Author Topic: Ring Magnet SMOT (Read 19190 times)

vineet_kiran · « **on:** September 19, 2016, 09:54:22 AM »

Video at :

https://youtu.be/EfOPBXeE6TQ

Any thoughts?

rstergar · « **Reply #1 on:** September 19, 2016, 08:26:43 PM »

It will not work... $:-\$

vineet_kiran · « **Reply #2 on:** September 20, 2016, 05:26:33 AM »

Quote from: rstergar on September 19, 2016, 08:26:43 PM

It will not work... $:-\$

Why?

rstergar · « **Reply #3 on:** September 20, 2016, 08:45:22 AM »

try and you will see...

the last one will attract it to much and will stick to it...

vineet_kiran · « **Reply #4 on:** September 20, 2016, 09:09:08 AM »

The gap between ring magnet and small magnets above it should be corresponding to the weight and inertia of ring magnet. If last magnet is too close to ring magnet, naturally it attracts. As seen from my video, ring magnet is moving out of last magnet.

Low-Q · « **Reply #5 on:** September 20, 2016, 09:39:14 AM »

Quote from: vineet_kiran on September 20, 2016, 09:09:08 AM

The gap between ring magnet and small magnets above it should be corresponding to the weight and inertia of ring magnet. If last magnet is too close to ring magnet, naturally it attracts. As seen from my video, ring magnet is moving out of last magnet.

The ring magnet can escape if you apply energy to the array by removing it when the ring magnet approach the end of that array. You do not only lift the weight of the array, but also fight the attraction between the ring magnet and the array.
A SMOT is a fixed construction. If you use energy from the kinetic energy in the rolling ring magnet to lift the array away, the SMOT will still not work. Because the kinetic energy that applies to the ring magnet comes from the attraction between the array and the ring magnet. They give and take the exact same amount.

Vidar

rstergar · « **Reply #6 on:** September 20, 2016, 09:55:30 AM »

yes
and this simple 2D motor with magnets will not work...maybe if they are coded magnets https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W9-iF67UxXk
...we must figure out something in 3D... it must have multi layer rotors and maybe inner and outer stator...
good luck

gyulasun · « **Reply #7 on:** September 20, 2016, 12:20:27 PM »

Quote from: Low-Q on September 20, 2016, 09:39:14 AM

The ring magnet can escape if you apply energy to the array by removing it when the ring magnet approach the end of that array. You do not only lift the weight of the array, but also fight the attraction between the ring magnet and the array.
A SMOT is a fixed construction. If you use energy from the kinetic energy in the rolling ring magnet to lift the array away, the SMOT will still not work. Because the kinetic energy that applies to the ring magnet comes from the attraction between the array and the ring magnet. They give and take the exact same amount.

Vidar

Hi Vidar,

The problem with the SMOT (be it built in any shape, with steel ball or ring magnet or ball magnet etc.) has always been to arrange the moving object to be able to return to the entry point of the SMOT gate i.e. looping.

The escape from the 'side wall' magnets or from a magnet array can be solved, it has been solved.

Naudin showed two SMOT ramps linked one after the other here:
http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/s102jln.htm

Naudin performed some measurements too: http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/smotnrgt.htm
The video link at the bottom of his page is outdated already, here is a working link to the same (right click and download for yourself):
http://jnaudin.free.fr/atelab/videos/smotnrg320.avi from his French pages: http://jnaudin.free.fr/atelab/index.htm

So the ring magnet in vineet_kiran's test can surely escape from the attracting top magnets row. The task is to find an arrangement where the ring magnet can return to the entrance of the top magnets row...
for instance what if the ring magnet is placed on the edge of a rotor plate and the row of the small magnets are arranged in half (or quarter) circles above or below the circular path of the ring magnet?
If the ring magnet is able to escape in the test shown in vineet_kiran video (and it can escape for sure) like the ball escapes in Naudin or others SMOT tests, then the circular movement may also be a possibility with a "circularly arranged ring magnet SMOT setup".

Gyula

EDIT When I mentioned the placement of the ring magnet onto a rotor plate to possibly obtain a rotary setup instead of a linear one, I did not realize vineet_kiran already mentioned the circular track for his setup at the bottom of his PDF file, sorry for this.

Gabriele · « **Reply #8 on:** September 20, 2016, 01:55:18 PM »

Hello! If we arrange a 300K Km smots arrays around the eart,linearly,it should work... what do you think?

