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 296274 times)

TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13958
Re: Building a self looping "SMOT"
« Reply #360 on: October 29, 2013, 07:06:05 PM »
Question.

I built a ramp shaped magnet stack and tried my best to fill in the staked ends so as to make a field that is as uniform as I could with a very long pole face.

The ramp is 22 inches long and goes from 3\4 inch to 3 1\4 inches

Using a string there is a change in pull as observed by the string being stretched down to the ramp on the thick end and being about 3\16 of an inch above the ramp on the short end,, level base and level face.

My initial thought was that the thicker, stronger end of the ramp should have an influence on a magnet or steel ball and that should cause a migration from the thin weaker end up to the thick stronger end.

This was not happening for me so I tried hanging them from a string,, I could get a tilt in the string but that took motion and it would tilt either way,, a little more when moving from the thin end to the thick end,, maybe.

Not happy with a basic non-result I thought that hanging an electromagnet on the string should do the job,, I tried that and could get no deflection in the string that it was suspended by,, 30 inches in length,, and was wondering if this is a fair test or not.

I was trying to test for the motive value coming from a gradient in the PM field with a fixed distance of spacing,,, if that makes sense.

I think this is more like what I meant when I talked about a "wind tunnel" test program. You are exploring force vs distance within that presumed gradient field. Perhaps your null result was because you didn't really have a gradient over the area you were sensing. Without a full dimensioned drawing including orientations of everything it's hard to say for sure. You did say that you tried to make it as uniform as possible, maybe you succeeded, so there's no gradient within your test zone.

tinman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5365
Re: Building a self looping "SMOT"
« Reply #361 on: October 29, 2013, 07:31:21 PM »
Hi,
   in all of these things there's always the ubiquitous hand. Let's see a hands free demo.
Question, I put my ball on the scale and weighed it, held my magnet above the ball and the
weight got less,is my magnet doing any work?
   I dropped my ball through a vertical plexiglass tube, I positioned my magnet so that
it retarded the fall, was my magnet doing any work?
    I put a glass of water on my scale, noted the weight and then dipped my finger into
the water, what happened?
     I watched the Tinselzed and it stopped, what happened?
                                  John.                                   
Q1-The magnet is transfering the work being done to your hand and arm.
Q2-yes,it requires energy to slow a moving mass.
Q3-your finger got wet. But on a serious note,
1:the glass of water becomes heavier
2:the potential energy within that glass of water is raised.
3:energy is also being used,in that you are holding up your hand and arm.

tinman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5365
Re: Building a self looping "SMOT"
« Reply #362 on: October 29, 2013, 07:41:36 PM »

I think you have missed my point. The Wright brothers invented the wind tunnel as a tool to test different airfoil shapes, angles of attack and so on. I am not making an analogy between "wind" and the magnetic field. I am saying that I haven't seen anyone explore the critical features of magnets and magnetism _without_ trying to build some kind of functional apparatus. Have you ever seen anyone build a test fixture and use a force gauge to measure the relative attraction of gravity and magnetism for magnets and balls in various positions, to determine whether or not the SMOT idea is viable? That is the kind of "wind tunnel" for magnetism I mean, just one example.

When I was working on Steorn's Orbo, I constructed just such a fixture, to determine the actual relationship between applied current and the "core effect" decrease in attraction of the core to a PM, by plotting current, separation distance and force for many different kinds of toroid material. What I found was very surprising to me, and I have never seen anyone else perform such a test, not even Steorn ... so I think my knowledge of the Core Effect and its ability to drive motors may be more complete than others. I used my knowledge to select the optimum toroid material, to make a core effect motor (Orbette 2.0) and test it, even to the point of reproducing Steorn's scope displays showing the negative energy integral, "proving" that my Orbette 2.0 was doing the same things that Steorn claimed indicated OU.

That's what I mean by "wind tunnel": A system that allows you to examine the critical parameters of your idea _before_ you try to build something by trial and error. People apparently think the Wrights just slapped together a bunch of old bicycle parts and went flying. The truth is very different. For example, they had already been flying, and even soaring for sustained flights, for several years, perfecting their control system and flying skills on _kites and gliders_ before they took their best-performing _glider_ design and added a motor to it to make the first real airplane. They used the wind tunnel invention to try shapes and motions before they put anything together to take flying. They knew without doubt that a certain wind speed over their wing would provide enough lift to fly, that their control system (wing warping) would work, and that their structures could carry the strain, before they ever built anything to take out to Kill Devil Hill.

