Working SMOT ramp from Tom Ferko ?

[nwman]

d3',

Yes, you can do it with two arms and three fixed rails. However if your relying on needed enough energy to pull away from the sticky spot then the two arm design would only equal 0. Three arms with four rails would provide greater thrust at any given time then any resistance and any given time. Two would always be pulling while only one would be at the sticky spot. Again, I'm hoping the sticky spot isn't going to be strong enough to stop the rotation. I also posted what I continues rail would look like but I can't say how it would work. There is a lot of magnetic fields in play.

Tim

[nwman]

Just another thought. You could even play with having two or more wheels in series with different timing. This would allow you two have a virtually continues trace without having the tracks in the same proximity as each other. This would be like the pistons of a motor. However, this is getting complex and costly to build. I think and hope trying with one set of rails and two rotating magnets or steel ends with be conclusive enough to prove the theory.

Tim

Note: The timing is probably off but you get the idea. Its late!

[d3adp00l]

The pic shows too much distance between the top left hand corner rail and the other two. I agree the three on four looks good, I was just saying that 2 on 3 would give a mag in a positive rotation at the point of stick and thereby at least helping get it through. there would be time that it would be one in accel and one in nothing, but for every stick the other would be in accel. and it would be a little easier to build than a 3 on 4. Getting a triple rotor with 120 degrees between each on would be tricky, but a  twin rotor with 180 between can be done on a flat bench. The rails would be easier to place than rotor.

Also please seriously think about a "floating" rotor, a twin on a pivot, to allow the rotor mags to bump off the sticky spot, as in the video. to contain a smooth oscilation of the rotor it would need rails all the way around, and it would have a clean sinewave side profile.

[nwman]

d3',

I take it you don't believe Tom's smot rail actually can get by the sticky spot by itself?

I would need some serious unanimous support by the community to try and build any setup with four plus sets of rails.  It would be over $2,000 to build it easily (using neo's).

Tim

P.S "tom's" spelled backwards is "SMOT"!

[d3adp00l]

its not that I don't believe what I see, its just that I know that sticky spots are the demise of pmms. So before the deign gets to far I would like anything that could hinder it be kicked around until it is in proper submission. looking at a complete stator I can see equal magnetic frustration with a uniform direction, which is what I theorize is needed for a successful pmm.

d3adp00l's theory for a working pmm

1. a field ocsilation is necesary

2. magnetic frustration must be equal along the path of travel

3. the direction of torque must be unified

There I said it, I gave away my secrets. If you can meet those you will have a working pmm. This smot type is the first rotor/stator design that I have hope for, if the stagger is set at midspan on each rod, and if the rotor follows a sin wave through its path, then it will have all of the above.
1. field ocsilation in the movement of the sin wave and in the angles of the stagger
2. the rotor sin path will mantain equal frustration on the rotor.
3. with the bump away from the sticky spot, there will be no negative contribution to
    the system and therefore the direction of torque is unified.

Thats why I feel it needed to discuss the points I have brought up.

2000.00$ what are the dimensions of the magnets you guys are looking for? I will check my pricing.