Author Topic: Building a self looping "SMOT" (Read 298566 times)

TinselKoala · « **Reply #420 on:** October 31, 2013, 01:07:19 PM »

Quote from: tinman on October 31, 2013, 04:13:08 AM

The ball has both kinetic and potential energy-the ball is moving,and gravity is acting apon it.
Force has direction associated to it,and a given force over time requires a given amount of energy.

What part dont you understand?.

Again... wrong. A given force acting over a _distance_ requires a given amount of energy. Work, with the same units as Energy, is Force x Distance, there is no time element involved until you start talking about power.

Are you sitting down? Feel the force from the chair pressing against your bottom? Does that force do more and more work, expending more and more energy, the longer you sit there? No, it doesn't, because it isn't moving anything. You can apply force all day long without using any energy, as long as you aren't moving something. This is why rocks, sitting on the ground, don't get tired.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Work_%28physics%29

tinman · « **Reply #421 on:** October 31, 2013, 01:30:15 PM »

Quote from: TinselKoala on October 31, 2013, 12:44:43 PM

Tinman asked,
"So the correction would be,if our ball slows by 1/2 of it's speed makeing that 90* turn,then we have lost 4x the kinetic energy that ball had-Did i get that right?."

Well, that's not quite the way I'd put it in words. If you lose 1/2 the speed, you wind up with 1/4 the KE remaining.

For example, if you have a 1 kilogram mass and you are first going 2 m/sec, your KE is (1kg x 2 m/sec x 2 m/sec)/2 or 2 Joules. If you slow down to 1 m/sec your KE is (1kg x 1 m/sec x 1 m/sec)/2 or 0.5 Joule. Half the speed = a quarter the KE.

I'll watch the video _yet again_ with an eye to what you are looking at, but I still think some of your basic assumptions are wrong, and so it is likely that you and I will interpret what we are seeing differently.

(Please check my math, I'm notorious for misplacing decimals or forgetting to divide by two in the KE calculation).
[/quote
Yes, 1/4 thanks for clearing that up. Sometimes i know what i mean,but word it wrong-we all make mistakes.
My aim is to take away this loss,and it can be done by the action takeing place within the smot.This is the potential energy source i am waiting for some one else to see within the smot. It may give you a better chance if you watch michael's video's,to see this potential,as the video i posted has a very short ramp.
If we can some how remove that loss of kinetic energy in the ball,would that be enough to have the ball escape the magnetic field at the same level as the starting point of the track?.

TinselKoala · « **Reply #422 on:** October 31, 2013, 01:46:39 PM »

@tinman: Ok, I've watched the short video again, several times.

Do you remember pinball machines? The kind where you pull back on a spring-loaded plunger, release it, it strikes a ball and propels it upward into the game field?

When you use your hands to place the ball in the starting position you are storing energy in the system, just as if you were pulling back the pinball machine's plunger. If your red magnet blocks were inert, and you attached a rubber band across them like a slingshot, and launched the ball that way, it would be pretty much the same thing. When you release the ball, the stored energy (Magnetic potential energy) causes the ball to accelerate. It has enough momentum to go past "bottom dead center" a bit... where it suddenly encounters the cliff and falls down. You could have made this downfall arbitrarily high and thus accelerated the ball very fast, and then it would go much farther once it hit the horizontal part of the track. But once again... this is only returning the stored GPE that you put into the ball by raising it up to the top starting point. So your hand is storing two quantities of energy in the ball when you place it in the start position: GPE due to its height above the end point, and MPE due to its distance from the "sticky point" where the ball would come to rest if it didn't fall off the cliff.

I see no mechanism for energy gain in the system, other than a re-use of Mister Hand to reposition the ball.

Furthermore, in your nice diagrams where you use arrows to point out "energy transfer" you really are thinking of momentum, I think, not energy. Believe it or not, momentum is absolutely conserved, so when your ball makes the right-angle turn, you are actually causing the Earth to move a bit in the opposite direction.

JouleSeeker · « **Reply #423 on:** October 31, 2013, 02:27:00 PM »

Quote from: TinselKoala on October 31, 2013, 01:46:39 PM

[snip]
I see no mechanism for energy gain in the system, other than a re-use of Mister Hand to reposition the ball.
...

