SMOT Triangular Enclosure Variation, Closed Loop?

[jeffc]

This is not going to work with 1 ball.
Point 1 - 2 = oke
Point 2 - up = not sure
Point 2 -3 = oke

But it will stop at point 3 or else magnet F will stop it. But I think the force at point 3 is really big.

When you want to shoot something you need other things. You can see someone shooting balls in this movie (time 00:35):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RKyGDWeblQw
You alway's need a second ball otherwise it will just stop at the end.
Also your second idea has the same problem it will stop at the end of the magnets.
Correct me if I'm wrong.

But don't give up! 

-edit-
Checked you drawing again.
Maybe when you use 3 balls on your first idea and also use magnets at point A. Hmmmm... could be... 

@Grolo
Hi, thanks for your thoughts.  I've been thinking that if the horizontal kinetic energy is high enough at point (3) then the bearing will escape without needing magnet at (F).  If it gets stuck at (3) adding a magnet at (F) may provide enough force so that it will not get stuck.  BUT if it is necessary to put a magnet at (F), the magnet needs to be strong enough to assist the bearing to escape the grip of the series magnets at point (3), BUT NOT STRONG ENOUGH TO HOLD THE BEARING against the enclosure wall at (F). 

That way, the bearing will drop to the ramp below without getting stuck at (3) or against the wall at (F).

Does anyone else think this can work?  I think this can be configured so that the bearing doesn't stick.

Regards,
jeffc

[jeffc]

I just read about over unity today, and an idea popped into my head.  I made a diagram, and it's kind of like this triangle theory except it employs a circular track and also uses magnetic shielding.  I assume magnetic shielding is a reality, and it will hopefully keep the ball rolling down the decline after it exits the magnet array.

Click to Enlarge


I'm probably forgetting something dumb, or just don't understand the whole concept.  So please, debunk my theory or prove it's worth.

@Honsou

I looked at your diagram again, and I think that if you made a more rapid vertical drop of the track at the "fast" end of the SMOT, you might escape the plain of the magnetic force and not need the shielding.  This would be similar to the other design that I mentioned in my previous reply.
Regards,
jeffc

[gyulasun]

@Grolo
Hi, thanks for your thoughts.  I've been thinking that if the horizontal kinetic energy is high enough at point (3) then the bearing will escape without needing magnet at (F).  If it gets stuck at (3) adding a magnet at (F) may provide enough force so that it will not get stuck.  BUT if it is necessary to put a magnet at (F), the magnet needs to be strong enough to assist the bearing to escape the grip of the series magnets at point (3), BUT NOT STRONG ENOUGH TO HOLD THE BEARING against the enclosure wall at (F). 

That way, the bearing will drop to the ramp below without getting stuck at (3) or against the wall at (F).

Does anyone else think this can work?  I think this can be configured so that the bearing doesn't stick.

Regards,
jeffc

Hi Jeff,

Yes, I think your setup has got a chance to work. Surely it needs a LOT OF EXPERIMENTING and PATIENCE. I think you feel pretty sure where the places for pitfalls are found and how these could be eliminated. 
Some thoughts to help chances to work:
-vary the length and the steepness of slope B to control a little the kinetic energy of the ball
-try to change the mass of the ball to get a feel on the dependence of its mass (or weight) versus the magnets' strength, there must be an optimal ratio between the mass and the strength of the uphill magnets to get the best escape speed at point 3)
-you may wish to try the "normal" SMOT ramp where the ball rolls uphill on the upper level, not below the ceiling: this way there may be a better chance to let the ball escape at point 3) by making the track shorter than that of the raw of the pulling magnets, you have probably meant this in your earlier letter, I quote: (the track drops below the plain of the magnets on the return.  I think this is an interesting variation)

Surely there are some other 'pitfalls' to fight with, only experimenting can give the best answers.  Do not loose heart!

Regards
Gyula

[jeffc]

@Grolo
Hi, thanks for your thoughts.  I've been thinking that if the horizontal kinetic energy is high enough at point (3) then the bearing will escape without needing magnet at (F).  If it gets stuck at (3) adding a magnet at (F) may provide enough force so that it will not get stuck.  BUT if it is necessary to put a magnet at (F), the magnet needs to be strong enough to assist the bearing to escape the grip of the series magnets at point (3), BUT NOT STRONG ENOUGH TO HOLD THE BEARING against the enclosure wall at (F). 

That way, the bearing will drop to the ramp below without getting stuck at (3) or against the wall at (F).

Does anyone else think this can work?  I think this can be configured so that the bearing doesn't stick.

Regards,
jeffc

Hi Jeff,

Yes, I think your setup has got a chance to work. Surely it needs a LOT OF EXPERIMENTING and PATIENCE. I think you feel pretty sure where the places for pitfalls are found and how these could be eliminated. 
Some thoughts to help chances to work:
-vary the length and the steepness of slope B to control a little the kinetic energy of the ball
-try to change the mass of the ball to get a feel on the dependence of its mass (or weight) versus the magnets' strength, there must be an optimal ratio between the mass and the strength of the uphill magnets to get the best escape speed at point 3)
-you may wish to try the "normal" SMOT ramp where the ball rolls uphill on the upper level, not below the ceiling: this way there may be a better chance to let the ball escape at point 3) by making the track shorter than that of the raw of the pulling magnets, you have probably meant this in your earlier letter, I quote: (the track drops below the plain of the magnets on the return.  I think this is an interesting variation)

Surely there are some other 'pitfalls' to fight with, only experimenting can give the best answers.  Do not loose heart!

Regards
Gyula

Hi Gyula,
Thanks for your suggestions, I think they are very important points to experiment with.  I have toyed with a design where the bearing rides on top of an inner track to support its weight instead of requiring the magnet series to handle the whole burden.   This would make the design more similar to a normal SMOT.  We?ll see, I want to try to make it work with my original design before applying the variation.

I?m working on the enclosure design so that I can vary the angle of the incline, as I think this will help with the fine tuning.  We?ll see!
Regards,
jeffc

[Freezer]

Just an visualization.