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

## Discussion board help and admin topics => Half Baked Ideas => Topic started by: jeffc on July 27, 2007, 04:35:31 AM

Title: SMOT Triangular Enclosure Variation, Closed Loop?
Post by: jeffc on July 27, 2007, 04:35:31 AM
Hi All, I've been lurking around here at overunity on an off for a few months. Here's a concept of a SMOT variation that I think has some promise.  Please review, along with the PDF docs attached which inclide diagram and walk through of the whole system.

Concept (suggest you look at diagram pdf first):
Combine the magnetic force of a SMOT to create increased gravitational PE which can be used in a way to close the system via triangular enclosure configuration.

IF the magnetic force can be used to drive a bearing up the ?ceiling? of a triangular enclosure, then using a triangular system with an internal ramp could potentially return the bearing to its ?launch? position and enable a closed loop self sustaining system.

Concerns:
Transition points are my biggest concerns, as I guess would be the case with all potential self running devices.  At point (2) as the bearing must transfer from the lowest end of the ramp to the triangular ceiling there must be enough in the combination of remaining kinetic energy from gravity and upward pull of the magnetic force from above to cause the bearing to round the transition point (D).

At point (3) the bearing must have enough energy from the PM series acceleration, with possible assistance from the PM at (F) to not get ?stuck? at the last magnet in the series.  If it can escape the magnetic force from the series, then gravity will take over and the system may indeed be closed and self sustaining.

Disclaimer:
I am not a scientist or an engineer.  Just a tinkerer  who has been interested in overunity since my grandfather shared a concept with me many years ago.

Thanks, jeffc
Title: Re: SMOT Triangular Enclosure Variation, Closed Loop?
Post by: hartiberlin on July 27, 2007, 04:43:14 AM
Hi Jeff,
great idea,
this has merit, I think.

Maybe you still can merge the 2 PDFs into just one.

All SMOT setups really need very precise mechanical
setups up to 1/10 of a MilliMeter, so to avoid any sticking
it would be also good to use a glas ball just filled
with iron powder as user Epitaxy had used to avoid
the Remanz buildup as it happens in a real iron ball.
Good luck.
Regards, Stefan.
Title: Re: SMOT Triangular Enclosure Variation, Closed Loop?
Post by: jeffc on July 27, 2007, 07:44:01 AM
Thanks Stefan,
I really appreaciate your work on this site.

I've combined the diagram and description into a single PDF.  Also added a gif version so it will be easier for everyone to get the idea without downloading.

Regards,
jeffc
Title: Re: SMOT Triangular Enclosure Variation, Closed Loop?
Post by: gyulasun on July 27, 2007, 01:05:39 PM
Hi Jeff,

Thanks for showing this interesting triangle SMOT setup.
If I understand correctly, the ball's own weight is kept also by the attracting magnetic path while moving uphill, right?  If so,  I wonder if this does not make the building of the ramp unnecessarily difficult, for it needs more 'work' from the magnets to hold the weight and move uphill the ball at the same time.
Surely some tinkering is needed but I also like this great idea.

Regards
Gyula
Title: Re: SMOT Triangular Enclosure Variation, Closed Loop?
Post by: Paul-R on July 27, 2007, 06:29:14 PM
You might find the ball rushes up the inside of the ceiling like a
bullet, and crashes into the corner. SMOTs can be energetic.
Remember the gauss gun.

Can your idea be adapted into a circle? Have a gance at this:
http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,2745.msg40868.html#msg40868
Paul.
Title: Re: SMOT Triangular Enclosure Variation, Closed Loop?
Post by: Honsou on July 27, 2007, 07:21:47 PM
I just read about over unity today, and an idea popped into my head.  I made a diagram, and it's kind of like this triangle theory except it employs a circular track and also uses magnetic shielding.  I assume magnetic shielding is a reality, and it will hopefully keep the ball rolling down the decline after it exits the magnet array.

