Working SMOT ramp from Tom Ferko ?

[d3adp00l]

Here's a thought on the circular curved rail post before this, use three sets of rails equally spaced, with at least half of a rail length separating the rails. by taking advantage of the accelerated gravity you might just have something there. Remember, timing of the hard points in the acceleration zone of another.

I had thought of that idea but I was trying to focus more on the SMOT shown at the beginning of this thread and how it seems able to escape the sticky spot. If it truly can then the wheel "should" work with just one set of rails in principle. No real need "yet" to make it more complex. I don't think "gravity" is playing a roll in this concept. Not at the moment anyways.

So lets say the SMOT works and it can propel like it shows in the video (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6531588179303444480) Then by adding four more smots around a three spoke wheel like in the graphic below you would improve the performance of the wheel. How knows, maybe this setup is needed to make it work. I'm trying t take baby steps and not add more physics to the experiment then necessary.

First I want to reproduce Tom's video. If it works then I want to take what I know works and tweak it little by little by seeing if the same setup will work on a curved plain. It may even work better due to the fact that the wheel would be balance so the rotating magnets would have no relative weight (besides drag on the axle). Thus taking less force to move them. Then if it works on a curved plain (wheel) it should add energy to the wheel with every pass through the SMOT. The key though I think is the SMOT actually working. Setting up the three spoke idea below would even improve upon its performance even if it had a sticky spot...... I assume.

So note the picture below and fallow the rotation of the yellow magnet. At every point the wheel has one arm being pulled in, one being pulled through, and one at "the sticky spot" (if the smot doesn't work on its own). This would lead me to conclude that there should be near twice the force rotating the wheel then trying to stop it at any given point of rotation. Yada, Yada.

What do "y'all" think?

Tim

Note: Stage 4 seems not to be optimal but this is do to my hasty construction. With some tuning of the length of the rails it should be more seamless.

The reason I suggest the three rails is the same as your 4 rail triple setup. So long as there isn't an equal division between the roto and rails I think you might have a chance. Three rails was the easiest/simpliest method to do that 3/4 4/5 all should work so long as the rails do not overlap with similar poles, that would create a squeeze effect on the narrow section of the rails and increase the stick of the sticky spot. if they overlap they would have to overlap with opposite poles to spread the sticky spot, however with a magnet on the rotor the new opposite poles would counter completely.

With one rail and two rotor mags, heres my 2 cents, at the narrow section (sticky spot) the mag is going to need something to help it break through the attraction to the rails, being that is the point of greatest attraction (lowest frustration/energy). I think you will need one of a few things it not all of them, high mass in the rotor mag, using gravity to help the acceleration past the escape velocity, the fact that the system is counter balanced and therefore no relative wieght works for and against you, easy to lift the uphill side, but easy for the sticky spot to hold onto also. Momentum/inertia of the rotor relative to the strength of the sticky spot will be key. I would suggest neo rails alinco rotor, heck who knows maybe a steel rotor would do it.

I believe a multi rail design will be needed to work, not just to make the whole thing stronger. with the downward action of the rotor being an acceleration from the rails, you should get a good amount of speed, the sticky spot will take some of that away (gravity+magnetic induced accel- sticky force-energy lifting rotor#2= net result). The timing needs to be set so that at any given sticky spot another rotor is in the middle of a rail.

Ok I did a little sketch, heres what I come up with, in order for the middle of one rail to be the end of another, the begining and end will be at the same point, which as I said earlier squeezes the sticky spot tighter. Which can be countered be placing a magnet with the oppsite end in contact with the narrow end of the rail mag, the the cancelation mag going away from the motor. Its a little hard to describe and I am not going with computer drawings, I could draw it by hand nicely, but my scanner isn't working.

I think the concept has merit, and as with most prototypes, I agree start simple and test, let the complication evolve only as necessary. Good luck. and keep us informed how the battle goes.

I personally have given up on motors with sticky spots, I have run way too many prototypes and unlike the "i'm rubber and you're glue" comeback that won everything as a child, in this case the glue always beat me. If anyone is curious about that check the thread I started.

[d3adp00l]

Well I watched the video again, always a good idea to recap. And here goes we all know how the roller tracks back and forth. It is more important than just something to stop from happening. Complete the stragger stator in a complete circle & hinge the rotor so it too can wander a bit(possibly with some kind of rubber dampening) Allow the rotor to follow a path that if looked at from a side view would create a sine wave, in that manor the needed ocsilation that all motors need would be pressent, and that oscilation allows the rotor to bump around the sticky spot, making it not necessary to fight through the spot.

