I have been able to improve the design substantialy. The ball is now approaching the entry point on the uchannel at a much higher elevation than in the first video.
Here is the youtube link- enjoy!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w6J00q-ABA8
Bill
I''m sorry to have to break the news for you....but you are light years away from self looping your SMOT.
The elevation is sky high considering the ball having used all it's energy when aproaching the "staircase".
Quote from: FatChance!!! on March 31, 2011, 06:15:03 AM
I''m sorry to have to break the news for you....but you are light years away from self looping your SMOT.
The elevation is sky high considering the ball having used all it's energy when aproaching the "staircase".
When I first started the elevation between the ball and the top of the uchannel was 2" at the entry point. I have reduced this to 1/2". The ball speeds up when it moves from the connecting uchannel onto the glass plate. It is picking UP energy and NOT slowing down. Another gain of 1/2"
and the ball will enter the uchannel of the SMOT. There is NO GATE at the SMOT entry point
the ball will in effect be sucked up into the magnet configuration and the roll thru will continue.
Bill
I have just posted a third video with an additional SMOT to help clearify what is happeneing
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nr98e23biGU
Bill
Quote from: billmehess on March 31, 2011, 12:04:30 PM
I have just posted a third video with an additional SMOT to help clearify what is happeneing
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nr98e23biGU
Bill
all I can say is prove it..... you say its possible, so do it already :) don't get me wrong here, I would love for you to succeed, but you wont succeed convincing people it will work when you haven't got it to work (close loop that is)
Quote from: billmehess on March 31, 2011, 12:04:30 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nr98e23biGU
It looks to me as there is a weak repulsion force at the entry of the Smot gate!
This means you have two forces to combat before you can get your Smot self running, elevation and repulsion.
I look forward to your next video. Good luck.
There is no repulsion force at the entry only at the exit. The SMOT attracts at the entry point.
Elevation is the challange.
Quote from: Poit on April 01, 2011, 01:10:03 AM
all I can say is prove it..... you say its possible, so do it already :) don't get me wrong here, I would love for you to succeed, but you wont succeed convincing people it will work when you haven't got it to work (close loop that is)
Agree 100% but I thought the group would find the development interesting.
Quote from: billmehess on April 01, 2011, 03:08:25 AM
Agree 100% but I thought the group would find the development interesting.
I can't speak on behalf of everyone, but I for one am interested in the development. I too am trying something smot related. When i am done ill post a video.
Quote from: billmehess on April 01, 2011, 03:06:23 AM
There is no repulsion force at the entry only at the exit. The SMOT attracts at the entry point.
Elevation is the challenge.
OK, prove this by moving the aluminum carrier well below the Smot entry and then roll the ball
gently towards the entry until it gets sucked in by itself from a clear and visible distance.
The aluminum carrier should not lean in any direction...it must be absolutely horizontal.
You could show this in your next video.
@billmehess: The problem is not only to raise the ball 1/2 inch at the end of the track, but the ball are also repelled by the magnets before it reach the 1/2 inch step, and therfor loose kinetic energy in addition to the friction in the track. Try to raise the track gradually 1/2 inch so the end of it is aligned with the SMOT. Then you can see that it will not be able to enter the SMOT for a second, or possibly endless run.
The ball will be repelled in this area because the magnets are attracting eachother, and it requires energy to enter the SMOT itself. Putting the magnets in repelling alignment will force the ball into the track, but not be able to push the ball upwards because the field are zero half way up the track.
In both ways the ball will gain its kinetic energy due to gravity, minus the attraction to the magnet which slows down the acceleration in the gravity field. So for these reasons you cannot close the loop for a self sustaining SMOT. There is always a reaction to any actions applied to the ball - wether it is magnetic or gravitational.
Wish you could succeed. Good luck!
Vidar
Quote from: FatChance!!! on April 01, 2011, 04:09:17 AM
OK, prove this by moving the aluminum carrier well below the Smot entry and then roll the ball
gently towards the entry until it gets sucked in by itself from a clear and visible distance.
You could show this in your next video.
I understand now why he is so worked up.... what you deny is clearly not the point here... of course it can enter the gate no problem..... the REAL point is that the ball can NOT escape the end gate on a level (hence why he has it go off a drop)... getting it into the start from a level is easy, getting it exit from a level is impossible...
To : Fat Chance, LowQ & Poit
Of course the ball can enter the SMOT. There is NO replusion here, the SMOT eaisly sucks the ball into it. Look at the video with the two SMOTS, the SMOT3 001 video, and you will see that CLEARLY in the second what I called a "down and dirty SMOT" I built it just to show this effect.
Again there is NO replusion only attraction at the SMOT enterance.
Any slowing down is only due to friction!!!!!!
The ball enters the magnetic conf. at a good speed. It exits the scoop at a good speed. What I have done so far has been able to reduce my initial height from about 2" to less than 1/2"
Will I be sucessful in this last hurdle, time will tell.
Potential energy is not a problem, it is a non factor. As far as the ball not being able to leave the SMOT due to height every video shows it doing just that.
@billmehess:
My 2 cents.
When your ball exit from the gate and fall down, then it lose some energy
in the crash with the bottom; you must to smooth this fall
to gain energy in this phase with a gentle slide. Not too gentle
otherwise your ball don't exit from the gate and not too steep
otherwise your ball wastes energy.
Icarus
Bill,
Here is something you may want to try.
The track is level.
Groundloop.
Quote from: icarus on April 01, 2011, 11:30:19 AM
@billmehess:
My 2 cents.
When your ball exit from the gate and fall down, then it lose some energy
in the crash with the bottom; you must to smooth this fall
to gain energy in this phase with a gentle slide. Not too gentle
otherwise your ball don't exit from the gate and not too steep
otherwise your ball wastes energy.
Icarus
When the ball falls off the exit point it falls into a scoop which causes it to come back up and land on the exit board at a much higher spot than if it just fell off. The scoops angles are such that
a minimum amount of energy is lost in the fall. Its in the video!!
Quote from: icarus on April 01, 2011, 11:30:19 AM
@billmehess:
My 2 cents.
