chainreactor - self reloading gauss gun

[gaby de wilde]

Cool to see it was invented already. There must be a lot of concepts like this laying around, if only we knew how to search for them.

If we should make it self run using more as one unit for the loop sounds like a good idea.

To enhance the concept I was thinking of using centrifugal force to replace the relatively weak gravity of the concept. Like, shoot the ball to the outside of a spinning rig.

And I'm playing with the idea of using an almost full circle of balls. That way it seems the magnet repels the gap in the row.

Horizontally it would disturb the center of rotation constantly.

[gaby de wilde]

You should check out SMOT ramps and Jean Louis Naudin's MEP work.
Paul.

Do you have some links for me?

Hi Gaby, I had posted a few years back something simular , like such a magnet gun, but it had at both sides of the magnet 2 or 3 steel balls. When the additional ball rolls towards the magnet with its side sticking steel balls, this rolling steel ball  will be attracted also and the magnet flux switches more to this side, where the rolling ball comes in.. so the other side of the magnet, where the other balls are sticking
gets less flux in this moment... Now the rolling ball bangs into the stack and transfer
its attraction acceleration energy through the stack into the last steelball at the other side, which, because it also has less flux can easily escape now
accelerated. This should work now back and forth.

http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,291.0.html

The SBMOT, must be modified, so that an equal number of steel balls is sitting at each side of the magnets. Then the steel ball which approaches the stack "switches" the magnet flux onto this side of the stack and the other side?s last ball
can escape more easily after the hit.

You should try your ideas. How else learn they are wrong? Seriously, this looks very cool, why not build it? I didn't think about having the launched ball enter a next field. It's very interesting!


This was the first thing that popped to mind trying to close the loop. The problem I found with this design is quite funny. It's incredibly hard to get the balls in the right position. I did not succeed. lol


This one looks like a very simple improvement. Just create more vert.


I will try make the test rig, I think it would be good to show the desired OU evidence.

Thanks for bringing up the ideas written/shown earlier, I was not aware of that thread.  Now that I read through all those pages I think pinobot's Vertical Gauss Rifle solution offers itself to be a self-runner, with the following improvements I think:

---the addition of one or two more ring magnets are needed with additional balls
    (see picture by pinobot again:
     http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,291.msg1783.html#msg1783 and you
     can see his ring magnet placed at the 9 o'clock position, if one more ring magnet
     is needed to help defeat friction, then it should be placed at the 3 o'clock
     position; if 2 more ring magnets are needed, then one is placed at 5 and the
     second one is placed at 2 o'clock positions)

I don't understand the time indications. 9 o'olock is at the left 3 is at the right... What direction should it rotate?

---to reduce the friction of the balls inside the tube to a minimum possible, I suggest  using ball bearings INSIDE the tube in the manner a linear bearing is made so that  the big balls making the bangs to each other would be 'wrapped up' with smaller
   ball bearings embedded in a non-magnetic framework, this way the banging balls
    could nicely be guided inside the tube with a minimum kinetic energy loss. Yes, this
   would make the whole setup more expensive to build, it is sure but friction would
    not kill possible self-running of the balls.

I think the ball wont launch as easy if there are small balls holding it in place. Friction is quite a bugger.

Question arises what this setup would serve for other than demonstrating self-running?  How could it be utilized to make useful work out of it? 

I had drawn up this to self-run it. It's more a thought experiment as something I would expect to work.

http://gabydewilde.googlepages.com/chaingenerator
gabydewilde - chaingenerator

Here would come gaby's hint on using magnetic fields to replace gravity (though it is possible with the usage of linear bearing on the balls the vertical arrangement is not needed because the setup might work in horizontal arrangement too, with three ring magnets). So gaby please do some more brainstorming... 

Thanks for the interest

Here is a(nother) nice OU device using magnetism to change gravitational potential.

http://gabydewilde.googlepages.com/weightamplifier
gabydewilde - weightamplifier

.

[gyulasun]

---the addition of one or two more ring magnets are needed with additional balls
    (see picture by pinobot again:
     http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,291.msg1783.html#msg1783 and you
     can see his ring magnet placed at the 9 o'clock position, if one more ring magnet
     is needed to help defeat friction, then it should be placed at the 3 o'clock
     position; if 2 more ring magnets are needed, then one is placed at 5 and the
     second one is placed at 2 o'clock positions)

I don't understand the time indications. 9 o'olock is at the left 3 is at the right? What direction should it rotate? [/quote]

Sorry, I goofed, you are right. My indicated positions will not work.

---to reduce the friction of the balls inside the tube to a minimum possible, I suggest  using ball bearings INSIDE the tube in the manner a linear bearing is made so that  the big balls making the bangs to each other would be 'wrapped up' with smaller
   ball bearings embedded in a non-magnetic framework, this way the banging balls
    could nicely be guided inside the tube with a minimum kinetic energy loss. Yes, this
   would make the whole setup more expensive to build, it is sure but friction would
    not kill possible self-running of the balls.

I think the ball wont launch as easy if there are smal balls holding it in place. Friction is quite a bugger. [/quote]

I see but thought the small ball bearings around the big ball are just make the move easier, just like inside in a real bearing. The banging surfaces of the big balls would be still facing each other, now small bearing balls would be placed there.

Thanks for the links and other ideas, will ponder on them later.

rgds
Gyula

[gaby de wilde]

could the small balls be made of vinyl?

It did make me think if magnets could be used to replaced gravity. Then can place the chains on all sides or run it horizontally.

[gyulasun]

could the small balls be made of vinyl?

Yes I think they could if they could serve as balls of bearings. 
Another solution would be a small plastic toy car for kids which could carry aback the big ball.  and if vertical arrangement is also needed for the big ball, then you could sandwitch the big ball between two such toy cars so that the front and rear parts of the big ball would still be free to collide  (the upper toy car would be positioned upside down so that its wheels would roll on the opposite inner side of the tube with respect to the lower toy car's wheels).