So my "wind tunnel" suggestion was to examine the particular assertion that a magnet above doesn't retard the fall of a ball in gravity. Build an apparatus that isn't an attempt to make a running SMOT, but just to test that particular bit of critical behaviour.  The things you might find out by examining the critical parts of SMOT ideas may change your position about the feasibility of the idea. Or you may discover something that makes it all possible. Without actually doing the work you will never know. Repeating the designs and experiences of hundreds of previous failures isn't really going to teach you anything much. Testing the fundamental assumptions will.

It's odd that you think repulsion or attraction of a PM isn't a "physical attachment". I know what you mean, of course, you mean non-contact. Now I'll get whacky: Gravity is not a force. It is one kind of "space warpage" that is caused by the presence of mass. Magnetism is another kind of "space warpage" that is caused by certain configurations of electric fields: moving charges within bulk material. The motion of a ball that feels both gravity (because it has mass) and the magnetic field (because its atoms have a certain electron configuration) is the result of the total warpage of space by the mass and the moving electric fields. The ball, left to its own devices, takes the route that represents the _least energy_, that is, a "geodesic" path to the local energetic (PE) minimum or "potential well".
It just so happens that i started a thread on my forum to do just what you describe above.
Your last paragraph i will leave alone,as that is way above my head.
I also have been doing such testing for many years with magnets,there fields ,and the interaction they have on feromagnetic material's. This is how i found that a feromagnetic steel ball can actualy be repelled by a magnetic field,when that field is constructed in a certain configuration.
So yes,i have done some!wind tunnel ! testing on magnets,magnetic field's, and different types of materials. But i also know i have a lot more to do,befor the plane flies.

minnie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1244
Re: Building a self looping "SMOT"
« Reply #363 on: October 29, 2013, 08:25:04 PM »
Hi,
  as far as the Wright bros. are concerned somebody was going to achieve powered flight
around that time. The key to success was the internal combustion engine. I seem to
recall an earlier attempt, albeit a model guided by wire and powered by a steam engine.
  The scientists who have made an impression on me are the likes of Einstein, Peter Higgs
and Hawking who have done the paper and pencil work.
   My point being that by experimenting you've got to almost stumble on to something
whereas by carefully working with the facts that have been established and well proven
you've got a good chance of a result.
                               John.

tinman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5365
Re: Building a self looping "SMOT"
« Reply #364 on: October 29, 2013, 08:46:51 PM »
Hi,
  as far as the Wright bros. are concerned somebody was going to achieve powered flight
around that time. The key to success was the internal combustion engine. I seem to
recall an earlier attempt, albeit a model guided by wire and powered by a steam engine.
  The scientists who have made an impression on me are the likes of Einstein, Peter Higgs
and Hawking who have done the paper and pencil work.
   My point being that by experimenting you've got to almost stumble on to something
whereas by carefully working with the facts that have been established and well proven
you've got a good chance of a result.
                               John.
My answers to your question John,incase you missed them.

1:the glass of water becomes heavier
2:the potential energy within that glass of water is raised.
3:energy is also being used,in that you are holding up your hand and arm.

Michael Q Shaw

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 27
Re: Building a self looping "SMOT"
« Reply #365 on: October 29, 2013, 10:48:30 PM »
There is nothing unusual or 'over-unity' about using earth as a gravity slingshot.  The speed of the spacecraft increased because the earth was slowed down (although by such a tiny amount that it probably could not be measured). Simple Newtonian mechanics at play here.

I wasn't saying there was anything unusual or "over-unity about using earth as a gravity slingshot.  I am saying that those are the birds we are looking at.  I was saying that it is an example of work being done by gravity.  I Got ch ya.

TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13958
Re: Building a self looping "SMOT"
« Reply #366 on: October 29, 2013, 11:09:42 PM »
I wasn't saying there was anything unusual or "over-unity about using earth as a gravity slingshot.  I am saying that those are the birds we are looking at.  I was saying that it is an example of work being done by gravity.  I Got ch ya.

It is not.

When you hammer in a nail, is the hammer doing work, or not?

You might as well say that the gravitational slingshot is an example of work being done by equations -- that would be more true than what you are claiming.

Staffman

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 113
Re: Building a self looping "SMOT"
« Reply #367 on: October 29, 2013, 11:11:22 PM »
I know this wouldn't technically be overunity, but has anyone though of using the curie point as a mechanism to help past the sticking point? Just look up the 'nickel curie point motor' video on youtube. It was just a thought anyways....

Michael Q Shaw

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 27
Re: Building a self looping "SMOT"
« Reply #368 on: October 29, 2013, 11:23:12 PM »
My two cents.

