# Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

## Mechanical free energy devices => mechanic => Topic started by: vineet_kiran on September 19, 2016, 09:54:22 AM

Title: Ring Magnet SMOT
Post by: vineet_kiran on September 19, 2016, 09:54:22 AM

Video at :

https://youtu.be/EfOPBXeE6TQ

Any thoughts?
Title: Re: Ring Magnet SMOT
Post by: rstergar on September 19, 2016, 08:26:43 PM
It will not work...  :-\
Title: Re: Ring Magnet SMOT
Post by: vineet_kiran on September 20, 2016, 05:26:33 AM
It will not work...  :-\

Why?
Title: Re: Ring Magnet SMOT
Post by: rstergar 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...

Title: Re: Ring Magnet SMOT
Post by: 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.
Title: Re: Ring Magnet SMOT
Post by: Low-Q on September 20, 2016, 09:39:14 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
Title: Re: Ring Magnet SMOT
Post by: rstergar 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  ;)
Title: Re: Ring Magnet SMOT
Post by: gyulasun on September 20, 2016, 12:20:27 PM
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 (http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/s102jln.htm)

Naudin performed some measurements too: http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/smotnrgt.htm (http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/smotnrgt.htm)
http://jnaudin.free.fr/atelab/videos/smotnrg320.avi (http://jnaudin.free.fr/atelab/videos/smotnrg320.avi)  from his French pages: http://jnaudin.free.fr/atelab/index.htm (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.
Title: Re: Ring Magnet SMOT
Post by: Gabriele 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?
Title: Re: Ring Magnet SMOT
Post by: Low-Q on September 20, 2016, 04:05:47 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 (http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/s102jln.htm)

Naudin performed some measurements too: http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/smotnrgt.htm (http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/smotnrgt.htm)
http://jnaudin.free.fr/atelab/videos/smotnrg320.avi (http://jnaudin.free.fr/atelab/videos/smotnrg320.avi)  from his French pages: http://jnaudin.free.fr/atelab/index.htm (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
Title: Re: Ring Magnet SMOT
Post by: gyulasun on September 20, 2016, 09:09:42 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
Title: Re: Ring Magnet SMOT
Post by: Low-Q 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
Title: Re: Ring Magnet SMOT
Post by: gyulasun 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 (http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/s102jln.htm)

Here is a three SMOT ramp linking experiment: http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/3smtlnk.htm (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 (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
Title: Re: Ring Magnet SMOT
Post by: vineet_kiran on September 21, 2016, 02:09:33 AM

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.
Title: Re: Ring Magnet SMOT
Post by: Low-Q 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
Title: Re: Ring Magnet SMOT
Post by: Floor on September 21, 2016, 02:22:26 PM
@vineet_ Kiran

I am so glad to see that you are still at it.

OU designs require the ultimate in bullet proof, proof.

Personally I think it is possible  to accomplish what you are working on.

If you can transition your magnet array, into something like the type of array
presented in the  Thin Magnetic Ramp experiment topic  (here at OU. com.) (combine yours with it).

cheers
floor
Title: Re: Ring Magnet SMOT
Post by: gyulasun on September 21, 2016, 08:20:27 PM
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

Vidar,

You still seem to have not understood Naudin's tests. Ask yourself how the ramp magnets placed sideways to a steel ball could influence pro or con the 'just about to fall' ball??  Because the ball was deliberately placed by hand to the very edge of the ramp and carefully let it fall into the glass pipe. In this scenario the magnets have no any 'cheeting' effect pro or con: the ball was simply let fall down by its own weight after Naudin carefully put it to the very edge of the ramp.

Please when you have a few minutes, go through the test described in this link: http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/smotnrgt.htm (http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/smotnrgt.htm)  it is very clear. It compares two potential energy levels obtained by the ball when Test 1 and Test 2 is done. One such energy for the ball is when the ball falls into the glass pipe from the output of the SMOT. The other energy level for the ball is when the ball is let freely fall into the glass pipe from the input side of the SMOT. The input side is chosen to insure the same height for the free fall the ball had in test 1 when it started to go through the SMOT magnet ramp.