Click to Enlarge
(http://img74.imageshack.us/img74/9523/smotidearx7.th.jpg) (http://img74.imageshack.us/img74/9523/smotidearx7.jpg)

I'm probably forgetting something dumb, or just don't understand the whole concept.  So please, debunk my theory or prove it's worth.
Title: Re: SMOT Triangular Enclosure Variation, Closed Loop?
Post by: jeffc on July 27, 2007, 07:42:03 PM
Hi Jeff,

Thanks for showing this interesting triangle SMOT setup.
If I understand correctly, the ball's own weight is kept also by the attracting magnetic path while moving uphill, right?  If so,  I wonder if this does not make the building of the ramp unnecessarily difficult, for it needs more 'work' from the magnets to hold the weight and move uphill the ball at the same time.
Surely some tinkering is needed but I also like this great idea.

Regards
Gyula

Gyula,

Yes, unlike some of the other SMOT configurations, this one requires the PMs to support the weight of the bearing against the ceiling.  I think this should work if the magnets are strong enough and arranged at optimal distance from each other.  I've been concerned that the magnets would be so strong that the vertical force would overcome the horizontal force and the bearing may get ?stuck? to the ceiling and not release at the end (step 3 in Figure).

Thanks for the feedback.  I guess we'll see how this all works out.

Regards,
jeffc
Title: Re: SMOT Triangular Enclosure Variation, Closed Loop?
Post by: jeffc on July 27, 2007, 07:55:01 PM
You might find the ball rushes up the inside of the ceiling like a
bullet, and crashes into the corner. SMOTs can be energetic.
Remember the gauss gun.

Can your idea be adapted into a circle? Have a gance at this:
http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,2745.msg40868.html#msg40868
Paul.

Hi Paul,
Actually, I?m hoping you are correct and there is enough excess energy to launch the bearing at the end of the series.  If that is the case, the extra PM at (F) should not be necessary.  Because this SMOT design requires the magnet to support the weight of the bearing against the ceiling, I think it will require more magnetic force and result in a slower horizontal velocity.

If the bearing crashes against the wall, we?ll just shorten the PM series until the bearing misses the wall and drops to the ramp below.
I?ve tried to consider a circular arrangement, but have not discovered one that can combine the magnetic force and gravitational force in such a way to close the system.  I believe it is the combination of these two forces that is key.  Each force creates the potential energy for the other (I hope) in this current design.
Regards,
jeffc
Title: Re: SMOT Triangular Enclosure Variation, Closed Loop?
Post by: jeffc on July 27, 2007, 08:08:49 PM
I just read about over unity today, and an idea popped into my head.  I made a diagram, and it's kind of like this triangle theory except it employs a circular track and also uses magnetic shielding.  I assume magnetic shielding is a reality, and it will hopefully keep the ball rolling down the decline after it exits the magnet array.

Click to Enlarge
(http://img74.imageshack.us/img74/9523/smotidearx7.th.jpg) (http://img74.imageshack.us/img74/9523/smotidearx7.jpg)

I'm probably forgetting something dumb, or just don't understand the whole concept.  So please, debunk my theory or prove it's worth.

@Honsou
I tried to design a circular SMOT like the one you show.  I think it is a smart concept, but as you have noted, I think some kind of shielding is necessary if the bearing would travel in the same plain of the magnets on the return.  I?m not an expert on magnetism, but I believe the only effective shield would be Faraday, and that it would require energy equal to or greater then the magnetism involved.

I?ve seen another similar SMOT variation on this site, which is circular, but the track drops below the plain of the magnets on the return.  I think this is an interesting variation.  You may want to find that thread (sorry I don't have  :-\ )

But my whole design is about combining magnetic force and gravitational force in a way so that you have a significant horizontal acceleration AND a significant vertical acceleration.  I hope the result will be self sustaining motion, and perhaps excess energy (over unity) that could be adapted for real work!

