Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy
Mechanical free energy devices => mechanic => Topic started by: nwman on December 30, 2007, 10:28:15 PM
-
Just a brief topic. Below is a graphic that represents a test to find if a SMOT actually works. I am willing to build this however if someone already has the parts to build it I don't want to buy the stuff myself unless I have too. So you would have both a level start and ending surface to rule out any potential energy being released from gravity. The ball would have to be pushed into the the start of the smot with little force or the smot would have to be slid to the ball. Then the ball must travel up the slight incline and then it can be allowed to drop at the end. However again it must not drop lower then the start position. If it does drop and continues to roll free of the magnetic attraction at the end then a SMOT does actually produce energy. I think it will get stuck at the end and not be allowed to get free unless the total incline from one SMOT or more in series is great enough in high to allow the ball to fall far enough down to escape the magnetic field at the end of the rail. Let me know what you all think?
Tim
-
As diagrammed, it's a bit unfair to expect the ball to escape, because the ball is attracted to the SMOT entrance, and this attraction could help to close a loop of SMOTs.
So, to be fair, you should start by releasing the ball when it is far enough away from the entrance that the SMOT rail can barely pull it forward on the level surface. It will then enter the SMOT with some additional kinetic energy. If the SMOT is overunity, this additional energy will be enough to help it escape at the exit.
You will also have to put some effort into giving the ball a better landing at the end, so that it doesn't waste any energy banging against your table.
Cheers,
Mr. Entropy
-
I agree that the ball should be set just at the outermost edge of the start. Just enough to pull it in. Even a little too far and then pushed in with a tooth pick or something into the attraction zone.
Also, sorry about the landing area int he graphic. I obviously didn't spend too much time but again I agree a nice curved slope would make the best landing to convert the downward motion to horizontal motion. I still have a feeling the ball might get trapped at the end but I hope not and that's why I am posting this.
Tim
-
G'day all,
First of all let me say I do not think there is any surplus energy to be found in a SMOT. Having said that, I have always wondered why you guys insist on rolling the ball uphill in the device. By doing this you give it the worst conceivable start with no advantage.
Let me explain. By rolling the ball downhill in a SMOT, if there is any extra energy, it will be added as inertia which will bring it higher than the starting point. By adjusting the angle you can get gravity to help overcome the sticky spot.
Test the device I have drawn in diagram form below and this will give you a quantitative as well as a qualitative assessment of its capabilities.
Hans von Lieven
-
Test the device I have drawn in diagram form below and this will give you a quantitative as well as a qualitative assessment of its capabilities.
Hi Hans,
You're absolutely right if the SMOT, according to what we know of physics, fails to work.
Assume for a moment, though, that a SMOT is overunity. If it is, then we obviously do not know how it works. Without knowing how it works, we cannot be sure that your device is equivalent to a SMOT from an energy exchange point of view. It may only work when it's pushing against gravity, or the drop at the end may be a critical part of the process, etc. We can't dismiss these things if we don't know how it works.
So, in order to determine experimentally whether or not a SMOT is overunity, you have to test an actual SMOT.
Cheers,
Mr. Entropy
-
Hans,
That is similar to Jean Louis Naudin's experiment:
http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/smotidx.htm
Terry
-
Terry, I haven't seen that site before. That's interesting. I'll have to look into it.
Hans, I think your idea for a test is a great idea. It would be interesting also to see it.
Tim
-
Hans, looks like it has been done already, the ball seems to roll further with the smot magnets in place.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t5D70lqT1ZU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NNFS63dZIdc
-
That is impressive!
Tim
-
Sorry Hans but you downhill smot will slow the ball not speed it up, come on people common sense, it is a magnet and a steel ball it's like extra gravity,
proof get a small ball bearing and tape a large magnet under a glass table, now roll the ball bearing across the table, it will grab the ball bearing ans stop it dead, now tilt the table ensuring the magnet is in the same place pro rate as Hans drawing, it will still stop the ball, there will at some point be a time when the tilt or incline is so great the ball breaks free, but the energy of attraction the gives that tiny burst of speed right before it is caught is not equal to the hold power, which would be sufficient to beat the argument, it is even greater, and if it was not greater, the magnetic pull field is a equally strong from the side the ball is trying to leave.
The uphill pull is your best shot if it is to work, with the gravitational drop providing the power to the magnet, although you have to get past the magnetic wall at the top.
-
That proves it doesn't it, if it does not impart extra energy downhill it will not do it uphill either. There is no net gain in a SMOT.
QED
Hans von Lieven
-
actually no, i suppose I am actually going to have to teach you how to beat newton with one of your own devices to prove the point, one that I can kick his ass six ways from sunday using a dozen different devices outside the accelerator and my own PM machine.
The down hill device creates a garb point at passing slowing the ball, the uphill device has a wall, or final grab point.
If you want the smot to work and have perpetual motion, it is simple, the error is placement of the magnet under the track, one it provides little magnetic pull, directly in front is the perfect placement, so how doe the ball get past??
simple the magnet is perfect line with the track suspended in space past the point of the hill so the ball can be pulled up the hill to the magnet, as the ball just passes the crest it passes a electric light beam like a shop door entry and shuts off the electro magnet so the ball can fall, passing a paddle rotor like a hydro generator to power the magnet along to the base of the next smot on a circular track
I gave you this as I don't believe it can easily be used on a large commercial scale for electricity, nor be built by the average homeowner to power his house as mine will.
have a nice day.
-
I should note that the perfect design for this is not drag, but momentum, you should start the ball at the top of one hill, and where the momentum stop the ball, go back 5 percent of the length of the track, and that should be the catch point of you magnetic field. the easiest way is to get a good electromagnet and play with various ball sizes, rather than try to alter the magnet unless you own a a power controller. This saves changing too much, an old hotwheels set should be sufficient to get you test results before spending any large dollars.
As for magnetic pull, there are now electromagnets 1.5 volts that will hold 500 pounds, i kid you not, from a double a battery, imagine the power from a 500 pound steel ball falling, however do not be confused with holding power as opposed to field and pull, albeit that a drop and elevator machine could be built from such a magnet. I will try to find the link tonight for the 1.5 volt magnet 500 pound hold just for interest sake or differing experiments.
-
Hans,
Comparing the two videos, the one with the smot in place, the ball rolls further up the ramp than the vid where the smot is not in place.
-
can't seem to find the link from last year, but this one is alomst identical and uses 3 volts DC to lift the 500 pounds. Hope it helps your designs
http://www.coolmagnetman.com/magelect.htm
-
can't seem to find the link from last year, but this one is alomst identical and uses 3 volts DC to lift the 500 pounds. Hope it helps your designs
http://www.coolmagnetman.com/magelect.htm
-
Hans,
Comparing the two videos, the one with the smot in place, the ball rolls further up the ramp than the vid where the smot is not in place.
Which videos acp?
Always willing to learn something new, if real.
Hans von Lieven
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t5D70lqT1ZU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NNFS63dZIdc
These two Hans.
One shows a ball rolling down a slight slope downwards then dropping suddenly, then climbing a slight incline. a mark is made where the ball reaches on the incline.
The other shows the same track, but with a smot at the beginning of the track. The bal rolls further on this one.
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t5D70lqT1ZU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NNFS63dZIdc
These two Hans.
One shows a ball rolling down a slight slope downwards then dropping suddenly, then climbing a slight incline. a mark is made where the ball reaches on the incline.
The other shows the same track, but with a smot at the beginning of the track. The bal rolls further on this one.
Wow, that's really interesting, if genuine. Maybe Omnibus is right and all the naysayers like me are wrong!
-
Wow, that's really interesting, if genuine. Maybe Omnibus is right and all the naysayers like me are wrong!