When your ball exit from the gate and fall down, then it lose some energy
in the crash with the bottom; you must to smooth this fall
to gain energy in this phase with a gentle slide. Not too gentle
otherwise your ball don't exit from the gate and not too steep
otherwise your ball wastes energy.
Icarus
when the ball falls off the end of the ramp it enters into a scoop which causes it to roll back up and enter the exit plate at a much higher level than if it just fell to the floor. Also this angle is gentle so that a minimum amount of energy is lost. Its all on the video!
Quote from: Groundloop on April 01, 2011, 12:26:32 PM
Bill,
Here is something you may want to try.
The track is level.
Groundloop.
This has been tried many times it will not work as the ball will not be able to enter the second set of magnets, At that point there is a strong repulsion effect.
Quote from: billmehess on April 01, 2011, 10:44:43 AM
To : Fat Chance, LowQ & Poit
Of course the ball can enter the SMOT. There is NO replusion here, the SMOT eaisly sucks the ball into it. Look at the video with the two SMOTS, the SMOT3 001 video, and you will see that CLEARLY in the second what I called a "down and dirty SMOT" I built it just to show this effect.
Again there is NO replusion only attraction at the SMOT enterance.
Any slowing down is only due to friction!!!!!!
The ball enters the magnetic conf. at a good speed. It exits the scoop at a good speed. What I have done so far has been able to reduce my initial height from about 2" to less than 1/2"
Will I be sucessful in this last hurdle, time will tell.
Potential energy is not a problem, it is a non factor. As far as the ball not being able to leave the SMOT due to height every video shows it doing just that.
Yes, it is, but the slope are too steep to slow down the ball significantly/visually. I have done both simulations and practical experiments on this. A ball running on a horizontal track, and approach a SMOT ramp, will stop before the ramp an be pushed slightly backwards again, but close enough the ball will be attracted. However, to get close enough, work must be applied. This is because the ball at a given distance, and farther away are magnetized with the flux that is not between the magnets, but the flux that is going from outside one magnet and into the outside of the other magnet. Therfor the ball will have S and N at the same sides as the magnets in the SMOT. But this magnetism will change polarity when the ball are getting close enough between the magnets.
Make a simulation in FEMM, and it is the quite clear what is happening.
Vidar
Quote from: billmehess on April 01, 2011, 10:44:43 AM
To : Fat Chance, LowQ & Poit
Of course the ball can enter the SMOT. There is NO replusion here, the SMOT eaisly sucks the ball into it. Look at the video with the two SMOTS, the SMOT3 001 video, and you will see that CLEARLY in the second what I called a "down and dirty SMOT" I built it just to show this effect.
Again there is NO replusion only attraction at the SMOT enterance.
Any slowing down is only due to friction!!!!!!
The ball enters the magnetic conf. at a good speed. It exits the scoop at a good speed. What I have done so far has been able to reduce my initial height from about 2" to less than 1/2"
Will I be sucessful in this last hurdle, time will tell.
Potential energy is not a problem, it is a non factor. As far as the ball not being able to leave the SMOT due to height every video shows it doing just that.
I said the OPPOSITE to that... the ONLY reason why the ball can leave the exit part of the gate is due to gravity. To prove my point, take away the fall and have the ball go up the slope and then make it escape the gate on a level track (no falling at all), impossible. It can NOT escape the magnetic fields that brought it there to begin with.
Quote from: Low-Q on April 01, 2011, 02:14:03 PM
Yes, it is, but the slope are too steep to slow down the ball significantly/visually. I have done both simulations and practical experiments on this. A ball running on a horizontal track, and approach a SMOT ramp, will stop before the ramp an be pushed slightly backwards again, but close enough the ball will be attracted. However, to get close enough, work must be applied. This is because the ball at a given distance, and farther away are magnetized with the flux that is not between the magnets, but the flux that is going from outside one magnet and into the outside of the other magnet. Therfor the ball will have S and N at the same sides as the magnets in the SMOT. But this magnetism will change polarity when the ball are getting close enough between the magnets.
Make a simulation in FEMM, and it is the quite clear what is happening.
Vidar
[/quote
Almost everythting you said here is incorrect.
The ball approaches the SMOT ramp with speed because it is sloped slightly down from when it enters the receiving ramp from the uchannel connecting the two plates. The " work" that must be applied is gravity.
The ball enters the SMOT easily !!!!!
As far a FEMM goes they are unbelievably worthless. A sim will not anticipate what actually will happen. I have seen 100's of sims on overunity.com they always show a working device.
Garbage in garbage out.
Please look at the SMOT2 001 video that shows the second SMOT with the ball approaching the SMOT from a distance making a full270 degree turn entering the magnets going up hill and falling over the end. Its all on the videos!
Quote from: Poit on April 01, 2011, 02:45:40 PM
I said the OPPOSITE to that... the ONLY reason why the ball can leave the exit part of the gate is due to gravity. To prove my point, take away the fall and have the ball go up the slope and then make it escape the gate on a level track (no falling at all), impossible. It can NOT escape the magnetic fields that brought it there to begin with.
I am not using a level track, when the ball falls off the track into the scoop it exits the scoop onto a higher level than if the scoop was not used. The receiving platform is angled slightly downwards so that the ball (due to gravity) will roll to the end down the uschannel and onto the receiving plate which is also sloped slightly downward to the SMOT uchannel. The second video with the second quickly made SMOT shows it CLEARLY entering the Smot up an incline and over the end.
Why would I take away the fall at the end??? Its that energy in the fall and the interaction of the scoop which causes the whole thing to work.
The videos are in front of you.
Are you saying that the ball will not enter the SMOT
Are you saying the ball will not move uphill
Are you saying the ball will no exit the SMOT
Are you saying the ball does not roll completely around (270 Degrees.)
Are you saying that even though the drop is 2 " it does not come within 1/2 " of the entry
Are you saying that the second SMOT showing the ball moving from a distance does not enter the SMOT go up hill and exit it.
I still need to solve this last 1/2" Since the video shows all of the above then thats it.
Bill
Quote from: billmehess on April 01, 2011, 02:53:37 PM
Almost everythting you said here is incorrect.
