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 296277 times)

LibreEnergia

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 332
Re: Building a self looping "SMOT"
« Reply #390 on: October 30, 2013, 11:46:20 PM »
Below is a rough sketch of the energy transfer between the ball,and ramp-and i mean only rough.
But it will give you an idea as to where most of our potential energy is being lost in our ball.It also shows the direction of the energy left,that has to get our ball out of the magnetic field of the ramp.
Although it might look wrong,we must believe it is right,as every action has an equal and OPPOSITE reaction-and you will see that the green arrows are opposite to the red one's,and equal in length(roughly)The same go's for force applied-every force applied must have an opposite force of an equal amout. So from the pic,things just dont look to good for our ball,as most of the energy left is not going in the direction we want.So we can asume that a ramp setup like this,would result in a large loss of potential energy within the ball.

Edit-missed one green arrow,but you get the picture.

If you are going to try and produce any kind of convincing analysis then you would be wise to use the generally accepted terminology and usage when discussing Newtonian mechanics. Otherwise it just makes your explanation look totally meaningless . (Which it is).

Firstly, energy is a scalar quantity. It does NOT have a direction associated with it. 

What you have drawn is an estimation of the FORCES acting on the ball.

The ball only has 'energy' due to it either moving (kinetic energy) or having potential to move (gravitational and/or magnetic potential energy).


Michael Q Shaw

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 27
Re: Building a self looping "SMOT"
« Reply #391 on: October 30, 2013, 11:50:08 PM »
Sounds to me like you are claiming to know more than the professors who wrote the textbooks and equations.

I'm not a professor, but I know what I know because I studied the works of others, not "somehow". The process is very definite, intensive, years long, costly, reviewed and assessed by peers and superiors along the way. It's called a "university education". Very different from "somehow".

You do realize, I hope, that a spacecraft undergoing a gravitational slingshot is in _free fall_ the whole time. If you were aboard it, with no windows, you would never even feel it, you'd be floating the whole time in zero-g. Pretty funny way for a "force doing work" to act.

I am not claiming to be smarter than or any better than anyone, nor even professors, its just hard to get anyone to listen to your point of view, or new ideas.  Please consider according to information available at Wikipedia, a hammer is just a force amplifier which works by converting mechanical work into kinetic energy and back (the energy still comes from your arm and you.)

Based on the equations, it took a predetermined amount of fuel/propellant to lift the mass of the rocket carrying the Juno spacecraft against the force of gravity out into space then to break free from the Earth’s gravity and then for it to travel to a certain velocity.  Once that fuel/propellant was spent, in order to increase this velocity, even in the low friction vacuum of space requires more fuel/propellant to be spent.  Juno used the gravity sling-shot to increase its velocity without burning more fuel/propellants to do so.  Was more fuel spent?  If it was, was it spent to increase its velocity or only to maintain direction and for control?  So, Yes, the increase in velocity was accomplished by a gravity sling shot effect...means gravity produced work, the same effect as burning more fuel/propellants.

LibreEnergia

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 332
Re: Building a self looping "SMOT"
« Reply #392 on: October 31, 2013, 12:07:46 AM »
///So, Yes, the increase in velocity was accomplished by a gravity sling shot effect...means gravity produced work, the same effect as burning more fuel/propellants.

NO. Gravity did not produce net work.  The total energy of the combined earth/Juno system was the same both before and after the slingshot.

What happened is the earth was slowed down and the spacecraft sped up.  Kinetic energy of the earth was lowered and the kinetic energy of Juno was increased by the same amount.

Energy in the system remained the same.

Michael Q Shaw

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 27
Re: Building a self looping "SMOT"
« Reply #393 on: October 31, 2013, 12:17:45 AM »
NO. Gravity did not produce net work.  The total energy of the combined earth/Juno system was the same both before and after the slingshot.

What happened is the earth was slowed down and the spacecraft sped up.  Kinetic energy of the earth was lowered and the kinetic energy of Juno was increased by the same amount.

Energy in the system remained the same.

So you are telling me that no work is done unless fuel is consumed, got it.

TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13958
Re: Building a self looping "SMOT"
« Reply #394 on: October 31, 2013, 12:22:04 AM »
 
Quote
Please consider according to information available at Wikipedia, a hammer is just a force amplifier which works by converting mechanical work into kinetic energy and back.


This is exactly what _you_ need to consider. The gravitational slingshot transfers momentum from the Earth to the spacecraft. Gravity does work on the craft on the way in, and does "negative work" on the way out, and since the spacecraft is NOT doing a closed loop but is sent off in a different direction, with the additional momentum given it, you are no longer making a closed path all within a conservative field of force.  If you close the path into an elliptical orbit, then the system does just what is predicted: gravity does no net work, the orbit can be stable and last... well... a long long time, since no energy is being subtracted or added during the long falls in and the long climbs out. A closed path in a conservative force field is "net work zero". As you are discovering with your SMOT experimentation, because superposing two conservative fields doesn't change anything. Since there is no input of extra work other than what you provide by bringing the ball into position initially, and you can't eliminate losses... your SMOT can't work.

The idea that "gravity does no net work" applies to the closed path within the field: the SMOT. A gravitational slingshot system is not a closed path so there can be net work done. But you can't get to where you can do this, without first getting to a position of greatly _negative_ GPE and this takes an input of work from some other source: your chemical rockets.

Have you yet grasped the reason that PE is _negative_  and the position of zero PE is arbitrary?

LibreEnergia

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 332
Re: Building a self looping "SMOT"
« Reply #395 on: October 31, 2013, 12:26:08 AM »
So you are telling me that no work is done unless fuel is consumed, got it.

No, I'm not saying that. Work was done on the spacecraft. It experienced a force over exerted over a distance, (the definition of work). Work was also done on the earth. It experienced a force (but in the opposite direction) exerted over a distance.

MeggerMan

  • TPU-Elite
  • Sr. Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 497
Re: Building a self looping "SMOT"
« Reply #396 on: October 31, 2013, 12:39:58 AM »
@All
I may need to admit defeat with this project.
After completing my test track this evening, the best I could manage was 2 circuits of the ball by starting about 50mm up the ramp from the cross over point.
This is running the ball clockwise so that it enters the magnet array in the center.
After the first circuit it moves up the ramp about 25mm from the cross over.
After the second circuit, it only just manages to make it over the cross over, then finishes about 60mm before the cross over owing to a lack of ball momentum.
The 50mm point is perhaps a height difference from the cross over of about 1.5mm
I probably should post a picture of my test track + video.
Meggerman

Michael Q Shaw

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 27
Re: Building a self looping "SMOT"
« Reply #397 on: October 31, 2013, 12:54:16 AM »
@All
I may need to admit defeat with this project.
After completing my test track this evening, the best I could manage was 2 circuits of the ball by starting about 50mm up the ramp from the cross over point.
This is running the ball clockwise so that it enters the magnet array in the center.
After the first circuit it moves up the ramp about 25mm from the cross over.
After the second circuit, it only just manages to make it over the cross over, then finishes about 60mm before the cross over owing to a lack of ball momentum.
The 50mm point is perhaps a height difference from the cross over of about 1.5mm
I probably should post a picture of my test track + video.
Meggerman

Sorry to hear that Meggerman, I will still not give up on my Propulsion track, I have seen it work, I know it works, I just need to connect them at the transition, just one inch between wining or loosing, just one inch between living and dying will make all the difference.

MileHigh

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7600
Re: Building a self looping "SMOT"
« Reply #398 on: October 31, 2013, 01:12:53 AM »
Tinman:

I hit my keyboard the wrong way and I lost my posting by closing the browser tab. I hate that so I'm just going to rattle it off from memory.

For the brick, I mentioned the resistance of the wire.  But in the context of the question, "work on the brick" only refers to whether the brick is lifted or not.  Beyond that I agree that all sources of energy should be taken into account when you analyze a system.

For the clip, I don't see two other places where there is increased energy.  Please indicate what you mean.  My take on the clip is that it's pretty straightforward.  The ball gets no net energy as it goes through the ramp and it's the gravity boost at the end that allows the ball to continue rolling.

Quote
The other thing to note with the video i posted,and Michael's setup(and all other smots of the same design),is once the ball drops out of the ramp, the ball is already under exceleration once it passes the level it started at,at the begining of the ramp.This in itself shows that it can be made to work,as the ball has gone from standing still,to a state of exceleration once at the same plane level.

