Will this work?
A Semi circle smot and mutiple arms with balls at its end.
The torque on the other balls will push one ball out of the sticky spot.
To avoid reverse torque we can add a shield at the end of the Sticky spot
I have added a picture
WIll this work? or is it flawed?
it wont work?
Quote from: buddyboy on July 29, 2013, 01:18:03 AM
it wont work?
It would work if there was such a thing as magnetic shielding, but there isn't.
@libre dont be too sure of yourself.the original watson smot may very well be a 2nd law diversion where you get a magnet to do work for you with a net gain in energy.
Quote from: profitis on July 29, 2013, 08:48:26 AM
@libre dont be too sure of yourself.the original watson smot may very well be a 2nd law diversion where you get a magnet to do work for you with a net gain in energy.
I have posted 4 videos of magnets doing work to turn a magnet motor that is actuator assisted. I made the device in 2004. It works very well. The magnets provide most of the torque in the motor, while the actuator allows the process to repeat in an efficient manner so the loop is repeated.
Liberty
lets take a gadolinium ball instead of iron ball in the smot at slightly below 19celcius room and let it rip,,when the ball reaches the top end of ramp it shold be slightly above 19celcius thus loses its magnetic attraction to quite a degree at that point and is free to be flung far away from the magnets(less drag at the end of cycle).@liberty..did your device use electricity
Quote from: profitis on July 29, 2013, 10:19:57 AM
lets take a gadolinium ball instead of iron ball in the smot at slightly below 19celcius room and let it rip,,when the ball reaches the top end of ramp it shold be slightly above 19celcius thus loses its magnetic attraction to quite a degree at that point and is free to be flung far away from the magnets(less drag at the end of cycle).@liberty..did your device use electricity
Yes, it uses a small amount. That's not a problem. I have a couple of designs (not built) that would not use electricity, but it is more practical to use a small amount of electricity for precision/control of the motor.
Liberty
Quote from: profitis on July 29, 2013, 10:19:57 AM
lets take a gadolinium ball instead of iron ball in the smot at slightly below 19celcius room and let it rip,,when the ball reaches the top end of ramp it shold be slightly above 19celcius thus loses its magnetic attraction to quite a degree at that point and is free to be flung far away from the magnets(less drag at the end of cycle).@liberty..did your device use electricity
Then you'd have a 'smuut' powered by heat, or more particularly the amount of energy to required cool the gadolinium each cycle.
That would be more than could be generated by the device by capturing the kinetic energy of the ball somehow.
no @libre.it would be using the ambient,without need for temp dif.a smash in the face of kelvin,s dictat.
@liberty,,does the electric power consumed exceed the mechanical work out.if not,how do you know?
Quote from: profitis on July 29, 2013, 06:43:41 PM
no @libre.it would be using the ambient,without need for temp dif.a smash in the face of kelvin,s dictat.
Sure it would be using ambient heat to heat it, but you'd need an endless supply of pre-cooled balls. Something has to cool them.
no @libre.the ambient is just under 19celcius.no need to cool it.after it rips,then it cools bak down to ambient(below curie),spontaneously.
if i hold a magnet a small distance ontop of a lump gadolinium and the ambient is just under 19c,it will jump up,smack the magnet,heat up above 19c in an instant and drop slightly again and then jump bak up.2 jumps with one stroke,the 2nd jump net work.
Quote from: profitis on July 29, 2013, 06:46:02 PM
@liberty,,does the electric power consumed exceed the mechanical work out.if not,how do you know?
The proper answer depends on how the device is built. The model motor output is about 4.375 watts. The motor powered 100% of the time consumed 6.25 watts on the test run. (~70% measured by prony brake and digital scale) It is not necessary to power this motor 100% of the time. If powered at say 25% of the time, it should run on an average power consumption of 1.5625 watts. (using DC ohms law) 4 watts out / 2 watts in = 200% efficient
Built correctly, I suspect it may live up to or exceed this performance level.
Quote from: profitis on July 29, 2013, 10:12:28 PM
if i hold a magnet a small distance ontop of a lump gadolinium and the ambient is just under 19c,it will jump up,smack the magnet,heat up above 19c in an instant and drop slightly again and then jump bak up.2 jumps with one stroke,the 2nd jump net work.
If I was to get a spring and put a weight on it and pull it down a little, then let it go it would move up and down at least twice. If I was to stop the analysis at the top of one of one the bounces and also neglect to account for the potential energy imparted to the spring at the start I could easily claim over-unity too.
no @libre.the difference is perpetuum mobilum is banned with magnets due to the difficulty of repeating even some of the cycle without energy input.here the magnet relinquished its grip for an instant,allowing net gains.
