Hello all
Please take a look. In red are opposing magnets. Basically the magnets help slide the lever and gravity powers the wheel on both sides due to the sliding fulcrum. The pictures below are from a 250 second plus run and the wheel accelerated for the first 200 seconds. Air resistance was set to low speed.
Thanks
Dale
Pics
pics
Pics
Hi,
interesting device.
Could you maybe describe it more in detail please ?
Maybe you can also extract at least 16 pictures of a complete
cycle and put it into a GIF animation at least 320x240 pixels
big ?
You can use the trial version of "Gif Movie gear" program
for this.
It is very nice program to do it.
Looking forward to see a real good animation of it.
Does the fulcrum axis also move ?
Can WM2D now also simulate magnetic fields ?
Many thanks.
Regards, Stefan.
Hello Stefan
Yes the fulcrum axis does move. I placed black blocks on top of the lever to show the movement better. I am new WM2D but there are settings for magnetic fields and I did the best I could to duplicate the field.
It is really pretty simple gravity powers the wheel via the lever on both the up and down side and the magnets help slide the lever to adjust the axis of the folcrum.
I downloaded the gif program and I hope you can view it ok.
Thanks
Dale
(https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.overunity.com%2Fdale%2Fgravity_magnet_fulcrum.gif&hash=d3422ce8601283ea70dd477e08d1ec823ac9284a)
Quote from: inroades on October 18, 2006, 06:33:49 PM
Hello Stefan
Yes the fulcrum axis does move. I placed black blocks on top of the lever to show the movement better. I am new WM2D but there are settings for magnetic fields and I did the best I could to duplicate the field.
It is really pretty simple gravity powers the wheel via the lever on both the up and down side and the magnets help slide the lever to adjust the axis of the folcrum.
I downloaded the gif program and I hope you can view it ok.
Thanks
Dale
wow that is sweet! very unique idea. looks like it will work for sure!
also is there anyway you could test this wheel? http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,894.0.html
and maybe http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,1073.0.html
if not its ok.
peace
I don't see how this could work. It seems to me that the device would come to a rest in the center.
Wow,
looks very nice the animation.
I have edited your posting, so the
animated GIF picture will
instantly play here in the webpage by
displaying an inline picture.
This really looks like it is working.
Did you enable the friction also in WM2D ?
How are the magnet forces simulated.
Is WM2D also doing this now ?
How much weight do you have on the fulcrum with these
2 weights ?
And the green wheel, what is it exactly doing ?
Just the offsetting up and down ?
Did you enable also there the friction ?
Thanks a lot !
Regards. Stefan.
Thanks Stefen
I will try to answer every question.
QuoteDid you enable the friction also in WM2D ?
Yes I did, friction is set for every part and air resistance is set to slow.
QuoteHow are the magnet forces simulated
Magnetic forces are set to 17.701 and (field)
QuoteIs WM2D also doing this now ?
Yes it is. If I can email the file to you I will.
QuoteHow much weight do you have on the fulcrum with these
2 weights ?
The lever weighs 115lbs the weights/magnets weigh 1.5 lbs each. I have placed more weight on each side of the lever and the RPM's decrease and the torque increases but the wheel always accelerates.
QuoteAnd the green wheel, what is it exactly doing ?
Yes the wheel only positions the lever and harnesses the torque.
QuoteDid you enable also there the friction ?
Yes friction has been enabled everywhere I think.
I will try to attach the wm2d file for your inspection, again I am new to the program and am not sure of the results, but am getting encouraged. This will be much more easy to build the the centrifugal gravity wheel ;D
Thanks
Dale
Freeenergy
Hello
I am willing but probably not qualified or capable of testing your wheel, Greg&Gregory helped me with my Centrifugal Gravity Wheel and did a great job,I am Questioning my on results because of my working ignorace of WM2D. But I would be more than happy to try.
Thanks for your insite on this project.
Dale
Okay Dale,
please try to attach the wm2d file
or a zip archive of it to a reply message over here.
Many thanks.
Best regards, Stefan.
Quote from: inroades on October 19, 2006, 11:33:25 PM
Wrong file sorry, here it is.
Dale
What WM2D Version are you using? I cannot open the .dta with my WM2D 2004 V 7.0
Andi.
Hello Andi
I tried to open it as well and can't, It would not let me export a wm2d file, but I can save it as and send it. Please try the file below.
Thanks
Dale
Quote from: inroades on October 24, 2006, 10:20:12 AM
Hello Andi
I tried to open it as well and can't, It would not let me export a wm2d file, but I can save it as and send it. Please try the file below.
Thanks
Dale
Thank you.