I think the problem with the SMOT has always been to solve mechanically the ball's way back to the entrance of the slope so that the ball be able to go uphill again, this way closing the loop. Omnibus will be right when someone solves this.
Somehow you have to find the most optimum and most frictionless route/course for the ball to utilize its kinetic energy gained from the magnets + gravitation.
Gyula
-
I did a SMOT experiment in 2006 where I was able to configure the ramp to enter another consecutive ramp without dropping the ball. Essentially by building enough consecutive ramps I could bring the ball to any height. Didn't have enough resources to complete it. Scrapped it when Steorn came into the picture.
-
Thanks for the videos acp,
This is exactly the testing procedure I suggested in my diagram, for which incidentally I was shouted down by omnibus on a different thread. It is still a long way away from proving it is overunity. First you would have to account for the energy that went into creating the magnet in the first place, if it still runs after that you have overunity. Might be difficult to establish though.
I will now actually have to build the thing to see if it is real.
Hans von Lieven
-
I did a SMOT experiment in 2006 where I was able to configure the ramp to enter another consecutive ramp without dropping the ball. Essentially by building enough consecutive ramps I could bring the ball to any height. Didn't have enough resources to complete it. Scrapped it when Steorn came into the picture.
Did you keep using stronger magnets at each consecutive ramp?
-
I did a SMOT experiment in 2006 where I was able to configure the ramp to enter another consecutive ramp without dropping the ball. Essentially by building enough consecutive ramps I could bring the ball to any height. Didn't have enough resources to complete it. Scrapped it when Steorn came into the picture.
Jowik,
I would like to see any pictures/drawing of this testing.
-
Did you keep using stronger magnets at each consecutive ramp?
No, all the magnets were the same.
-
Jowik,
I would like to see any pictures/drawing of this testing.
I no longer have any pictures because my HD on my old laptop failed and I have to save up some money to do some data recovery on it. I am positive I posted some pictures in this overunity forum, but they don't seem to be here anymore. There may be discussions on the Steorn forum... but searching on that forum is a bit tedious.
My original intention was to reply to some of the thoughts on this board concerning the validity on some models. Most SMOTs don't work because of the fact that the designs cannot bring a ball high enough to re-enter or enter another ramp opposite and so forth. I realized that the longer a single ramp became the weaker the forces, so I designed a system that used flexible metal backing holding the magnets as a means to allow the ball to move past the strongest point of the ramp and re-enter another identical ramp. I posted my comments to investigate it further, but most ignored me. I do recall someone rendering some pics of it.
-
I hate to ask you to re-write the idea but since there is no previous blogs available would you explain it in more detail/graphics?
Tim
-
I hate to ask you to re-write the idea but since there is no previous blogs available would you explain it in more detail/graphics?
Tim
Using flat disc magnets attached to metal strapping in the normal SMOT fashion, so that when the ball travels the ramp the tapered end of the magnet rail flexes towards the ball. In my tests I used a mouse ball from and old computer mouse I had. Worked great! In my tests, since I was able to bend the strapping quite easily, I was able to optimize the travel of the ball up the ramp. Once particular configuration caused my idea of adding another consecutive ramp because even though the ball whipped past the "sticky spot" it was pulled back... I figured that since it was moving far enough ahead another ramp should allow the ball to enter the other rail easily and it did. My heart lept when it did. But that's about as far as it went. Not enough resources to make something demonstrable. One of the observable reasons I saw why it worked was because when the ball went past the strongest point in the rail, the rail flexed back to it's normal position, basically releasing the ball from some of the magnetic pull and allowing the ball to be pulled in by the other rail's magnetic field.
Hope that makes sense, sorry for the lack of pictures, I'll see what I can find on other forums I've posted on...
-
Just a brief topic. Below is a graphic that represents a test to find if a SMOT actually works. I am willing to build this however if someone already has the parts to build it I don't want to buy the stuff myself unless I have too. So you would have both a level start and ending surface to rule out any potential energy being released from gravity. The ball would have to be pushed into the the start of the smot with little force or the smot would have to be slid to the ball. Then the ball must travel up the slight incline and then it can be allowed to drop at the end. However again it must not drop lower then the start position. If it does drop and continues to roll free of the magnetic attraction at the end then a SMOT does actually produce energy. I think it will get stuck at the end and not be allowed to get free unless the total incline from one SMOT or more in series is great enough in high to allow the ball to fall far enough down to escape the magnetic field at the end of the rail. Let me know what you all think?
Tim
Just an idea:
Let the SMOT rail go perfectly horizontal. Also build a rail which is one meter before and after the SMOT so the ball can bowl from one end to the other through the
"\ /" shaped SMOT magnets.
If the ball has greater speed almost one meter after the smot than the speed you put in one meter before, your SMOT would add energy to the ball. If so, turn the device 180 degrees horizontally, in order to run it the opposite direction - just to veryfy the potential gain in the SMOT.
Br.
Vidar
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t5D70lqT1ZU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NNFS63dZIdc
These two Hans.
One shows a ball rolling down a slight slope downwards then dropping suddenly, then climbing a slight incline. a mark is made where the ball reaches on the incline.
The other shows the same track, but with a smot at the beginning of the track. The bal rolls further on this one.
This looks promesing, but there is one big mistake:
The SMOT is placed too close to the staring point. This will give the ball a "free lunch" as the inventor are using energy to put the ball inside the attractive forces of the magnet configuration.
The thing most of you do not concider, is that the steel ball is actually repelled away from the magnets as they are configurated if the ball was released further away.
The magnetic lines in such configuration influence the magnetic fields in the ball in the same direction as the magnetic lines within a certain distance. As you all know, two equal poles repells. However, when the ball is close enough, almost inside the magnet gap, the magnetic lines in the ball is then configured to attract the magnet.
Therfor, if the ball was launced further away from the SMOT the ball would bowl to the same point as without the SMOT.
An easy experiment confirms this:
Take two magnets on the table with a distance of one to two inces apart. Hold a steel ball in your hand and guide the ball towards the gap between the magnets. At some hight, youll feel that the ball gets lighter. As you are closing, the ball feel suddenly more heavy. This is the drawback with SMOTS. The ball is in fact prevented to enter the SMOT outside the attracting distance. Hence it will fail when closing the loop.
Vidar
-
This looks promesing, but there is one big mistake:
The SMOT is placed too close to the staring point. This will give the ball a "free lunch" as the inventor are using energy to put the ball inside the attractive forces of the magnet configuration.
[...]
Vidar
Good catch, so the hand placing the ball in that start position, when the SMOT is there, has already preloaded the ball with extra potential.
-
This looks promesing, but there is one big mistake:
The SMOT is placed too close to the staring point. This will give the ball a "free lunch" as the inventor are using energy to put the ball inside the attractive forces of the magnet configuration.
[...]
Vidar
Good catch, so the hand placing the ball in that start position, when the SMOT is there, has already preloaded the ball with extra potential.
You're correct :)
-
It works the other way, I'm afraid. There is less potential energy in the ball when it is closer to the magnets, and when you move the ball towards the entrance, the ball does work on you, not the other way around.
Cheers,
Mr. Entropy
-
@Mr.Entropy
Partly correct. Imagine this:
The ball is far from the SMOT. The ball is then attracted to the SMOT but attracted to the magnetic lines which is going from the magnets outside north to outside south.
When the ball reach a certain point, the magnetic density is greater behind the ball than in front of it due to lack of density where the magnetic lines are going directly from north to south separately on each magnet. Not all magnetic lines are crossing both magnets. That does not happen before you got further in between the magnets.
Before that, the ball reach a neutral position - because north and south inside the SMOT is orientated in the oposite direction than on the outside of the magnets, which means neutralization -, and THEN further in the ball is attracted to the greater density which is BETWEEN the magnets. See?
