Ring Magnet SMOT

[Low-Q]

Vidar,

How can permanent magnets placed at least 5 cm away from the steel ball repel the steel ball?   Please explain.

Gyula

A magnetic field will never stop interact with other magnetic objects no matter how far away they are. Ofcourse the interaction will weaken square to the distance.
In the experiment, as the magnets are flipped 90° outwards, it corresponds to a difference from maybe 3cm to 5cm apart, if the cross section of the magnet bars ar 1x1cm and they are initially 3cm apart at the input.
This increased distance will generally weaken the magnetic interaction by a factor of 0.36, and therfor reduce the extra push by a similar factor. So the difference in the displayed output energy of some 400-450uJoule seems reasonable, but the difference would be 0 if he just kept the magnets where they are suppose to be.
The second experiment is suppose to display the required energy input of the ball for allowing the ball to enter the SMOT input, so he should not touch those magnets at all. Flipping the magnets away in that second experiment will invalidate this due to the explanation above.


This experiment is easy to replicate, so anyone can do this same experiment correctly and prove that a SMOT will fail as a selfrunner as a closed loop.


Vidar

[gyulasun]

A magnetic field will never stop interact with other magnetic objects no matter how far away they are. Ofcourse the interaction will weaken square to the distance.
In the experiment, as the magnets are flipped 90° outwards, it corresponds to a difference from maybe 3cm to 5cm apart, if the cross section of the magnet bars ar 1x1cm and they are initially 3cm apart at the input.
This increased distance will generally weaken the magnetic interaction by a factor of 0.36, and therfor reduce the extra push by a similar factor. So the difference in the displayed output energy of some 400-450uJoule seems reasonable, but the difference would be 0 if he just kept the magnets where they are suppose to be.
The second experiment is suppose to display the required energy input of the ball for allowing the ball to enter the SMOT input, so he should not touch those magnets at all. Flipping the magnets away in that second experiment will invalidate this due to the explanation above.

This experiment is easy to replicate, so anyone can do this same experiment correctly and prove that a SMOT will fail as a selfrunner as a closed loop.


Vidar

Vidar,

I understand that at the entrance of a normal SMOT gate there may be a repel force, however this is valid for the correctly positioned magnetic poles, N-S on the SMOT ramp. But Naudin flipped the magnets 90° so the repel force simply had to diminish to near zero due to the lack of the N-S attract forces ruling in the normal unflipped case.

One more thing to consider when estimating possible flux field strengths for the ball in Test 2 is that Naudin had ferrite magnets which were backed by steel keepers along the outer sides of the magnet rows, see here: http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/smot1jln.htm  When you flip such magnet array 90° up as Naudin did in the video, your strongly guessed numbers above surely become even less.

However, here is the catch which needs no any calculation you improvised out of thin air above.  Pure logic involved in this explanation.

It is clear a SMOT is able to move a steel ball up from point A to point B, where there is a height difference: point B is at a higher point with respect to a base line than point A, right? There is a distance between A and B horizontally of course, this is not important for this explanation.

Now if you accept that a SMOT is able to 'lift' an object from say 30 mm height to 35 mm height, then all you need to do is to realise that this object is able to cover a longer distance when going up a glass pipe after it has fallen from 35 mm versus the case when it has been dropped from only 30 mm, right?  (Notice that in case the ball falls out from a SMOT's output it can have kinetic energy too.)

No matter how small the height difference between the input and output of a SMOT ramp, the ball will always fall into the glass pipe from higher height at the SMOT output, ok?  hence the ball can always have higher potential energy when it falls from a SMOT output versus the case when you simply drop the ball from a lower height into the same glass pipe  (the lower height is equal to the height at the SMOT input wrt to the same base line referred to earlier).

Remember, I do not mean with this logical explanation what you strongly deny may be true,  i.e. that a SMOT could be arranged in a closed loop, this is not proved yet openly.  This explanation simply means for the time being that permanent magnets can do work in a SMOT setup, this you also denied in your previous mails.

Gyula

[Floor]

Check out this video set

very great magnet hieght gain .

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=53_w4KqjIB4


  regards
          floor

[gyulasun]

Check out this video set

very great magnet hieght gain .

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=53_w4KqjIB4


  regards
          floor

Hi Floor,

Thanks and I have followed youtube user 'gilbondfac' on several of his tests.  Here is his recent demo on this topic:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MMmqVDbScAY  you may have seen it.

Gyula   

[Low-Q]

Vidar,

I understand that at the entrance of a normal SMOT gate there may be a repel force, however this is valid for the correctly positioned magnetic poles, N-S on the SMOT ramp. But Naudin flipped the magnets 90° so the repel force simply had to diminish to near zero due to the lack of the N-S attract forces ruling in the normal unflipped case.

One more thing to consider when estimating possible flux field strengths for the ball in Test 2 is that Naudin had ferrite magnets which were backed by steel keepers along the outer sides of the magnet rows, see here: http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/smot1jln.htm  When you flip such magnet array 90° up as Naudin did in the video, your strongly guessed numbers above surely become even less.

However, here is the catch which needs no any calculation you improvised out of thin air above.  Pure logic involved in this explanation.

It is clear a SMOT is able to move a steel ball up from point A to point B, where there is a height difference: point B is at a higher point with respect to a base line than point A, right? There is a distance between A and B horizontally of course, this is not important for this explanation.

Now if you accept that a SMOT is able to 'lift' an object from say 30 mm height to 35 mm height, then all you need to do is to realise that this object is able to cover a longer distance when going up a glass pipe after it has fallen from 35 mm versus the case when it has been dropped from only 30 mm, right?  (Notice that in case the ball falls out from a SMOT's output it can have kinetic energy too.)

No matter how small the height difference between the input and output of a SMOT ramp, the ball will always fall into the glass pipe from higher height at the SMOT output, ok?  hence the ball can always have higher potential energy when it falls from a SMOT output versus the case when you simply drop the ball from a lower height into the same glass pipe  (the lower height is equal to the height at the SMOT input wrt to the same base line referred to earlier).

Remember, I do not mean with this logical explanation what you strongly deny may be true,  i.e. that a SMOT could be arranged in a closed loop, this is not proved yet openly.  This explanation simply means for the time being that permanent magnets can do work in a SMOT setup, this you also denied in your previous mails.

Gyula

I can partly agree with you in the first paragraph. Flipping magnets like that will not longer influence the ball the same way. But remember that the ball falls vertically and almost angular to the bar magnets. And flipping the magnets so they point S and N upwards at left and right side respectively, will therfor attract the ball instead of repelling it. I did some simulations of the situation that proves this. However, the magnets are not able to hold the weight of the ball.
What I try to explain, is that the required input energy must be measured with an unmodified SMOT. Dropping the ball like Naudin did in the second experiment, ignores the repulsion forces at the input, by adding attraction, and put the magnets further apart. That is not the correct way to do the experiment, and the ball will ofcourse roll shorter.


The ball have a gravitional potential as well as a magnetic potential in both input and output of the SMOT. The hight of the ball at the output is unchanged in both experiments, so the gravitational potential energy in the ball is unchanged. So far so good.
However, if you change the magnetic potential at the output, and keep the correct magnetic potential at the input, you will not longer measure the correct output.
I still think he should remain the SMOT unchanged in both experiments. Any change of conditions during an experiment will unddoubtedly invalidate the experiment. The ball rolls upwards with respect to gravity, but not with respect of the magnetic forces. The added potential energy the ball receive at the top of the SMOT is already added by Naudin when the ball is placed inside the SMOT input.


I think I must build this thing to show you


Vidar