Regards,
jeffc
Title: Re: SMOT Triangular Enclosure Variation, Closed Loop?
Post by: Grolo on July 27, 2007, 08:18:48 PM
This is not going to work with 1 ball.
Point 1 - 2 = oke
Point 2 - up = not sure
Point 2 -3 = oke

But it will stop at point 3 or else magnet F will stop it. But I think the force at point 3 is really big.

When you want to shoot something you need other things. You can see someone shooting balls in this movie (time 00:35):
You alway's need a second ball otherwise it will just stop at the end.
Also your second idea has the same problem it will stop at the end of the magnets.
Correct me if I'm wrong.

But don't give up!  ;)

-edit-
Checked you drawing again.
Maybe when you use 3 balls on your first idea and also use magnets at point A. Hmmmm... could be...  ::)
Title: Re: SMOT Triangular Enclosure Variation, Closed Loop?
Post by: jeffc on July 27, 2007, 08:52:58 PM
This is not going to work with 1 ball.
Point 1 - 2 = oke
Point 2 - up = not sure
Point 2 -3 = oke

But it will stop at point 3 or else magnet F will stop it. But I think the force at point 3 is really big.

When you want to shoot something you need other things. You can see someone shooting balls in this movie (time 00:35):
You alway's need a second ball otherwise it will just stop at the end.
Also your second idea has the same problem it will stop at the end of the magnets.
Correct me if I'm wrong.

But don't give up!  ;)

-edit-
Checked you drawing again.
Maybe when you use 3 balls on your first idea and also use magnets at point A. Hmmmm... could be...  ::)

@Grolo
Hi, thanks for your thoughts.  I've been thinking that if the horizontal kinetic energy is high enough at point (3) then the bearing will escape without needing magnet at (F).  If it gets stuck at (3) adding a magnet at (F) may provide enough force so that it will not get stuck.  BUT if it is necessary to put a magnet at (F), the magnet needs to be strong enough to assist the bearing to escape the grip of the series magnets at point (3), BUT NOT STRONG ENOUGH TO HOLD THE BEARING against the enclosure wall at (F).

That way, the bearing will drop to the ramp below without getting stuck at (3) or against the wall at (F).

Does anyone else think this can work?  I think this can be configured so that the bearing doesn't stick.

Regards,
jeffc
Title: Re: SMOT Triangular Enclosure Variation, Closed Loop?
Post by: jeffc on July 27, 2007, 09:10:53 PM
I just read about over unity today, and an idea popped into my head.  I made a diagram, and it's kind of like this triangle theory except it employs a circular track and also uses magnetic shielding.  I assume magnetic shielding is a reality, and it will hopefully keep the ball rolling down the decline after it exits the magnet array.

Click to Enlarge
(http://img74.imageshack.us/img74/9523/smotidearx7.th.jpg) (http://img74.imageshack.us/img74/9523/smotidearx7.jpg)

I'm probably forgetting something dumb, or just don't understand the whole concept.  So please, debunk my theory or prove it's worth.
@Honsou

I looked at your diagram again, and I think that if you made a more rapid vertical drop of the track at the "fast" end of the SMOT, you might escape the plain of the magnetic force and not need the shielding.  This would be similar to the other design that I mentioned in my previous reply.
Regards,
jeffc
Title: Re: SMOT Triangular Enclosure Variation, Closed Loop?
Post by: gyulasun on July 27, 2007, 09:40:33 PM

@Grolo
Hi, thanks for your thoughts.  I've been thinking that if the horizontal kinetic energy is high enough at point (3) then the bearing will escape without needing magnet at (F).  If it gets stuck at (3) adding a magnet at (F) may provide enough force so that it will not get stuck.  BUT if it is necessary to put a magnet at (F), the magnet needs to be strong enough to assist the bearing to escape the grip of the series magnets at point (3), BUT NOT STRONG ENOUGH TO HOLD THE BEARING against the enclosure wall at (F).

