Building a self looping "SMOT"

[MileHigh]

Here I found a document on the Internet.  I hope that you have an Apple II.

[Pirate88179]

  Another approach is to place the steel ball (or 2 or 3 or...n) on a wheel with a GOOD bearing.  And a mag-ramp along one side (or 2 or so).  Here an increase in energy in the system is reflected in an increased speed of rotation (omega).  And the wheel can be horizontal or vertical (or in between).  The wheel becomes the "track" and should have much less frictional losses.

  This is the one I will try.  Does anyone know if the wheel-SMOT has already been tried?  (by whom if so?)    Note:  I'm not talking about the wheel-device which raises the magnet to get things past the sticky-point (although that is interesting, especially if it worked and accelerated). 

I plan to use inertia and gravity to get past the sticky-point, as in the vids by Mehess and Shaw and wytdyk, but with a low-friction wheel this time, instead of a track.

Yes, I posited this idea on this site here somewhere about 3 years ago and have a great set-up for testing my theory.  I have never posted any videos of my work in this area because, thus far, nothing to show.  My idea was to use the SMOT approach from the 2 o'clock position to the the 5 o'clock position such that, gravity would aid in the steel ball mounted on my bicycle rim (with very good low friction bearings using light machine oil) and it would pick up just enough push to make it go past 12:00 and repeat.  The steel ball will go from 12 back to 11 without any magnets.

So far, no dice.  Maybe when I get done with some other projects, I will get back to it again.

Bill

[lumen]

Based on the equations, it took a predetermined amount of fuel/propellant to lift the mass of the rocket carrying the Juno spacecraft against the force of gravity out into space then to break free from the Earth's gravity and then for it to travel to a certain velocity.  Once that fuel/propellant was spent, in order to increase this velocity, even in the low friction vacuum of space requires more fuel/propellant to be spent.  Juno used the gravity sling-shot to increase its velocity without burning more fuel/propellants to do so.  Was more fuel spent?  If it was, was it spent to increase its velocity or only to maintain direction and for control?  So, Yes, the increase in velocity was accomplished by a gravity sling shot effect...means gravity produced work, the same effect as burning more fuel/propellants. So you are telling us that no work is done unless fuel is consumed, got it.

The problem here is that it was not the gravity that did the work, it was the earth moving through space that applied the energy.
Gravity served only as a tie to earth much the same way as a rope or rubber band. The same effect can be seen in a water skier as the boat makes a turn the skier can accelerate to a speed faster than the boat, but it was not the rope doing the work, it was the boat and the skier doing a slingshot effect.

[tinman]

If you are going to try and produce any kind of convincing analysis then you would be wise to use the generally accepted terminology and usage when discussing Newtonian mechanics. Otherwise it just makes your explanation look totally meaningless . (Which it is).

Firstly, energy is a scalar quantity. It does NOT have a direction associated with it. 

What you have drawn is an estimation of the FORCES acting on the ball.

The ball only has 'energy' due to it either moving (kinetic energy) or having potential to move (gravitational and/or magnetic potential energy).

The ball has both kinetic and potential energy-the ball is moving,and gravity is acting apon it.
Force has direction associated to it,and a given force over time requires a given amount of energy.

What part dont you understand?.

[tinman]

Tinman:

I hit my keyboard the wrong way and I lost my posting by closing the browser tab. I hate that so I'm just going to rattle it off from memory.

For the brick, I mentioned the resistance of the wire.  But in the context of the question, "work on the brick" only refers to whether the brick is lifted or not.  Beyond that I agree that all sources of energy should be taken into account when you analyze a system.

For the clip, I don't see two other places where there is increased energy.  Please indicate what you mean.  My take on the clip is that it's pretty straightforward.  The ball gets no net energy as it goes through the ramp and it's the gravity boost at the end that allows the ball to continue rolling.

You are still forgetting or having trouble visualizing the fact that the ball is still inside a potential energy well as it falls when it gets back to the same level it started at.  The ball may be moving, as compared to being still when it starts.  But you still are not factoring in the magnetic potential energy at both positions and you have to.  The falling ball has less energy than the ball in the starting position.

I looked at the Billmehess video that was linked to and I saw two major errors.

Sorry, but there is something about rewriting a posting that you lost that is so difficult, I don't know why.

MileHigh

Quote; For the clip, I don't see two other places where there is increased energy.

Not increased energy,but the potential to increase the energy of the ball,and decrease it's energy loss. This is why i say that the present design is not as efficient as it could be made.
You said in a previous post that you can look at the video clip's,and determond what was happening. So i would like you to look at it again,and tell me where you think we can gain both kinetic and potential energy in the ball,useing the motion of the system. 1 of these losses i have already shown in post 393Im refering to this video,and this design of smot.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4VN6KWM8Rbc

Quote: You are still forgetting or having trouble visualizing the fact that the ball is still inside a potential energy well as it falls when it gets back to the same level it started at.

Absolutely not.Look at my pic on post 392. You will see that i have included the magnetic field,and im well aware that it is acting apon the ball.
Please note that both scetches are only a visual recognition,and are not intended to be exact,but an indication of my thoughts.

Quote: The falling ball has less energy than the ball in the starting position.

I believe that the ball at the start position only has potential energy(due to the magnetic field),and only gains kinetic energy once it starts moving. The ball,once leaving the smot ramp ,has both kinetic and potential energy. The gravity potential is obviously greater than the magnetic potential,or the ball wouldnt drop. Most of the energy in the ball is lost on the exit ramp,where it has to make a 90* change of direction. This is something that must be eliminated. This is the same flaw in all the smot devices i have seen.