The ball approaches the SMOT ramp with speed because it is sloped slightly down from when it enters the receiving ramp from the uchannel connecting the two plates. The " work" that must be applied is gravity.
The ball enters the SMOT easily !!!!!
As far a FEMM goes they are unbelievably worthless. A sim will not anticipate what actually will happen. I have seen 100's of sims on overunity.com they always show a working device.
Garbage in garbage out.
Please look at the SMOT2 001 video that shows the second SMOT with the ball approaching the SMOT from a distance making a full270 degree turn entering the magnets going up hill and falling over the end. Its all on the videos!
As I said, I have not only used simulations to see this repelling effect, but also practical experiments. The ball did repel the enterance of the smot (The area a few inches before the SMOTs enterance. Maybe the ball didn't knew better? No. This practical experiment did without doubt show a definite repelling area. I will try to find the video of it which I postet here at OU.com some time ago.
Anyways, if you are right, and my practical experiment isn't valid, why don't you just close the loop, and post a video of a selfrunner? Closing a SMOT isn't that straight forward. If there is excess energy to fight against friction only, the only matter of a working model is to reduce the friction slightly - not even necessary to have 100% frictionless design - it should work quite easily.
Vidar
Quote from: billmehess on April 01, 2011, 03:07:03 PM
Are you saying that the ball will not enter the SMOT
Are you saying the ball will not move uphill
Are you saying the ball will no exit the SMOT
Are you saying the ball does not roll completely around (270 Degrees.)
Are you saying that even though the drop is 2 " it does not come within 1/2 " of the entry
Are you saying that the second SMOT showing the ball moving from a distance does not enter the SMOT go up hill and exit it.
I still need to solve this last 1/2" Since the video shows all of the above then thats it.
Bill
The ball move uphill with respect to gravity.
The ball moves downwards with respect to the magnetic field.
The ball are assisted with a weak force over some distance to move the ball up the track.
To move a mass up a slight hill do not require much force to do, but you need more distance to it. Over a distance of 5 inches, we can calculate the total energy consumed in this operation. However, when the ball is on the top and wants to drop down, it will require a greater force to prevent the ball from falling vertically. The magnetic field is not strong enough to keep the ball from falling, but strong enough to pull the ball up a slight slope. This is because the force is distributed over a greater distance - a sort of a gear ratio due to the slight uphill.
- You can easily move a 2 ton car up a slight hill, but not be able to hold it back from falling vertically at the end of the hill. This is the principle of operation of a SMOT too.
The ball rolls possibly 270 degrees, but that isnt interesting. The only interesting is to achieve a 360++ degree run.
The 2" drop isn't a fall with acceleration of gravity at 9.82m/s^2. The magnetic field will reduce the acceleration in the fall to less than 9.82m/s^2 because there is a magnetic field which wants to keep the ball from falling, and therfor take away some kinetic energy from the ball in the fall.
The easies way to solve the 1/2" problem is to let the track end 1/2" higher so the ball freely can enter the SMOT again. You claims there is no repelling force to prevent the ball from entering the SMOT, right? So what is the problem? The only problem left is to make a smoother track with less friction. Not neccessarily 100% frictionless.
Vidar
Enough of this bantering , let us agree to disagree.
Bill
Bill,
"That last 1/2 inch"!!
Now that will be Great!!
Thanks for sharing all your hard work here!
Great Stuff!!
Chet
"The second video with the second quickly made SMOT shows it CLEARLY entering the Smot up an incline and over the end.
Why would I take away the fall at the end???well... you can't.. because if you did, it simply wouldn't work... try it, I understand why you have it there Its that energy in the fall and the interaction of the scoop which causes the whole thing to work.Yes and no, you have the fall because with out it the ball would not be able to escape the end (the small part of the V gate).
The videos are in front of you.
Are you saying that the ball will not enter the SMOT Of course I am NOT saying that, if you have read my previous response you will see I am clearly on YOUR side here.... the ball can enter the smot very easily with no repulsion etc etc... I am on your side on this point 100%
Are you saying the ball will not move uphill pretty vague statement/question....so I cant quite answer this one... but I will say yes, the ball can move up hill (both with in the smot) and after it has left the smot (assuming you have a drop - like you have shown in your videos)... BUT all that said, I do NOT believe the drop and give the ball enough momentum to bring it back to the starting blocks.... but please, dont let my scepticism here bother you, I would LOVE to be wrong on this point
Are you saying the ball will no exit the SMOT I am saying TWO things... one: the ball WILL exit the smot IF it has a drop at the end (like in your videos). two the ball will NOT exit the smot if the exit is a level (i.e straight) exit... again, I would LOVE to be wrong here, so if you believe differently, prove me wrong, I am always open to being wrong
Are you saying the ball does not roll completely around (270 Degrees.) I am NOT saying this
Are you saying that even though the drop is 2 " it does not come within 1/2 " of the entrySure, you got it 1/2'' of entry, I don't believe you can't can do better, again, please prove me wrong
Are you saying that the second SMOT showing the ball moving from a distance does not enter the SMOT go up hill and exit it.The track you let the ball go was higher than the entrance to the smot i.e when the ball got the entrance it fell a distance, hard to tell from the video, but it looked like a 1/2'' drop.... but this is besides the point, i DO believe that even if it was level that it WOULD enter the smot (as I have done experiments like this before)
I still need to solve this last 1/2" Since the video shows all of the above then thats it.Indeed
Bill"
Let me address each point see above... the bold is my response
Quote from: billmehess on April 02, 2011, 12:05:39 AM
Enough of this bantering , let us agree to disagree.
Bill
"bantering"??? are you serious?? you are getting top notch feed back here!!! Low-Q's points alone would normally cost money to get !! :)
Look how the ball is repelled at 1:25, 4:49, and right after he push the ball into the 1/2" step, but when removing his finger will allow the ball to be repelled backwards:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nr98e23biGU&feature=related
Quote from: Low-Q on April 02, 2011, 05:14:52 AM
Look how the ball is repelled at 1:25 in this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nr98e23biGU&feature=related
noo... it is not repelled by the magnetism, it is repelled by gravity as that part of the track is tilted upwards.... trust me, the entering of the gate is no problem, the problem is exiting the gate (with out assistance from gravity).