@liberty do you have any vids of this device?
Quote from: profitis on July 30, 2013, 03:16:51 PM
no @libre.the difference is perpetuum mobilum is banned with magnets due to the difficulty of repeating even some of the cycle without energy input.here the magnet relinquished its grip for an instant,allowing net gains.
I don't think there is any net gain. Those studying the magneto-caloric effect would have noticed I'm sure. All the data I've seen so far suggests it follows normal thermodynamic principles.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_refrigeration and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:MCE.gif summarises it quite well.
If you can prove it, I'd certainly be interested in developing it.
well @libre,lucky for us we can just look at naudin,s smot result meantime until we get our hands on gadolinium to chek my predictions out.naudin dropped the ball from height A at the smot entrance and height B at the smot exit and gues what,it rolled 55mm further at the exit than at the entrance.where did this gain in kinetic energy come from libre.what gave the ball this extra push away from the magnets.the magnets flung the ball further away from the magnets than it was in the first place!! Imagine the surprise.
Hi
I was lucky enough to meet the guy accredited with the first Smot in 1982. There is nothing of any use there.
Mark
Quote from: profitis on July 30, 2013, 03:28:37 PM
@liberty do you have any vids of this device?
Yes, I have four short movies of the magnet motors posted at my web site: http://www.dynamaticmotors.com (http://www.dynamaticmotors.com)
Liberty
@markdansie,,sure its impractical,however,its of great theoretic value if naudin,s test result is to be believed.a slight gain in energy is a slight gain in energy.
if any magnet on the face of the earth can fling a metal object further away from its influence than to begin with we have a gain in energy guys.@liberty your onto something there i see.
Quote from: profitis on July 30, 2013, 07:54:53 PM
well @libre,lucky for us we can just look at naudin,s smot result meantime until we get our hands on gadolinium to chek my predictions out.naudin dropped the ball from height A at the smot entrance and height B at the smot exit and gues what,it rolled 55mm further at the exit than at the entrance.where did this gain in kinetic energy come from libre.what gave the ball this extra push away from the magnets.the magnets flung the ball further away from the magnets than it was in the first place!! Imagine the surprise.
I don't trust naudin's methodology nor the result. It would be easy to misinterpret what happened by neglecting to measure any forces, no matter how small in placing the ball in the starting position.
As to the test with gadolinium nothing in the literature suggests it does anything but behave in way consistent with the first and second law.
I see that magnetic refrigeration with efficiencies higher than gas-cycle are about to go mainstream sometime this year. I won't be pulling apart my new fridge to convert it into a free energy device though.
@libre..the naudin test is done live on camera or you yourself can do it with same result,everytime.its as clear as daylight,the ball ends up further away from the stronger magnetic side than the weaker side after drops,a clear evidence of a gain in kinetic energy,upwards of a ramp(!).its too painfully evident to ignore libre.rather than rip your fridge apart you might instead try other metal balls for a smot test eg.nickel or cobalt may give superior results.even mildly magnetic material e.g. manganese or chromium may give interesting results.i wonder if anyone has tried this before,mmm..
infact,strictly speaking,naudin did that measurement wrong.he shouldve droppd the ball at the begin side,WITH the magnets in place,thus gotten a more true potential energy reading,the results wouldve been even BETTER,ie.greater gain in kinetic energy evident.the magnets actualy slightly help raise the ball from the ground into height A.thus you are right libre,i also dont trust naudins result as there shouldve been a even greater gain in overunity evident.
Quote from: buddyboy on July 27, 2013, 12:55:32 AM
Will this work?
A Semi circle smot and mutiple arms with balls at its end.
The torque on the other balls will push one ball out of the sticky spot.
To avoid reverse torque we can add a shield at the end of the Sticky spot
I have added a picture
WIll this work? or is it flawed?
A mass with a given potential energy cannot power anything more than itself.
@low-q..precisely,which is why we are struck with horror when we see a magnet fling a piece-o-metal further away than it was to begin with,just doesnt add up.in other words,you are talking crap.
Quote from: profitis on August 02, 2013, 06:34:10 PM
@low-q..precisely,which is why we are struck with horror when we see a magnet fling a piece-o-metal further away than it was to begin with,just doesnt add up.in other words,you are talking crap.
