Author Topic: Building a self looping "SMOT" (Read 297955 times)

MeggerMan · « **Reply #90 on:** October 12, 2013, 05:40:32 PM »

Hi Elecar,
You said you did not want to post the video of it running just yet, but could you post just the sound of it running continuously?

What size is your magnet array (width and depth)?
When you said you start with 2, 4,6 and 8 magnets, are they arranged in portrait orientation to the track and stacked one in front of the other?
When looking from above do the magnets present a stepped face or flat face to the track?

Have you opted to make the rails from 2 individual strips of metal to make a rail track?
How wide are your rails spaced?

Thanks
Meggerman

gyulasun · « **Reply #91 on:** October 12, 2013, 07:10:10 PM »

Quote from: elecar on October 12, 2013, 01:34:01 AM

Anyhow I believe the "high road low road effect is probably the way to get some work from the ramp.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H2QPMO6bo4E

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JzZ9AKwZw28

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IoOtDBCJ7T0

Hi elecar,

The "high road low road effect" is based the so called "brachistochrone curve" or curve of fastest descent i.e. find the path that will carry a point-like body from place (A) to place (B) in the least amount of time. The name of the fastest path curve is the cycloid.

So a point-like body starts sliding from rest and accelerated by gravity will slip (without friction) from one point to another in the least time. Great minds like Galileo, Bernoulli, Newton, Leibniz etc were all challenged to solve the problem and they did by finding the curve cycloid. See some further historical info on this here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brachistochrone_curve and a few math animations are here: http://curvebank.calstatela.edu/brach/brach.htm

Unfortunately, conventional science explains the faster speed at point (B) by starting out from the law of energy conversation: the sum of the potential energy and the kinetic energy is constant... at least I found a paper which deals with that: http://www.osaka-ue.ac.jp/file/general/4588

I fail to understand why the higher speed of the ball which arrives at point B earlier has no higher kinetic energy than the ball arriving to the same point B at a smaller speed... I am not good at understanding the Euler-Lagrange equations solved in the above paper, why are solved as shown, given that integral and diffential equations can have several conditions...

Definitely further measurements are needed, especially energy-wise (because measurements have been shown on the arriving speeds) and nobody should be discouraged to test a cycloid curve which is embedded into the return path of a SMOT or similar setups.

Gyula

conradelektro · « **Reply #92 on:** October 12, 2013, 09:25:09 PM »

Same game, same torrent of words, same lack of proof, same appearance of believers:

I really do not understand why the same sick game can be played over and over in this forum.

There appears an impossible claim, no proof is forwarded, thousands of words are offered instead.

The self proclaimed inventor wants to be a teacher, teaching the impossible without supporting his teachings with tangible proof. Drawings are no proof.

Nevertheless, some people appear who start to fight for the impossible claim. And these new recruits fight nastier than the self proclaimed inventor.

It is the same sad story as always.

Greetings, Conrad

P.S.: Attached please see my new house in Vienna. I heat the house with an OU-heating system. The proof lies in the fact that I could not afford conventional heating (oil, gas or wood) with such a big house. I filed a patent and can not show you the OU-heating system before the patent is granted and some investors are found. I now tell you how you can build this OU-heating system: the system has to put out more heat than you put in!

gyulasun · « **Reply #93 on:** October 12, 2013, 10:32:53 PM »

Dear Conrad,

Normally I give the benefit of doubt for such claims and eventually only time will tell. You are right in that so far the claims have remained for long, no any setup or device have been shown capable of performing the claims.

Sorry if I was the last drop of water into your glass and your glass has become full.

Greetings, Gyula

elecar · « **Reply #94 on:** October 12, 2013, 11:14:17 PM »

Hi Meggerman, I shall post a picture of the magnet array for you tomorrow, it will be my final post as far as help and advice goes until I post the video of my unit self looping.

Hi Gyula, thank you for the high road low road info, it is way above my head. I am content enough knowing it does what it does.

Hi Conrad, I really did not set out to be a "teacher" to anyone. Although you mock about patents, I am not here to find some magic free energy device or overunity device for "the good of mankind". I have an interest in playing with magnets period.
I managed to do something which I felt was worth a patent, and so thats the route I took. Before I posted anything here I made sure I had that protection in place and I have a company who are interested in the device. I have never offered any parts, plans or anything else on here in exchange for money, not now, and not in the future.
However I take on board what you say, and to that end I will not post anymore details until the day I post the video of my unit running. There are enough details in the thread for anyone to replicate the effect and that will suffice for now.