And that is why, if there is energy gain as the object passes through the SMOT, we would consider that energy gain "anomalous". But we cannot say in advance that there are NO untapped energy sources in nature to be uncovered -- do you agree we can not rule out novel (currently untapped) sources of energy?

From you earlier link:

Quote

"The PM enthusiasts claim that the SMOT increases the energy of a ball moving through it. That's the claim we must test. Friction can never be completely eliminated in any mechanical system. So we arrange a way to move a ball through the smot, then do the same motion through the same space without the smot in place. We then compare the performance with and without the SMOT. If conventional physics is applicable, the performance should be no better (and probably somewhat worse) with the SMOT than without it....

With the SMOT in place, a similar set of repeated measurements is made. The error limits are determined. If the performance in the two cases [control and SMOT] differs by an amount greater than the error limits, and the difference favors the SMOT, then we might have something going on that is worth further investigation. But if the difference is within the error limits, or if the difference favors the case without the SMOT, then the fantastic claims of the SMOT are not supported.

The "black box" labeled "SMOT" in the diagram may be replaced by any magical device that is claimed to boost or increase energy of material objects passing through it.

At least he allows for the experimental possibility that the SMOT may "boost or increase energy of material objects passing through it." Do you?

Unless you are saying that we now know EVERYTHING about Nature, no surprises left, no possibility of anomalous or untapped energy entering into the system...

tinman · « **Reply #424 on:** October 31, 2013, 02:37:46 PM »

Quote TK: Furthermore, in your nice diagrams where you use arrows to point out "energy transfer" you really are thinking of momentum, I think, not energy. Believe it or not, momentum is absolutely conserved, so when your ball makes the right-angle turn, you are actually causing the Earth to move a bit in the opposite direction.

Yes exactly,and this is what i said in my post about that drawing.We loose energy from the ball(because we loose momentum in the ball),as it is transfered to the ground.As the earth is so large,we wouldnt notice the energy transfer-just like the slingshot effect around a planet or moon.

This is the very thing i want to eliminate. I dont want the ball trying to move the earth,i want that energy there to escape the magnetic field at the end of the ramp.

The means to eliminate that right angle already exist in the smot device(the inclined ramp type).
If you watch the action taking place once the ball starts rolling,and note everything that is happening from begining to end,then you will see how we can do this,or maybe you wont. Either way,the means is there at no extra energy cost to the system.

JouleSeeker · « **Reply #425 on:** October 31, 2013, 02:39:33 PM »

TK -- I await your reply. Would also like to hear from MH and LibreE on this question -- the possibility of untapped or anomalous energy sources.

ICCF-18 - notice the subject of the conference, using the scientific method to study numerous reports of "anomalous heat" or energy.

I was there and gave a presentation. Great conference. Let me note here that Iwamura's claim of anomalous Cs to Pr transmutation (as deuterium gas passes through the cesium) has been replicated and confirmed by a Toyota team of scientists. Their results were recently published in J-JAP (Japanese Journal of Applied Physics).

LibreEnergia · « **Reply #426 on:** October 31, 2013, 09:28:59 PM »

Quote from: JouleSeeker on October 31, 2013, 02:39:33 PM

TK -- I await your reply. Would also like to hear from MH and LibreE on this question -- the possibility of untapped or anomalous energy sources.

I don't doubt that there are untapped energy sources waiting to be found. Where there is plausible experimental evidence and or theory then there is likely something real happening and it should be investigated as far as possible.

LENR or whatever acronym is fashionable these days would definitely fall into that category for me. Barring outright fraud there seems to be enough experimental evidence to confirm it and some theories proposed seem plausible.

However I would draw the line at devices such as SMOTs and other magnetic or gravity based devices. We know enough about the EFFECT of gravity and magnetism to completely discount such devices ever working.

It is true that questions remain about what gravity and magnetism actually ARE and how the various forces are transmitted.

If you were to propose a device that could alter the way space-time worked and offer a plausible explanation of how to achieve it then I certainly would not discount it out of hand. Barring that level of technology and understanding the chances of a SMOT working are precisely zero.

