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 296210 times)

JouleSeeker

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 685
Re: Building a self looping "SMOT"
« Reply #225 on: October 18, 2013, 04:03:35 PM »
Yes - good point, and I thank you, Norman.  Can you provide a photo or vid of your magnet array and loop -- as Elecar has done?

The purpose of my question was to get you to focus instead of just keyboarding away and it worked very well in a short time. Thank you for getting focused. Now may the game continue.

My ball goes past its dropped point by about 1/4 inch now which is just like my sick pendulum.
I'm using a magnet array with stacked magnets and metal facing much like elecar's array.
gettin there only slowly.

Norman

" metal facing"  -- what material do you use here?  and can you tell what is the N/S orientation of the magnets in the array?  (Questions to Norman and Elecar)



norman6538

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 587
Re: Building a self looping "SMOT"
« Reply #226 on: October 18, 2013, 04:10:19 PM »
I am using some stove pipe galvanized metal which is thin enough that the magnet stack penetrates it and reaches the ball. I play with both polarities and you should too. You can do it if you get off the keyboard and go to the bench...As you might suspect, I do more benchwork than keyboarding cause I get better results.

The real trick here is you have to balance the magetic forces and gravity forces and that requires the slight slope instead of a vertical pendulum which has too much gravity.

Norman


TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13958
Re: Building a self looping "SMOT"
« Reply #227 on: October 18, 2013, 04:19:08 PM »

So then you say slowing something down is adding energy?
That's a bit different logic, if that's what your calling it.
So I can add energy to my car by slowing it down?
WTF, I guess we learn something new every day.
 
I suppose I could take something off the table and move it closer to the floor to get a really big gain in potential energy!
I think you are deliberately misunderstanding me. GPE and MPE (attractive) are negative, with the "zero" at infinite distance.

The point is that all the work needs to be accounted for. When you position a magnet by hand in an attractive or repelling field, the work that you put in to do this is part of the energy input to the total system: it has to come from somewhere, in order to get the magnet to where you position it. It could represent energy you are storing in the system if you are putting the magnet into a repulsive zone, or it could represent energy that you are taking out of the system by letting it do work on you as you bring the magnet slowly to that position in an attractive zone. Either way, it represents an increase in the total energy that you have to account for. In the repulsive case you are "prestocking" the system with some extra energy, this should be obvious, I hope. In the attractive case you are removing some of the (potential) energy that was in there already... so really your "start" is not when you release the magnet, but rather when you started lowering the magnet into the "well" of attraction. In other words, the system contained more energy at the actual "start" than you think it does when you release the magnet within the attractive zone.

Stretch out a spring. Now use your hand to let the spring spring back slowly. Are you doing work or not? You are providing a force, over a distance, to _prevent_ the spring from snapping back quickly. Just so with the manual positioning of a magnet in an attractive field. If the magnet is attracted and you are preventing it from moving in at its "natural" speed, you are doing work. If you have to push the magnet into position against a repelling field, you are (obviously) doing work. If you have to push a magnet through a "gate" for it to snap rapidly out the other side... you are doing work, slowly, which is returned by the magnets more rapidly on the other side of the gate.

Mock me all you like, but ask Google "why are GPE and MPE (attractive) negative"  first, please.


http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/gpot.html
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/pegrav.html (read downwards)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potential_energy
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=163171
http://www.sparknotes.com/testprep/books/sat2/physics/chapter11section3.rhtml
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potential_energy#Magnetic_potential_energy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_potential

Any time you are using your hands or any kind of outside mechanical force on your SMOT to move something into position for action, you are adding energy _to the system's total energy budget_  no matter in which direction the force acts.

If you have to move a magnet into position, resisting (pulling against) an attractive field or pushing against a repulsive field, then the total energy you have to use for the "input energy" in your system has to take the PE of its position, plus that work that you did, or was done on you, by your moving the magnet into position.

This is why your SMOTs will never sustain self-looping: because you have to provide some energy to move stuff into position to get the thing to start moving, and you only get to provide this energy once. It will soon run out (dissipated in friction) and your system will stop, until you start it again by moving the magnet or ball or lever back to the start position (by doing work) and releasing it into an attractive well or a repulsive zone.

TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13958
Re: Building a self looping "SMOT"
« Reply #228 on: October 18, 2013, 04:29:15 PM »
I am using some stove pipe galvanized metal which is thin enough that the magnet stack penetrates it and reaches the ball. I play with both polarities and you should too. You can do it if you get off the keyboard and go to the bench...As you might suspect, I do more benchwork than keyboarding cause I get better results.

The real trick here is you have to balance the magetic forces and gravity forces and that requires the slight slope instead of a vertical pendulum which has too much gravity.

Norman

You talk as though you have a self-looping system that runs of itself once started. But I don't think you do have such a system, however "close" you might be. Do you?

If you don't... how come you are such an expert? If you DO... then I will happily follow every bit of advice you give. After I see it demonstrated, of course.

ramset

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8073
Re: Building a self looping "SMOT"
« Reply #229 on: October 18, 2013, 05:17:16 PM »
The little red Hen syndrome...........
 