The greatest density is somewhere right before the SMOTs exit, where the exactly same thing happen, but in shorter time, greater force, and shorter distance as the magnets are closer there.
The sum of the forces over the covered distance before and after the magnets in the SMOT will therefor equals to zero. See?
So the inventor probably, by accident, gave the ball a free lunch by avoiding the area where the ball is forced backwards.
Here is a picture showing that steel ball is attracted to the greater magnetic density behind it, right before it enters the SMOT:
(http://www.overunity.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=3417.0;attach=16451;image)
Vidar
-
Stop cluttering this and other threads with your confusion. As I said learn some physics first, understand, for instance, the difference between force and energy (don't just say you understand it, you don't) and only then allow yourself to discuss these matters.
-
Vidar,
Even though there can be a place near the entrance where the ball may feel a repulsion, the magnetic potential energy at that point and all points nearby is still less than it is far away. There is nowhere you can place the ball where it will be ejected from the magnet's field, and no cheating to be had by placing the ball in the SMOT entrance vs. placing it without magnets.
The best you could hope to do is come out even, by placing the ball exactly at the null in the field where it feels no force.
Cheers,
Mr. Entropy
-
You know, still NOBODY has ever told me WHY a SMOT doesn't work. Saying something like "oh, magnetism is conservative" or "Laws of thermodynaics" is not enough. For example, gravity wheels have been debunked many times and people actually say why it logically cannot work.
But I have never ever seen an explanation why a smot shouldn't work.
I've had scientists acually say that it doesn't work because the ball cannot drop, I think wikipedia says this as well. But it isn't true!
-
You know, still NOBODY has ever told me WHY a SMOT doesn't work. Saying something like "oh, magnetism is conservative" or "Laws of thermodynaics" is not enough. For example, gravity wheels have been debunked many times and people actually say why it logically cannot work.
But I have never ever seen an explanation why a smot shouldn't work.
I've had scientists acually say that it doesn't work because the ball cannot drop, I think wikipedia says this as well. But it isn't true!
The thing with gravity wheels are quite simple. I will explain - in general:
When you are placing objects/weights on a wheel that is far from the center at one side, and close to the center at the other side, the farmost objects are wider spread and the sum of matter density is there less. On the other side, where the objects/weights are closer to the center, they are denser spread, and the total matter density is greater. The momentum of right and left side of the wheel is therefor equal.
Regarding the SMOT I have an answer to that too right here:
http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,3912.0.html (http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,3912.0.html)
Br.
Vidar
-
Vidar,
Even though there can be a place near the entrance where the ball may feel a repulsion, the magnetic potential energy at that point and all points nearby is still less than it is far away. There is nowhere you can place the ball where it will be ejected from the magnet's field, and no cheating to be had by placing the ball in the SMOT entrance vs. placing it without magnets.
The best you could hope to do is come out even, by placing the ball exactly at the null in the field where it feels no force.
Cheers,
Mr. Entropy
If we take away loss due to Eddy currents while moving in a magnetic field, friction in form of heat and sound, we will come out even. If you drop the ball in the position in the picture, the ball will remain there, in that sticky spot. It will not move much further back, and not forward.
Then you have the exit where the counterforces are even greater.
Br.
Vidar
-
Stop cluttering this and other threads with your confusion. As I said learn some physics first, understand, for instance, the difference between force and energy (don't just say you understand it, you don't) and only then allow yourself to discuss these matters.
For the record: I'm finished with you Omnibus.
Vidar
-
@Low-Q,
Don't bother posting on this topic. You have no clue and only clutter the thread with nonsense.
-
Vidar,
Even though there can be a place near the entrance where the ball may feel a repulsion, the magnetic potential energy at that point and all points nearby is still less than it is far away. There is nowhere you can place the ball where it will be ejected from the magnet's field, and no cheating to be had by placing the ball in the SMOT entrance vs. placing it without magnets.
The best you could hope to do is come out even, by placing the ball exactly at the null in the field where it feels no force.
Cheers,
Mr. Entropy
@Mr. Entropy,
This is arguable and not entirely necessary.
If there is an area where the magnetic field is essentially null (and there is such an area in SMOT), then the magnetic potential of that point is the same as for an infinite distance. (Magnetic field energy density is zero). That particular point is B by a very good approximation (not exactly, because the ball would remain in unstable equilibrium in that point but B is very, very close to it, as close as the hand can place the ball). So, B is the point of highest magnetic potential energy, although it seems hard to accept at a first glance. That?s why Mb>>Ma.
This is the main reason why conventional thinking about SMOT is not appropriate and why omnibus is obviously wrong.
Please comment.
Respectfully,
Tinu
-
@Low-Q,
Learn some physics first and don't clutter so many threads with nonsense.
-
So, B is the point of highest magnetic potential energy.
That doesn't follow.
This is the main reason why conventional thinking about SMOT is not appropriate and why omnibus is obviously wrong.
Hehe. no, Omnibus is obviously wrong, simply because there are NO MEANINGFUL MEASUREMENTS of energy, direct or indirect, in either the experiment or his analysis.
-
@Mr.Entropy,
How come? There are direct measurements which prove I'm right. h1 can be measured directly, h2 can be measured directly, m can be measured directly. Think before posting.
-
Here's an idea! How about someone make the same test as in the videos but with a foot of ramp before the smot. Would this stop this debate?
Tim
-
Vidar,
Even though there can be a place near the entrance where the ball may feel a repulsion, the magnetic potential energy at that point and all points nearby is still less than it is far away. There is nowhere you can place the ball where it will be ejected from the magnet's field, and no cheating to be had by placing the ball in the SMOT entrance vs. placing it without magnets.
The best you could hope to do is come out even, by placing the ball exactly at the null in the field where it feels no force.
Cheers,
Mr. Entropy
@Mr. Entropy,
This is arguable and not entirely necessary.
If there is an area where the magnetic field is essentially null (and there is such an area in SMOT), then the magnetic potential of that point is the same as for an infinite distance. (Magnetic field energy density is zero). That particular point is B by a very good approximation (not exactly, because the ball would remain in unstable equilibrium in that point but B is very, very close to it, as close as the hand can place the ball). So, B is the point of highest magnetic potential energy, although it seems hard to accept at a first glance. That?s why Mb>>Ma.
This is the main reason why conventional thinking about SMOT is not appropriate and why omnibus is obviously wrong.
Please comment.
Respectfully,
Tinu
This logic is ridiculous. Stop insisting that Omnibus is "obviously" wrong. If you want to prove his theory wrong, then do it! Stop patronizing the rest of us, and saying you are right without adequate proof. I don't think it would take a lot of effort to challenge what Omnibus is saying, but if you are unwilling to go through with it, please be quite.
-
Vidar,
Even though there can be a place near the entrance where the ball may feel a repulsion, the magnetic potential energy at that point and all points nearby is still less than it is far away. There is nowhere you can place the ball where it will be ejected from the magnet's field, and no cheating to be had by placing the ball in the SMOT entrance vs. placing it without magnets.
The best you could hope to do is come out even, by placing the ball exactly at the null in the field where it feels no force.
Cheers,
Mr. Entropy
@Mr. Entropy,
This is arguable and not entirely necessary.
If there is an area where the magnetic field is essentially null (and there is such an area in SMOT), then the magnetic potential of that point is the same as for an infinite distance. (Magnetic field energy density is zero). That particular point is B by a very good approximation (not exactly, because the ball would remain in unstable equilibrium in that point but B is very, very close to it, as close as the hand can place the ball). So, B is the point of highest magnetic potential energy, although it seems hard to accept at a first glance. That?s why Mb>>Ma.
This is the main reason why conventional thinking about SMOT is not appropriate and why omnibus is obviously wrong.
Please comment.
