Language: 
To browser these website, it's necessary to store cookies on your computer.
The cookies contain no personal information, they are required for program control.
  the storage of cookies while browsing this website, on Login and Register.

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

Author Topic: Building a self looping "SMOT"  (Read 268668 times)

Offline maw2432

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 338
Re: Building a self looping "SMOT"
« Reply #105 on: October 13, 2013, 02:32:24 PM »
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vINnB7tii8s
Happyfunball, 
Good find.   A self-looping marble run would be a good selling desktop toy. 
Bill
 
 

Offline maw2432

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 338
Re: Building a self looping "SMOT"
« Reply #106 on: October 13, 2013, 05:20:15 PM »
I am not sure about the width of this track but maybe this would work?
See attached photo. 
Also if you decide to build like a marble run, take a look at this how to video.
http://www.squidoo.com/HowToBuildAMarbleMachine

Bill
« Last Edit: October 13, 2013, 07:44:17 PM by maw2432 »

Offline MeggerMan

  • TPU-Elite
  • Sr. Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 497
Re: Building a self looping "SMOT"
« Reply #107 on: October 13, 2013, 10:58:56 PM »

Hi Jouleseeker,


I have not got a closed loop running. 
All I have at the moment is some straight 1m aluminium channel, a large ferrite magnet and about 4 x 24mm ball bearings.


My experiment was a simple proof of concept of the idea about the ball being pulled up the track by the magnetic field and gravity pulling it back down again and the magnet pulling it back up again and so on.


But what I have found in this testing is that having a single pole facing the track is not as efficient as having the poles facing at right angles to the track (facing up/down).
The single pole facing the track is very "lumpy" even for a single 6" slab magnet.
So for a series of magnets, it too would appear very lumpy and this effects how evenly the ball is pulled up the track.


I will try to take a short video showing the difference in the two concepts.
With the right setup I was able to get the ball to move up and down the rail for about 38 seconds, with the tail end being just a few mm of movement up/down.
Elecar may be able to improve the working model by adopting a magnet array that has poles at right angles to the track.


@Maw2432,
The ball will probably ride up on the curve of the exit track and fall into the magnet array.
I think the switch points need to be around the mid point of the rails as per Elecar's drawing and the track banked away from the the magnet array slightly.
There may need to be a curved guide to push the ball across to the exit rails at the top of the climb - but you may be able to achieve this by an increased bank on the track to allow gravity to pull it over. Elecar may be able to comment on this.

I have some 19mm bearings on order and I will be getting some aluminium tube/rod to build the exit points and some more ferrite block magnets. Once the exit points work the rest should fall into place.


Thanks
Meggerman

Offline happyfunball

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 405
Re: Building a self looping "SMOT"
« Reply #108 on: October 13, 2013, 11:47:12 PM »
You can just use wire hangers and epoxy or super glue the connecting piece to the outside of the rail. Easily bent /cheap/ low friction.

Offline lumen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1372
Re: Building a self looping "SMOT"
« Reply #109 on: October 14, 2013, 12:11:04 AM »
So now we have the same thing that always happens, we find several ideas as to why this impossible event can work.
If elecar has this working, then it's possible that he does not know exactly why it is working or the exact effect that enables it to operate.
 
It could be the ceramic magnets, the order of the sizes, the direction of the poles or many other reasons.
 
The only effect I know that may cause this is that any magnet attracts steel more when both poles are near as opposed to only one pole and especially the center of one pole.
 
So given that effect, when the ball approaches a large magnet, there is a greater attraction because it sees both poles. As it continues to the center, it is in effect shielded by it's single pole face and the attraction is greatly reduced.
 
If you place a large magnet under a sheet of glass and let a ball be pulled into it, it will gain enough energy to cross all the way to the other side of the magnet, moving through this weaker attraction area. Sometimes it will cross all the way to the other side and be pulled back with enough force to again cross the weaker area, back to the original pulling edge.
 
If the magnet was long enough and there was a track to keep it centered, it would cross the original pulling edge with acceleration and follow the track to a point of less attraction where it could be removed with less force.
 
I do not know if this is what's going on with elecar's device but it's another possible idea.
 