That way, the bearing will drop to the ramp below without getting stuck at (3) or against the wall at (F).

Does anyone else think this can work?  I think this can be configured so that the bearing doesn't stick.

Regards,
jeffc

Hi Jeff,

Yes, I think your setup has got a chance to work. Surely it needs a LOT OF EXPERIMENTING and PATIENCE. I think you feel pretty sure where the places for pitfalls are found and how these could be eliminated.
Some thoughts to help chances to work:
-vary the length and the steepness of slope B to control a little the kinetic energy of the ball
-try to change the mass of the ball to get a feel on the dependence of its mass (or weight) versus the magnets' strength, there must be an optimal ratio between the mass and the strength of the uphill magnets to get the best escape speed at point 3)
-you may wish to try the "normal" SMOT ramp where the ball rolls uphill on the upper level, not below the ceiling: this way there may be a better chance to let the ball escape at point 3) by making the track shorter than that of the raw of the pulling magnets, you have probably meant this in your earlier letter, I quote: (the track drops below the plain of the magnets on the return.  I think this is an interesting variation)

Surely there are some other 'pitfalls' to fight with, only experimenting can give the best answers.  Do not loose heart!

Regards
Gyula
Title: Re: SMOT Triangular Enclosure Variation, Closed Loop?
Post by: jeffc on July 27, 2007, 10:37:28 PM

@Grolo
Hi, thanks for your thoughts.  I've been thinking that if the horizontal kinetic energy is high enough at point (3) then the bearing will escape without needing magnet at (F).  If it gets stuck at (3) adding a magnet at (F) may provide enough force so that it will not get stuck.  BUT if it is necessary to put a magnet at (F), the magnet needs to be strong enough to assist the bearing to escape the grip of the series magnets at point (3), BUT NOT STRONG ENOUGH TO HOLD THE BEARING against the enclosure wall at (F).

That way, the bearing will drop to the ramp below without getting stuck at (3) or against the wall at (F).

Does anyone else think this can work?  I think this can be configured so that the bearing doesn't stick.

Regards,
jeffc

Hi Jeff,

Yes, I think your setup has got a chance to work. Surely it needs a LOT OF EXPERIMENTING and PATIENCE. I think you feel pretty sure where the places for pitfalls are found and how these could be eliminated.
Some thoughts to help chances to work:
-vary the length and the steepness of slope B to control a little the kinetic energy of the ball
-try to change the mass of the ball to get a feel on the dependence of its mass (or weight) versus the magnets' strength, there must be an optimal ratio between the mass and the strength of the uphill magnets to get the best escape speed at point 3)
-you may wish to try the "normal" SMOT ramp where the ball rolls uphill on the upper level, not below the ceiling: this way there may be a better chance to let the ball escape at point 3) by making the track shorter than that of the raw of the pulling magnets, you have probably meant this in your earlier letter, I quote: (the track drops below the plain of the magnets on the return.  I think this is an interesting variation)

Surely there are some other 'pitfalls' to fight with, only experimenting can give the best answers.  Do not loose heart!

Regards
Gyula

Hi Gyula,
Thanks for your suggestions, I think they are very important points to experiment with.  I have toyed with a design where the bearing rides on top of an inner track to support its weight instead of requiring the magnet series to handle the whole burden.   This would make the design more similar to a normal SMOT.  We?ll see, I want to try to make it work with my original design before applying the variation.