Quote from: Poit on April 02, 2011, 05:21:46 AM
noo... it is not repelled by the magnetism, it is repelled by gravity as that part of the track is tilted upwards.... trust me, the entering of the gate is no problem, the problem is exiting the gate (with out assistance from gravity).
OK. I thought the glassplate was straight with no curves. Sorry.
What a great site this is . Thank you for all the feed back! Buy the way I picked up another 1/8" last night so I am 3/8" away. This is less than the diameter of the ball which is 1/2". I did this by tapering down the 1/2" walls on the receiving uchannel at the enterance and adding additional magnets to pull the ball into the SMOT.
We may all argue a little but I respect everyone here!
Hi Billmehess,
An idea maybe is a clear flexible tube with a low road bend in the middle going up to your gate.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JzZ9AKwZw28&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-bK5JaU8nMg&feature=related
I am not sure that energywise there is any difference between going on Low or High road for the ball (I know you did not claim such) but using the flexible tube that ends at just the entrance point of the smot ramp seems to give one more chance for testing to close the loop.
The curved path giving a time advantage versus a straight one was discovered by Galileo, see this interesting link:
http://www.sewanee.edu/physics/TAAPT/TAAPTTALK.html
I repeat: it is a good idea to use a clear flexible tube for this smot test. Use a tube with higher enough diameter than the ball so that inside air would not cause energy loss (make some holes on the top of the tube too).
Gyula
It might be worthwhile to have a length of cast iron
pipe. They used this in city-gas, compressed air and fire
sprinkler distribution systems. This may be of use to
isolate a steel runner (not a magnet) from the influence
of external magnetic fields if the runner misbehaves
and it is not at an end. Just heat the plastic tube
and slide it over the iron pipe and do the opposite
at the other end. The external mag field should flow
around in the body of the pipe leaving the ball inside
alone to roll on.
:S:MarkSCoffman
Monday 12:00 am I have closed the distance between the entry level uchannel and the
plate to 1/4" which is 1/2 the diameter of the SMOT ball.
Bill
Quote from: billmehess on April 04, 2011, 03:06:25 AM
Monday 12:00 am I have closed the distance between the entry level uchannel and the
plate to 1/4" which is 1/2 the diameter of the SMOT ball.
Bill
Hi Bill,
Very good news, I am looking forward to your fully defeating the rest distance too.
Earlier you mentioned a drag-free solution to induce some mW power for flashing a LED (or whatever) to demonstrate the smot is able to produce some extra 'juice' (besides moving around the mass of the ball). How is it done I wonder.
Thanks, Gyula
On my next video I wall show the SMOT producing voltage. It will not be lighting a LED though as this would require around 2 volts. I will be showing a capacitor charging up.
The SMOT device is very scaleable for increased energy production. There is NO load on the ball.
I am down to my last 1/4"
Bill
@billmehess,
Good work so far. One thing you may want to have on hand, if
your device works is some 3M Antistatic spray, Cautiously applied
to the plastic tube. Apparently these kinds of device can generate
a static charge, potentially increasing unexpected behaviors. You
want the runner ball to go around, not necessarily having your
setup lifting off. :-)
Quote from: mscoffman on April 04, 2011, 02:51:51 PM
@billmehess,
Good work so far. One thing you may want to have on hand, if
your device works is some 3M Antistatic spray, Cautiously applied
to the plastic tube. Apparently these kinds of device can generate
a static charge, potentially increasing unexpected behaviors. You
want the runner ball to go around, not necessarily having your
setup lifting off. :-)
Thank you Mark as usual your input on a subject is worth its weight in gold
Bill
Bill,
Wow a real Cliffhanger...........................
1/4 inch?
This will be the Drop that was heard around the world!!
Chet
Quote from: ramset on April 04, 2011, 06:47:49 PM
Bill,
Wow a real Cliffhanger...........................
1/4 inch?
This will be the Drop that was heard around the world!!
Chet
I think your right. When this happens I plan to get a space at a facility in Oregon to show it to all intersted parties.
In Portland we have a museum called OMSI which stands for the Oregon Museum of Science & Industry. It is one of the premier attractions and drawns many 100 of thousands people per year.
I put together a basic SMOT and took it over to their physics lab and they really liked it. They are showing this in their lab which is open to the public right in the museum. If they would allow it this is where I would show the working closed loop device. I know the person who runs the lab so I will talk to him when the time is right. I would also hook up a live internet stream from their location if they would permit that. But first things first 1/4" to go.
Bill
Quote from: billmehess on April 04, 2011, 07:59:32 PM
I think your right. When this happens I plan to get a space at a facility in Oregon to show it to all intersted parties.
In Portland we have a museum called OMSI which stands for the Oregon Museum of Science & Industry. It is one of the premier attractions and drawns many 100 of thousands people per year.
I put together a basic SMOT and took it over to their physics lab and they really liked it. They are showing this in their lab which is open to the public right in the museum. If they would allow it this is where I would show the working closed loop device. I know the person who runs the lab so I will talk to him when the time is right. I would also hook up a live internet stream from their location if they would permit that. But first things first 1/4" to go.
Bill
All the best mate :)
Pete
@bill,
If and when it works and you show it. It would be nice
if you would put up a very short biography of yourself.
This will be somewhat of a historic occasion and potentially
lead to other breakthroughs in other fields.
Just a thought I really not familiar with a SMOT in any way. That being said it looks like the 1st ramp accelerates the ball up slightly, could you get the 1/4 in. you need by using another magnetic ramp at the end of the loop to drop the ball into the 1st ramp?
Lots of luck Pete
@billmehess;
Just to play devils advocate a bit - let me suggest a way
that nature does not give up so easily - please make
my day and prove the following text wrong. :-)
->
Both gravity and magnetism are conservative forces.
Neither force has insulators (without some exotic
energy intensive methods - like superconductivity)
So it's impossible to create a magnetic commutator
switch in the sense of one in a standard DC motor.
But there is one insulator; that is radius squared
distance to a point magnetic pole (which always comes
in pairs again conventionally).