Respectfully,
Tinu
This logic is ridiculous. Stop insisting that Omnibus is "obviously" wrong. If you want to prove his theory wrong, then do it! Stop patronizing the rest of us, and saying you are right without adequate proof. I don't think it would take a lot of effort to challenge what Omnibus is saying, but if you are unwilling to go through with it, please be quite.
Those prooves are easy accessible, and has ben presented several times - which he again are convinced are wrong. The thing is that someone does not give up on his SMOT, no matter what. Probably because he is pretty genuine in his conviction about it.
Vidar
-
@Mr.Entropy,
How come? There are direct measurements which prove I'm right. h1 can be measured directly, h2 can be measured directly, m can be measured directly. Think before posting.
How much energy is dumped into the ceramic dish at the end? A lot means OU, a little means not. There is no measurement. What you say is spent there is just you talking. And since your ridiculous analysis infers a CoE violation from mathematical laws that are known to forbid it, you are obviously in error. Maybe you should learn the basics of vector calculus before you start going on about what happens in a linear superposition of conservative fields.
Cheers,
Mr. Entropy
-
This logic is ridiculous. Stop insisting that Omnibus is "obviously" wrong. If you want to prove his theory wrong, then do it! Stop patronizing the rest of us, and saying you are right without adequate proof. I don't think it would take a lot of effort to challenge what Omnibus is saying, but if you are unwilling to go through with it, please be quite.
Describe something that you would accept as "proof", and I'll oblige if possible.
Cheers,
Mr. Entropy
-
This is arguable and not entirely necessary.
If there is an area where the magnetic field is essentially null (and there is such an area in SMOT), then the magnetic potential of that point is the same as for an infinite distance.
Yes, that is correct.
That particular point is B by a very good approximation (not exactly, because the ball would remain in unstable equilibrium in that point but B is very, very close to it, as close as the hand can place the ball). So, B is the point of highest magnetic potential energy, although it seems hard to accept at a first glance. That?s why Mb>>Ma.
Still no, I think. The point B you choose has to pull the ball against friction and gravity, which means it's reasonably far from the field null. W.r.t. the Bus's video, point A in the dish looks to be far enough away to have a lower PE. Note that I wouldn't feel the need to argue this if you'd said "theoreticaly, we can have Mb > Ma", instead of just "Mb >> Ma". For those who don't know, >> means significantly greater.
W.r.t the SMOT test in this thread, we're comparing a placement at a point B with magents to a placement at point B without magnets, so even though the gravity+friction argument doesn't apply here (due to the downward tiliting of the ramp), there is no cheating going on, because the potential at that point with the magnets moved far away will be a very good zero.
Of course, if the magents really aren't far enough away when they are "removed", then there could indeed be "cheating" of the sort you mention.
Cheers,
Mr. Entropy
-
Vidar,
Even though there can be a place near the entrance where the ball may feel a repulsion, the magnetic potential energy at that point and all points nearby is still less than it is far away. There is nowhere you can place the ball where it will be ejected from the magnet's field, and no cheating to be had by placing the ball in the SMOT entrance vs. placing it without magnets.
The best you could hope to do is come out even, by placing the ball exactly at the null in the field where it feels no force.
Cheers,
Mr. Entropy
@Mr. Entropy,
This is arguable and not entirely necessary.
If there is an area where the magnetic field is essentially null (and there is such an area in SMOT), then the magnetic potential of that point is the same as for an infinite distance. (Magnetic field energy density is zero). That particular point is B by a very good approximation (not exactly, because the ball would remain in unstable equilibrium in that point but B is very, very close to it, as close as the hand can place the ball). So, B is the point of highest magnetic potential energy, although it seems hard to accept at a first glance. That?s why Mb>>Ma.
This is the main reason why conventional thinking about SMOT is not appropriate and why omnibus is obviously wrong.
Please comment.
Respectfully,
Tinu
This logic is ridiculous. Stop insisting that Omnibus is "obviously" wrong. If you want to prove his theory wrong, then do it! Stop patronizing the rest of us, and saying you are right without adequate proof. I don't think it would take a lot of effort to challenge what Omnibus is saying, but if you are unwilling to go through with it, please be quite.
@g4macdad,
It seems you are quite revolted there, aren?t you?
Ok. Let?s shed some light by the means of a very short summary:
Firstly, it is necessary for you to understand that Omnibus? claim is in the first place a huge challenge to the actual electromagnetic theory (and not only).
His claim is very easy to dismiss by one word: conservative. But he went around and he said that a superposition of two or more conservative fields (magnetic and gravitational) may, under certain circumstances, be no longer conservative. Ok with me so far (although the challenge is as huge as the first one). Unfortunately, no proof was ever posted. Please keep this in mind: no proof, of any kind, was ever posted! The discussions went around the following equations: mgh1+Mb-Ma in relation to mgh1+Mb, in what it sounded like the following quote:
?Think about it, when you impart to the ball energy |(mgh1 - (Ma - Mb))| to raise it from A to B then, if CoE is to be obeyed the ball must lose that exact amount, that is |(mgh1 - (Ma - Mb))|, when it goes back to A and complete a closed loop. Not so, however, in our case of the ball completing a closed loop. The ball being at B (raised from A) and having energy (mgh1 + Mb) at B in our case doesn't lose energy |(mgh1 - (Ma - Mb)| when it goes back at A and closes the A-B-C-A loop. The ball in our case loses, as was said, energy Mb = (mgh2 + [KE + ...] ) as well as energy mgh1. This energy (that is the energy (mgh1 + Mb) which the ball loses in going from B back to A, closing the loop) is more than the energy |(mgh1 - (Ma - Mb)| that was imparted to it to raise it from A to B and that's a clear violation of CoE.?
Well, the above does not make sense to any scientists I know.
And consequently, the claim that SMOT is producing energy from nothing is not logically &scientifically supported by any proof. I wish it(energy out of nothing) was true maybe as much as you do if not more, but in the absence of proof I have to point to the truth.
I hope you see that I don?t have to prove anything. I?m just asking for a pertinent and complete proof, following a ground-shaking claim for the entire scientific establishment. And the claim is not made by an amateur (as to be disregarded) but by a competent person.
But I?m also physicist. (It?s not about my non-significant person; most physicists would do the same). And when another person says that SMOT is overunity and he is also part of the scientific and civilized world, only one is possible:
A. he proves to the community he is right (which Omnibus hasn?t done yet, neither theoretically or experimentally).
OR
B. He withdraws his claims.
There is no in between.
My actual posts and arguments clearly support the alternative B above. But that?s just lately. I was as open-minded and forthcoming as I could be for over a year? I?ve seen some HUGE question marks, I?ve asked for details, posted my views (shared by many) but ?the dialogue? always ended in insults to me and to everyone else, as all of us except Omnibus being incompetent. Yet, no proof was ever posted and that?s the main aspect that bothers me most. Well, check the history for yourself, if interested?
The fact that you might not understand why the whole discussion is stuck at this point around Ma and Mb, is a different story that resides in you.
The mere issue that you are pissed of at me does not affect many except maybe yourself. No offense, but you don?t have to love me. Or I least I?m not here for that purpose. ;)
Last, but not least, don?t take it too personally. When I wrote the above I did it for everyone visiting here. The picture is not nice, indeed.
Cheers,
Tinu
-
This is arguable and not entirely necessary.
If there is an area where the magnetic field is essentially null (and there is such an area in SMOT), then the magnetic potential of that point is the same as for an infinite distance.
Yes, that is correct.
Ok, thanks.
I saw your first post then started to slowly write in English and finally I saw your second post. What a relief! ;)
That particular point is B by a very good approximation (not exactly, because the ball would remain in unstable equilibrium in that point but B is very, very close to it, as close as the hand can place the ball). So, B is the point of highest magnetic potential energy, although it seems hard to accept at a first glance. That?s why Mb>>Ma.