 

Offline norman6538

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 566
Re: Building a self looping "SMOT"
« Reply #110 on: October 14, 2013, 03:21:06 AM »
Megerman said "
But what I have found in this testing is that having a single pole facing the track is not as efficient as having the poles facing at right angles to the track (facing up/down)."

My pendulum has a magnet perpendicular to the flat magnets around the pendulum arm. And that is what I used in my pendulum that goes from 2pm to midnight.
And another important factor that Elecar and I used is to reduce the gravity because the magnets at a distance are weak but properly combined work can be done.

Norman


Offline Newton II

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 309
Re: Building a self looping "SMOT"
« Reply #111 on: October 14, 2013, 03:37:17 AM »


I think it depends on positioning of magnetic track with respect to ball.   If magnet is positioned on one side,  then it will attract the ball and ball will stick to the magnet.

If magnet is kept vertically above the ball then magnetic force will be balanced by  weight of the ball hence ball will not jump and stick to the magnet.  You have to select ( or adjust) magnet and ball in such a way that magnetic force pulling the ball upwards is exactly equal to weight of the ball acting downwards making the ball  " weightless".  ( I mean magnetic force is neutralised by gravity force).

This is same as sun's gravitational pull is neutralised by earth's centrifugal force making earth's motion perpetual.  If centrifugal force is less than the gravitational pull,  then earth will simply fall into the sun. 





Offline lumen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1372
Re: Building a self looping "SMOT"
« Reply #112 on: October 14, 2013, 03:45:15 AM »
Megerman said "
But what I have found in this testing is that having a single pole facing the track is not as efficient as having the poles facing at right angles to the track (facing up/down)."

My pendulum has a magnet perpendicular to the flat magnets around the pendulum arm. And that is what I used in my pendulum that goes from 2pm to midnight.
And another important factor that Elecar and I used is to reduce the gravity because the magnets at a distance are weak but properly combined work can be done.

Norman



Using the poles up and down will attract the ball much harder and also much more evenly, but then what is the method for the ball to escape the pull that would make it any different than any other non-working SMOT.
 
That's why I was thinking that it might be the softer attraction in the center of a large magnet face that allows the ball to escape and the only real acceleration is at the start of the ramp, or the edge of the magnet, where the ball connects with more of both poles.
 
It's just a thought.
 
 
Newton II
I had that thought also, because you are using only one side magnet, the pull will increase friction unlike a double sided magnet ramp where the two pulling magnets cause a balance on the track. But, using gravity as the other pull with a magnet overhead would do the same if the forces were well balanced.
 
It makes me think now that if the forces are weaker in the center of a large magnet and the magnet was overhead, then after the initial acceleration into the center, gravity could possibly take over and the ball would just fall away.
 
 ??? :-\

Offline JouleSeeker

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 685
Re: Building a self looping "SMOT"
« Reply #113 on: October 14, 2013, 04:08:14 AM »
Hi Jouleseeker,


I have not got a closed loop running. 
All I have at the moment is some straight 1m aluminium channel, a large ferrite magnet and about 4 x 24mm ball bearings.


My experiment was a simple proof of concept of the idea about the ball being pulled up the track by the magnetic field and gravity pulling it back down again and the magnet pulling it back up again and so on.


But what I have found in this testing is that having a single pole facing the track is not as efficient as having the poles facing at right angles to the track (facing up/down).
The single pole facing the track is very "lumpy" even for a single 6" slab magnet.
So for a series of magnets, it too would appear very lumpy and this effects how evenly the ball is pulled up the track.


I will try to take a short video showing the difference in the two concepts.
[snip]
Thanks
Meggerman

That would be very helpful.  Thanks, Meggerman.


Offline JouleSeeker

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 685
Re: Building a self looping "SMOT"
« Reply #114 on: October 14, 2013, 04:37:36 AM »
Looking at some of the vids with marbles rolling on wire-tracks, found a "bumper" = simple way to re-direct the motion of the moving marble.  I added arrows to help you see the motion into and out of the junction.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dq-IzXgNa0I  at about the 37 sec mark.