I?m working on the enclosure design so that I can vary the angle of the incline, as I think this will help with the fine tuning.  We?ll see!
Regards,
jeffc

Title: Re: SMOT Triangular Enclosure Variation, Closed Loop?
Post by: Freezer on July 27, 2007, 11:09:14 PM
Just an visualization.
(http://img231.imageshack.us/img231/9246/smotec7.jpg)
Title: Re: SMOT Triangular Enclosure Variation, Closed Loop?
Post by: HopeForHumanity on July 28, 2007, 10:22:46 PM
What if we tried these ideas, but add zero friction? ???
Title: Re: SMOT Triangular Enclosure Variation, Closed Loop?
Post by: apollo69 on July 29, 2007, 12:42:21 AM
http://www.schmalenbach.de/patent/

I think the triangle SMOT idea has been tried without any luck

Check this

http://www.hcrs.at/SMOT.HTM

I have been playing around with the idea too....but..I guess is perfect in combination with another device though  ::)
Title: Re: SMOT Triangular Enclosure Variation, Closed Loop?
Post by: amen23 on July 29, 2007, 03:01:38 AM
The SMOT idea works but not the way you planned it........the way you've applied it will never work.1) Your exit for the ball is all wrong. The ball has to exit the forcefield before the tapered end of the row of magnets (about 3/4 of the way,possible more). To exit ,gravity is used (a straight drop out using the mass of your ball against the pull of the magnets) and it has to drop below the force field that surrounds the magnets at the end of the row.(if there isnt enought clearance it will attract)

which means you're faced with a dilemma .....2) your incline should be such that after you ball has broken free from the force field, you got enough energy to return it to to the start. The bigger the incline , the more attraction you need to pull your ball up, the stronger your magnets will need to be, the greater the force field that awaits you at the end. The smaller your ball ......ect ect

you can play around with the size of ball you are using...????
you can play around with the lenght of your rows of magnets ...????
you can even play around withthe strenght of your magnets ...???

;) just my 3 cents worth
Title: Re: SMOT Triangular Enclosure Variation, Closed Loop?
Post by: jeffc on July 29, 2007, 08:00:11 AM
What if we tried these ideas, but add zero friction? ???

;D
Zero friction would be very nice.  But, sadly it won't happen!   >:(
Title: Re: SMOT Triangular Enclosure Variation, Closed Loop?
Post by: jeffc on July 29, 2007, 08:03:47 AM
http://www.schmalenbach.de/patent/

I think the triangle SMOT idea has been tried without any luck

Check this

http://www.hcrs.at/SMOT.HTM

I have been playing around with the idea too....but..I guess is perfect in combination with another device though  ::)

Thanks for those additional models.  I am trying to learn from each SMOT variation I can find.  There is still some experimentation to try and this information is helpful.

Regards,
jeffc
Title: Re: SMOT Triangular Enclosure Variation, Closed Loop?
Post by: jeffc on July 29, 2007, 08:10:01 AM
The SMOT idea works but not the way you planned it........the way you've applied it will never work.1) Your exit for the ball is all wrong. The ball has to exit the forcefield before the tapered end of the row of magnets (about 3/4 of the way,possible more). To exit ,gravity is used (a straight drop out using the mass of your ball against the pull of the magnets) and it has to drop below the force field that surrounds the magnets at the end of the row.(if there isnt enought clearance it will attract)

which means you're faced with a dilemma .....2) your incline should be such that after you ball has broken free from the force field, you got enough energy to return it to to the start. The bigger the incline , the more attraction you need to pull your ball up, the stronger your magnets will need to be, the greater the force field that awaits you at the end. The smaller your ball ......ect ect

you can play around with the size of ball you are using...????
you can play around with the lenght of your rows of magnets ...????
you can even play around withthe strenght of your magnets ...???

;) just my 3 cents worth

@amen23
Hi and thanks for the feedback. I have been worried about the bearing's escape from the end of the magnet series.   Thats the main reason I wanted the have the magnet at (F) to increase the horizontal force.

Don?t you think this will have an impact?
Title: Re: SMOT Triangular Enclosure Variation, Closed Loop?
Post by: Motorcoach1 on July 29, 2007, 08:45:01 AM
It would seam to put a upwared roll at the D positon at the end of the ramp so the inerta would be equvelent to the speed of the ball and magnetic force of the first permenet magnet to catch and throw to ball to the next PM and so forth till it repetes. thake a strip of sheet metal and try it, roll it at the end with different radiouses. A small radious will slow the ball down and a larger one will speed it up till the inerca is balenced over the curve and magnetic flux feild to the next PM .
Title: Re: SMOT Triangular Enclosure Variation, Closed Loop?
Post by: HopeForHumanity on July 29, 2007, 08:52:27 AM
What if we tried these ideas, but add zero friction? ???