Regardless of whether this setup shown by Naudin could be looped or not, your objections are not relevant.  And if you close your eyes on the obviously higher potential energy result when the ball fell from the output of the SMOT versus the one where the ball was let fall from the (180° turned) SMOT platform's input side just by normal free fall, it is up to you.

Gyula
Title: Re: Ring Magnet SMOT
Post by: Low-Q on September 21, 2016, 11:09:12 PM
Vidar,

You still seem to have not understood Naudin's tests. Ask yourself how the ramp magnets placed sideways to a steel ball could influence pro or con the 'just about to fall' ball??  Because the ball was deliberately placed by hand to the very edge of the ramp and carefully let it fall into the glass pipe. In this scenario the magnets have no any 'cheeting' effect pro or con: the ball was simply let fall down by its own weight after Naudin carefully put it to the very edge of the ramp.

Please when you have a few minutes, go through the test described in this link: http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/smotnrgt.htm (http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/smotnrgt.htm)  it is very clear. It compares two potential energy levels obtained by the ball when Test 1 and Test 2 is done. One such energy for the ball is when the ball falls into the glass pipe from the output of the SMOT. The other energy level for the ball is when the ball is let freely fall into the glass pipe from the input side of the SMOT. The input side is chosen to insure the same height for the free fall the ball had in test 1 when it started to go through the SMOT magnet ramp.

Regardless of whether this setup shown by Naudin could be looped or not, your objections are not relevant.  And if you close your eyes on the obviously higher potential energy result when the ball fell from the output of the SMOT versus the one where the ball was let fall from the (180° turned) SMOT platform's input side just by normal free fall, it is up to you.

Gyula
"The input side is chosen to insure the same height for the free fall the ball had in test 1 when it started to go through the SMOT magnet ramp."
This is where the problem occurs. This is exactly what he wants the audience to believe!
However, aside from insuring correct hight, he changes the SMOT in the second experiment, instead of letting the magnets be in the correct position all the time.
I understand that he want the audience to believe he wants to insure the correct hight, but at the same time he also fools you, by you ignoring the changes in the SMOT's magnet configuration. This change is not irrelevant. It has everything to do with the outcome.

Why?
Because the field outside the gap between the magnets are repelling the ball. Yes, repelling. This force will accelerate the ball.
This repelling field outside the gaps is stronger and has shorter range the closer the magnets are. When you increase the distance between the magnets by flipping them away 90 degrees of each other, this force weakens in both ends, and do not longer provide the same repelling force.

What you, and so many others do not (want to) understand, is that the ball would roll just as far as in the first experiment if the magnets was not flipped away in the second experiment. Remember that the repelling forces at the input is weaker, but has greater range due to the wider gap. This corresponds perfectly to the necessary input energy needed for the ball to enter the SMOT in the first place.
Increasing the gap manually from one experiment to the other, invalidates the experiment completely.

Permanent magnet carry a conservative field, and cannot by any chance provide some of its potential energy into the surroundings without loosing its own potential energy. The field must change, and to change a magnetic field you need energy input - such as rearranging the magnets by hand.

Vidar
Title: Re: Ring Magnet SMOT
Post by: gyulasun on September 22, 2016, 12:43:14 AM
"The input side is chosen to insure the same height for the free fall the ball had in test 1 when it started to go through the SMOT magnet ramp."
This is where the problem occurs. This is exactly what he wants the audience to believe!
However, aside from insuring correct hight, he changes the SMOT in the second experiment, instead of letting the magnets be in the correct position all the time.
I understand that he want the audience to believe he wants to insure the correct hight, but at the same time he also fools you, by you ignoring the changes in the SMOT's magnet configuration. This change is not irrelevant. It has everything to do with the outcome.

Why?
Because the field outside the gap between the magnets are repelling the ball. Yes, repelling. This force will accelerate the ball.
This repelling field outside the gaps is stronger and has shorter range the closer the magnets are. When you increase the distance between the magnets by flipping them away 90 degrees of each other, this force weakens in both ends, and do not longer provide the same repelling force.

What you, and so many others do not (want to) understand, is that the ball would roll just as far as in the first experiment if the magnets was not flipped away in the second experiment. Remember that the repelling forces at the input is weaker, but has greater range due to the wider gap. This corresponds perfectly to the necessary input energy needed for the ball to enter the SMOT in the first place.
Increasing the gap manually from one experiment to the other, invalidates the experiment completely.