Offline LibreEnergia

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 332
Re: Building a self looping "SMOT"
« Reply #115 on: October 14, 2013, 06:09:11 AM »
I believe this is a fraud in the making.

'elecar' make have discovered a way to loop a SMOT a few times by giving the ball some gravitational potential energy to start with , but it will stop once friction bleeds that excess away. Interestingly this would probably work better without the magnet in place.

His description of on-going self-looping is pure fantasy in my opinion.

Post a video of it working or withdraw your claim. You have nothing to loose as your patent application is sufficient IP protection already, if it works.

Offline JouleSeeker

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 685
Re: Building a self looping "SMOT"
« Reply #116 on: October 14, 2013, 06:21:22 AM »
 

    As I mentioned earlier, this document points to a "hidden" momentum associated in particular with non-conducting permanent magnets such as used by elecar:

http://www.physics.princeton.edu/~mcdonald/examples/mansuripur.pdf


Note that Dr. Kirk McDonald is writing from Princeton University and has written a number of papers on momentum associated with magnetic fields.
  I especially urge TK and Conrad and now LibreEnergia to read and comment.  It is an eye-opener! 
 

Offline LibreEnergia

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 332
Re: Building a self looping "SMOT"
« Reply #117 on: October 14, 2013, 06:34:03 AM »
 

    As I mentioned earlier, this document points to a "hidden" momentum associated in particular with non-conducting permanent magnets such as used by elecar:

http://www.physics.princeton.edu/~mcdonald/examples/mansuripur.pdf


Note that Dr. Kirk McDonald is writing from Princeton University and has written a number of papers on momentum associated with magnetic fields.
  I especially urge TK and Conrad and now LibreEnergia to read and comment.  It is an eye-opener! 
 

Not really, Section 2.7 of that document discusses what physical situations such a paradox might apply to, and nothing in that description applies here.

Offline JouleSeeker

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 685
Re: Building a self looping "SMOT"
« Reply #118 on: October 14, 2013, 01:20:33 PM »
Below is a direct quote from the scientific paper I cited, the concluding sentence, which seems does apply here since Elecar uses only "non-conducting magnet(s)", C8 magnets to be specific.  And note that several other papers by Kirk McDonald of Princeton address the same paradox and the issue of "hidden momentum" associated with such magnets - and with neutrons.

If you really understand these papers, you should explain why Dr McDonald makes the concluding statement that
Quote
"the most practical realization of the present example would involve magnetic fields due to intrinsic (Amperian) magnetic momentums, such as associated with a nonconducting permanent magnet..."
   

Why are "nonconducting permanent magnet"s special?  Or of course, you may wish to refute Dr McDonald's conclusion. 

I await your explanation.



Offline conradelektro

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1843
Re: Building a self looping "SMOT"
« Reply #119 on: October 14, 2013, 05:57:49 PM »

If elecar has this working, then it's possible that he does not know exactly why it is working or the exact effect that enables it to operate.
 
It could be the ceramic magnets, the order of the sizes, the direction of the poles or many other reasons.
 

I have the impression that most of the people who claimed the impossible in this forum (or in other OU-forums) did not know what caused the effect they observed.

And I always observed that the inventors only had one working prototyp.

The obvious thing to try for an inventor is to reproduce his own invention. And during reproduction one could find out which parts are essential and which parts can be replaced by known alternative solutions.

So, the way to go for our SMOT-Wunderkind would be to build two more working SMOTS. This can not be that expensive.

An even better way would be to disclose everything in order to have more people experimentimng and observing. Of course this raises the age old question of how to make money without patents and all that capitalistic crap.

As I so often said, the chances to make money are very slim, particularily in the OU-field. By disclosing an "invention" the inventor would find out very fast whether he is deluded or not. This is a guaranteed benefit which saves a lot of money and hussle. But we all dream about the ultimate success, although it never comes for 99,9999999999% of us. May be that is the reason why we see no progress in the OU-field?

But this time it is the real thing! Hang on, the impossible has happened! Finally the big moment is there! Only a few more months, a few more things to add and we have got it! The perpetuum permanent magnet machine! Or is it?

Greetings, Conrad