You are still forgetting or having trouble visualizing the fact that the ball is still inside a potential energy well as it falls when it gets back to the same level it started at.  The ball may be moving, as compared to being still when it starts.  But you still are not factoring in the magnetic potential energy at both positions and you have to.  The falling ball has less energy than the ball in the starting position.

Quote
i started to look at the video's,and analyze what was going on with the devices,and finding the errors made in the designs.

I looked at the Billmehess video that was linked to and I saw two major errors.

Sorry, but there is something about rewriting a posting that you lost that is so difficult, I don't know why.

MileHigh

Michael Q Shaw

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 27
Re: Building a self looping "SMOT"
« Reply #399 on: October 31, 2013, 01:32:39 AM »
Tinman:

I hit my keyboard the wrong way and I lost my posting by closing the browser tab. I hate that so I'm just going to rattle it off from memory.

For the brick, I mentioned the resistance of the wire.  But in the context of the question, "work on the brick" only refers to whether the brick is lifted or not.  Beyond that I agree that all sources of energy should be taken into account when you analyze a system.

For the clip, I don't see two other places where there is increased energy.  Please indicate what you mean.  My take on the clip is that it's pretty straightforward.  The ball gets no net energy as it goes through the ramp and it's the gravity boost at the end that allows the ball to continue rolling.

You are still forgetting or having trouble visualizing the fact that the ball is still inside a potential energy well as it falls when it gets back to the same level it started at.  The ball may be moving, as compared to being still when it starts.  But you still are not factoring in the magnetic potential energy at both positions and you have to.  The falling ball has less energy than the ball in the starting position.

I looked at the Billmehess video that was linked to and I saw two major errors.

Sorry, but there is something about rewriting a posting that you lost that is so difficult, I don't know why.

MileHigh

"Potential Energy Well"  are you certain you did not make this up? "Potential Energy Well" Really?

MileHigh

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7600
Re: Building a self looping "SMOT"
« Reply #400 on: October 31, 2013, 01:38:11 AM »
Michael:

If you have been reading the thread that concept has already been mentioned multiple times with examples provided.  You have to understand it to understand your experimenting.

MileHigh

Michael Q Shaw

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 27
Re: Building a self looping "SMOT"
« Reply #401 on: October 31, 2013, 01:58:36 AM »
You have to understand my experimenting to understand anything.  Nobody...is building them the way I do. Please do not lie about it again. Unless you are still Milehigh on whatever you are milehigh on.

MileHigh

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7600
Re: Building a self looping "SMOT"
« Reply #402 on: October 31, 2013, 02:07:47 AM »
Not sure what you are alleging but I am not lying about anything.  I did some physics experiments in my time with those "air hockey" very low friction floating on air rails.  If you believe what you have then demo it for us when you can.

MileHigh

Michael Q Shaw

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 27
Re: Building a self looping "SMOT"
« Reply #403 on: October 31, 2013, 02:09:22 AM »
Based on the equations, it took a predetermined amount of fuel/propellant to lift the mass of the rocket carrying the Juno spacecraft against the force of gravity out into space then to break free from the Earth’s gravity and then for it to travel to a certain velocity.  Once that fuel/propellant was spent, in order to increase this velocity, even in the low friction vacuum of space requires more fuel/propellant to be spent.  Juno used the gravity sling-shot to increase its velocity without burning more fuel/propellants to do so.  Was more fuel spent?  If it was, was it spent to increase its velocity or only to maintain direction and for control?  So, Yes, the increase in velocity was accomplished by a gravity sling shot effect...means gravity produced work, the same effect as burning more fuel/propellants. So you are telling us that no work is done unless fuel is consumed, got it.

Michael Q Shaw

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 27
Re: Building a self looping "SMOT"
« Reply #404 on: October 31, 2013, 02:11:18 AM »
Not sure what you are alleging but I am not lying about anything.  I did some physics experiments in my time with those "air hockey" very low friction floating on air rails.  If you believe what you have then demo it for us when you can.

MileHigh

I'm not lying either, then why are you still a mile high?