Permanent magnet carry a conservative field, and cannot by any chance provide some of its potential energy into the surroundings without loosing its own potential energy. The field must change, and to change a magnetic field you need energy input - such as rearranging the magnets by hand.

Vidar

Vidar,

How can permanent magnets placed at least 5 cm away from the steel ball repel the steel ball?   Please explain.

Gyula
Title: Re: Ring Magnet SMOT
Post by: vineet_kiran on September 22, 2016, 02:04:27 AM

@webby1

What if we use half little magnets on the top array or cover the right half of little magnet with a shield?
Title: Re: Ring Magnet SMOT
Post by: Low-Q on September 22, 2016, 08:23:01 AM
Vidar,

How can permanent magnets placed at least 5 cm away from the steel ball repel the steel ball?   Please explain.

Gyula
A magnetic field will never stop interact with other magnetic objects no matter how far away they are. Ofcourse the interaction will weaken square to the distance.
In the experiment, as the magnets are flipped 90° outwards, it corresponds to a difference from maybe 3cm to 5cm apart, if the cross section of the magnet bars ar 1x1cm and they are initially 3cm apart at the input.
This increased distance will generally weaken the magnetic interaction by a factor of 0.36, and therfor reduce the extra push by a similar factor. So the difference in the displayed output energy of some 400-450uJoule seems reasonable, but the difference would be 0 if he just kept the magnets where they are suppose to be.
The second experiment is suppose to display the required energy input of the ball for allowing the ball to enter the SMOT input, so he should not touch those magnets at all. Flipping the magnets away in that second experiment will invalidate this due to the explanation above.

This experiment is easy to replicate, so anyone can do this same experiment correctly and prove that a SMOT will fail as a selfrunner as a closed loop.

Vidar
Title: Re: Ring Magnet SMOT
Post by: gyulasun on September 23, 2016, 01:23:20 AM
A magnetic field will never stop interact with other magnetic objects no matter how far away they are. Ofcourse the interaction will weaken square to the distance.
In the experiment, as the magnets are flipped 90° outwards, it corresponds to a difference from maybe 3cm to 5cm apart, if the cross section of the magnet bars ar 1x1cm and they are initially 3cm apart at the input.
This increased distance will generally weaken the magnetic interaction by a factor of 0.36, and therfor reduce the extra push by a similar factor. So the difference in the displayed output energy of some 400-450uJoule seems reasonable, but the difference would be 0 if he just kept the magnets where they are suppose to be.
The second experiment is suppose to display the required energy input of the ball for allowing the ball to enter the SMOT input, so he should not touch those magnets at all. Flipping the magnets away in that second experiment will invalidate this due to the explanation above.

This experiment is easy to replicate, so anyone can do this same experiment correctly and prove that a SMOT will fail as a selfrunner as a closed loop.

Vidar

Vidar,

I understand that at the entrance of a normal SMOT gate there may be a repel force, however this is valid for the correctly positioned magnetic poles, N-S on the SMOT ramp. But Naudin flipped the magnets 90° so the repel force simply had to diminish to near zero due to the lack of the N-S attract forces ruling in the normal unflipped case.

One more thing to consider when estimating possible flux field strengths for the ball in Test 2 is that Naudin had ferrite magnets which were backed by steel keepers along the outer sides of the magnet rows, see here: http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/smot1jln.htm (http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/smot1jln.htm)  When you flip such magnet array 90° up as Naudin did in the video, your strongly guessed numbers above surely become even less.

However, here is the catch which needs no any calculation you improvised out of thin air above.  Pure logic involved in this explanation.

It is clear a SMOT is able to move a steel ball up from point A to point B, where there is a height difference: point B is at a higher point with respect to a base line than point A, right? There is a distance between A and B horizontally of course, this is not important for this explanation.

Now if you accept that a SMOT is able to 'lift' an object from say 30 mm height to 35 mm height, then all you need to do is to realise that this object is able to cover a longer distance when going up a glass pipe after it has fallen from 35 mm versus the case when it has been dropped from only 30 mm, right?  (Notice that in case the ball falls out from a SMOT's output it can have kinetic energy too.)

