2 is done. One such energy for the ball is when the ball falls into the glass pipe from the output of the SMOT. The other energy level for the ball is when the ball is let freely fall into the glass pipe from the input side of the SMOT. The input side is chosen to insure the same height for the free fall the ball had in test 1 when it started to go through the SMOT magnet ramp. 

Regardless of whether this setup shown by Naudin could be looped or not, your objections are not relevant.  And if you close your eyes on the obviously higher potential energy result when the ball fell from the output of the SMOT versus the one where the ball was let fall from the (180° turned) SMOT platform's input side just by normal free fall, it is up to you. 

Gyula

Offline webby1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2985
Re: Ring Magnet SMOT
« Reply #21 on: September 21, 2016, 10:44:02 PM »
Just picking at some nits :)

The strength of the magnetic field changes by the square of the change in distance,, so how far away were those magnets in test 1, by the drop hole, and when done in test 2 how far away were they, from the drop hole?

I think you could say that the distance of change was something like 4 or 5 times,, so the field interaction is going to be about 1\16 to 1\25 for test 2,, negligible if anything measurable.

He should of just removed them,, would of been better for the demo appearance.

There is another mechanical component with the change in direction via a method that is not rigid,, there is a "phase" angle of applied forces,, that takes a bit more but there is the change in angle and velocity and time of interaction,, blah blah blah,, so the ball hitting the kicker ramp at one velocity might incur more losses than another velocity and that can lead to the slower moving ball with more spin conserving more of its potential gained from the fall than a faster falling ball.

There was a discussion about this mechanical component,, but I forget which thread it was in, it was not about magnets,, maybe it was  the 12 times thread???

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Ring Magnet SMOT
« Reply #21 on: September 21, 2016, 10:44:02 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline Low-Q

  • without_ads
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2436
Re: Ring Magnet SMOT
« Reply #22 on: September 21, 2016, 11:09:12 PM »
Vidar,

You still seem to have not understood Naudin's tests. Ask yourself how the ramp magnets placed sideways to a steel ball could influence pro or con the 'just about to fall' ball??  Because the ball was deliberately placed by hand to the very edge of the ramp and carefully let it fall into the glass pipe. In this scenario the magnets have no any 'cheeting' effect pro or con: the ball was simply let fall down by its own weight after Naudin carefully put it to the very edge of the ramp. 

Please when you have a few minutes, go through the test described in this link: http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/smotnrgt.htm  it is very clear. It compares two potential energy levels obtained by the ball when Test 1 and Test 2 is done. One such energy for the ball is when the ball falls into the glass pipe from the output of the SMOT. The other energy level for the ball is when the ball is let freely fall into the glass pipe from the input side of the SMOT. The input side is chosen to insure the same height for the free fall the ball had in test 1 when it started to go through the SMOT magnet ramp. 

Regardless of whether this setup shown by Naudin could be looped or not, your objections are not relevant.  And if you close your eyes on the obviously higher potential energy result when the ball fell from the output of the SMOT versus the one where the ball was let fall from the (180° turned) SMOT platform's input side just by normal free fall, it is up to you. 

Gyula
"The input side is chosen to insure the same height for the free fall the ball had in test 1 when it started to go through the SMOT magnet ramp."
This is where the problem occurs. This is exactly what he wants the audience to believe!
However, aside from insuring correct hight, he changes the SMOT in the second experiment, instead of letting the magnets be in the correct position all the time.
I understand that he want the audience to believe he wants to insure the correct hight, but at the same time he also fools you, by you ignoring the changes in the SMOT's magnet configuration. This change is not irrelevant. It has everything to do with the outcome.


Why?
Because the field outside the gap between the magnets are repelling the ball. Yes, repelling. This force will accelerate the ball.
This repelling field outside the gaps is stronger and has shorter range the closer the magnets are. When you increase the distance between the magnets by flipping them away 90 degrees of each other, this force weakens in both ends, and do not longer provide the same repelling force.


What you, and so many others do not (want to) understand, is that the ball would roll just as far as in the first experiment if the magnets was not flipped away in the second experiment. Remember that the repelling forces at the input is weaker, but has greater range due to the wider gap. This corresponds perfectly to the necessary input energy needed for the ball to enter the SMOT in the first place.
Increasing the gap manually from one experiment to the other, invalidates the experiment completely.