Its really amazing - I never saw such a "working" overunity model in WM2D. This is really running...
:o
How did you manage the magnet setup in WM2D? How did you set the box to be magnets?
Andi.
Hello Andi
I clicked on the rectangle (magnet)then went to world, magnet field into the work place, then set two rectangles on a plastic floor and watched as they repelled each other then adjusted the setting until they repelled close to the real magnets I have. I am not sure of the accuracy of the simulation, but am encouraged by the design.
I hope this helps
Thanks
Dale
If I'm not mistaken, what you people are suggesting is that this program simulates the interaction of magnetic fields?
Furthermore, you're saying that never before have you, the ones experienced with the program, ever seen a device kept in constant motion by this method?
Does it also simulate the weight of all parts?
Please, details. This seems very interesting to replicate in 3d studio or in real life.
Can anyone confirm at least one of my questions?
Hi Stonrman
QuoteIf I'm not mistaken, what you people are suggesting is that this program simulates the interaction of magnetic fields
Yes it does but what is in question is how accurate the program/programer is.
QuoteFurthermore, you're saying that never before have you, the ones experienced with the program, ever seen a device kept in constant motion by this method?
That is correct I am new to this program but this is a first!
QuoteDoes it also simulate the weight of all parts?
Yes it does very well.
I would love this idea run in a second progam, let me know what you need and I will help you any way I can.
Thanks
Dale
This seems really interesting, and simple too. Does anyone wanna debunk this or give a good reason why it won't work?
Everyday Im more compelled to order a lot of neo magnets, and get a saw to cut some wood for simple testing (no machine shop needed!). It's obvious the people will have to figure out this obvious SIMPLE lacking that is hindering our evolution greatly. Time to put some money aside.
I've got an hour free after school tomorrow. We'll see what 3dland can do to these images.
Quote from: inroades on October 24, 2006, 07:35:00 PM
Hello Andi
I clicked on the rectangle (magnet)then went to world, magnet field into the work place, then set two rectangles on a plastic floor and watched as they repelled each other then adjusted the setting until they repelled close to the real magnets I have. I am not sure of the accuracy of the simulation, but am encouraged by the design.
I hope this helps
Thanks
Dale
But that is for the whole working place I think. How did you set this magnetism to the magnet rectangles only?
Greetings, Andi.
Hello Andi,
QuoteBut that is for the whole working place I think. How did you set this magnetism to the magnet rectangles only?
That was and is my concern with wm2d, I made everything else out of wood and plastic at first so only the magnets were effected by the field. Then as I worked with it a little more I changed some of the material to steel and standard and it sill worked the same.
When I was working with the magnet settings selecting
pair-wise they attracted and on
field they repelled.
I have worked with some magnets and by shielding the upper part of the field with another field I can duplicate the slide and push without the sticky part coming into play I think.
Thanks again
Dale
I also found out this while playing with your setup. Perhaps it can be shown with a 3D setup. Someone out there who has WM3D or Interactive Physics?
Andi
You said you enabled friction for all the objects? The constraints (the axles and the slider) are where the friction needs to be, because
there are no objects directly sliding against other objects in this sim. If your pin and slider joints are frictionless, I could see how it would run forever...
I only have the evaluation demo of Working Model so I can't open your file. Are the exact dimensions/values you used important? If not, I may try to replicate it myself.
Also, I noticed the odd shape of your stationary magnets. They appear to have one L-shaped pole that is larger than
the other pole and covers two perpendicular faces of the magnet.
Does such a magnet exist?
Could it be manufactured?
Does the simulation not work with ordinary flat bar magnets?
Hi Dale
Two questions. How did you define a magnet for a shape?
Do you have a full version of the program? In my evaluation version, I?m only able to define magnetic force/field to the whole working area.
??? ???
please reply.
2Tiger
:o
I'm excited to see what happens next...
But this idea looks like it may be ripe for replication...
Hello 2Tiger
QuoteI?m only able to define magnetic force/field to the whole working area.
That is all I was able to do as well, I started with everything other then the two opposing magnets made with plastic and wood. The other magnets are there just for show and how I might shield the sticky point. In working with real ones I am able to block most of the sticky point. The other advandage is I can move the magnets closer to the center to get a better advantage on the lever during the slide but retain a good push angle on the wheel. your email is hidden send me a message and I may be able to help you.
Thanks
Dale
Hello maxwellsdemon.
I apoligize for not responding sooner, I did enable friction on all the parts and air resistance is set to low. The exact size is not that critical I have made it larger, Long lever small wheel is what has been working. Please try to duplicate it. I think the reply above will answer the other questions.