No matter how small the height difference between the input and output of a SMOT ramp, the ball will always fall into the glass pipe from higher height at the SMOT output, ok?  hence the ball can always have higher potential energy when it falls from a SMOT output versus the case when you simply drop the ball from a lower height into the same glass pipe  (the lower height is equal to the height at the SMOT input wrt to the same base line referred to earlier).

Remember, I do not mean with this logical explanation what you strongly deny may be true,  i.e. that a SMOT could be arranged in a closed loop, this is not proved yet openly.  This explanation simply means for the time being that permanent magnets can do work in a SMOT setup, this you also denied in your previous mails.

Gyula
Title: Re: Ring Magnet SMOT
Post by: Floor on September 23, 2016, 02:33:43 AM
Check out this video set

very great magnet hieght gain .

regards
floor
Title: Re: Ring Magnet SMOT
Post by: gyulasun on September 23, 2016, 11:06:01 AM
Check out this video set

very great magnet hieght gain .

regards
floor

Hi Floor,

Thanks and I have followed youtube user 'gilbondfac' on several of his tests.  Here is his recent demo on this topic:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MMmqVDbScAY  you may have seen it.

Gyula
Title: Re: Ring Magnet SMOT
Post by: Low-Q on September 23, 2016, 03:46:30 PM
Vidar,

I understand that at the entrance of a normal SMOT gate there may be a repel force, however this is valid for the correctly positioned magnetic poles, N-S on the SMOT ramp. But Naudin flipped the magnets 90° so the repel force simply had to diminish to near zero due to the lack of the N-S attract forces ruling in the normal unflipped case.

One more thing to consider when estimating possible flux field strengths for the ball in Test 2 is that Naudin had ferrite magnets which were backed by steel keepers along the outer sides of the magnet rows, see here: http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/smot1jln.htm (http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/smot1jln.htm)  When you flip such magnet array 90° up as Naudin did in the video, your strongly guessed numbers above surely become even less.

However, here is the catch which needs no any calculation you improvised out of thin air above.  Pure logic involved in this explanation.

It is clear a SMOT is able to move a steel ball up from point A to point B, where there is a height difference: point B is at a higher point with respect to a base line than point A, right? There is a distance between A and B horizontally of course, this is not important for this explanation.

Now if you accept that a SMOT is able to 'lift' an object from say 30 mm height to 35 mm height, then all you need to do is to realise that this object is able to cover a longer distance when going up a glass pipe after it has fallen from 35 mm versus the case when it has been dropped from only 30 mm, right?  (Notice that in case the ball falls out from a SMOT's output it can have kinetic energy too.)

No matter how small the height difference between the input and output of a SMOT ramp, the ball will always fall into the glass pipe from higher height at the SMOT output, ok?  hence the ball can always have higher potential energy when it falls from a SMOT output versus the case when you simply drop the ball from a lower height into the same glass pipe  (the lower height is equal to the height at the SMOT input wrt to the same base line referred to earlier).

Remember, I do not mean with this logical explanation what you strongly deny may be true,  i.e. that a SMOT could be arranged in a closed loop, this is not proved yet openly.  This explanation simply means for the time being that permanent magnets can do work in a SMOT setup, this you also denied in your previous mails.

Gyula
I can partly agree with you in the first paragraph. Flipping magnets like that will not longer influence the ball the same way. But remember that the ball falls vertically and almost angular to the bar magnets. And flipping the magnets so they point S and N upwards at left and right side respectively, will therfor attract the ball instead of repelling it. I did some simulations of the situation that proves this. However, the magnets are not able to hold the weight of the ball.
What I try to explain, is that the required input energy must be measured with an unmodified SMOT. Dropping the ball like Naudin did in the second experiment, ignores the repulsion forces at the input, by adding attraction, and put the magnets further apart. That is not the correct way to do the experiment, and the ball will ofcourse roll shorter.

The ball have a gravitional potential as well as a magnetic potential in both input and output of the SMOT. The hight of the ball at the output is unchanged in both experiments, so the gravitational potential energy in the ball is unchanged. So far so good.
However, if you change the magnetic potential at the output, and keep the correct magnetic potential at the input, you will not longer measure the correct output.
I still think he should remain the SMOT unchanged in both experiments. Any change of conditions during an experiment will unddoubtedly invalidate the experiment. The ball rolls upwards with respect to gravity, but not with respect of the magnetic forces. The added potential energy the ball receive at the top of the SMOT is already added by Naudin when the ball is placed inside the SMOT input.