The problem is that you use energy to place the ball into the smot ramp by unattentionally fighting against magnetic repulsion while approaching the ball toward its starting point. That energy is finally pushing the ball over the edge at the end of the ramp. So the ball has already got potential energy at its starting point due to the work done by the hand which put it there. I cant help people who cannot understand this other than saying that they do not see the whole picture. Its therfor up to them figuring out where the missing energy is coming from. I have figured it out, and its up to others to disprove my findings. Good luck.
Quote from: profitis on August 02, 2013, 06:34:10 PM
@low-q..precisely,which is why we are struck with horror when we see a magnet fling a piece-o-metal further away than it was to begin with,just doesnt add up.in other words,you are talking crap.
It is entirely consistent with the nature of magnetic fields and does not indicate any anomalous energy effects.
There is no requirement for the shape of a magnetic field to be either circular or even symmetrical (although it will be conformally equivalent to one of these).
Because of this a ball moving in a magnetic field from one position to another of equal magnetic POTENTIAL need end up the same DISTANCE from the magnet.
Gravitational fields are the same. The shape of gravitational field dependent on the density of the masses it contains. In the normal case, because the earth is roughly circular and of regular density we equate height with gravitational potential, but this is not strictly the case. If we were to measure the movement of an object near to a extremely dense object on earth we would also see that distance and gravitation potential energy were not linearly related.
@low-q..that doesnt explain what happens when i bring the ramp to the ball instead of the ball to the ramp.if i slide the ramp entrance toward a stationary ball flat on the ground the ramp entrance is attracted to the ball,work is gained,not expended.it depends on the angle that the ball or ramp entrance approach each other.put at the right angle there is gain.if there is gain at any angle then its a 2nd law violation,its inconsequencial to discuss coming in at the wrong angle or cosine.for you to be correct then you must show that at all angles of entry we must do extra work,highly unlikely as there will be a angle or angles of entry where we gain.
@libre..magnetism is not the same as gravity.a re-ordering of atomic dipoles are taking place in a magnetised object,not in a gravitised object thus the thermodynamics is more complicated,especialy when we have a rapidly changing magnetic field,which is exactly what happens in our smot ball.the distances have been shown to be very different live on camera.
Quote from: profitis on August 03, 2013, 10:08:05 AM
@low-q..that doesnt explain what happens when i bring the ramp to the ball instead of the ball to the ramp.if i slide the ramp entrance toward a stationary ball flat on the ground the ramp entrance is attracted to the ball,work is gained,not expended.it depends on the angle that the ball or ramp entrance approach each other.put at the right angle there is gain.if there is gain at any angle then its a 2nd law violation,its inconsequencial to discuss coming in at the wrong angle or cosine.for you to be correct then you must show that at all angles of entry we must do extra work,highly unlikely as there will be a angle or angles of entry where we gain.
Relatively close to the ramp you have attraction, but further away there is repulsion. A smot doesnt violate anything but ones opinions about its inner workings.
@low-q if there is repulsion at some stage on entry then the initial attraction cancels that energy out.did you forget to put initial attraction in your equasions?it makes no sense to argue this as you are assuming thers no way to get the ball into position A without expenditure of energy ontop of m.g.h.
Quote from: profitis on August 03, 2013, 11:28:38 AM
@low-q if there is repulsion at some stage on entry then the initial attraction cancels that energy out.did you forget to put initial attraction in your equasions?
Nope. If I didn't, the hand must guide the ball all the way around the loop. The hand just put the ball in place. The ball could be placed at any position - even at a point where the ball is repelled. If a smot did cause the raise of potential energy by itself, the smot would accelerate till destruction within just a few seconds.
well @low-q im still unconvinced.if as you say,extra energy is required to get the ball to the begin-point of acceleration,then if we were to release the ball just below that point we should see that extra energy manifest by a greater distance drop from entry side onto floor,yet we dont see it.
Quote from: profitis on August 03, 2013, 12:14:24 PM
well @low-q im still unconvinced.if as you say,extra energy is required to get the ball to the begin-point of acceleration,then if we were to release the ball just below that point we should see that extra energy manifest by a greater distance drop from entry side onto floor,yet we dont see it.
If I didn't use my cellphone to write my posts here I would explain in detail step by step what happens in a smots complete cycle. In short: Since gravity takes the ball back at the end of the ramp the total energy in the system is almost zero. Almost because the ball is accelerated horizontally and carries kinetic energy. That kinetic energy is taken back by the repulsive area in front of the smots bottom and the ball stops.