Low-Q · « **Reply #9 on:** September 20, 2016, 04:05:47 PM »

Quote from: gyulasun on September 20, 2016, 12:20:27 PM

Hi Vidar,

The problem with the SMOT (be it built in any shape, with steel ball or ring magnet or ball magnet etc.) has always been to arrange the moving object to be able to return to the entry point of the SMOT gate i.e. looping.

The escape from the 'side wall' magnets or from a magnet array can be solved, it has been solved.

Naudin showed two SMOT ramps linked one after the other here:
http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/s102jln.htm

Naudin performed some measurements too: http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/smotnrgt.htm
The video link at the bottom of his page is outdated already, here is a working link to the same (right click and download for yourself):
http://jnaudin.free.fr/atelab/videos/smotnrg320.avi from his French pages: http://jnaudin.free.fr/atelab/index.htm

So the ring magnet in vineet_kiran's test can surely escape from the attracting top magnets row. The task is to find an arrangement where the ring magnet can return to the entrance of the top magnets row...
for instance what if the ring magnet is placed on the edge of a rotor plate and the row of the small magnets are arranged in half (or quarter) circles above or below the circular path of the ring magnet?
If the ring magnet is able to escape in the test shown in vineet_kiran video (and it can escape for sure) like the ball escapes in Naudin or others SMOT tests, then the circular movement may also be a possibility with a "circularly arranged ring magnet SMOT setup".

Gyula

In the video he drops the ball from the input when the magnets are further apart. Ofcourse that will change the outcome. I would assume that tests like this is not relevant to prove that the concept provides over unity.

Vidar

gyulasun · « **Reply #10 on:** September 20, 2016, 09:09:42 PM »

Quote from: Low-Q on September 20, 2016, 04:05:47 PM

In the video he drops the ball from the input when the magnets are further apart. Ofcourse that will change the outcome. I would assume that tests like this is not relevant to prove that the concept provides over unity.

Vidar

Hej Vidar,

You seem to misunderstand the test...

1) The ball had a h starting height at the input of the SMOT and when it went through the SMOT and fell into the entrance of the ramp it covered a certain distance up the ramp, ok?

2) Then Naudin placed the input of the SMOT to the entrance of the ramp and let the ball drop onto the start of the ramp and the ball covered a little less distance up the ramp with respect to the case when it fell out from the output of the SMOT, ok?

It was important to insure that the ball should arrive at the ramp entrance from the same starting height it had at the input of the SMOT, this way the two potential energies for the ball were insured to be the same for both test cases.

And the bottom line is: the distance covered by the ball was longer when it entered the ramp from the output of the SMOT than without going through the SMOT, ok?

The magnets were indeed further apart when he dropped the ball from input of the SMOT (after he flipped 180 degree the SMOT) but this had nothing to do with the potential energy of the ball, it did not change because Naudin insured the same height for the direct ramp entrance it had at the SMOT input.

When the ball went through the SMOT and left its output, the ball had obtained certain kinetic energy and it must have had higher potential energy with respect to the input of the SMOT because the height of the SMOT at its output was higher than its height at its input.

It is interesting our brain tries to deny what we can see with our very eyes.

Gyula

Low-Q · « **Reply #11 on:** September 20, 2016, 10:05:03 PM »

Gyula

Naudin flipped the ramp magnets 90° outwards when he tested the SMOT 180°. This will change the conditions of the experiment.
This experiment is not relevant because of that. He did not show the difference in potential energy by keeping the ramp magnets unmodified - with respect to the magnets locations on the ramp.
Why did he put the SMOT ramp 180° if he did change its conditions for the second experiment? In my mind, it does not make sense.

However, I choose to deny any claimed proof as long the tested device is modified in the second half of the experiment.

He should test the ball without the ramp at all, then with the ramp correctly and 180 degrees. He didn't.

A bulletproof experiment is to make several ramps in a row, so close to eachother that the ball has to go as short distance as possible before entering the next ramp - if it get that far. If the ball continues to the next ramp, and you successfully loop all the ramps, and the ball is still going "forever", you got proof.
In that case with a series of SMOTs, my wildest guess is that the ball wil stop before it reach the top of the first ramp.