Still no, I think. The point B you choose has to pull the ball against friction and gravity, which means it's reasonably far from the field null. W.r.t. the Bus's video, point A in the dish looks to be far enough away to have a lower PE. Note that I wouldn't feel the need to argue this if you'd said "theoreticaly, we can have Mb > Ma", instead of just "Mb >> Ma". For those who don't know, >> means significantly greater.
W.r.t the SMOT test in this thread, we're comparing a placement at a point B with magents to a placement at point B without magnets, so even though the gravity+friction argument doesn't apply here (due to the downward tiliting of the ramp), there is no cheating going on, because the potential at that point with the magnets moved far away will be a very good zero.
Of course, if the magents really aren't far enough away when they are "removed", then there could indeed be "cheating" of the sort you mention.
Cheers,
Mr. Entropy
One clarification, first: I was strictly talking about magnetic potential, in absence of any friction and in absence of gravity. It was my intention to analyze if Mb>Ma or Ma>Mb.
So, after seeing your agreement on the first statement (thanks for that again and please post a better written explanation that I can ever write, if needed), please eventually acknowledge that B is an inflexion point for magnetic potential (in a 2 dimensions graph) or a magnetic potential hill in 3dims. The chart of magnetic flux as provided by Vidar is an excellent aid to everyone interested.
Theoretically, in such a magnetic field the ball can be placed as to (magnetically) "fall" on whichever 360degree horizontally planar direction. But mechanical constraints in SMOT (the rail) make the ball possibly move either forward (toward C) or backward (toward the outside of SMOT). Please acknowledge that BOTH directions are possible. It?s only the user?s hand that places& finely adjusts the ball?s position as it moves forward (toward C), right?
If I?m not wrong in the above then, first conclusion: B is at least a local maximum of magnetic PE.
But: along A-B there are no other inflexion points on PE curve (except of course point C but that?s another story for later; let?s stick for now in the A-B region, where is the issue under discussion) because there is nothing that can cause such an additional inflexion.
From the two above it necessarily logically results that Mb>Ma for SMOT.
(I?ve wrote Mb>>Ma mainly to stress that B is similar to infinity while A is not, case in which is presumable that magnetic potential of B is much larger that those of A.)
There are many whats and ifs but I?d love to hear your thoughts on the above.
Whether you see any mistake, slap me hard to wake me up.
Thanks,
Tinu
-
Low-Q's claim can be tested easily, so there is no point arguing about it. Just put a steel ball on a very very slight decline, so it rolls very slowly. At one end of the decline is a SMOT. If the ball rolls into the SMOT, never decelerating, then Low-Q is incorrect. On the other hand, if the ball does not roll into the SMOT, or at least decelerates before entering, then he is correct.
Ok.
I have performed some small tests regarding this. I used two 30cm long neo-magnets (An array built up like bricks). The track is placed on the floor by using two wooden lists. The floor is a little bit uneven so the ball does not move smoothly, but the experiments went like this:
The ball is placed approx 30 cm in front of the magnets. In this horizontal level, it is no sign of attraction. I can bearly see some attraction when center of the ball is in line with the edge of the magnets enterance. There is bearly repelling forces right before this point, but not enough to stop the ball from entering, if some one accelerate the ball by hand in advance. However the repelling point clearly shows that the ball breaks down a bit in that area.
PS! What you'll see in the video, is that the ball trills backwards in the beginning of the experiment. This is caused by the floor, and not by magnetic repulsion.
The desired attreaction to the magnets before it enters the SMOT is next to nothing. The magnetic lines which is going from the magnets outer poles, are almost going perfectly angular to the direction of the ball, and the magnetic densidy is also very weak, so there is practically no magnetic attraction to the ball at all.
When the ball is pushed further into the SMOT, it accelerate, but stops approx. 3.5cm before the end of the magnet array.
Watch the 18Mb video I made 5 minutes ago, and let the experiment talk (Well, I don't say much though :))
http://www.lyd-interior.no/animations/P1140001.AVI (http://www.lyd-interior.no/animations/P1140001.AVI)
Vidar
-
As I said many times, you are confusing force and energy. Stop wasting everyone's time.
-
As I said many times, you are confusing force and energy. Stop wasting everyone's time.
Let me put it this way: Force is important to transfer energy. Without the force, you cannot move the mass (energy) in the ball, which has a product called transfered energy, or work. So in fact I'm talking about both force, mass and distance. The product is work - which I have understood is the sub-issue discussed in this thread.
Vidar
-
please eventually acknowledge that B is an inflexion point for magnetic potential (in a 2 dimensions graph) or a magnetic potential hill in 3dims. The chart of magnetic flux as provided by Vidar is an excellent aid to everyone interested.
By B you mean the field null. Yes, that is a potential energy maximum, as follows: Assuming an ideal ball, i.e., very small and magnetically soft, the attractive force on the ball is proportional to the gradient of the magnetic field energy density. This is a scalar field equal to the square of the magnetic field strength at every point, so:
F = k*grad(|B|^2), for some constant k.
We know that the force on object from a conservative force field is F = -grad(E), where E is the corresponding potential energy field, so the magnetic potential energy:
E = -k*|B|^2.
Isn't that convenient -- the magnetic potential energy in the ball at any position is proportional to the minus inverse square of the flux density. Of course, then, the field zero at point B is a potential energy maximum because it its a field strength minimum.
Theoretically, in such a magnetic field the ball can be placed as to (magnetically) "fall" on whichever 360degree horizontally planar direction. But mechanical constraints in SMOT (the rail) make the ball possibly move either forward (toward C) or backward (toward the outside of SMOT). Please acknowledge that BOTH directions are possible. It?s only the user?s hand that places& finely adjusts the ball?s position as it moves forward (toward C), right?
Yes, at your point B, the ball feels no force, but that position is unstable (it's the top of a hill), so if you give it a little nudge either forward or backward, the magnets will push it further in that direction.
If I?m not wrong in the above then, first conclusion: B is at least a local maximum of magnetic PE.
yes
But: along A-B there are no other inflexion points on PE curve (except of course point C but that?s another story for later; let?s stick for now in the A-B region, where is the issue under discussion) because there is nothing that can cause such an additional inflexion.
From the two above it necessarily logically results that Mb>Ma for SMOT.
Ah, but there are other inflection points. As you move away from the SMOT from point B, the magnetic field strength quickly increases to a maximum, which means a PE minimum. This is the point where it switches from repulsion to attraction. The field strength then goes down as you continue to move away, approaching a 1/r^3 drop off. As the field drops off, the PE comes back up to zero as -1/r^6, and that gets you pretty close to zero pretty darned quickly. By the time we get to point A, the PE is quite close to its maximum value of zero again.
So, we have Ma and Mb both close to the maximum value of zero. Which is greater, do you think? Theoretically, Mb might be bigger, but in real life:
- consider that you can't actually place point B, where you put the ball, in the field null to start a SMOT, because there's no force there. You have to place it closer to the magnets -- a lot closer, because the magnets have to pull it uphill.
- consider the effect of the ball's radius on Mb -- you can't fit the whole ball into that single point where |B|=0. There will still be a place where it feels no net magnetic force, and it will still be a magnetic PE maximum, but that maximum will be rounder and lower that the one a small ball would see.
In real life, because of these considerations, Ma > Mb.
Cheers,
Mr. Entropy
-
@tinu,
?His claim is very easy to dismiss by one word: conservative.?
No, that?s not only not a basis for an easy dismissal of my claim but isn?t a basis for its dismissal at all. On the contrary, as I?ve explained many times, violation of CoE is observed in this case not because the sum of all the energy terms in the closed loop gives zero mathematically but because some of these terms have appeared out of nothing, out of no source, which is a physical conclusion, not a mathematical one. It should be well understood that in such matters subject of discussion here physics makes mathematics and not vice versa.
