Author Topic: SMOT (Read 91361 times)

KSW · « **on:** April 11, 2005, 02:45:18 PM »

hi
dont know if this is the right topic but here goes

on jlnlabs they show two magnet devices able to move a ball bearing ( http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/s102jln.htm ) over two ramps

would it be so hard to close the loop? not that it would produce any useful power ... but just prove the laws of physics wrong

they seem to start talking sbout closing the loop here http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/smot4cl.htm

but dont get to any conclusion.

how come this always seems to happen, for example on the bedini group people say they have managed to get overunity but then instead of working at it they just move on to some other ideas.
why not just stick with something if you know it can work.

Kane

rlm555339 · « **Reply #1 on:** April 11, 2005, 05:17:09 PM »

If you read Bedini, Naudin, and Beardon sites very closely, you will notice a lot of key words like "should" "might" "if" -- - - - - The other key word is "you." In other words, they pick up on an idea from a site like this one, do 4 experiments on it in somewhat controlled conditions, add their own twist, present it in a webpage like it was some fabulous idea THEY had, and expect YOU to figure out a way to make it work. This makes them an "authority" which gives others the impression they are "experts" and allows them to sell "kits" to curious people like us. $$$$$

TechStuf · « **Reply #2 on:** April 11, 2005, 10:02:32 PM »

LOL! Excellent synopsis.....I sometimes wonder if "Bearden" is the Colonel's real name? Bear+Den....Russkie Shuttle shoot downs....hmmm. His supposed connection to Howard Johnson....and intrigues with the Japanese Yakuza....I don't know......I've never met either of these two of his contacts....but even I know more about the principles Howard exploited in his models.....(or so it would seem from my limited contact with the old codger).

Bless his heart,

He's quite an asset to somebody, I'm sure.

(insert Rod Serling theme here)

TS out

Oxygon · « **Reply #3 on:** April 11, 2005, 10:06:40 PM »

Kane...

How true...

It seems those with the means just seem to not follow thru...

the whole SMOT field is just a spattering of "segmented tests" and temporary interests...

hartiberlin · « **Reply #4 on:** April 12, 2005, 12:04:39 AM »

There is soon coming a reviving of the SMOT topic !
Stay tuned !

Regards. Stefan.

kenbo0422 · « **Reply #5 on:** April 19, 2005, 02:47:08 AM »

Why even try rolling a steel ball up a ramp?

Why not keep it on the same plane??? Why not use a curved magnet or series of magnets to make a curve, then let the next 'ramp' continue the effort? In effect, you would be making the ball continually rotate around the 'track'. Then, I ask, why a ball??? Why not a ball (or disk) on an axis (several in fact) connected to a central axis and use it to do some work? If it is proven to work up a ramp, then use the work in a different manner. It seems to me that without a continuous movement, connected to something, it is being treated more like a toy and a novelty.

Does this make sense? It also then falls toward looking like a permanent magnet motor of other varieties which some have had a hard time getting to work. The key in this one seems to be the ramping of the outer magnets. Maybe applying the same principle and measurements to other devices it could work efficiently. I'm in the process of doing that (when time permits).

I want to be retired and spend my days on these things that keep my interest..... sorry.... I'm babbling again(wiping the drool from the corner of my mouth).

rlm555339 · « **Reply #6 on:** April 19, 2005, 04:30:13 AM »

One further twist on Kenbo0422's idea........
Do it using a mobius stip and "bingo", you've got infinity.

KSW · « **Reply #7 on:** April 19, 2005, 03:04:32 PM »

ken i think the reason why it isnt kept on the same plane is that, the ball uses the height of the drop to escape the magnetic field.

As i think otherwise if it was just on a flat plane then the ball would roll past the ends and then get pulled back in.