I think I must build this thing to show you :D

Vidar
Title: Re: Ring Magnet SMOT
Post by: gyulasun on September 24, 2016, 01:08:32 AM
....
I still think he should remain the SMOT unchanged in both experiments. Any change of conditions during an experiment will unddoubtedly invalidate the experiment. The ball rolls upwards with respect to gravity, but not with respect of the magnetic forces.
The added potential energy the ball receive at the top of the SMOT is already added by Naudin when the ball is placed inside the SMOT input.
....

">The ball rolls upwards with respect to gravity, but not with respect of the magnetic forces."

No. The magnetic forces performed their work when the ball went through the SMOT setup, here the magnets worked against gravity this way the ball obtained a few mm extra height: this is what made the few cm longer travel in the glass pipe versus the case in the 2nd experiment.

">The added potential energy the ball receive at the top of the SMOT is already added by Naudin when the ball is placed inside the SMOT input."

No. Naudin did not add any more potential energy in the 2nd experiment he did when he placed the ball to the input of the SMOT in the 1st experiement. Potential energy Mr Hand added to the ball was the same in both experiements due to observing equal heights (this was the only reason for Naudin to turn the SMOT platform 180° to have the same height for the ball directly in front the glass pipe).

Gyula
Title: Re: Ring Magnet SMOT
Post by: Low-Q on September 24, 2016, 08:23:14 AM
You still forget that the SMOTs normal entrance is part of the complete cycle. Dropping the ball from the same hight after he turned the SMOT 180° is an excellent way to measure this, but then the SMOT cannot be changed to do so correctly.

In normal operation the SMOT can lift the ball via the incline because the incline is not steep, and the SMOT compensate this lift by using longer displacement and longer time. The highest potential energy of the ball, is when the ball is at the SMOTs entrance, and not when it is dropped from the end of the SMOT!
It appears that the ball has gained potential energy as it rolls up the SMOT, while it's not. What you see visually might make assumtions that the ball roll upwards, but not with respect to all the forces involved.

In case of a SMOT, the mechanism is mind boggling to watch, but it does not produce excess energy. It just appears to do so visually because the observer is only affected by gravity, and no other forces that would affect the observers perception.

You must analyze the situation from the balls perspective, not by your own visual perspective. If you do that, you can visualize a ball lifted upon a hill by Mr. Hand, providing potential energy to the ball. Let the ball roll down the hill (along the SMOT). Now, the ball has kinetic energy due to its motion. Then you loop the track back to the starting point. Now the ball must use its kinetic energy to climb the hill untill its rest at the top of the same hill it was dropped from.

I have attached a picture that visualize the balls perspective with respect to all forces involved. This drawing are apparently incorrect, because our perceptions does not involve magnetic forces - only gravity. However, a correct comparison of the forces involved.

Vidar
Title: Re: Ring Magnet SMOT
Post by: gyulasun on September 24, 2016, 11:42:32 PM
You still forget that the SMOTs normal entrance is part of the complete cycle. Dropping the ball from the same hight after he turned the SMOT 180° is an excellent way to measure this, but then the SMOT cannot be changed to do so correctly.....

Vidar, the SMOT shown by Naudin can be changed after the ball left the output of the SMOT like Naudin changed it because the effect of the change on the ball's energy level (either repulsion or attraction) is extremely small, practically it can be fully neglected in his shown setup.
This is because the order of influence must have been in the femto or picoJoule range due to the 90° flipped ceramic magnets  and the actual distances involved while Naudin measured the potential energy levels in the few milliJoule range in his tests ( http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/smot1jln.htm (http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/smot1jln.htm) ).

Regarding SMOTs that are built with strong Neo magnets, the influence of the stronger fields on the ball after it leaves the SMOT output may be higher than with ceramic magnets, this may or may not manifest in the distance covered by the ball in the glass pipe, so I do not fully reject this with Neo magnets on the SMOT ramp.