It is also most curious to observe how someone like you, claiming to be a scientist, allows himself to say in the same breath:
??Unfortunately, no proof was ever posted. Please keep this in mind: no proof, of any kind, was ever posted!?
while at the same time posting my very proof which shortly states as follows:
?Think about it, when you impart to the ball energy |(mgh1 - (Ma - Mb))| to raise it from A to B then, if CoE is to be obeyed the ball must lose that exact amount, that is |(mgh1 - (Ma - Mb))|, when it goes back to A and complete a closed loop. Not so, however, in our case of the ball completing a closed loop. The ball being at B (raised from A) and having energy (mgh1 + Mb) at B in our case doesn't lose energy |(mgh1 - (Ma - Mb)| when it goes back at A and closes the A-B-C-A loop. The ball in our case loses, as was said, energy Mb = (mgh2 + [KE + ...] ) as well as energy mgh1. This energy (that is the energy (mgh1 + Mb) which the ball loses in going from B back to A, closing the loop) is more than the energy |(mgh1 - (Ma - Mb)| that was imparted to it to raise it from A to B and that's a clear violation of CoE.?
Therefore, your former statement that no proof was ever posted, let alone proof of any kind isn?t true.
Then, not satisfied by saying untruths you appoint yourself to be the speaker of an entity called by you ?any scientists I know?:
?Well, the above does not make sense to any scientists I know.?
continuing to push the falsity that:
?And consequently, the claim that SMOT is producing energy from nothing is not logically &scientifically supported by any proof.?
Speak for yourself, don?t hide behind that fictitious entity ?any scientist I know?. Also, if you?re really a scientist you should know better that it cannot stand as a scientific argument in a scientific discourse.
Therefore, I?m not only not withdrawing my claim despite your wish that claim to just somehow go away but I urge you to curb your enthusiasm to fill the thread with your misunderstanding and confusion, let alone cavalierly massaging the truth.
-
@Omnibus
Let's assume for a moment, that your claims for violation of C of E in a SMOT are true.
Next, let's assume that it's a "mere engineering problem" to close the loop in a SMOT, as you've claimed in so many posts already.
Such a "mere engineering problem" shouldn't be beyond your ability to solve with a practical working demonstration!
Instead of constantly telling us that it is a "mere" engineering problem to be overcome, someone with your "apparent" theoretical ability should have no problem in producing a working model that proves your claims.
If you are really not very good at practical hands on construction, then why not get a "mere" engineer to help you.
It is not a requirement of anyone to prove you are wrong. When you make an extraordinary claim, it is up to you to provide extraordinary proof of your claim !
A practical working model of a looped SMOT would end all debate. I'm sure if you spent half as much time producing a working model, as you have spent trying to convince everyone of your claims, you would have already succeeded in closing the loop, and all your detractors would have to admit they were wrong. But until someone, including yourself succeeds in getting the SMOT to work in a loop, thus proving in a practical way the correctness of your claims, then your claims will always be dismissed as theory not based in fact!
-
@hoptoad,
You've remained with the wrong impression that to prove CoE one needs to build a self-sustaining contraption. That isn't so. Therefore, your desire to see such contraption has nothing to do with what science puts forth as a requirement for a rigorous proof. Also, whatever seems to you extraordinary or non-extraordinary will always remain your own perception. Science doesn't divide claims into such categories and the criteria in science to prove the validity of a claim are uniform throughout.
-
@hoptoad,
You've remained with the wrong impression that to prove CoE one needs to build a self-sustaining contraption. That isn't so. Therefore, your desire to see such contraption has nothing to do with what science puts forth as a requirement for a rigorous proof. Also, whatever seems to you extraordinary or non-extraordinary will always remain your own perception. Science doesn't divide claims into such categories and the criteria in science to prove the validity of a claim are uniform throughout.
@Omnibus
O'K, then lets see some ordinary proof. And what would be better than a working model? After all, theory is fine, but pretty useless if it cannot be applied in a practical manner to benefit humanity in a practical way.
-
@hoptoad,
You've remained with the wrong impression that to prove CoE one needs to build a self-sustaining contraption. That isn't so. Therefore, your desire to see such contraption has nothing to do with what science puts forth as a requirement for a rigorous proof. Also, whatever seems to you extraordinary or non-extraordinary will always remain your own perception. Science doesn't divide claims into such categories and the criteria in science to prove the validity of a claim are uniform throughout.
@Omnibus
O'K, then lets see some ordinary proof. And what would be better than a working model? After all, theory is fine, but pretty useless if it cannot be applied in a practical manner to benefit humanity in a practical way.
This is a misunderstanding of what theory is.
-
This is a misunderstanding of what theory is.
@Omnibus
No it is not a misunderstanding of what theory is. It is my own subjective opinion on the worth of a theory. And each and all of us have there own subjective opinion on virtually any subject.
-
Children, children..... please! No more talk. Start testing. It should be simple enough to rebuild the experiment in the videos but with a longer pre-smot rail. Would the results not settle this dispute? Numbers can be argued for eternity but a physical test is "fairly" conclusive. If I had the time and the materials to build it I would but I don't so hopefully someone reading this does.
Tim
-
Children, children..... please! No more talk. Start testing. It should be simple enough to rebuild the experiment in the videos but with a longer pre-smot rail. Would the results not settle this dispute? Numbers can be argued for eternity but a physical test is "fairly" conclusive. If I had the time and the materials to build it I would but I don't so hopefully someone reading this does.
Tim
Physical test has already been carried out conclusively and the analysis of that test proves beyond doubt violation of CoE.
-
This is a misunderstanding of what theory is.
@Omnibus
No it is not a misunderstanding of what theory is. It is my own subjective opinion on the worth of a theory. And each and all of us have there own subjective opinion on virtually any subject.
Your subjective opinion is of no consequence in a discourse such as this one.
-
Your subjective opinion is of no consequence in a discourse such as this one.
@Omnibus
With the lack of any objective or verifiable proof of your theory, other than your own uncorroborated statement of "Physical test has already been carried out conclusively and the analysis of that test proves beyond doubt violation of CoE." your entire contribution in this thread and many others can only be considered as an exercise in evasive semantics on your behalf. An exercise in which you constantly dodge direct questions or suggestions which may imply a non acceptance or possible disproof of your theory. But having read many of your posts in many threads, I know I should not expect otherwise, as your stance on most occasions is one typified by the great majority of politicians.
-
Your subjective opinion is of no consequence in a discourse such as this one.
@Omnibus
With the lack of any objective or verifiable proof of your theory, other than your own uncorroborated statement of "Physical test has already been carried out conclusively and the analysis of that test proves beyond doubt violation of CoE." your entire contribution in this thread and many others can only be considered as an exercise in evasive semantics on your behalf. An exercise in which you constantly dodge direct questions or suggestions which may imply a non acceptance or possible disproof of your theory. But having read many of your posts in many threads, I know I should not expect otherwise, as your stance on most occasions is one typified by the great majority of politicians.
Like I said, the fact that you don't understand something is inconsequential in a discurse such as this one.
-
infnite smot works. no ramps needed
I posted this picture long time ago
I haven't build it cause it obviously works.
Who doesn't see it as over 100% working should change forum
immidiately.
many experiments like this confirms it
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RKyGDWeblQw&feature=related
infinite smot is based on rail or gauss gun.
whiz
-
I suggest to Harti and others creating forums to make even step foreward
and to delete any message that claims that
- SMOT as such (not bad prototyping) is NOT workable device and annihilates COE to the ground.