Permanent magnet carry a conservative field, and cannot by any chance provide some of its potential energy into the surroundings without loosing its own potential energy. The field must change, and to change a magnetic field you need energy input - such as rearranging the magnets by hand.


Vidar

Offline gyulasun

  • without_ads
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3461
Re: Ring Magnet SMOT
« Reply #23 on: September 22, 2016, 12:43:14 AM »
"The input side is chosen to insure the same height for the free fall the ball had in test 1 when it started to go through the SMOT magnet ramp."
This is where the problem occurs. This is exactly what he wants the audience to believe!
However, aside from insuring correct hight, he changes the SMOT in the second experiment, instead of letting the magnets be in the correct position all the time.
I understand that he want the audience to believe he wants to insure the correct hight, but at the same time he also fools you, by you ignoring the changes in the SMOT's magnet configuration. This change is not irrelevant. It has everything to do with the outcome.


Why?
Because the field outside the gap between the magnets are repelling the ball. Yes, repelling. This force will accelerate the ball.
This repelling field outside the gaps is stronger and has shorter range the closer the magnets are. When you increase the distance between the magnets by flipping them away 90 degrees of each other, this force weakens in both ends, and do not longer provide the same repelling force.


What you, and so many others do not (want to) understand, is that the ball would roll just as far as in the first experiment if the magnets was not flipped away in the second experiment. Remember that the repelling forces at the input is weaker, but has greater range due to the wider gap. This corresponds perfectly to the necessary input energy needed for the ball to enter the SMOT in the first place.
Increasing the gap manually from one experiment to the other, invalidates the experiment completely.


Permanent magnet carry a conservative field, and cannot by any chance provide some of its potential energy into the surroundings without loosing its own potential energy. The field must change, and to change a magnetic field you need energy input - such as rearranging the magnets by hand.


Vidar

Vidar,

How can permanent magnets placed at least 5 cm away from the steel ball repel the steel ball?   Please explain.

Gyula

Offline vineet_kiran

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 323
Re: Ring Magnet SMOT
« Reply #24 on: September 22, 2016, 02:04:27 AM »

@webby1


What if we use half little magnets on the top array or cover the right half of little magnet with a shield?

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Ring Magnet SMOT
« Reply #24 on: September 22, 2016, 02:04:27 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline webby1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2985
Re: Ring Magnet SMOT
« Reply #25 on: September 22, 2016, 02:24:30 AM »
@webby1


What if we use half little magnets on the top array or cover the right half of little magnet with a shield?

The shields themselves create an issue,, the interaction often does what you don't want it to.  A North goes in,, but a South comes out,, the field will go into the shield and come out of it.

I like to "replace" the magnetic field with springs and wet spaghetti noodles when I am thinking about the interactions

I can probably pick this one apart,, but here it is anyway.

What if the mass distribution around the ring was not uniform,, a heavy spot,, and what it the field distribution was not centered,, it is not anyway but it is close.

Then what if the array had a small curve.

Now what I am getting at is,

What if the oval field and curved array worked to better line up the attractive force from the array to the ring as such that it could lift up the heavy spot easier,, this oval field keeps rotating, if you will, towards the next little magnet, again with the oval maybe providing a little more leverage,, this goes on until the heavy spot is straight up and then it starts to go to the last little magnet,, with the small curve in the array somewhat keeping the array lined up with the oval field shape,, now as it is heading towards the last magnet the heavy spot is being accelerated down by the field interaction rolling the ring and gravity.

Offline webby1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2985
Re: Ring Magnet SMOT
« Reply #26 on: September 22, 2016, 02:30:48 AM »

Why?
Because the field outside the gap between the magnets are repelling the ball. Yes, repelling. This force will accelerate the ball.
This repelling field outside the gaps is stronger and has shorter range the closer the magnets are. When you increase the distance between the magnets by flipping them away 90 degrees of each other, this force weakens in both ends, and do not longer provide the same repelling force.

Vidar

I am aware of this interaction but can not be sure if the distances are within that range,, I have always noticed that there is a range where this interaction is stronger than the attractive interaction,, and a range where they are basically equal,, and then where the attractive is stronger.

Kind of like holding a N and S a distance apart and seeing just how much they will attract a piece of steel,, then use a N and a N :)


Offline Low-Q

  • without_ads
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2436
Re: Ring Magnet SMOT
« Reply #27 on: September 22, 2016, 08:23:01 AM »
Vidar,

How can permanent magnets placed at least 5 cm away from the steel ball repel the steel ball?   Please explain.