But I still do not think though that the stronger magnetic fields from the Neo magnets would change the game i.e. the ball would not cover higher rolling distance in the glass pipe when it falls down from  higher height at the SMOT output versus the case when the ball is simply dropped into the same pipe from the lower height the SMOT has at its entrance.

Vidar, whatever you write on the SMOT that it does not lift an object (i.e. a ball for instance) to a higher height (hence insuring higher potential energy for it at its output versus its input), whatever fancy drawings you make on the potential energy, these do not change experimental results what for instance Naudin showed with his higher potential energy findings for the ball after going through the SMOT. Your drawing comes from your imagination while his findings come from practical measurement.

Gyula

EDIT  This is the correct link for the energy measurements: http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/smotnrgt.htm  what I gave above it shows the magnet arrays for the SMOT.
Title: Re: Ring Magnet SMOT
Post by: Low-Q on September 25, 2016, 12:04:49 AM
Quote
This is because the order of influence must have been in the femto or picoJoule range due to the 90° flipped ceramic magnets[/size]
This is true only if the ball escape the 180° experiment in the same direction as the alignment of the magnets. However, the ball does not. It falls stright down.

Vidar
Title: Re: Ring Magnet SMOT
Post by: gyulasun on September 25, 2016, 12:34:32 AM
This is true only if the ball escape the 180° experiment in the same direction as the alignment of the magnets. However, the ball does not. It falls stright down.

Vidar

Well, not correct because if you base this statement on your simulation shown in your reply #31 above, then you did not include the thick iron plates that were backing the long row of ceramic magnets on their outer side all the way, see here: http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/smot1jln.htm (http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/smot1jln.htm)
And both iron plates faced downwards after Naudin flipped the magnet array 90°, right? Notice that the thickness of those iron plates were almost as thick as the magnets thickness, see the picture at the very bottom, SMOT v1.01

Gyula
Title: Re: Ring Magnet SMOT
Post by: Low-Q on September 25, 2016, 10:53:24 AM
Well, not correct because if you base this statement on your simulation shown in your reply #31 above, then you did not include the thick iron plates that were backing the long row of ceramic magnets on their outer side all the way, see here: http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/smot1jln.htm (http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/smot1jln.htm)
And both iron plates faced downwards after Naudin flipped the magnet array 90°, right? Notice that the thickness of those iron plates were almost as thick as the magnets thickness, see the picture at the very bottom, SMOT v1.01

Gyula
These iron pieces are present in both experiments. The only difference is the magnet location and orientation.
180° experiment is not valid. It does not consider a normal SMOT operation. You still do ignore this.
Loop the SMOT and prove that the ball accelerate for each cycle. That is the only experiment Naudin need to do.

Vidar
Title: Re: Ring Magnet SMOT
Post by: gyulasun on September 25, 2016, 12:21:56 PM
These iron pieces are present in both experiments. The only difference is the magnet location and orientation.
180° experiment is not valid. It does not consider a normal SMOT operation. You still do ignore this.
Loop the SMOT and prove that the ball accelerate for each cycle. That is the only experiment Naudin need to do.

Vidar

Vidar,

The very first important feature in a SMOT operation is that it should be able to provide a height difference for an object like a steel ball. In Naudin tests the SMOT first puts the ball from a 31 mm height up to a 35 mm height with respect to the table level.

I understand that you consider a normal SMOT operation as a looped back system to form a continuous circle for the ball.

However, looping should be the second step and to make it possible at all, regardless of whether the looping can or cannot be done, the first step should be what Naudin proved in his test: to be able to lift the ball to a higher position than it has had at its starting position with respect to a common baseline.

And you consequently deny the first step result by all your efforts.  I have answered all your important objections to Naudin tests so anything "unusual" he did in the operation of his SMOT setup did not meaningfully influence the measured gain in the ball's potential energy (when he insured equal height conditions for the ball, that is).

There is no sense to continue this debate. Let's agree to disagree, life goes on as usual.  :)

Gyula
Title: Re: Ring Magnet SMOT
Post by: Low-Q on September 25, 2016, 04:11:05 PM

There is no sense to continue this debate. Let's agree to disagree, life goes on as usual.  :)

Gyula
Yupp! Life goes on :)