- Magnets can NOT be source of free energy and item for building OU devices
People who are claiming that "SMOT is NOT" repeatedly should be banned from this forum.
cause they wasting MB and GB of space and bandwith of internet...
Whiz
-
infnite smot works. no ramps needed
I posted this picture long time ago
I haven't build it cause it obviously works.
Who doesn't see it as over 100% working should change forum
immidiately.
many experiments like this confirms it
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RKyGDWeblQw&feature=related
infinite smot is based on rail or gauss gun.
whiz
That experiment does not confirm overunity. This drawing you have there should be easy to build. So you might build one and show us the result?
Edit: B1 and B2 will not stay in those positions, but some distance before as the flux density is less at the ends than it is a little earlier. B3 must therfor have enough power to push B1 beyond that point. and the energy provided by the acceleration of B3 will not be enough to close the loop
Br.
Vidar
-
I am a little lost on all the talk about cof E, conservation of Energy only applies to energy you produce or acquire and the math against losses to friction etc added to the transfer to your device.
over 30 percent of all electricity produced at the power station is lost before it reaches your home.
these are calculations relevent to normal production transfers of energy "created" which in itself is a silly term for a petrol generator if all energy already exists.
my point being is that cofE is not a usable part of your calculation, gravity is a primary part of your calculations (not counting the strange horizontal diagram).in simple terms
EG:C is first object/device and if A equals energy and A is transferred to B with no losses (mythical frictionless device) Then c equals zero A and B equals the amount originally in C. Correct?? not complicated, not difficult to understand.
if C equals gravity it cannot be lost, because any gain is free if you can manipulate the lift against it, you cannot conserve or lose something you cannot remove, albeit that this is the only power source or Energy type that this applies to, it does not apply in petrol generators, it does not apply in solar or any other form of power generation save hydroelectricity, where if the water was pumped up, this would be your manipulation of lift.
the only conservation of energy from momentum would be if it was entirely lateral or horizontal.
So whilst c of E does apply to your forward momentum, it cannot be calculated as being a source of energy you provided that dissapears or is used up, trying to calculate an angular fall or rise of a rolling ball using c of e is near impossible even at NASA.
take your car and your front wheels, have you ever seen, and i mean ever on any science program, even in digital bullsh1t form, a car seat that has a shock absorber system where the seat travels down toward the front wheels or the inertia point?? why not, it's very simple math isn't it? very simple mechanics according to this thread?? we wouldn't even need seat belts, we simply have a braking system that could stop the car (less skid) at the exact point the brakes are touched, instant stop vehicle. it hasn't been tried not because of lack of mechanics, but because the calculations for c of e on an angular rise or fall are near impossible to calculate even at a fixed speed and set weight.
no tyre compnay in the world ever used this to develop a tyre, they used polymer compound and wall structure and tested it. because the anomalies are too great, as are each of your friction componenets.
Theory is for girls, men build. this is cheap toy stuff, do not give me time and money stories, this is cheap and simple for each of the designs proposed, for those with the mouths, show us at least you jpeg photos. if you are simply an unhelpful person to those trying to use the thread, you should leave.
My advice is simple, do not reply to negative posts, do not reply to theory that does not have a physical description to go with the math, and as this really is about the cheapest trial theory on this site, everyone who claims to be building should have a 2 week period from entry to the thread to post the pictures or be considered a bored housewife using an alias.
I am not a builder of these devices, although was happy to give the aerial placement a key to removing the magnetic hold problem. I just get a little tired of those who having nothing constructive to add to a reasonable attempt at PM. For the builders who have spent the time and effort may success be your.
-
infnite smot works. no ramps needed
...
I haven't build it cause it obviously works.
...
whiz
;D
-
@ Mr. Entropy,
Many thanks. Point taken. My mistake.
(A little bit of excuse would sound like: ?no other maxima? instead of ?no other inflexion points? but it would still not solve the case).
Respectfully,
Tinu
-
infnite smot works. no ramps needed
I posted this picture long time ago
I haven't build it cause it obviously works.
Who doesn't see it as over 100% working should change forum
immediately.
many experiments like this confirms it
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RKyGDWeblQw&feature=related
infinite smot is based on rail or gauss gun.
whiz
Yes - but - the purpose of this site is to extract energy. Your design needs some sort of
output shaft. Could the balls be magnets, and pass through coils which generate electricity?
If the consequent Lenz Law resistance is reasonable, it would not come to a halt.
Paul.
-
infnite smot works. no ramps needed
I posted this picture long time ago
I haven't build it cause it obviously works.
Who doesn't see it as over 100% working should change forum
immediately.
many experiments like this confirms it
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RKyGDWeblQw&feature=related
infinite smot is based on rail or gauss gun.
whiz
Yes - but - the purpose of this site is to extract energy. Your design needs some sort of
output shaft. Could the balls be magnets, and pass through coils which generate electricity?
If the consequent Lenz Law resistance is reasonable, it would not come to a halt.
Paul.
I'm not sure but isn't the steel ball hitting a none magnetic glass ball and launching it? I think whiz idea only uses all steel balls? I may be wrong but this would create a different result. Do any of you have a link to a video that shows a smot with a steel ball trapped at the sticky spot and another steel ball travel through the smot and launch the trapped ball? If this can be done then we might have something. Otherwise I feel the balls will just get trapped.
Tim
-
infnite smot works. no ramps needed
I posted this picture long time ago
I haven't build it cause it obviously works.
Who doesn't see it as over 100% working should change forum
immediately.
many experiments like this confirms it
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RKyGDWeblQw&feature=related
infinite smot is based on rail or gauss gun.
whiz
Yes - but - the purpose of this site is to extract energy. Your design needs some sort of
output shaft. Could the balls be magnets, and pass through coils which generate electricity?
If the consequent Lenz Law resistance is reasonable, it would not come to a halt.
Paul.
The poster was joking.
-
infnite smot works. no ramps needed
I posted this picture long time ago
I haven't build it cause it obviously works.
Who doesn't see it as over 100% working should change forum
immediately.
many experiments like this confirms it
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RKyGDWeblQw&feature=related
infinite smot is based on rail or gauss gun.
whiz
Yes - but - the purpose of this site is to extract energy. Your design needs some sort of
output shaft. Could the balls be magnets, and pass through coils which generate electricity?
If the consequent Lenz Law resistance is reasonable, it would not come to a halt.
Paul.
The poster was joking.
No, I wasn't. As the steel balls pass the bar magnets, they become
magnetised. If a coil is wound around the track and bar magnets,
then the recently magnetised balls will generate a current in this
coil. This will tend to slow the ball,(by Lenz Law) but if this ball
has enough energy from the SMOTs, then it will keep on trucking.
The joy is that the output load on the coil(s) can be adjusted to
adjust the breaking effect experienced by the steel balls.
Paul.
-
No, I wasn't. As the steel balls pass the bar magnets, they become
magnetised. If a coil is wound around the track and bar magnets,
then the recently magnetised balls will generate a current in this
coil. This will tend to slow the ball,(by Lenz Law) but if this ball
has enough energy from the SMOTs, then it will keep on trucking.
The joy is that the output load on the coil(s) can be adjusted to
adjust the breaking effect experienced by the steel balls.
Paul.
Sorry I was unclear, I mean wizycho: "I haven't built it cause it obviously works." That's the best line of all.
-
Paul,
Did you miss my comments? The system in the videos has no chance of cycling back to its original position. Even if you were to create the loop previously shown in this thread.
If your referring to the display of when he lets the steel ball bearing go free on the ramp and it launches the other ball free well this is misleading if you think the "launched" ball is also steel. Its a glass marble. It has no forces holding it in place besides gravity. If it was steel and propelled the same way then yes your idea would work.
Tim
-
Paul,
Did you miss my comments? The system in the videos has no chance of cycling back to its original position.