@low-q..the capability of a full loop is not in question here.the gain of a certain amount of free kinetic energy is under the spotlight when we let the ball drop out of the entrance and out of the exit we see a difference in length travelled by the ball.we must explain this difference in dropout energy.we must explain naudin,s visual result of 13% difference travelled length and your repulsion theory does not explain why the drop out the entrance is shorter,if your repulsion theory was correct there wouldve been equal drop-lengths m.g.h out both sides of the ramp.why isnt m.g.h.-lengths the same,i,l tell you why,thers a gain in m.g.h. out the exit thats why.
You can have mysterious energy gain and energy losses if you dont look at the complete cycle. For the smot the magnetism are able to pull up the ball due to the relatively gentle slope. It pulls up the ball with little force on expence of longer time. Gravity pulls the ball back with greater force on expence of shorter time. Without gravity and the sudden end of the ramp, the ball wouldnt be able to leave the ramp at all. However, it drops and for this part energy isnt yet conserved. It finally will be conserved at the end of the complete cycle. If you cannot complete the cycle, the excess energy would only last temporary.
there doesnt have to be a full cycle @l.q. Just that we must use less energy on hoisting to acceleration point than what we get at decelleration point is all that matters.an electromagnetic equivalent is the inductor with its back-spikes,its just we wait for someone to collect efficiently.somebody must test the smot with nickel,cobalt,gadolinium ball,results may be surprising.
Quote from: profitis on August 03, 2013, 08:46:14 PM
there doesnt have to be a full cycle @l.q. Just that we must use less energy on hoisting to acceleration point than what we get at decelleration point is all that matters.an electromagnetic equivalent is the inductor with its back-spikes,its just we wait for someone to collect efficiently.somebody must test the smot with nickel,cobalt,gadolinium ball,results may be surprising.
The back spike in an inductor is occouring due to the sudden collaps of the already built up magnetic field. The field that is built up required energy to do. That applied energy minus thermal loss is what we get back from the spike - nothing more. The faster the field collaps the greater the spike will be, but on expence of a shorter time. Energy is measured in Joules. You can charge an inductor bu building up a magnetic field with 1 Joule over one second - 1 Watt that is. The collaps of the field can however happen over just 1 ms which is 1kW. However, both input ENERGY and output ENERGY are the same. Hypothetically, in order to repeatedly harness energy from a smot, the smot must neccessarily cycle over and over. How else can you repeat the experiment for the purpose of harvesting useful excess energy?
yes but thers a hidden entropy change going on in the cooling part of the inductance cycle.magnetic power is affected by temperature thus there is more order in magnetic allignment at lower temp than higher temp thus is it unreasonable to assert that when our inductor cools during the collapsing magnetic field actualy gains strength and more power on the backspike? I dont think its unreasonable.the smot ball on the other hand is at its hottest part of the cycle at the top of the ramp,thus loses a certain amount of magnetic order strength and is able to chop out of the magnets influence.thats the irony of magnetic dipole ordering,they increase at lower temps and decrease at higher temps,spontaneously.electrical resistance also drops on the coils around a core on the cooling half of the cycle making easier passage of backspike.
the best way to illustrate what i mean regarding the importance of temperature is to let a gadolinium ball roll up a smot ramp at a room temperature of just a few decimal points below its curie point 19celcius.when the ball is flung at the top it is going to be at its hottest point,just above 19celcius and non-magnetic for a split-second and escape magnetic influence and be flung far far away.
Curie temperature is an interesting subject. I know too little about how sudden a magnetic ball turns into no magnetic. I guess the curie point isn't razor sharp.
it is sharp according to wiki.its quite a knife-cut going from para to ferromagnetic.
Quote from: profitis on August 04, 2013, 11:36:40 AM
the best way to illustrate what i mean regarding the importance of temperature is to let a gadolinium ball roll up a smot ramp at a room temperature of just a few decimal points below its curie point 19celcius.when the ball is flung at the top it is going to be at its hottest point,just above 19celcius and non-magnetic for a split-second and escape magnetic influence and be flung far far away.
This is just conjecture on your part. Every bit of evidence I've seen says the change in magnetization of the gadolinium requires work input and that work input is more than the change in temperature. The thermodynamics is the same as gas cycle refrigeration even if it would appear to be potentially more efficient.
no its not conjecture @ libre.it doesnt take a genius to predict that the gadolinium ball will undoubtedly increase in temperature at the top of the smot ramp.and what happens thereafter becomes conjecture yes.i say the ball will be flung very far away from the magnets,further than an iron ball.only a test will settle this for certain.