Btw I know all of this is coming out fast, its more of a log of ideas, so that those who pursue this type of design can if they want give it a go, or not. I don't want anyone thinking that I am telling them what to do, as if I know so much or something.
Consider it a refence for those who want it.
cheers

P.S. The biggest reason I feel the need to put these ideas up, is I will forget them by the time I am done with my current project.

[nwman]

The reason I suggest the three rails is the same as your 4 rail triple setup. So long as there isn't an equal division between the roto and rails I think you might have a chance. Three rails was the easiest/simpliest method to do that 3/4 4/5 all should work so long as the rails do not overlap with similar poles, that would create a squeeze effect on the narrow section of the rails and increase the stick of the sticky spot. if they overlap they would have to overlap with opposite poles to spread the sticky spot, however with a magnet on the rotor the new opposite poles would counter completely.

With one rail and two rotor mags, heres my 2 cents, at the narrow section (sticky spot) the mag is going to need something to help it break through the attraction to the rails, being that is the point of greatest attraction (lowest frustration/energy).

In any other SMOT set up your right. The magnet wouldn?t be able to escape the ?sticky spot?. However that is the difference in this setup if presumably the offset rail design of Tom?s shows he found a way past the sticky spot. At least in his video it shows it escaping the end. The only question is what forces are acting on the ring magnet at the beginning of the rail? From Tom?s description of the polar alignment the first rail should attract the Ring magnet into the rail which is then where Tom?s first video take off and shows it traveling through and clear of the rails. Like a pitching machine throwing (accelerating) a ball.

I think you will need one of a few things it not all of them, high mass in the rotor mag, using gravity to help the acceleration past the escape velocity, the fact that the system is counter balanced and therefore no relative wieght works for and against you, easy to lift the uphill side, but easy for the sticky spot to hold onto also. Momentum/inertia of the rotor relative to the strength of the sticky spot will be key.

-I agree with higher the mass the better.
-By using gravity on the downward swing yes it will help escape but then it would equally loose that energy trying to go up the other side. Thus not adding anything to the device.
-The wheel in a balance state will still have inertia. It will hold any additional energy added efficiently, I would presume. It would take all the friction from rolling and put it on a low friction ball bearing axle instead.

I would suggest neo rails alinco rotor, heck who knows maybe a steel rotor would do it.

There is a vary good change that I will be buying Neo magnets for one a set of rails. That will be near $240 and then times that by however many sets of rails you would need. I?m really hoping for just one set. Once I have Tom?s first video experiment reproduced I plan on trying block magnets and steel instead of the ring magnets to see if there is any better material. Again, baby steps.

I believe a multi rail design will be needed to work, not just to make the whole thing stronger. with the downward action of the rotor being an acceleration from the rails, you should get a good amount of speed, the sticky spot will take some of that away (gravity+magnetic induced accel- sticky force-energy lifting rotor#2= net result). The timing needs to be set so that at any given sticky spot another rotor is in the middle of a rail.

I?ll make a graphic on the next post.

Well I watched the video again, always a good idea to recap. And here goes we all know how the roller tracks back and forth. It is more important than just something to stop from happening. Complete the stragger stator in a complete circle & hinge the rotor so it too can wander a bit(possibly with some kind of rubber dampening) Allow the rotor to follow a path that if looked at from a side view would create a sine wave, in that manor the needed ocsilation that all motors need would be pressent, and that oscilation allows the rotor to bump around the sticky spot, making it not necessary to fight through the spot.

I agree and also had thought about aligning the rails end to end around the circumference of the circle. However I didn?t want to venture that far not knowing without testing how two rails back to back would react. I ?think? it would work but I?m holding off until I can test it. Any time you add more magnets to the equations some weird things can happen that I myself have no chance of predicting.
Also, I had thought of adding a slide on the ring magnets(or other) that would also allow for the magnet to wave back and forth if it was necessary. I know from a previous gravity wheel attempt that if you have weights moving perpendicular to the rotation of the wheel you get a LOT of vibration. But if its needed to make it work then be all means.

Btw I know all of this is coming out fast, its more of a log of ideas, so that those who pursue this type of design can if they want give it a go, or not. I don't want anyone thinking that I am telling them what to do, as if I know so much or something.
Consider it a refence for those who want it.

I appreciate your input greatly. It is all to easy to make it work in your head but not in reality. That?s why I had asked for anyone?s input to help sharpen my understanding of what might happen and argue my point and possibly be beaten.

[MrMag]

NWMAN,

Your idea looks great! I don't foresee any problems but then again everything works good on paper. I hope it works!

I haven't been following this thread lately but man there are a lot of great ideas out there. Someone is going to get this working sooner or later.
Good luck to all.

Tim

[d3adp00l]

One of my driving concepts behind all of this;
If sailors can sail upwind then a magnet can spin.