Tim
There is a confusion here. I cannot see most videos because of my
crude computer equipment.
I was commenting on Wizkicho2's picture of the oval "race track"
on page 5. I think that this proposal has something interesting in it.
Paul.
-
@Paul r
I'm a little confused Paul, a magnetised steel ball is still a magnet, to pass it over other magnets in a smot will do one of two things, stick because your polarity is opposite, or repell meaning you have a magnetic wall on your smot track the ball cannot get past, unless of course the speed from gravity is so great it does a little jump in the air :)
before any of you go along this line of thought, get your desk fan and tape a bar magnet to the end of one of the blades, now build a little wooden frame to hold another bar magnet that is missed by 2mm when the magnet on the blade passes, (or tape it to a stack of books) just make sure the magnet is past the end of the blade and they will just miss each other. North facing north.
now take the blade with magnet to the top and let it go, it will not go past the magnet at the bottom, because repelling creates a wall and the blade will bounce back. the magnetised ball theory will never work, it can't, even if the weight or power ratio is altered it will still have to cut the field and will slow the ball or fan.
-
@Paul r
I'm a little confused Paul, a magnetised steel ball is still a magnet, to pass it over other magnets in a smot will do one of two things, stick because your polarity is opposite, or repell meaning you have a magnetic wall on your smot track the ball cannot get past
The SMOT prinicple is well accepted. You will remember this:
http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/smotidx.htm
I think the ball will run in its runner, be attracted to the slightly
sloping bar magnets, and be accelerated past them. I think the
track should be circular rather than rectangular.
BUT - this time, wind a coil around the bar magnet, the track etc
and as the ball is accelerated through, it will induce a voltage in
the coil because the bar magnet has temporarily magnetised the
steel ball.
Paul.
-
Paul, how do you propose to get the ball back up to its original starting point? That's kind of a big gap in your theory.
Tim
-
Paul, how do you propose to get the ball back up to its original starting point? That's kind of a big gap in your theory.
Tim
There's no "up". It would be a flat, horizontal, circle. The SMOT
principle drives the ball, and the gain, the benefit, is the voltage
coming out of the coil that I proposed. I am going to have a go at
this over the weekend.
*** Don't forget I am not talking about the video - rather the oval
track drawing on page 5.
-
Paul, how do you propose to get the ball back up to its original starting point? That's kind of a big gap in your theory.
Tim
There's no "up". It would be a flat, horizontal, circle. The SMOT
principle drives the ball, and the gain, the benefit, is the voltage
coming out of the coil that I proposed. I am going to have a go at
this over the weekend.
*** Don't forget I am not talking about the video - rather the oval
track drawing on page 5.
You may skip the coils as well at this stage.
Just build the main setup and check that the ball stops pretty fast...
The device DOES NOT self sustain!
Sorry for the bad news,
Tinu
-
@paul
The SMOT principle is well accepted.
Not by all of us, certainly not that theory anyway.
Theory that cannot be built, like travel at light speed squared, is acceptable as not able to be proven, however when you are talking a few hundred dollars tops in materials, then the person who first proposed the theory should have been able to build his own machine, if not it is without question a DUD !!
Do you seriously believe that someone could perfect a theory and then not spend 200 dollars to save the world, if for nothing more than to be the most famous person to have ever lived, I'll say that again "Ever Lived" not modern times or last hundred years??????
For a start, all this winding of coils around tracks and bar magnets is rubbish, if the ball is magnetized you need to have 2 balls both of opposing polarity to induce a current in coils.
For those of you who want the worlds coolest home toy, I am attaching the specs for the tap generator, made from a bottle, magnets and a coil array you can make at home, any school child can build it, and you can get power every time you turn on your tap, free hydro.
The reason I am attaching this, is that it is a very good example of magnetic coil induction for power, and you will note the opposing pole magnetic array, which will help the thread users understand basic induction.
I stand by the principle of gravity Smot using electromagnets as the only likely winner, as the gravity is already free energy.
I prefer the drop and paddle turbine myself for simplicity, by if you insist on using coils, then that?s easy, use a small wheeled car array on your track, then you "can" have alternating pole magnetic array facing your coils simply have alternating poles facing the side of the car with a slight gap between them :) try it straight track first and then to remove cornering friction as would come from normal wheels, change to ball bearing wheels for the car/carriage. Simple, not complicated.
For those who believe the magnetic ball theory, simple, tape one pole of the bar magnet straight to one side of the bloody ball and wave it in front of your coil???? That?s right, nothing!! For induction to coil from magnetic movement you need alternation. No wonder the government hasn?t shut down the site (put your web provider down.). They?ve got nothing to worry about here. Magnetic balls, puhleease.
nb, for some reason the template to help you do the magnet layout is not in this pdf you can get it from the site on the doc.
-
Paul,
So if I'm correct in assuming the below image is what you are thinking will work? I'm also assuming the balls are just steel ball bearings? I don't think when B3 reaching B1 it will push B1 free from its position. I haven't seen any video of such a actions taking place. Do you have one? It will probably just get stuck with B1 and the process will come to a stop.
Tim
-
Paul,
So if I'm correct in assuming the below image is what you are thinking will work? I'm also assuming the balls are just steel ball bearings? I don't think when B3 reaching B1 it will push B1 free from its position. I haven't seen any video of such a actions taking place. Do you have one? It will probably just get stuck with B1 and the process will come to a stop.
Tim
The traditional method has a bar magnet on BOTH sides of
the track, although only one two magnet system is necessary.
This will accelerate a steel ball through. It is closely related to the
Calloway V gate, the Clarke Gate and various tri-gate designs.
In the straighforward SMOT ramp design, the ball will gain a
small amount of height, maybe 1", with ease. I suggest using
this gained energy in kinetic from, i.e. not designing for height
gain, but speed gain, and then slow it down by having the ball,
magnetised temporarily by its proximity to the bar magnet(s),
inducing a current in a coil surrounding the track.
There may be an issue concerning the fact that the TWO bar
magnets either side present different poles to the ball.
Paul-R
Clarke Gate:
http://www.fdp.nu/shared/manager.asp?d=files%5CGraham%20Clarke%5CCorner%20Gate%5CDevices%20with%20the%20corner%20gate%5C
-
Paul,
I think your over looking a very large factor if the design still. Let me comment;
The traditional method has a bar magnet on BOTH sides of
the track, although only one two magnet system is necessary.
This will accelerate a steel ball through. It is closely related to the
Calloway V gate, the Clarke Gate and various tri-gate designs
I agree the it will accelerate through but does the ball not get stuck at the end?
In the straighforward SMOT ramp design, the ball will gain a
small amount of height, maybe 1", with ease. I suggest using
this gained energy in kinetic from, i.e. not designing for height
gain, but speed gain,
I under stand this to however what are you thinking will happen? So if you enter the first ball into the system it will be pulling to one end; I agree. Then you inter the second ball into the system and it will as well be pulled to the other end; again I agree. Now this is where I think we have differing ideas. What do you think will happen when the second ball approaches the first ball that's already stuck at the end?
A: Do you think the second ball with knock the first ball free of the magnetic field thus allowing it to travail onto the next smot.
B: The second ball will hit the first ball but it to will be stuck and not launch the first ball free thus both come to a stop. - This is what I think will happen.
C: Some other action.
If your answer is A then what proof do you have that this will happen? Videos? I have yet to see any video of this happening.
and then slow it down by having the ball,
magnetised temporarily by its proximity to the bar magnet(s),
inducing a current in a coil surrounding the track.
I really wouldn't worry about pulling power off of it yet. Your first goal should be just to make it continuously run.
There may be an issue concerning the fact that the TWO bar
magnets either side present different poles to the ball.
I think this is a non issue.
Tim