TinselKoala · « **Reply #427 on:** October 31, 2013, 10:09:46 PM »

Quote from: JouleSeeker on October 31, 2013, 02:27:00 PM

And that is why, if there is energy gain as the object passes through the SMOT, we would consider that energy gain "anomalous". But we cannot say in advance that there are NO untapped energy sources in nature to be uncovered -- do you agree we can not rule out novel (currently untapped) sources of energy?

Yes, I agree. My eyes are not yet so bad that I need the bold typeface though.

Quote

From you earlier link:
At least he allows for the experimental possibility that the SMOT may "boost or increase energy of material objects passing through it." Do you?

No, I do not. Magnetism and gravity and their interactions with ordinary matter are pretty darn well understood, and if you don't believe me, look up "Cassini mission" and explore the details of its navigation. Neither Gravity nor Magnetism is an energy _source_. And you, of all people on this thread, should know that much.

Quote

Unless you are saying that we now know EVERYTHING about Nature, no surprises left, no possibility of anomalous or untapped energy entering into the system...

Non sequitur.

TinselKoala · « **Reply #428 on:** October 31, 2013, 10:13:07 PM »

Quote from: LibreEnergia on October 31, 2013, 09:28:59 PM

I don't doubt that there are untapped energy sources waiting to be found. Where there is plausible experimental evidence and or theory then there is likely something real happening and it should be investigated as far as possible.

LENR or whatever acronym is fashionable these days would definitely fall into that category for me. Barring outright fraud there seems to be enough experimental evidence to confirm it and some theories proposed seem plausible.

However I would draw the line at devices such as SMOTs and other magnetic or gravity based devices. We know enough about the EFFECT of gravity and magnetism to completely discount such devices ever working.

It is true that questions remain about what gravity and magnetism actually ARE and how the various forces are transmitted.

If you were to propose a device that could alter the way space-time worked and offer a plausible explanation of how to achieve it then I certainly would not discount it out of hand. Barring that level of technology and understanding the chances of a SMOT working are precisely zero.

+++++ thumbs up.

(excluding Rossi and Defkalion from the "real" LENR research of course.)

TinselKoala · « **Reply #429 on:** October 31, 2013, 10:18:57 PM »

Quote from: MileHigh on October 31, 2013, 07:47:09 AM

This makes me think of how to measure the speed of the ball. Assume you don't use a camera and process video frames which is a hassle in itself. Is there a system that anybody has come up with? Perhaps it's already in the Arduino grab bag?

The first thing that comes to mind for me is an optical slot switch, connected an Arduino A/D converter, or perhaps a digital input, and some software. There may be serious alignment issues with an optical slot switch, I am not sure. Don't forget it's a ball and has a variable profile as you go off center. Perhaps there are "smart" optical slot switches where the ball passes through a series of parallel IR beams and so the alignment issue is not a factor.

You could also do something like a guitar pickup. It's also another op-amp project. You take a relay coil and carefully remove the core. Then you put a long and thin cylindrical magnet into the core. You connect the relay coil to an op-amp configured as a comparitor. Something very simple something like Conrad's circuit. Then when the ball rolls past the relay coil the slight change in the permeability of the immediate surroundings will induce a voltage in the coil and trigger the comparitor.

So when the ball rolls past the sensor coil it should trigger the comparitor. Obviously the faster the ball is moving the shorter the comparitor is triggered. So you connect the comparitor output to an Arduino digital input, turn the crank, and the Arduino displays meters per second on the display. You could easily use the hardware timer(s) built into the Arduino so that the software just has to read a count register, which makes life easier. There is the issue of calibration, and probably still the issue of alignment, to be determined. Even if it only made relative measurements, it would be a fun project.

It's a fun little challenge; how do you measure the speed of the ball in a cheap and reliable home-brew kid of way?

