Hi,
I've got a couple of questions on SMOT's and hopefully you'll be able to
point me at some solid answers.
1 ) Is it possible to create a SMOT that will pull/push a ball (magnetic/non-
magnetic, not bothered) vertically or, if not vertically, on an incline so that
the ball ends up higher when it's at the end of the SMOT ?
2 ) If the above is true, are there any limits to how high you could make
such a SMOT, if you ignore the resources required to construct it and if so
why is there a limit ?
3 ) If #1 and #2 are realistic then could the SMOT, instead of being a
straight path be a helix ?
4 ) Where precisely is the energy needed with such a device, would it be to
push the ball in to the first "gate", pull the ball out of the last "gate" or
both ?
5 ) If the SMOT could be of any height and the energy that's required is to
push and pull the ball out of the start and end of the SMOT respectively, is
that amount of energy easily quantifiable ?
Thanks in advance for your time, just trying to understand something a bit
better.
>Is it possible to create a SMOT that will pull/push a ball (magnetic/non-
>magnetic, not bothered) vertically or, if not vertically, on an incline so
>that the ball ends up higher when it's at the end of the SMOT ?
I've seen videos of magnetic runners ascending a vertical track. And
I've seen tracks that have a vertical portion. But I've not seen a runner
go significantly vertical and then be released from the last gate. But, I have
seen SMOT's go up shallow inclined rises and then be released from the
end gate.
>If the above is true, are there any limits to how high you could make such
>a SMOT, if you ignore the resources required to construct it and if so why
>is there a limit ?
I think Clanzer has shown that there is no limit. But here's the deal;
magnetic force is called an R^2 "R" squared force. For "radius squared"
because the force drops off with the square of the distance. But
if you have a huge array of magnets somewhere behind the runner the
sigma (mathematical summation) of all of those R^2 vectors becomes non
trivial. So from the runners view there will be a near field from the local
magnets and a far field from the rest of the array. The higher you build
things the more backpull there will be.
3 ) If #1 and #2 are realistic then could the SMOT, instead of being a
straight path be a helix ?
Yes, but that does not totally solve the problem, when a track loops
there becomes a "sticky spot" where these various force sum to their
maximum amount. This spot is semi-intelligent, it can move around
as forces vary like electrical current flow to find a path of least
resistance (most damage) to the momentum of the runner.
4 ) Where precisely is the energy needed with such a device, would it be to
push the ball in to the first "gate", pull the ball out of the last "gate" or
both ?
Neither in my opinion; the trick is to maintain sufficient momentum on the
runner in the track so that maintains "engineering control" on the track
rather then probabilistic control, such that it would deviate from the track
and get hung-up. This statistical control would mean that the runner would
hang-up once in a while on a statistical basis.
5 ) If the SMOT could be of any height and the energy that's required is to
push and pull the ball out of the start and end of the SMOT respectively, is
that amount of energy easily quantifiable ?
Yes relatively easy.
---
Unfortunately I am not an experimentalist so I should keep my mouth shut
but some of the video, user Clanzer showed of the magnetic runner
attached to a toy firetruck and Halerbach magnetic array driver that
strongly suggests that a line following robot which dedicates it's stored
energy *solely to steering* - and none to propulsion, should be able to
repeatedly traverse a magnetic "circular" track. The automatic, *totally
circular* version of this is a magnetic motor that probably most likely
would not work but I suggest that the additional overshoot motions of
the imperfect line follower would.
Also a runner that changes it's stored momentum coupling to
horizontal momentum differently through a transmission such as
a flywheel device may be able to break through a sticky spot. I
would avoid a magnetic transmission as the two magnetic equations
of drive and coupling might be mathematically be related in a way
to impose unity or underunity operation.
:S:MarkSCoffman