Kane

kenbo0422 · « **Reply #8 on:** April 19, 2005, 03:57:05 PM »

I was thinking that with the momentum of the ball and another set of magnets at the end of the previous set, the proximity of the magnets it is approaching will continue to pull the ball forward. The other point, about putting it (them) on an axis, like a star pattern of 5 with a pattern of say 6 sets of magnets, there would always be a ball in play, so to speak to help push the one ball which is at its peak to continue forward. Does this make more sense? Sorry about the ranting.... I rant, then try to put the idea in better terms.....

hartiberlin · « **Reply #9 on:** April 19, 2005, 04:20:31 PM »

Greg Watson and Epitaxy a few years back did get already a rollaround for several times,
but the ball did acceleratetoo much and jumped out of the track.
The setup was just too unreliable to work "every time".

With the right mechanical setup it should really work to get
a reliable rollaround all the time, especially if you have a low
friction inside the rails and the won energy in the ramp will
be used up during the rollaround for the friction
and it will not have too much speed, if it reenters the ramp track.

Somebody will soon introduce a real measurement device for
the energy gain inside the SMOT track.

Regards, Stefan.

kenbo0422 · « **Reply #10 on:** April 19, 2005, 06:32:21 PM »

This is also the reason for harnessing the ball(s) with an axis.... the track becomes a guideline rather than a rule. If the ball MUST roll to produce the effect, then by all means leave it (the track) in so that the ball can roll.

prometheus_effect · « **Reply #11 on:** April 20, 2005, 02:52:08 AM »

An OU measurement system has been developed which directly measures the amount of energy creation for each pass through a Prometheus Effect OU gate. The Prometheus Effect is what is at the heart of the SMOT device. Details can be found at:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/prometheus_effect/

Now it's just engineering effort, time and money,
Prometheus Effect

Kysmett · « **Reply #12 on:** April 22, 2005, 08:48:37 PM »

here is an idea. I understand that the drop is needed to escape the magnetic field. To that end and to continue the concept of a central axle, I propose the following modification. This was inspired by one of those carnivale octopus rides.
Here is a picture of the device that would show this. It would have many hinged arms, only one of which is illustrated. The track design is to graduate the ascent and to soften the descent, while adding to the forward momentum of the rotor. The section of the track(round when seen from above) that is shown is a side view of that transition region. The rotor is kept by its own weight and the limit of travel of the hinge(shown in green) firmly on the track. If there is a tendancy for the wheel/ball to come off the track due to momentum at the point of transition, a spring sufficient to the task may be placed between the arm(shown in orange) and the power take-off or main shaft(shown in blue). Any and all torque measurements can be then taken on the main shaft.
Let me know what you think.

Kysmett

hartiberlin · « **Reply #13 on:** April 22, 2005, 10:00:14 PM »

Kysmett,
sorry, but I don?t understandyour drawing.
What should it exacty show ?
Is this a sideview or a top view of what ?
Where is magnets track and the ball ?

Regards, Stefan.

Kysmett · « **Reply #14 on:** April 22, 2005, 10:19:11 PM »

The drawing is a side view of the device. There is a central, verticle shaft(blue) powered by wheels(grey) as they move around the track. The verticle displacement of the uneven track is compensated for by the hinges(green) that attach the arms to the central shaft.

The single line in the lower right section is a side view of the track at the moment of transition, if the wheel were moving from right to left. I don't know why but I can only see this thing moving clockwise when viewed from above. This might have something to do with something I have forgotten I have read or it might not.

I am posting here a top view of the device so that you can see the track and the device as a whole. The magnet placement is as has been previously demonstrated to work and the centrifugal force is compensated for by the arms shown in orange in the previous post.

In the drawing I am posting here, there are four arms, more could be made to work(or less) but this is only conceptual.

News:

User Menu

Author Topic: SMOT (Read 91361 times)

KSW

SMOT

rlm555339

Re: SMOT

TechStuf

Re: SMOT

Oxygon

Re: SMOT

hartiberlin

Re: SMOT

kenbo0422

Re: SMOT

rlm555339

Re: SMOT

KSW

Re: SMOT

kenbo0422

Re: SMOT

hartiberlin

Re: SMOT

kenbo0422

Re: SMOT

prometheus_effect

Re: SMOT

Kysmett

Re: SMOT

hartiberlin

Re: SMOT

Kysmett

Re: SMOT