MileHigh

Optical sensing is the best, because there is no chance of perturbing the system this way. It is also simpler. Just a phototransistor and LED is all you need (the rest of the opamp circuit is of course also required, or Arduino can do it with almost no extra components). Optical triggers can be arranged to trigger on the rising or trailing edge of the shadow of the ball. As long as the mounting of the sensor is rigid and the ball isn't jumping up and down as it rolls thru the gate, there isn't any problem with consistent edge-triggering. Remember my vids demonstrating the optical trigger/delay system with the GenRad Strobotac? I'm not even looking at an opaque object, just water drops, and the system is precise. My arduino-controlled magnetic levitation apparatus also uses optical triggering on the edge of the shadow of the levitated object.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xkiGTWODERo

MileHigh · « **Reply #430 on:** October 31, 2013, 11:17:15 PM »

JouleSeeker:

For the anomalous energy question, I also agree with LibreEnergia's comments. I am really hoping for a positive "shake out" in the LENR realm, and so far things look promising. However, there still is not a "critical mass" of bulletproof evidence yet in my opinion. I qualify my statement by saying that I don't actively follow the story. You posting of the Toyota lab research was a pleasant surprise for me. I am intentionally being very conservative in my voicing of my opinion here. Sometimes for big issues I get very conservative. If the science is real, then that information has to eventually be disseminated in the scientific community and then industry. I think that somebody has to get a real commercial project going to bring everyone around. For example, if you used an LENR reactor to provide heat to some industrial process in a real factory then people would take notice. Or use an LENR reactor to heat the cargo hold of a giant ship. It could then spawn a whole new industry within two years. It's exciting to think about the fact that the basic elements are so abundant such that our energy problems could be solved for the foreseeable future.

MileHigh

ramset · « **Reply #431 on:** October 31, 2013, 11:26:02 PM »

Tinsel
Quote
""Neither Gravity nor Magnetism is an energy _source_.""
--------------

All that would be requiered to change that would be a new discovery ....
perhaps an effective shielding or means to Focus either?

Sort of like saying water is not a fuel........

The discovery of LENR has shown we can harvest energy from the world around us in ways we never thought possible?

As well Gravity and magnetism....We have no idea what secrets lay hidden within these fields and how we may use them!
There is __NOTHING__ on this planet that is not effected by these fields!

Of one thing you can be certain Your statement above will not stand the test of time!

Thx
Chet

MileHigh · « **Reply #432 on:** October 31, 2013, 11:39:21 PM »

TK:

That looked like 1/2 of the Nomad probe. lol

I agonize over the speed measurement issues because I envision a portable test jig that you can move around on the track to measure speeds in different places. So how precisely does it have to be positioned and stuff like that.

I uploaded a picture of an air track in case some people have never seen one. Dance on air like Fred Astaire.

MileHigh

TechStuf · « **Reply #433 on:** October 31, 2013, 11:40:01 PM »

Dead on, Chet.

Such is the cry of the jaded ones. And if discoveries are allowed to proliferate, rather than change, and to protect their intellectual fragility, they will simply adapt their rationalizations to include such explanations as, "it's still not an energy "source" as the energy is coming from somewhere else"....secure in the circular "knowledge" that we will never get to the source of it all.

Yet, according to Highly placed sources....the source of it all is coming to us.

We'll see what we'll see....

TS

MileHigh · « **Reply #434 on:** October 31, 2013, 11:47:38 PM »

Another pic of interest.

I remember calling these the "equations of linear motion." There is a newfangled name for them, the "SUVAT" equations. I feel like I am not cool anymore. I barely understand all the hand signs that the kids make these days.

For you SMOT people, if you are not familiar with the equations in the attached pic, then you owe it to your self to look this stuff up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equations_of_motion

News:

User Menu

Author Topic: Building a self looping "SMOT" (Read 298566 times)

TinselKoala

Re: Building a self looping "SMOT"

tinman

Re: Building a self looping "SMOT"

TinselKoala

Re: Building a self looping "SMOT"

JouleSeeker

Re: Building a self looping "SMOT"

tinman

Re: Building a self looping "SMOT"

JouleSeeker

Re: Building a self looping "SMOT"

LibreEnergia

Re: Building a self looping "SMOT"

TinselKoala

Re: Building a self looping "SMOT"

TinselKoala

Re: Building a self looping "SMOT"

TinselKoala

Re: Building a self looping "SMOT"

MileHigh

Re: Building a self looping "SMOT"

ramset

Re: Building a self looping "SMOT"

MileHigh

Re: Building a self looping "SMOT"

TechStuf

Re: Building a self looping "SMOT"

MileHigh

Re: Building a self looping "SMOT"