 
 
 

minnie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1244
Re: Building a self looping "SMOT"
« Reply #230 on: October 18, 2013, 08:10:24 PM »





  Not really,the little red hen used her keyboard and found out what to do and how to do it.
She then followed the instructions and hence got a result.
  Mother nature is very very good at equations and she doesn't make mistakes.  I agree
gravity and permanent magnets will do work as will a spring, the catch is that once the
work has been done that's it!
                                               John.

lumen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1388
Re: Building a self looping "SMOT"
« Reply #231 on: October 18, 2013, 09:31:54 PM »
@TK
You don't usually make a mistake as you have with confusing work with resistance. Energy/work is not required to slow a moving object, energy would need to be stored or converted or dissipated to reduce the energy of the moving object.
You call it negative energy and that is a point of view and is fine, but you cannot add negative energy to a system of positive value and end up with a larger positive value.
So placing a steel ball by hand into a magnetic field only reduces the potential energy.
Why?
Move to the extreme, I place the steel ball by hand tight to the magnet and thus leave how much energy in the system?
 
 

elecar

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 161
Re: Building a self looping "SMOT"
« Reply #232 on: October 18, 2013, 11:18:57 PM »
Hi all, no mystery with the magnets and bars. All  the magnets are the same orientation, N or S does not appear to make any difference.
The bars are actually just some steel brackets and I just play with them for shaping the field. The reason there is one way over to one side is that it was on the board and got attracted to the array when I was taking the picture.
The piece at the front is just aluminum channel and is used to hold the magnets in place, because they are all aligned the same the sides are in repel and the tight fit in the channel stops them flying away from each other.
I do not believe the aluminum channel holding the magnets makes any difference.

Normans track does not have a ramp that continues past the pointed end of the teardrop, and so you can not get the ball to roll backward and into the exit ramp as they are at the same point.
The magnets work the same, they pull the ball in whilst allowing it to roll down the ramp and out of the field.

Those who have sent PMs, I will get round to answering them, but there are so many to deal with right now.

LibreEnergia

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 332
Re: Building a self looping "SMOT"
« Reply #233 on: October 18, 2013, 11:57:39 PM »
@TK
You don't usually make a mistake as you have with confusing work with resistance. Energy/work is not required to slow a moving object, energy would need to be stored or converted or dissipated to reduce the energy of the moving object.
You call it negative energy and that is a point of view and is fine, but you cannot add negative energy to a system of positive value and end up with a larger positive value.
So placing a steel ball by hand into a magnetic field only reduces the potential energy.
Why?
Move to the extreme, I place the steel ball by hand tight to the magnet and thus leave how much energy in the system?

Nonsense.

Energy is required to slow a moving object. A force is required and it is exerted over a distance. Since the definition of work is force x distance then work is expended

Consider a rocket traveling to the moon (or anywhere in space) . To slow it down would require energy. We need to produce a force in the opposite direction of travel and that force is exerted over a distance. That is work done on the system.


elecar

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 161

ramset

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8073
Re: Building a self looping "SMOT"
« Reply #235 on: October 19, 2013, 12:52:57 AM »
Elecar
it is plain to see in Your "Normans trac vid " the ball rising towards the array unassisted by Mr. Finger and escaping again to roll freely away [the ""effect""].
 
Thank you for taking the time to share this.
 
Chet
 
 

norman6538

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 587
Re: Building a self looping "SMOT"
« Reply #236 on: October 19, 2013, 12:58:38 AM »
You talk as though you have a self-looping system that runs of itself once started. But I don't think you do have such a system, however "close" you might be. Do you?

If you don't... how come you are such an expert? If you DO... then I will happily follow every bit of advice you give. After I see it demonstrated, of course.


No No No, I don't have a looper. You jumped to a false conclusion. But I have seen the possibilities in the ball setup which is much like my pendulum that travels 2 hrs further than its dropped point. I'll get there, little by little.

Reread what I said back there and eek out the facts.


Norman

LibreEnergia

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 332
Re: Building a self looping "SMOT"
« Reply #237 on: October 19, 2013, 02:53:35 AM »
Elecar
it is plain to see in Your "Normans trac vid " the ball rising towards the array unassisted by Mr. Finger and escaping again to roll freely away [the ""effect""].
 
Thank you for taking the time to share this.
 
Chet

Really? My eyesight is not is good as it once was but I can certainly see a finger pushing the ball up an incline to the point where magnetic attraction will allow it to rise up and then continue down. As it travels past the magnet the normal 'sticky spot' is overcome by the fact that the ball is travelling down an incline.

 It converts enough gravitational potential to kinetic energy to escape the magnetic force. However,  It ends up stationary and with less gravitational potential than the starting point. For the system to continue to work that potential has to be replaced by the 'finger' you insist is not supplying energy to the system. 


ramset

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8073
Re: Building a self looping "SMOT"
« Reply #238 on: October 19, 2013, 03:01:32 AM »
LibraEnergia
Quote
""magnetic attraction will allow it to rise up and then continue down. As it travels past the magnet the normal 'sticky spot' is overcome by the fact that the ball is travelling down an incline.''
------------------------------
 
Thank you for that observation,you have just described the "Effect" which is at the heart of the self runner.
Attraction and gravity..........
Chet

maw2432

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 338
Re: Building a self looping "SMOT"
« Reply #239 on: October 19, 2013, 03:03:37 AM »
Really? My eyesight is not is good as it once was but I can certainly see a finger pushing the ball up an incline to the point where magnetic attraction will allow it to rise up and then continue down. As it travels past the magnet the normal 'sticky spot' is overcome by the fact that the ball is travelling down an incline.

 It converts enough gravitational potential to kinetic energy to escape the magnetic force. However,  It ends up stationary and with less gravitational potential than the starting point. For the system to continue to work that potential has to be replaced by the 'finger' you insist is not supplying energy to the system.
I agree, we are still waiting on the promised retake.
Bill