This looks like a really easy and inexpensive thing to build, maybe easier in real life than on the computer, even for me ;D.
Thanks for you interest
Dale
Hi Dale!
Have you ever tried to make magnets with electrostatics in WM?
I heard somewhere that with the use of electrostatics the magnets will work more realistically.
I don't know how they work in that way at the moment, but I will try I think.
Good luck with your design! What about its physical test? ;)
Intersting design... I'm curious what will happen?
You can set friction for the pins in WM. Just select a pin, and click the pin friction inside the script menu.
Greg
Hi Guys,
Am new to this site and I love the concept.
My dumb question is, do permanent magnets demagnetise over time?
I would have thought that you will only be getting out the energy that was initially put in to form the permanent magnet?
Sorry if this is a stupid question - i know permanent magnetism is based on electron spin which doesnt' appear to obay the laws of thermodynamics, however i'm not entirely convinced.
Has anyone built an experimental version of this device, and if so, how did it go?
Cheers muchly,
Hughbee.
Lots of variables in that question...
A perfect newly made neo magnet should have a life span of over 5000 years... BUT
A magnets life span is determined by temperature, physical treatment, materials and other magnetic fields in proximity. All magnets lose there field at a high enough temperature. All magnets lose life and gauss rapidly with friction or impact damage. A magnetized iron bar has a life span of roughly 50 years at room temperature. It's really hard to predict in any conventional way, but most magents have a life time of several hundred years.
Also magnets CAN use more energy than what is required to magnetize them. A way to prove a magnet overunity is to magnetize a small rod of iron with a electro magnet and use it to suspend a several grams of paper, when/if the magnets falls and releases the paper you can then calculate the ammont of work it did in its lifetime. I'll save you the time though since it takes half a lifetime to observe if done propperly. The magnets lifetime of work suspending just its own weight against the force of gravity far outweighs the wattage used to magnetize the material.
I hope this was useful...
~Dingus
Dec 06? Why has interest in this dropped off? Has anyone tried building this?
QuoteThe magnets lifetime of work suspending just its own weight against the force of gravity far outweighs the wattage used to magnetize the material.
Contrary to popular belief, the magnet is not doing work when holding its own weight up. Work requires movement to occur.
By your argument, pounding a nail in a wall to hold a picture up has the nail doing work. It doesn't. What about sticking tape on something? Is the tape doing work? No.
A magnet can provide a force for 5000 years, but if it doesn't move anything, it is not doing work.
Quote from: dingbat on April 04, 2007, 10:43:10 PM
QuoteThe magnets lifetime of work suspending just its own weight against the force of gravity far outweighs the wattage used to magnetize the material.
Contrary to popular belief, the magnet is not doing work when holding its own weight up. Work requires movement to occur.
By your argument, pounding a nail in a wall to hold a picture up has the nail doing work. It doesn't. What about sticking tape on something? Is the tape doing work? No.
A magnet can provide a force for 5000 years, but if it doesn't move anything, it is not doing work.
Dingbat, you are way off base...
A nail driven in to a wall is using the walls materials as a fulcrum to support any added weight where as a magnet stuck to a metal plate requires constant magnetic force to maintain its position. Stick a magnet to a metal surface and turn it upside down... If no work was being done by the magnetic field, then why does it not react to gravity? Next add weight to the magnet untill the magnet can no longer support itself. If no measurable ammount of work was being done lifting its own mass why can't it support ten times its own mass? When a magnet is supporting its own weight or the weight of other objects against the pull of gravity, work is being done. It's the lack of movement (aka falling) that proves work has been done.
Dingus Mungus wrote:
Quote
If no work was being done by the magnetic field, then why does it not react to gravity? Next add weight to the magnet untill the magnet can no longer support itself. If no measurable ammount of work was being done lifting its own mass why can't it support ten times its own mass? When a magnet is supporting its own weight or the weight of other objects against the pull of gravity, work is being done. It's the lack of movement (aka falling) that proves work has been done.
Exactly.
Gravity pulls down at 9.81m/sec/sec (9.8 meters / second squared)... this is called gravitational acceleration (also known as the gravitational constant).
The work done by magnets is the nullification of the gravitational acceleration... in effect, it is an
inverse acceleration that matches the acceleration of gravity... hence, work
is being done... even if the magnet does not move.
The only time you could honestly say that work isn't being done by a non-moving magnet is if it is not subject to gravitational force or any other external force.
Quote from: TheProgrammer on April 10, 2007, 08:12:03 PM
The only time you could honestly say that work isn't being done by a non-moving magnet is if it is not subject to gravitational force or any other external force.