PS: That is a nice home you have.

norman6538 · « **Reply #95 on:** October 13, 2013, 02:32:33 AM »

My ball performance is very poor. There are 18 inches to travel and the ball only goes 14 inches but I can increase the travel to 15 inches with hand held ceramic magnets. And when properly positioned they do not get stuck. So I have a long way to go but if Elecar took a month or so to tune it I guess I'm just beginning.
I used the opaque rigid tubing that refridgerator icemaker water supply line is made from but
it was 3/8 OD. I used a jig to space the tubing so the ball was up off the wood. And I predrilled
1/8 inch holes for wire brad nails to hold the tubing in place. And I used a jig to drill the holes about 1 inch apart but not all were needed to make the teardrop shape. The tubing and nails is a great rapid prototype method.

better luck to you all,
Norman

maw2432 · « **Reply #96 on:** October 13, 2013, 02:44:49 AM »

Quote from: norman6538 on October 13, 2013, 02:32:33 AM

My ball performance is very poor. There are 18 inches to travel and the ball only goes 14 inches but I can increase the travel to 15 inches with hand held ceramic magnets. And when properly positioned they do not get stuck. So I have a long way to go but if Elecar took a month or so to tune it I guess I'm just beginning.
I used the opaque rigid tubing that refridgerator icemaker water supply line is made from but
it was 3/8 OD. I used a jig to space the tubing so the ball was up off the wood. And I predrilled
1/8 inch holes for wire brad nails to hold the tubing in place. And I used a jig to drill the holes about 1 inch apart but not all were needed to make the teardrop shape. The tubing and nails is a great rapid prototype method.

better luck to you all,
Norman

Norman,
Do you have a photo?
Bill

norman6538 · « **Reply #97 on:** October 13, 2013, 03:04:34 AM »

Here is a photo. The ball is sitting where it stopped at 14 inches and was dropped from the top on the left. I did not have magnets in this photo but there are 2 jigs in the center. One has two half holes to align the tubing so the nails can hold it at the right place. The jig on the left was used to make the holes evenly and at the center of the tubing.
The tubing does not look evenly spaced due to the camera angles but it is quite evenly spaced.

Not much but may be helpful to other builders.

Norman

happyfunball · « **Reply #98 on:** October 13, 2013, 05:10:56 AM »

http://www.atlasrr.com/superflex.htm

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=atlas+flex+track&oq=atlas+flex+track&gs_l=youtube.3..35i39.1242.4480.0.4851.16.16.0.0.0.0.176.1779.6j10.16.0...0.0...1ac.1.11.youtube.BeoAw5DLsE4

DreamThinkBuild · « **Reply #99 on:** October 13, 2013, 11:35:29 AM »

Hi Elecar,

I've been "toying" with the idea some more and got it to arc away from the track. By adding a twist at the end will cause an increasing gradient away from the track.

I attached two pictures of the setup. The first one is the underlying framework. It's pretty simple to test we shorten the track lay card paper on top with a weight at the end. When you get the magnets aligned just right the sphere will be pulled down the track like normal but as the gradient increases the weight of the sphere will be greater than the pull of the magnets and arc away.

I visualize a possible butter bowl like shape with two ramps on opposite sides that curve towards the ends of the start of the next track. Like a racetrack, the raceways are the ramps and the two end corners are where it arcs. Attached is a rough render of the idea, the sides would be much higher than shown. Using this method we eliminate the problem of curving the magnets for a circular design.

It's untested so who knows.

Hi Norman,

Thanks for sharing your build.

happyfunball · « **Reply #100 on:** October 13, 2013, 12:58:24 PM »

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vINnB7tii8s

norman6538 · « **Reply #101 on:** October 13, 2013, 01:09:20 PM »

Hi, Dreamthinkbuild, that is a very nice drawing that shows your concept very well. I want to put that idea together to see how it works. What software do you use to draw?

Norman

JouleSeeker · « **Reply #102 on:** October 13, 2013, 01:27:35 PM »

In this quest for new understanding, I think we should give Elecar's device a chance. And I think most of us are doing so. There is something about permanent non-conducting magnets well worth exploring, IMHO. And I appreciate Elecar's sharing.

Now there is a "sleeper" post from the last page that caught my attention -- by MeggerMan:

Quote

What you have here is very interesting.
This evening I have been playing with some 10 x 13 x 10 x 1.5mm x 1m aluminium chanel and a 24mm steel ball bearing and a very large 6 x 4 x 1" ceramic 8 slab magnet.
I can see the effect where the ball is pulled up the incline and then falls back down again under gravity, the cycle then repeats, with the ball zipping up and down the track for around 30 seconds before it stops.
I tried it with the track sitting on top of the slab magnets long edge on so the N-S faces of magnet face out to the sides.
Not sure it this config would be good for your setup as the magnet is below the track.
I have been using Lego bricks to build the support for the tracks.