;D
Zero friction would be very nice.  But, sadly it won't happen!   >:(

But wait, physics doesn't say almost zero friction isn't possible.  :D
Title: Re: SMOT Triangular Enclosure Variation, Closed Loop?
Post by: gyulasun on July 29, 2007, 12:19:05 PM
Hi Jeff,

If you are not very keen on reading German language at this site: http://www.hcrs.at/SMOT.HTM you may use a free online translator like this:
http://www.freetranslation.com/web.asp

On the right (upper) side you can see Free Text Translator Free Web Translator   and by choosing the latter you can copy the Austrian url and choose the translation direction.

Regards
Gyula
Title: Re: SMOT Triangular Enclosure Variation, Closed Loop?
Post by: amen23 on July 29, 2007, 11:31:48 PM
hi jeff ........ your point (F) --i dont dismiss the idea and yes it has its merits and might work. However i see a problem with your verticle drop out between (F) and (C).
You will need to gain enough height to drop out of both force fields and still have enough energy to get it back to the start.

I have another theory for you to ponder on .....I'll explain my thoughts on this first.

Any magnet has a force field that will attract a metal object toward its centre . So it stands to reason that a heavier mass will travel past the centre of attraction.(Inertia/mass ect) .  Beyond the centre the mass will run into resistance becos the centre in now behind it and the attraction is now in the opposite direction.

Imagine a falling object from space ... it will be attracted until it reaches the centre of the earth (theoretically) after it pass the centre, its travelling against gravity.

This is the way I think about SMOT .....your ball bearing needs to exit just after the centre of the force field. Its got a great 'run up' and needs to exit before it gets slowed down.

I thought about this a couple of years back and came up with a different approach. Never got round to testing it. I'll try a draw something here ......

^   (H)   Using this as a circuit/track
RAMP  ----->   /    --------------------------->
l------->Start                                  /                                               l
l          ----   ----   ----   ----   ---- / ---- ---- ---- ----                       l
l          l PMl   lPMl   l     l   l    l   l     l   l    l l     l l    l l     l                      l
l          ----   ----   ----   ----   ----    ---  ---- ---- ----                       l
l                                                                                                      l
<------------------------------------------------------------------------

Half way through your Smot build a ramp .......let your bearing gain speed -hit the ramp (jump up)and hopefully be elevated to point (H) on you circuit /track let it roll down to the start again. It should hopefully clear the force field ..... dont elevate your SMOT let it gain as much speed as possible. Kinda like a sling shot around the moon idea!

hope you understood that

cheers
don
Title: Re: SMOT Triangular Enclosure Variation, Closed Loop?
Post by: jeffc on July 30, 2007, 11:12:54 PM
It would seam to put a upwared roll at the D positon at the end of the ramp so the inerta would be equvelent to the speed of the ball and magnetic force of the first permenet magnet to catch and throw to ball to the next PM and so forth till it repetes. thake a strip of sheet metal and try it, roll it at the end with different radiouses. A small radious will slow the ball down and a larger one will speed it up till the inerca is balenced over the curve and magnetic flux feild to the next PM .

@Motorcoach1
Thanks for the idea about the sheet metal, I?m going to try it.  I?m working on a few designs that will allow me to vary the key factors like inclines, heights, and with your idea I can modify the radius of that curve too!

Regards,
jeffc
Title: Re: SMOT Triangular Enclosure Variation, Closed Loop?
Post by: jeffc on July 30, 2007, 11:14:19 PM
What if we tried these ideas, but add zero friction? ???