The problem is defeating R^2 is the construction of
magnetic arrays. So in a sense there is a near-magnetic
field and a far magnetic field and the array keeps on
building the far magnetic field as you add more elements
to the array. This will cause the ball to misbehave at a
greater and greater distance from the array even when
it's not in it. The question is simply: "Is this problem
an absolute one?"
Remember the time that a medical patient was fatally
injured when a ferrous fire-extinguisher was sucked
into the scanner part of an MRI machine when he was
being scanned, an MRI machine which has a powerful
rotating magnetic array. Implying that the far
field can become quite strong under the right
circumstances.
My concern is that the array will look like it's working
until the time comes where forces balance and then at
the end of the array the ball begins to misbehave.
That misbehavior will take on statistical properties
- meaning that; "The ball is not fully under engineering
control."
Now, magnetic flux can be conducted with an iron
armature. The presents of the armature will change the
functioning of the array but should also reduce the far field
effects. As I've said an iron pipe can probably serve as
an armature to isolate parts of the device, but you
may have new entry and exit problems then to contend
with.
<-
As I said at first, please make my day and prove my
above text is incorrect. For example maybe Neodymium
Magnets change the equation.
:S:MarkSCoffman
Hi Mark
Confession is good for the soul, I don't have the slightest idea what you are talking about. Its way over my head.
I have tried to approach this with a purposely simple attitude. I consider this device to be similar to a water wheel in a flowing river. The water flowing at a fairly constant rate to me is similar
to the magnetic field projecting from a array of magnets. The ball simply gets caught up in this field and is dragged along until it exits the gate. This of course is due to the v shape acting more strongly on the ball as it moves up the ramp. What I have noticed though is that when I first built some really huge SMOTS, 32" long with over 400 magnets that at the start with the larger space between the two sides to the end with the tapered spacing the speed was at the beginning slowed down as the ball went up the ramp.
This is due to friction not ( I believe) any anomaly with magnetic fields. It is the correct spacing, distance measurements that have got me to where I am at. My tolerances are down to 1/32" in some spots.
Potential energy in the initial ball placement is a non issue. The ball does not care how it got there. It is simply acting at any specific moment on the immediate magnetic and or gravitational forces that
it encounters a any point in time.
I am down to 1/8" from having the ball reentering the SMOT.
The entry point is 1 3/8" from the base and he exit point of the ramp is 1 1/2".
The ball landing on the entry plate down the u channel to the receiving plate and looping to the entry uchannel must drop a total of 1/2".
Bill
Quote from: mscoffman on April 03, 2011, 04:53:05 PM
It might be worthwhile to have a length of cast iron
pipe. They used this in city-gas, compressed air and fire
sprinkler distribution systems. This may be of use to
isolate a steel runner (not a magnet) from the influence
of external magnetic fields if the runner misbehaves
and it is not at an end. Just heat the plastic tube
and slide it over the iron pipe and do the opposite
at the other end. The external mag field should flow
around in the body of the pipe leaving the ball inside
alone to roll on.
:S:MarkSCoffman
I tried wrapping a plastic tube with mu-metal but his caused a distortion in the magnetic field to a degree that the ball would not exit the gate.
I will try this suggestion of yours and take a small cast iron pipe and slide over a plastic tube of it.
This does not seem that it would cause any distortion in the field.
These last few fractions of an inch are all that's holding me back at this point. I am also intergating at this time the energy generation system into the device.
Thank you for your input.
Bill
@billmehess,
Perhaps you have the right idea. The ball needs to go
around, but nobody says it needs to go around rapidly.
Perhaps you could use one of those very inexpensive
plastic mechanical alarm clocks powered by an AA battery.
Convert it to run on array power.
And use something attached to the minute hand to simply
push the ball runner out the array end and into the metal
(drain) pipe. Perhaps like the rollers of a peristaltic pump
- never having to remove the ball from tube. The clock
motor probably draws only a few microamps average to
run, at only 1.5 volts DC.
:S:MarkSCoffman
Hi Mark,
When you mentioned using a powered mechanical system this toy came to mind "Solar roller coaster".
http://www.ambientweather.com/scmbecl28404.html
Replace the balls with a N52 neo-mag sphere and line the track with pickup coils fed to an ultra-cap.
Lego great ball contraption 2011
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N9VBQ3hW6t8
I don't see any reason not to reveal what I will use to generate power. I am going to use a piezo
energy harvester. The ball dropping into the scoop will cause the piezo harvester to generate a pulse which can be fed into a capacitor. Also the one I am ordering is so sensitive that the ball rolling on the rail will have enough vibration to create a voltage continuously as long as the ball is moving.
Also with this device it would be possible to run multiple balls for increase voltage production.
The good thing about this method is that there is no drag on the ball at all!
Bill
Here are some elevation numbers where I am right now. The entry point elevation from the base line is 2 7/8" or 72 mm
The exit elevation from the scoop to the base line is 3 1/16" or 77mm.
The ball exits 3/16" in. or 5 mm. HIGHER than when it enters the SMOT.
I need it to be 1/2" higher so there will be sufficient slope to reenter the SMOT so I am at this point
5/16" short.
Working daily on the problem.
Bill
Quote from: DreamThinkBuild on April 07, 2011, 02:24:01 PM
Hi Mark,
When you mentioned using a powered mechanical system this toy came to mind "Solar roller coaster".
http://www.ambientweather.com/scmbecl28404.html
Replace the balls with a N52 neo-mag sphere and line the track with pickup coils fed to an ultra-cap.
Lego great ball contraption 2011
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N9VBQ3hW6t8
lol!! loved the lego video....
Quote from: billmehess on April 07, 2011, 09:56:55 PM
Here are some elevation numbers where I am right now. The entry point elevation from the base line is 2 7/8" or 72 mm
The exit elevation from the scoop to the base line is 3 1/16" or 77mm.
The ball exits 3/16" in. or 5 mm. HIGHER than when it enters the SMOT.
I need it to be 1/2" higher so there will be sufficient slope to reenter the SMOT so I am at this point
5/16" short.
Working daily on the problem.