Including the warping of its own flux. Meaning if a ferrous metal is with in proximity of the magnets flux, the flux lines warp to attemp attaction of the ferrous metal. Even if the flux is not powerful enough to move the ferrous metal or the magnet, some of the energy contained in the magnet is transfered to the ferrous metal in two forms. The first form of transference is giving the ferrous metal its own uniform polarity and flux field, and the second form of transference is magnetocaloritic which is a form of heat transfer related to the applied B value of the magnet and the ferrous metals saturation value.
I respectfully disagree. Magnets and gravity are forces, not energies.
Quote from: dingbat on April 18, 2007, 04:32:12 PM
I respectfully disagree. Magnets and gravity are forces, not energies.
Also with all due respect:
Force and energy are absolutely one and the same. In the way that you could not have one without the other. Especially when it comes to electricy (energy) and magnetism (energy). Hence physics discription of the force of
electromagnetism. What'll really blow your mind is that its heavily theorized, but not proven that gravity is also a form of the exact same energy. Perhaps I could interest you in a audio lecture... Look for "dr richard wolfson's modern physics for non scientists". It's 24hours long, but chock full of physics goodness!
~Dingus Mungus
its dont working >:(
menu>world>force field>sample force (custom)
if select other default forces then see why dont work
Quote from: Dingus Mungus on May 07, 2007, 09:20:12 PM
...
Force and energy are absolutely one and the same.
...
Certainly not. Energy is force times displacement per unit time.
When you are sitting on a chair, you exert on it a force equal to your weight but no energy. It is the same thing when 2 magnets are exerting an attractive force on each other but are prevented to move: displacement is nul, no energy is provided.
The energy of magnets is just the energy in the magnetic field that you put when you magnetize the magnet. It is very weak (=0.5*B?/mu per unit volume).
What seems big is the "potential energy" due to the relative position of magnets or masses in their respective magnetic or gravity fields. In this case, the energy is the work you have to do for moving away a magnet (or a mass) from another one and this energy is restored when magnets (or masses) approach each other again by the effect of their mutual attraction.
The goal of our game is to unbalance the work of the pushing/pulling forces but yet nobody succeeded. :-(
Fran?ois
Quote from: exnihiloest on May 09, 2007, 09:24:12 AM
Quote from: Dingus Mungus on May 07, 2007, 09:20:12 PM
...
Force and energy are absolutely one and the same.
...
Certainly not. Energy is force times displacement per unit time.
Correction: in fact this is power (what we are interested in from a practical point of view). For energy, it's just: force times displacement.
Quote
When you are sitting on a chair, you exert on it a force equal to your weight but no energy. It is the same thing when 2 magnets are exerting an attractive force on each other but are prevented to move: displacement is nul, no energy is provided.
The energy of magnets is just the energy in the magnetic field that you put when you magnetize the magnet. It is very weak (=0.5*B?/mu per unit volume).
What seems big is the "potential energy" due to the relative position of magnets or masses in their respective magnetic or gravity fields. In this case, the energy is the work you have to do for moving away a magnet (or a mass) from another one and this energy is restored when magnets (or masses) approach each other again by the effect of their mutual attraction.
The goal of our game is to unbalance the work of the pushing/pulling forces but yet nobody succeeded. :-(
Fran?ois[/size]
QuoteThe goal of our game is to unbalance the work of the pushing/pulling forces but yet nobody succeeded.
SMOT succeeds.
Quote from: Omnibus on May 09, 2007, 10:32:00 AM
QuoteThe goal of our game is to unbalance the work of the pushing/pulling forces but yet nobody succeeded.
SMOT succeeds.
It didn't. The energy for the motion of the roller is only due to the potential energy of its initial position. That is the reason why no body can loop a smot.
On the contrary, it does. The energy produced is more than the energy spent. SMOT violates the principle of conservation of energy and discontinuously produces energy from nothing.
Quote from: Omnibus on May 10, 2007, 08:02:15 AM
On the contrary, it does. The energy produced is more than the energy spent. SMOT violates the principle of conservation of energy and discontinuously produces energy from nothing.
If there had energy violation in a smot, a looped smot could easily be built. No looped smot, no proof of energy violation. I'm an experimenter with an engineer background, I tried myself but failed as others. And from those claiming OU in a smot when they have not looped one, I have even never seen any serious energy measurements, including the potential magnetic energy at the start and end positions.
I'm sorry for this philosophical digression but I think claims without facts put FE research into a religious domain, remove its credibility and are a terrible handicap for all of us involved in FE because they give too many bad tracks. OU in a smot, or Jesus walking on the water, are similar irrationnal claims until strong experimental proofs to be given. I'm a scientist not a bigot; smot is a possible OU device as anything else (may be Steorn will give us the solution). Scientific method must be applied to prove it is. We have not yet a strong evidence it is, and imho not even a little.
