SMOT TEST- can someone do this?

[Jowik]

Jowik,
    I would like to see any pictures/drawing of this testing.

I no longer have any pictures because my HD on my old laptop failed and I have to save up some money to do some data recovery on it.  I am positive I posted some pictures in this overunity forum, but they don't seem to be here anymore.  There may be discussions on the Steorn forum...  but searching on that forum is a bit tedious.

My original intention was to reply to some of the thoughts on this board concerning the validity on some models.  Most SMOTs don't work because of the fact that the designs cannot bring a ball high enough to re-enter or enter another ramp opposite and so forth.  I realized that the longer a single ramp became the weaker the forces, so I designed a system that used flexible metal backing holding the magnets as a means to allow the ball to move past the strongest point of the ramp and re-enter another identical ramp.  I posted my comments to investigate it further, but most ignored me.  I do recall someone rendering some pics of it.

[nwman]

I hate to ask you to re-write the idea but since there is no previous blogs available would you explain it in more detail/graphics?

Tim

[Jowik]

I hate to ask you to re-write the idea but since there is no previous blogs available would you explain it in more detail/graphics?

Tim

Using flat disc magnets attached to metal strapping in the normal SMOT fashion, so that when the ball travels the ramp the tapered end of the magnet rail flexes towards the ball.  In my tests I used a mouse ball from and old computer mouse I had.  Worked great!  In my tests, since I was able to bend the strapping quite easily, I was able to optimize the travel of the ball up the ramp.  Once particular configuration caused my idea of adding another consecutive ramp because even though the ball whipped past the "sticky spot" it was pulled back... I figured that since it was moving far enough ahead another ramp should allow the ball to enter the other rail easily and it did.  My heart lept when it did.  But that's about as far as it went.  Not enough resources to make something demonstrable.  One of the observable reasons I saw why it worked was because when the ball went past the strongest point in the rail, the rail flexed back to it's normal position, basically releasing the ball from some of the magnetic pull and allowing the ball to be pulled in by the other rail's magnetic field.

Hope that makes sense, sorry for the lack of pictures, I'll see what I can find on other forums I've posted on...

[Low-Q]

Just a brief topic. Below is a graphic that represents a test to find if a SMOT actually works. I am willing to build this however if someone already has the parts to build it I don't want to buy the stuff myself unless I have too. So you would have both a level start and ending surface to rule out any potential energy being released from gravity. The ball would have to be pushed into the the start of the smot with little force or the smot would have to be slid to the ball. Then the ball must travel up the slight incline and then it can be allowed to drop at the end. However again it must not drop lower then the start position. If it does drop and continues to roll free of the magnetic attraction at the end then a SMOT does actually produce energy. I think it will get stuck at the end and not be allowed to get free unless the total incline from one SMOT or more in series is great enough in high to allow the ball to fall far enough down to escape the magnetic field at the end of the rail. Let me know what you all think?

Tim

Just an idea:
Let the SMOT rail go perfectly horizontal. Also build a rail which is one meter before and after the SMOT so the ball can bowl from one end to the other through the
"\ /" shaped SMOT magnets.

If the ball has greater speed almost one meter after the smot than the speed you put in one meter before, your SMOT would add energy to the ball. If so, turn the device 180 degrees horizontally, in order to run it the opposite direction - just to veryfy the potential gain in the SMOT.

Br.

Vidar

[Low-Q]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t5D70lqT1ZU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NNFS63dZIdc

These two Hans.

One shows a ball rolling down a slight slope downwards then dropping suddenly, then climbing a slight incline. a mark is made where the ball reaches on the incline.

The other shows the same track, but with a smot at the beginning of the track. The bal rolls further on this one.

This looks promesing, but there is one big mistake:

The SMOT is placed too close to the staring point. This will give the ball a "free lunch" as the inventor are using energy to put the ball inside the attractive forces of the magnet configuration.

The thing most of you do not concider, is that the steel ball is actually repelled  away from the magnets as they are configurated if the ball was released further away.

The magnetic lines in such configuration influence the magnetic fields in the ball in the same direction as the magnetic lines within a certain distance. As you all know, two equal poles repells. However, when the ball is close enough, almost inside the magnet gap, the magnetic lines in the ball is then configured to attract the magnet.

Therfor, if the ball was launced further away from the SMOT the ball would bowl to the same point as without the SMOT.

An easy experiment confirms this:
Take two magnets on the table with a distance of one to two inces apart. Hold a steel ball in your hand and guide the ball towards the gap between the magnets. At some hight, youll feel that the ball gets lighter. As you are closing, the ball feel suddenly more heavy. This is the drawback with SMOTS. The ball is in fact prevented to enter the SMOT outside the attracting distance. Hence it will fail when closing the loop.

Vidar