Bill
I believe your inches to millimetre conversions are WAY off lol.... 10mm = 1cm.... 77mm = 3.03 inches
a decimal point is in order? 7.7mm?
EDIT - I just re-read your quote... never mind lol...
Update;
Been working all weekend , here is what I can now do
1.The ball from a start position moves up the incline of the SMOT
2. The ball exits the end
3. The ball falls into the scoop
4.The ball exits the scoop to the entry glass platform
5. The ball rolls down the glass and exits the glass onto the connecting uchannel
6.The ball exits the uchannel onto the glass receiving platform
7.The ball rolls across the glass platform to the edge of the entrance of the uchannel on the SMOT.
The entire spacing from the exit to the entry has been made up. Next to modify slightly the SMOT to accept the ball.
The complete roll around from entry to entry has been achieved.
Bill
Quote from: billmehess on April 10, 2011, 12:26:20 PM
...
1.The ball from a start position moves up the incline of the SMOT
2. The ball exits the end
3. The ball falls into the scoop
4.The ball exits the scoop to the entry glass platform
5. The ball rolls down the glass and exits the glass onto the connecting uchannel
6.The ball exits the uchannel onto the glass receiving platform
7.The ball rolls across the glass platform to the edge of the entrance of the uchannel on the SMOT.
The entire spacing from the exit to the entry has been made up. Next to modify slightly the SMOT to accept the ball.
...
Bill,
Excellent! Congratulations with what you have done so far. Fortunately
from the other projects you have worked on I consider you completely
trustworthy and a true scientist. I am getting ready to "flip the bits"
in my belief system to "true" when it comes to magnetic perpetual motion.
*So* many other folks said they had tried to do this but were unable too
do this.
There are three things you might want to consider "for fun" right now
while you get the last things cleaned up on your current path
a) Whether the ball becomes gaussed over time.
(the opposite of degaussing). Slightly different materials for the
ball might prevent this from occurring or investing *some* output
energy in degaussing might be required.
b) Whether a lead metal core for the ball might increase the energy
in the system.
c) Whether a balance rocker beam over all or part of the array
might make sense. This would make for a different demo and might
make it possible to couple mechanical energy out easier. This would
make for a neat demo clock escapement. If that is the correct word.
d) It might be good to see if you can set up a non-neodynium
magnet version of this in an attempt to sidestep the Chinese
rare-earths availability restrictions and non-neodynium magnet
erasability issues. (Plucking it from the MIB mawl as it were).
This would probably take some time to test in parallel with other
things.
Let us know how things are going!
:S:MarkSCoffman
Thank you Mark
Always good suggestions from you. I mentioned a few posts ago that I would be employing a peizo
"energy harvester" to extract voltage from the system. The ball falling into the scoop and the continuous vibration of the ball on the system will generate voltage. Also multiple balls could be employed for increased output.
This system is completely scalable. Imagine instead of a 1/2" in diameter ball a ball x number of inches in diameter.
I am sure a whole new set of challenges will rear their ugly heads a I try to finish this last bit up.
Anyway the quest continuous.
Bill
Quote from: billmehess on April 10, 2011, 02:56:34 PM
Thank you Mark
Always good suggestions from you. I mentioned a few posts ago that I would be employing a peizo
"energy harvester" to extract voltage from the system. The ball falling into the scoop and the continuous vibration of the ball on the system will generate voltage. Also multiple balls could be employed for increased output.
This system is completely scalable. Imagine instead of a 1/2" in diameter ball a ball x number of inches in diameter.
I am sure a whole new set of challenges will rear their ugly heads a I try to finish this last bit up.
Anyway the quest continuous.
Bill
I gather you are using a steel ball? (i.e not magnetic?)
Quote from: Poit on April 10, 2011, 07:38:13 PM
I gather you are using a steel ball? (i.e not magnetic?)
Yes a steel ball approx. 1/2" in diameter from ACE Hardware. It is non magnetic.
Bill
@billmehess,
Bill;
Your implementation seems very compact. I hope you don't plan on taking
too much time implementing the displayable energy led device. It would seem
real easy to put a coil around the whole upslope array. I'd really like to see
you get credit for closing the loop on the SMOT. It would be interesting
to know if you can get the ball to speed up by placing a magnetic array on the
return slope like groundloop described, or if this causes the dreaded "sticky spot".
This would indicate that you could add energy margins if need be, so that maintaining
control is not a function of decreasing runner momentum.
:S:MarkSCoffman
A magnetic array on the return slope Will absolutely result in a sticky spot. All will be revealed soon, very soon.
Bill
@FYI All,
I's like to point out that;
A ball running on rails where all of it's weight is supported on tracks
is a different thing then a ball rolling on it's circumference on a flat
plane.
A sphere will have a "coupling factor" between it's rotational
momentum and it's forward momentum. That coupling factor is
a gearing ratio between the rpm representing rotational momentum
and the forward velocity representing the forward momentum.
So by varying the track width is possible to change the gearing ratio
of the stored energy in the runner within certain limits. This can
cause the ball to act as a flywheel. This is not the same as a runner
always rolling on it's circumference which will always have a unity
transfer function.
:S:MarkSCoffman
Bill, any progress on closing the loop?
Quote from: mscoffman on April 15, 2011, 12:06:17 PM
@FYI All,
I's like to point out that;
A ball running on rails where all of it's weight is supported on tracks
is a different thing then a ball rolling on it's circumference on a flat
plane.
A sphere will have a "coupling factor" between it's rotational
momentum and it's forward momentum. That coupling factor is
a gearing ratio between the rpm representing rotational momentum
and the forward velocity representing the forward momentum.
So by varying the track width is possible to change the gearing ratio
of the stored energy in the runner within certain limits. This can
cause the ball to act as a flywheel. This is not the same as a runner
always rolling on it's circumference which will always have a unity
transfer function.
:S:MarkSCoffman
In any case, there should always be a unity transfer function (?). The difference is the coupling factor which determine the forward speed versus the rpm of the ball. In any case the mass in the ball is accelerated to a given rpm which always correspond to its forward acceleration - regardless of the coupling factor X : 1, or if the ball rolls directly on its circumference 1:1. However, in practice, losses are more likely to occour when the coupling factor are very high (high rpm, low forward velocity).
Vidar
Quote from: maw2432 on April 30, 2011, 03:59:01 PM
Bill, any progress on closing the loop?
Still working on it daily. That last 1/4" is proving illusive. But since I have made up 2 1/2 " of a 2 3/4" drop I believe the remaining 1/4" will be overcome also.
Bill
Quote from: billmehess on May 01, 2011, 09:00:04 AM
Still working on it daily. That last 1/4" is proving illusive. But since I have made up 2 1/2 " of a 2 3/4" drop I believe the remaining 1/4" will be overcome also.
Bill
Maybe this video will give you inspiration? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_AWWfwtaYT4
Poit
P.S If any german speaking people out there - could you please translate the video for me? :) thank you
since the magnetism is stronger than the mass of the ball it might require an ideal torque on the ball like adding some non magnetic gyros to the sides of the ball to allow it to torque away from the grip of the highest field strength every time.
Don't forget the upslope balance beam arrangement, have one ball
on the now unbalanced track, lift the next one 1/4" into place
at the beginning of the array.
:S:MarkSCoffman
This video also looked inspirational
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sPLILn3sCdQ&feature=related
Good luck!
the problem here is you are 'NOT' taking advantage of the potential current that the ball produces to let it escape the sticky spot. use a coil to disrupt the magnetic attraction at the sticky spot, what is so difficult about this?
Bill
I asked this earlier but can you drop the ball into another ramp like the smot in the begging of the circuit and drop the ball back into the starting point?
Pete
Quote from: vonwolf on May 02, 2011, 04:43:03 PM
Bill
I asked this earlier but can you drop the ball into another ramp like the smote in the begging of the circuit and drop the ball back into the starting point?
Pete
When the ball drops from the top into the scoop it ends up still at a lower level than the entry point.
If the ball enters another smote configuration at that point it will exit at even a lower level. It would be logical to assume that one could simply have a line of smots each one raising the level when in reality just the opposite is occurring.
What I have been able to do with the setup as shown on the videos I have posted on you tube is to
be able to "recapture" approx. 2.25" of the 2.50" drop.
The entire smot configuration is mounted on a board which is tilted upwards so that this additional height helps to compensate for the drop distance.
My most current device has some changes. I have the ball exit the scoop and it enters a u channel. But due to the speed of the exit it moves up the uchannel about 6 in. (Thus up the incline).
At this point I can loop it back to the entry but I am still about 1/4" short of reentering the entry unchannel.
I am working on closing that gap.
Quote from: billmehess on May 02, 2011, 06:13:27 PM
When the ball drops from the top into the scoop it ends up still at a lower level than the entry point.
If the ball enters another smote configuration at that point it will exit at even a lower level. It would be logical to assume that one could simply have a line of smots each one raising the level when in reality just the opposite is occurring.
What I have been able to do with the setup as shown on the videos I have posted on you tube is to
be able to "recapture" approx. 2.25" of the 2.50" drop.
The entire smot configuration is mounted on a board which is tilted upwards so that this additional height helps to compensate for the drop distance.
My most current device has some changes. I have the ball exit the scoop and it enters a u channel. But due to the speed of the exit it moves up the uchannel about 6 in. (Thus up the incline).
At this point I can loop it back to the entry but I am still about 1/4" short of reentering the entry unchannel.
I am working on closing that gap.
Bill
I might have used the wrong terminology here, it looks like the 1st ramp is sloped up slightly but if thats not the case then my suggestion in useless
Pete
Quote from: billmehess on May 02, 2011, 06:13:27 PM
When the ball drops from the top into the scoop it ends up still at a lower level than the entry point.
If the ball enters another smote configuration at that point it will exit at even a lower level. It would be logical to assume that one could simply have a line of smots each one raising the level when in reality just the opposite is occurring.
What I have been able to do with the setup as shown on the videos I have posted on you tube is to
be able to "recapture" approx. 2.25" of the 2.50" drop.
The entire smot configuration is mounted on a board which is tilted upwards so that this additional height helps to compensate for the drop distance.
My most current device has some changes. I have the ball exit the scoop and it enters a u channel. But due to the speed of the exit it moves up the uchannel about 6 in. (Thus up the incline).
At this point I can loop it back to the entry but I am still about 1/4" short of reentering the entry unchannel.
I am working on closing that gap.
Exactly!! Thank you.... you see, only people like you and I can know this (actually experimented with it)... for all the rest, the human mind makes an illusion to the facts.
Quote from: hhobrian on May 02, 2011, 03:31:26 PM
This video also looked inspirational
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sPLILn3sCdQ&feature=related
Good luck!
Yeah, that is one of my favorite SMOT videos , even though I can't
read a word of the text....It seems like the "ramp" could be made as
long as necessary, then position energy collecting coils (or whatever)
all along the way... then have a "one battery" style alarm clock motor
with the battery replaced by a capacitor charged by the coils diode
or'd together *slowly* drag the runner across the sticky spot.
If those clocks can run for a year on one AA battery, they can't take
much energy to keep them going.
---
The other question is could you have the array accelerate the ball
faster downhill then have it rise up over top of the starting point?
It should be possible to "shoot" the ball into the array at various
speeds and record the outcomes. Is any energy really being added
by the magnets? If one saw the transfer function as a graph
it might be easier to design a successful mechanism.
:S:MarkSCoffman
Quote from: mscoffman on May 03, 2011, 02:11:26 PM
Yeah, that is one of my favorite SMOT videos , even though I can't
read a word of the text....It seems like the "ramp" could be made as
long as necessary, then position energy collecting coils (or whatever)
all along the way... then have a "one battery" style alarm clock motor
with the battery replaced by a capacitor charged by the coils diode
or'd together *slowly* drag the runner across the sticky spot.
If those clocks can run for a year on one AA battery, they can't take
much energy to keep them going.
---
The other question is could you have the array accelerate the ball
faster downhill then have it rise up over top of the starting point?
It should be possible to "shoot" the ball into the array at various
speeds and record the outcomes. Is any energy really being added
by the magnets? If one saw the transfer function as a graph
it might be easier to design a successful mechanism.