Gyula
A magnetic field will never stop interact with other magnetic objects no matter how far away they are. Ofcourse the interaction will weaken square to the distance.
In the experiment, as the magnets are flipped 90° outwards, it corresponds to a difference from maybe 3cm to 5cm apart, if the cross section of the magnet bars ar 1x1cm and they are initially 3cm apart at the input.
This increased distance will generally weaken the magnetic interaction by a factor of 0.36, and therfor reduce the extra push by a similar factor. So the difference in the displayed output energy of some 400-450uJoule seems reasonable, but the difference would be 0 if he just kept the magnets where they are suppose to be.
The second experiment is suppose to display the required energy input of the ball for allowing the ball to enter the SMOT input, so he should not touch those magnets at all. Flipping the magnets away in that second experiment will invalidate this due to the explanation above.


This experiment is easy to replicate, so anyone can do this same experiment correctly and prove that a SMOT will fail as a selfrunner as a closed loop.


Vidar

Offline gyulasun

  • without_ads
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3461
Re: Ring Magnet SMOT
« Reply #28 on: September 23, 2016, 01:23:20 AM »
A magnetic field will never stop interact with other magnetic objects no matter how far away they are. Ofcourse the interaction will weaken square to the distance.
In the experiment, as the magnets are flipped 90° outwards, it corresponds to a difference from maybe 3cm to 5cm apart, if the cross section of the magnet bars ar 1x1cm and they are initially 3cm apart at the input.
This increased distance will generally weaken the magnetic interaction by a factor of 0.36, and therfor reduce the extra push by a similar factor. So the difference in the displayed output energy of some 400-450uJoule seems reasonable, but the difference would be 0 if he just kept the magnets where they are suppose to be.
The second experiment is suppose to display the required energy input of the ball for allowing the ball to enter the SMOT input, so he should not touch those magnets at all. Flipping the magnets away in that second experiment will invalidate this due to the explanation above.

This experiment is easy to replicate, so anyone can do this same experiment correctly and prove that a SMOT will fail as a selfrunner as a closed loop.


Vidar

Vidar,

I understand that at the entrance of a normal SMOT gate there may be a repel force, however this is valid for the correctly positioned magnetic poles, N-S on the SMOT ramp. But Naudin flipped the magnets 90° so the repel force simply had to diminish to near zero due to the lack of the N-S attract forces ruling in the normal unflipped case.

One more thing to consider when estimating possible flux field strengths for the ball in Test 2 is that Naudin had ferrite magnets which were backed by steel keepers along the outer sides of the magnet rows, see here: http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/smot1jln.htm  When you flip such magnet array 90° up as Naudin did in the video, your strongly guessed numbers above surely become even less.

However, here is the catch which needs no any calculation you improvised out of thin air above.  Pure logic involved in this explanation.

It is clear a SMOT is able to move a steel ball up from point A to point B, where there is a height difference: point B is at a higher point with respect to a base line than point A, right? There is a distance between A and B horizontally of course, this is not important for this explanation.

Now if you accept that a SMOT is able to 'lift' an object from say 30 mm height to 35 mm height, then all you need to do is to realise that this object is able to cover a longer distance when going up a glass pipe after it has fallen from 35 mm versus the case when it has been dropped from only 30 mm, right?  (Notice that in case the ball falls out from a SMOT's output it can have kinetic energy too.)

No matter how small the height difference between the input and output of a SMOT ramp, the ball will always fall into the glass pipe from higher height at the SMOT output, ok?  hence the ball can always have higher potential energy when it falls from a SMOT output versus the case when you simply drop the ball from a lower height into the same glass pipe  (the lower height is equal to the height at the SMOT input wrt to the same base line referred to earlier).

Remember, I do not mean with this logical explanation what you strongly deny may be true,  i.e. that a SMOT could be arranged in a closed loop, this is not proved yet openly.  This explanation simply means for the time being that permanent magnets can do work in a SMOT setup, this you also denied in your previous mails.

Gyula

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy


Offline Floor

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 681
Re: Ring Magnet SMOT
« Reply #29 on: September 23, 2016, 02:33:43 AM »
Check out this video set

very great magnet hieght gain .

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=53_w4KqjIB4


  regards
          floor

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Ring Magnet SMOT
« Reply #29 on: September 23, 2016, 02:33:43 AM »

 

Share this topic to your favourite Social and Bookmark site

Please SHARE this topic at: