Storing Cookies (See : http://ec.europa.eu/ipg/basics/legal/cookies/index_en.htm ) 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:
https://overunity.com/5553/privacy-policy/
If you do not agree with storing cookies, please LEAVE this website now. From the 25th of May 2018, every existing user has to accept the GDPR agreement at first login. If a user is unwilling to accept the GDPR, he should email us and request to erase his account. Many thanks for your understanding

User Menu

Custom Search
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 [3]   Go Down

Author Topic: Ring Magnet SMOT  (Read 19206 times)

Low-Q

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2847
Re: Ring Magnet SMOT
« Reply #30 on: September 25, 2016, 10:53:24 AM »
Quote from: gyulasun on September 25, 2016, 12:34:32 AM
Well, not correct because if you base this statement on your simulation shown in your reply #31 above, then you did not include the thick iron plates that were backing the long row of ceramic magnets on their outer side all the way, see here: http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/smot1jln.htm 
And both iron plates faced downwards after Naudin flipped the magnet array 90°, right? Notice that the thickness of those iron plates were almost as thick as the magnets thickness, see the picture at the very bottom, SMOT v1.01

Gyula
These iron pieces are present in both experiments. The only difference is the magnet location and orientation.
180° experiment is not valid. It does not consider a normal SMOT operation. You still do ignore this.
Loop the SMOT and prove that the ball accelerate for each cycle. That is the only experiment Naudin need to do.


Vidar
Logged

gyulasun

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4117
Re: Ring Magnet SMOT
« Reply #31 on: September 25, 2016, 12:21:56 PM »
Quote from: Low-Q on September 25, 2016, 10:53:24 AM
These iron pieces are present in both experiments. The only difference is the magnet location and orientation.
180° experiment is not valid. It does not consider a normal SMOT operation. You still do ignore this.
Loop the SMOT and prove that the ball accelerate for each cycle. That is the only experiment Naudin need to do.

Vidar

Vidar,

The very first important feature in a SMOT operation is that it should be able to provide a height difference for an object like a steel ball. In Naudin tests the SMOT first puts the ball from a 31 mm height up to a 35 mm height with respect to the table level.

I understand that you consider a normal SMOT operation as a looped back system to form a continuous circle for the ball.

However, looping should be the second step and to make it possible at all, regardless of whether the looping can or cannot be done, the first step should be what Naudin proved in his test: to be able to lift the ball to a higher position than it has had at its starting position with respect to a common baseline.

And you consequently deny the first step result by all your efforts.  I have answered all your important objections to Naudin tests so anything "unusual" he did in the operation of his SMOT setup did not meaningfully influence the measured gain in the ball's potential energy (when he insured equal height conditions for the ball, that is).

There is no sense to continue this debate. Let's agree to disagree, life goes on as usual.  :)

Gyula
Logged

Low-Q

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2847
Re: Ring Magnet SMOT
« Reply #32 on: September 25, 2016, 04:11:05 PM »
Quote from: gyulasun on September 25, 2016, 12:21:56 PM

There is no sense to continue this debate. Let's agree to disagree, life goes on as usual.  :)

Gyula
Yupp! Life goes on :)
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3]   Go Up
« previous next »