:S:MarkSCoffman
Mark take a look at the video I uploaded to youtube last night. Its under my topic SMOT- New Video I posted on this site also last evening.
Yes you can speed up a ball with a SMOT configuration and have the ball exit on a flat surface, no drop. I am planning on using this on my return ramp to allow extra energy to reenter the SMOT.
Bill
you would need either more kinetic energy and or more torque added to the S.M.O.T experiment
here is a way to add to the kinetic velocity using gravity.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VhOiXCRQu0A&feature=related
Quote from: onthecuttingedge2010 on May 03, 2011, 08:47:33 PM
you would need either more kinetic energy and or more torque added to the S.M.O.T experiment
here is a way to add to the kinetic velocity using gravity.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VhOiXCRQu0A&feature=related
Yes I have seen this video in the past but had forgotten about it. This could be very useful.Thank you!
Bill
it shows the ball reaching the end faster but not with more energy/speed.
fritznien
Quote from: onthecuttingedge2010 on May 03, 2011, 08:47:33 PM
you would need either more kinetic energy and or more torque added to the S.M.O.T experiment
here is a way to add to the kinetic velocity using gravity.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VhOiXCRQu0A&feature=related
Thanks for bringing this up. I studied the mathematics of it (on google)
and it is a serious thing, it is not a trick or optical illusion. When calculus
was first invented it was a one of the first major problems used for the
mathematicians group study.
:S:MarkSCoffman
Quote from: fritznien on May 03, 2011, 09:49:46 PM
it shows the ball reaching the end faster but not with more energy/speed.
fritznien
The ball reaching the end faster, also traveled more distance, thus it had more energy/speed.
GB
GB when the ball is at a lower level it has more speed/energy but it finishes at the same level with the same speed/energy.
there are better videos that show two balls starting at the same time and level with the long route ball rolling at the same speed as the
other ball but in front when they both finish on the same level.
if the low ball finished with more energy we would not need the smot.
Quote from: fritznien on May 10, 2011, 10:07:36 PM
GB when the ball is at a lower level it has more speed/energy but it finishes at the same level with the same speed/energy.
there are better videos that show two balls starting at the same time and level with the long route ball rolling at the same speed as the
other ball but in front when they both finish on the same level.
if the low ball finished with more energy we would not need the smot.
A ball traveling a greater distance, and in less time, can only do so if it acquired more kinetic energy than the other ball (total energy from start to finish). This additional kinetic energy gained is lost in transversing the greater distance. Also, some of this additional kinetic energy is lost during it's uphill travels in order to reach the same level again as the other ball. Despite losing kinetic energy in transversing a greater distance and losing kinetic energy during it's uphill travels in order to reach the same level again as the other ball, it still finishes first. It takes more energy to transverse a greater distance than it does to transverse a shorter distance.
Which path performed more work? Both paths start at the same level, and both paths end at the same level......so each path has the same potential in this respect, and should perform the same amount of work, but this isn't the case.
It is the product of the force and the time for which it is applied that is important. The impulse is equal to the change of momentum. An impulse is defined as the integral of a force
with respect to time, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impulse_%28physics%29
GB
Quote from: gravityblock on May 11, 2011, 01:39:08 AM
A ball traveling a greater distance, and in less time, can only do so if it acquired more kinetic energy than the other ball (total energy from start to finish). This additional kinetic energy gained is lost in transversing the greater distance. Also, some of this additional kinetic energy is lost during it's uphill travels in order to reach the same level again as the other ball. Despite losing kinetic energy in transversing a greater distance and losing kinetic energy during it's uphill travels in order to reach the same level again as the other ball, it still finishes first. It takes more energy to transverse a greater distance than it does to transverse a shorter distance. Which path performed more work? Both paths start at the same level, and both paths end at the same level......so each path has the same potential in this respect, and should perform the same amount of work, but this isn't the case.
It is the product of the force and the time for which it is applied that is important. The impulse is equal to the change of momentum. An impulse is defined as the integral of a force with respect to time, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impulse_%28physics%29
GB
Yes, but.. although the ball travelling the greater overall distance finishes first it has an extra advantage, gravity... in my mind, gravity is the ONLY reason why it can be first. It falls a down further than the straight track and there for can utilise gravities force better.
Quote from: Poit on May 11, 2011, 01:51:58 AM
Yes, but.. although the ball travelling the greater overall distance finishes first it has an extra advantage, gravity... in my mind, gravity is the ONLY reason why it can be first. It falls a down further than the straight track and there for can utilise gravities force better.
Both paths start at the same height and end at the same height, so gravity doesn't provide either path with an extra advantage (The
net fall is the same for both balls). All that exists is the impulse that is applied to the body in space and imparts momentum to it. The body's movement is then only limited by the resistance it has to overcome.
GB
Quote from: gravityblock on May 11, 2011, 02:26:52 AM
Both paths start at the same height and end at the same height, so gravity doesn't provide either path with an extra advantage (The net fall is the same for both balls). All that exists is the impulse that is applied to the body in space and imparts momentum to it. The body's movement is then only limited by the resistance it has to overcome.
GB
I agree that both start and end at the same point.. but one of them DIPS lower (during its voyage up and down)... its this dip that gives it, its extra momentum
Quote from: Poit on May 11, 2011, 02:32:05 AM
I agree that both start and end at the same point.. but one of them DIPS lower (during its voyage up and down)... its this dip that gives it, its extra momentum
The one that dips lower doesn't always have the most momentum or advantage, as can be seen in this video, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H2QPMO6bo4E
In the below image found in the above video, the path which dips the lowest doesn't win. The middle path wins.
It is the product of the force and the time for which it is applied that is important (the impulse) .
GB
Quote from: gravityblock on May 11, 2011, 03:01:34 AM
The one that dips lower doesn't always have the most momentum or advantage, as can be seen in this video, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H2QPMO6bo4E
In the below image found in the above video, the path which dips the lowest doesn't win. The middle path wins. It is the product of the force and the time for which it is applied that is important (the impulse) .
GB
ok... agreed :)
Where did Bill go??