;D
Zero friction would be very nice.  But, sadly it won't happen!   >:(

But wait, physics doesn't say almost zero friction isn't possible.  :D

I'll take whatever physics is willing to give!   ;D
Title: Re: SMOT Triangular Enclosure Variation, Closed Loop?
Post by: jeffc on July 31, 2007, 10:35:39 AM
Hi Jeff,

If you are not very keen on reading German language at this site: http://www.hcrs.at/SMOT.HTM you may use a free online translator like this:
http://www.freetranslation.com/web.asp

On the right (upper) side you can see Free Text Translator Free Web Translator   and by choosing the latter you can copy the Austrian url and choose the translation direction.

Regards
Gyula

Thanks Gyula,
The translator worked quite well.  The variations taken by the author were instructive in helping me try to design around the same issues he encountered.
Knowing what DOESN?T work is very helpful at this stage so that I don?t waste time tinkering with impossible configurations.

Of course, I?m not sure this is possible to begin with, so it may just be a learning experience.

Regards,
Jeffc
Title: Re: SMOT Triangular Enclosure Variation, Closed Loop?
Post by: jeffc on July 31, 2007, 10:57:20 AM
hi jeff ........ your point (F) --i dont dismiss the idea and yes it has its merits and might work. However i see a problem with your verticle drop out between (F) and (C).
You will need to gain enough height to drop out of both force fields and still have enough energy to get it back to the start.

I have another theory for you to ponder on .....I'll explain my thoughts on this first.

Any magnet has a force field that will attract a metal object toward its centre . So it stands to reason that a heavier mass will travel past the centre of attraction.(Inertia/mass ect) .  Beyond the centre the mass will run into resistance becos the centre in now behind it and the attraction is now in the opposite direction.

Imagine a falling object from space ... it will be attracted until it reaches the centre of the earth (theoretically) after it pass the centre, its travelling against gravity.

This is the way I think about SMOT .....your ball bearing needs to exit just after the centre of the force field. Its got a great 'run up' and needs to exit before it gets slowed down.

I thought about this a couple of years back and came up with a different approach. Never got round to testing it. I'll try a draw something here ......

^   (H)   Using this as a circuit/track
RAMP  ----->   /    --------------------------->
l------->Start                                  /                                               l
l          ----   ----   ----   ----   ---- / ---- ---- ---- ----                       l
l          l PMl   lPMl   l     l   l    l   l     l   l    l l     l l    l l     l                      l
l          ----   ----   ----   ----   ----    ---  ---- ---- ----                       l
l                                                                                                      l
<------------------------------------------------------------------------

Half way through your Smot build a ramp .......let your bearing gain speed -hit the ramp (jump up)and hopefully be elevated to point (H) on you circuit /track let it roll down to the start again. It should hopefully clear the force field ..... dont elevate your SMOT let it gain as much speed as possible. Kinda like a sling shot around the moon idea!

hope you understood that

cheers
don

Don,
Thanks for the detailed post.  I?ve been concerned about the ?escape velocity? problem from the beginning, so your input on this is valuable.

I?ve received some feedback that the SMOT configuration can produce quit a large acceleration and that the bearing might even hit the wall of the triangle enclosure.  I think ultimately there will be many factors including: incline, magnet strength and arrangement, bearing mass, friction, and probably many more things.  So I?ll just have to experiment.

I understand where you were going with the diagram.  Using a ramp to escape the magnetic force is an interesting concept that I could try to apply to the triangular model I?m building.  I?ll add that to my testing configurations!   8)

Regards,
jeffc
Title: Re: SMOT Triangular Enclosure Variation, Closed Loop?
Post by: Freezer on August 01, 2007, 01:43:34 AM
Deleted. Debunked my own idea.  :D
Title: Re: SMOT Triangular Enclosure Variation, Closed Loop?
Post by: jeffc on August 01, 2007, 03:21:17 AM
Deleted. Debunked my own idea.  :D

I understand, I've debunked about 10 of mine this week.   8)  :o