You are right about the null spot in the middle of the magnet array, this would make the logical exit point away from the magnet using the downward momentum to carry it away from the null point and back around to the start.

Looks like you have an interesting "replication" MeggerMan.

Quote

"I can see the effect where the ball is pulled up the incline and then falls back down again under gravity, the cycle then repeats, with the ball zipping up and down the track for around 30 seconds before it stops."

This is significant -- can YOU show us a video? Say, a 40 second video so we can see this cycle repeating? Very interesting stuff! And notice, again, the use of non-conducting permanent magnets...

maw2432 · « **Reply #103 on:** October 13, 2013, 02:03:24 PM »

Quote from: norman6538 on October 13, 2013, 03:04:34 AM

Here is a photo. The ball is sitting where it stopped at 14 inches and was dropped from the top on the left. I did not have magnets in this photo but there are 2 jigs in the center. One has two half holes to align the tubing so the nails can hold it at the right place. The jig on the left was used to make the holes evenly and at the center of the tubing.
The tubing does not look evenly spaced due to the camera angles but it is quite evenly spaced.

Not much but may be helpful to other builders.

Norman

Norman,
It looks like your ball may also be riding/touching the ply-wood base causing increased friction. If so, maybe your rails are too far apart?
Bill

JouleSeeker · « **Reply #104 on:** October 13, 2013, 02:19:34 PM »

I found the scientific treatise I was looking for, that I referred to earlier:

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

I especially urge TK and Conrad to read and comment. It is an eye-opener!

Note that Dr. Kirk McDonald is writing from Princeton University and has written a number of papers on the momentum associated with magnetic fields.
Here I quote from the conclusion of the above-linked paper:

Quote

2.7 Physical Realizations of Magnetic Moments[/font][size=0px]The behavior of a moving current loop in an external electric field depends on the physical[/size][size=0px]nature of the current.[/size][size=0px]If the current flows in a resistive conductor, that conductor would “shield” the current[/size][size=0px]from a constant, uniform external electric field[/size][size=0px]E[/size][size=0px]if the conductor is at rest or in uniform[/size][size=0px]motion with respect to the field. In this case there would be no Lorentz force on the current[/size][size=0px]due to the external field, and no torque in the frame where the current loop has velocity v.[/size][size=0px]Similarly, if the current loop is a superconductor, the supercurrent is “shielded” from the[/size][size=0px]external field, and there is no torque.[/size][size=0px]A model of a neutral current loop that could realize Mansuripur’s paradox is a pair of[/size][size=0px]nonconducting, coaxial disks with positive charge fixed to the rim of one and negative charge[/size][size=0px]on the other, with the disks rotating in opposite senses with the same magnitude of angular[/size][size=0px]velocity. The paradox applies also to models in which the current is a charged, compressible[/size][size=0px]gas or liquid that flow inside a nonconducting tube (models i and iii of [5]).[/size]25[/font][size=0px]In sum, the present example can be realized only in rather “academic” thought experiments if the magnetic momenent is due to conduction current loops.[/size][size=0px]The most practical realization of the present example would involve magnetic fields due[/size][size=0px]to intrinsic (Amp`erian) magnetic momentums, such as associated with a nonconducting permanent magnet, or a neutron.[/size]

Thus, there is something "different" with the "nonconducting permanent magnet" -- as found empirically by Elecar and I think MeggerMan and perhaps others.

Attached see some of the math behind his conclusion, to encourage further reading of the treatise:

News:

User Menu

Author Topic: Building a self looping "SMOT" (Read 297955 times)

MeggerMan

Re: Building a self looping "SMOT"

gyulasun

Re: Building a self looping "SMOT"

conradelektro

Re: Building a self looping "SMOT"

gyulasun

Re: Building a self looping "SMOT"

elecar

Re: Building a self looping "SMOT"

norman6538

Re: Building a self looping "SMOT"

maw2432

Re: Building a self looping "SMOT"

norman6538

Re: Building a self looping "SMOT"

happyfunball

Re: Building a self looping "SMOT"

DreamThinkBuild

Re: Building a self looping "SMOT"

happyfunball

Re: Building a self looping "SMOT"

norman6538

Re: Building a self looping "SMOT"

JouleSeeker

Re: Building a self looping "SMOT"

maw2432

Re: Building a self looping "SMOT"

JouleSeeker

Re: Building a self looping "SMOT"