This thread is a good example of a well established pattern when it comes to how free energy devices get evaluated on threads.  We all know the pattern so I am not going to repeat it.   I am just going to share my feelings and just discuss the Michael Q Shaw video clip, because that's the only thing I was involved in.

There was lots of enthusiasm for the clip.  I looked at it and made some critical (as in the sense of analysis) comments about the clip.  I said that the ball ends up at a lower elevation and you don't even need to complete all four ramps to properly evaluate it.

Then I looked at an individual ramp and explained how it's basically a magnetic energy sinkhole.  The ball might go up in elevation a bit but typically you lose all or most of the kinetic energy in the ball and as a result this this leaves you at the bottom of a magnetic potential energy well.  So you have gone down in energy as compared to where you started.  None of the enthusiasts or believers had anything to say.

Then I looked at what the real device would look like with four ramps.  Based on how a single ramp behaves, it clearly indicates that the setup will not work.

Tinman said that it's all just textbooks.  I didn't open up a single textbook.  I just looked at the setup and did an evaluation of what was going on to the best of my ability.  I did not hear any substantial counterarguments to what I had to say.

Then Trueresearch stated, "Of course, feel free to ignore the negative detractors."  That is the worst of the worst when you see comments like that.  Reading between the lines it says this to me, "Don't try to learn, don't try to think for yourself, don't listen to others that have a differing opinion from you, stay ignorant and comfortably numb and play with your magnets."   On top of that, the characterization of "negative detractor" is a loaded term with negative connotations and it's not even true.  A "detractor" is just a trash talker from the sidelines that has nothing to say of substance.  The ramp was really analyzed in detail, and it's all in the thread for those that want to read it.

This "anti thinking" undercurrent is so strong sometimes that I think people are actually afraid to post and say they understood the analysis and they got it and appreciate it.  Instead, you get posts after the end of the discussion where people only mildly infer that they got the message and understood the analysis.   This is dangerous and it's totally counter-productive and results in the collective intelligence of the group advancing at the pace of a glacier.  How often do you hear the term, "magnetic potential energy" in a thread when people are talking about SMOTs?  Almost never.

This is not about "textbooks vs. alternative thinkers."  Firstly and foremost, it's about simply trying to understand what is going on and to see if it has any merit.  There is no "textbook" explanation of the magnetic ramp, and there is no "alternative" explanation for the magnetic ramp.   There is only the truth.  I stated the truth when I said that when you see the ball roll up the ramp it is actually rolling downhill into a magnetic potential energy well.  This IS true, and anybody building one of these things to experiment would be a fool to ignore these facts.

It's like the people with hope and the believers and the promoters all fall silent when the technical merits or lack of technical merits for a given proposition are discussed.  They have almost no comments whatsoever with respect to the technical discussion.  Then when the discussion is over they come back and say, "that's all just crap from books and "laws" are made to be broken."  That's a total cop out.  Discuss the merits or lack of merits of the proposition instead of just stating the old tired cliches.  And just saying to ignore what you don't like to hear is simply ridiculous.

Anybody that is playing with SMOTs and has followed this thread has read the terms "gravitational potential energy" and "magnetic potential energy" and "well" a lot of times.  If you really want to up your game you should go on Google to flesh out the concepts if you need extra learning material and then start using the terms.

Anyway, the analysis was done.  Your typical magnetic rail that lifts up a metal ball a few centimeters normally represents a huge loss of energy.  That is the reality of this situation and it's not dependent on books, it's not dependent on an "alternative view," it's just the honest to goodness truth and there is only one truth about the metal rail.

MileHigh

MileHigh, I realize that the ball ends up at a lower elevation in my video of two linked tracks.  Please just hear me out, I built it like that on purpose.  Please think about everything I am saying here.  On my nine foot track Magnet Ramp 16, 17 and 18, I actually first built it with 4 equal 3/4 inch hills if you will.  Four decline to incline each lifted at an angle equal to a 3/4 inch lift.  It worked every time, even two equal sized hills should get my point across, as this should not be possible with conventional physics.  Then, I built the all aluminum 2 foot tracks, I guess you could call them my second or third generation tracks, they can also achieve a 3/4 inch lift but were not gravity fed, I operated them at a stand still...just from holding the ball in position at the starting position and letting them go...allowing the pull of the magnetic field do all of the "work" -not with an initial rolling start. 