Vidar

gyulasun · « **Reply #12 on:** September 21, 2016, 12:02:10 AM »

Vidar,

Unfortunately, I used the word 'ramp' to mean only the glass pipe in which the ball rolls upwards (after falling from the SMOT in both tests) to cover a certain distance. Sorry for this, and I see you use the 'ramp' word only to refer to the SMOT magnets and the SMOT platform the magnets are placed on. So please read over my earlier post to consider this, ok?

For the second experiment shown in the video the SMOT magnets were not needed at all, this is why he turned the SMOT platform 180 degree first, (video time 0:23), then he flipped the magnets 90 degree outwards (video time 0:31) and placed the ball to the edge of the SMOT platform, i.e. to the same height it was in the first experiment when the ball went up the SMOT ramp, ok?

So in the second experiment, the SMOT magnets were not involved, only the very edge of the SMOT platform was used (identified as SMOT 'input' in the first experiment) to insure the same height for the ball to see how long it can go up in the glass tube without any magnet influencing it.

Please try to understand what I am saying, you keep thinking that Naudin changed the conditions for the second experiment, well what he changed was NO any effect on the distance he received from letting the ball drop in the second experiment and cover less distance in the glass pipe, ok?

Naudin did test the ball (the way I mentioned in my previous sentence) without the SMOT ramp at all, the only reason he did not place (say 1 meter) away the SMOT platform with the magnets was to use the edge of the platform to insure the same height for dropping the ball into the glass pipe, thus providing the ball the same starting height it had at the input of the SMOT ramp in the first experiment. The magnets were not involved in the 2nd experiment.

Here is a two SMOT ramp linking experiment: http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/s102jln.htm

Here is a three SMOT ramp linking experiment: http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/3smtlnk.htm

No, he did not show a full loop where the ball returns to the very input of the first SMOT ramp from the output of the 3rd (or more) SMOT ramp.
I guess you will say then that there is no proof for excess energy what Naudin did get as per his measurements show, see the bottom of his page here: http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/smotnrgt.htm

Webby1: The effect of Mr Hand was present in both experiments, in both cases the ball was placed to the same height by Mr Hand.

Gyula

vineet_kiran · « **Reply #13 on:** September 21, 2016, 02:09:33 AM »

Quote from: webby1 on September 20, 2016, 10:58:46 PM

The first magnet will actually pull back on the ring magnet, with less force than the second one that is lower BUT that force reduces the Force of acceleration the ring magnet receives in the forward direction,, same with the 3rd magnet compared to the second,, and so on.

I agree with it. Since the array is inclined, the ring magnet experiences greater force in forward direction hence its acceleration goes on increasing after passing every top magnet.

The question here is that whether the final acceleration gained by ring magnet is enough to take it out of the last magnet?

If mass of the magnet, angle of inclination of the top array and strengths of magnets are correctly designed, the acceleration gained by ring magnet definitely takes it out of the last magnet. Once the ring magnet comes out of first array it has to be allowed into second similar array to repeat the same type of motion. If several such arrays are placed in a circular track, the ring magnet should execute perpetual motion.

Low-Q · « **Reply #14 on:** September 21, 2016, 08:20:59 AM »

In the second experiment, the ramp magnets are involved to some extent - because they are there. If he did not need that SMOT-ramp at all, he could likely removed the magnets completely and used a magnetless ramp. In that case the experiment will fail anyways.
What he should do next is not to tilt those magnets at all. Only then you can measure the energy involved for the ball to enter the SMOT. If he do not change the SMOT ramp, I am quite sure the ball will roll up that tube just as far as in the first experiment.

The experiment is not reliable. Really.

Vidar

News:

User Menu

Author Topic: Ring Magnet SMOT (Read 19190 times)

vineet_kiran

Ring Magnet SMOT

rstergar

Re: Ring Magnet SMOT

vineet_kiran

Re: Ring Magnet SMOT

rstergar

Re: Ring Magnet SMOT

vineet_kiran

Re: Ring Magnet SMOT

Low-Q

Re: Ring Magnet SMOT

rstergar

Re: Ring Magnet SMOT

gyulasun

Re: Ring Magnet SMOT

Gabriele

Re: Ring Magnet SMOT

Low-Q

Re: Ring Magnet SMOT

gyulasun

Re: Ring Magnet SMOT

Low-Q

Re: Ring Magnet SMOT

gyulasun

Re: Ring Magnet SMOT

vineet_kiran

Re: Ring Magnet SMOT

Low-Q

Re: Ring Magnet SMOT