Now, with two 2 foot long tracks, I attempted to connect them, but when they get to close, they have a tendency to slam together because of the strength of attraction of all of the magnets at the intersection, it does not matter what angle you try to connect them linearly, 15, 20, 30, 45 or 90 degree right angle, when they get in close proximity, the driving magnetic field of one ramp interferes with the driving magnetic field of another, using the magnets that I used, they want to slam together when too close together.  Now, you can tell me my assumption is wrong or TinselKoala can say I have a list of all of my "bad assumptions" but as far as I am concerned, this tells me that I need to keep the magnetic ramps separated at the "hand-off" or gravity disconnect, of course they were at least 1 foot away in my nine foot track.  Realizing that the angle determines how hard it is for the magnets to lift up the rolling ball or determines how hard the magnets work, and that a more gradual gradient is best as well as faster, I saw that there needed to be at least a 3/4 inch to 1 inches of separation between both tracks at the hand off using the strength of magnets that I used.  This requires using a longer ramp to achieve this height at a small gradient.

Michael Q Shaw

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 27
Re: Building a self looping "SMOT"
« Reply #369 on: October 29, 2013, 11:33:12 PM »
It is not.

When you hammer in a nail, is the hammer doing work, or not?

You might as well say that the gravitational slingshot is an example of work being done by equations -- that would be more true than what you are claiming.

Think about what you just said to me, I have been wrong before, yes I am human, but I feel that it is you that is wrong this time around TinselKoala.  When you hammer in a nail, you are doing the work with the muscles in your arm and using your energy.  In my example, the Juno spacecraft is not connected to any arm or muscles, it is in the vacuum of space...with nothing connected to it at all, so the only correct response is that gravity did the work when it increased its velocity while it sling-shot using earths gravity, not Earth's arm.  Saying otherwise is only lying to ourselves. That is what actually happened, regardless if textbooks (or our equations) agree.

Michael Q Shaw

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 27
Re: Building a self looping "SMOT"
« Reply #370 on: October 30, 2013, 01:16:17 AM »
Don't listen to a Newbie like me, all of you professors know everything there is to know somehow.

Michael Q Shaw

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 27
Re: Building a self looping "SMOT"
« Reply #371 on: October 30, 2013, 01:21:48 AM »
I know this wouldn't technically be overunity, but has anyone though of using the curie point as a mechanism to help past the sticking point? Just look up the 'nickel curie point motor' video on youtube. It was just a thought anyways....


There is no sticky point when you exit through the width.  it drops right out.  Just the proof anyways...TinselKoala, Oh, your name is so cute.

Michael Q Shaw

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 27
Re: Building a self looping "SMOT"
« Reply #372 on: October 30, 2013, 01:23:46 AM »
Curie point?...Whatever.  Air Force Energy...Whatever, Air Force Energy, does not believe me!

Michael Q Shaw

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 27
Re: Building a self looping "SMOT"
« Reply #373 on: October 30, 2013, 01:35:45 AM »
Think about what you just said to me, I have been wrong before, yes I am human, but I feel that it is you that is wrong this time around TinselKoala.  When you hammer in a nail, you are doing the work with the muscles in your arm and using your energy.  In my example, the Juno spacecraft is not connected to any arm or muscles, it is in the vacuum of space...with nothing connected to it at all, so the only correct response is that gravity did the work when it increased its velocity while it sling-shot using earths gravity, not Earth's arm.  Saying otherwise is only lying to ourselves. That is what actually happened, regardless if textbooks (or our equations) agree.

I am so sorry that you are wrong!


MileHigh

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7600
Re: Building a self looping "SMOT"
« Reply #374 on: October 30, 2013, 01:54:54 AM »
Michael:

Quote
There is no sticky point when you exit through the width.  it drops right out.

That's the magic energy injection that keeps your ball moving onto the next track.  This is hard to visualize.  The gravity field will give you energy when you drop.  Literally, the ball is being sucked out of the magnetic potential energy well when the ball falls.  That is a "magic" injection of energy.  You just have to think about it.  Gravity literally makes your problem go away by pulling the ball out of the well.

When the ball falls it's acceleration is slower than it should be but you can't see it by eye.  You could video it and make measurements, or perhaps something much simpler than that:  If you have a small gram scale that hopefully won't affect the field or be affected by the field, and you slowly lower the ball you will see it's measured weight is lower than it should be as you pull away from the hole.

Height is another energy component in your system.  It applies when the balls are going up the ramp, and it equally applies for the short free fall to the lower ramp.  Height = energy, as simple as that.

So try to imagine an "injection" of energy due to the height drop, and that's why the ball shoots down the next track.  However, one more time the ball is dropping into another magnetic potential energy well at the end of the second track.

MileHigh