Let's keep enthusiasts but lucid too, it's just my point of view. :-)
Fran?ois
Not so. Building a looped SMOT is only an engineering problem. The fact that this engineering problem has not found a solution yet cannot serve as a proof that SMOT doesn?t produce excess energy and that it doesn?t violate the principle of conservation of energy.
Indeed, Take a look at http://omnibus.fortunecity.com/smot.gif (if the link doesn?t open try clicking on Go in the address line and then Reload). The energy the researcher spends to raise the ball from A to B is
Energy_spent = ?mgh1 +(Ma ? Mb).
The ball returns spontaneously along the B-C-A portion of the loop the enegy:
Energy_obtained = +mgh1 +Mb = +mgh1 + mgh2 + (KE1 +RE2 +L1)
Where KE1 is the kinetic energy of the ball at C, RE1 is the rotational energy at C and L1 are the other energy losses at C. At point B? (not shown in the figure) the ball loses the height h2 and, respectively, loses its entire gravitational potential energy +mgh2 which at B? is transformed into [KE2 + RE2 +L2 + Mb?] where Mb? is the magnetic potential energy at point B? where the ball loses the height h2 (respectively, where the ball lose its entire +mgh2). Lumping the above terms together we get:
Energy_obtained = +mgh1 + [KE + RE +L] + Mb?
Therefore,
Energy_obtained ? Energy_spent = +mgh1 + [KE + RE +L] + Mb? - |?mgh1 +(Ma ? Mb)| = [KE + RE +L] +Mb? +Ma ?Mb > 0
Which is in violation of the principe of conservation of energy. The excess energy [KE + RE +L] +Mb? +Ma ?Mb produced has no source and is energy from nothing.
Quote from: Omnibus on May 10, 2007, 12:42:54 PM
...
Energy_obtained ââ,¬â€œ Energy_spent = +mgh1 + [KE + RE +L] + Mbââ,¬â,,¢ - |ââ,¬â€œmgh1 +(Ma ââ,¬â€œ Mb)| = [KE + RE +L] +Mbââ,¬â,,¢ +Ma ââ,¬â€œMb > 0
Which is in violation of the principe of conservation of energy. The excess energy [KE + RE +L] +Mbââ,¬â,,¢ +Ma ââ,¬â€œMb produced has no source and is energy from nothing.
Thanks for the equations, Omnibus. Nevertheless Check Energy_obtained, there is a flaw, Ma should be present.
There is a much simpler calculus.
Imagine there is no magnet. For the ball to go from A to A under the action of a force, it doesn't depend on the path as it is closed. The energy spent is nul: E_spent = int(F.dL)=0 on a closed path (in fact there are the losses).
Thus we have only to account for the magnetic potential energy.
From A to B : Ma-Mb
from B to C : Mb-Mc
from C to A : Mc-Ma
thus the sum is also nul.
But as there are the losses, the ball will stop.
You can't use conventional physics equations to prove smot is OU because physics says work is neither provided nor needed to move between two equipotential points in static fields, a fortiori when the start point is also the end point.
If smot is OU then it defies the laws of physics or involves hidden phenomenon and this can be proved only by clear experiments such as a perpetual motion.
QuoteThanks for the equations, Omnibus. Nevertheless Check Energy_obtained, there is a flaw, Ma should be present.
No, that?s incorrect.
QuoteThus we have only to account for the magnetic potential energy.
From A to B : Ma-Mb
from B to C : Mb-Mc
Corect. This is the spontaneously returned energy.
Quotefrom C to A : Mc-Ma
thus the sum is also nul.
The sum will be null if you can explain who has supplied the above energy to bring the ball back to A? The ball cannot spontaneously rise from the minimum of its potential energy Mc to the maximum of its potential energy Ma. Even if you try to invoke elastic collision I?ll remind you that you yourself mentioned losses and the collision is not by any means ideally elastic:
QuoteBut as there are the losses, the ball will stop.
Therefore, the energy +Ma needed to bring the ball back to its initial position is energy which doesn?t have a source, that is, it is energy from nothing.
QuoteYou can't use conventional physics equations to prove smot is OU because physics says work is neither provided nor needed to move between two equipotential points in static fields, a fortiori when the start point is also the end point. If smot is OU then it defies the laws of physics or involves hidden phenomenon and this can be proved only by clear experiments such as a perpetual motion.
On the contrary, you can, as seen in my derivation. Yours is a common misconception regarding the equations of conventional physics. The common understanding of the law whose full name is ?law of conservation and transformation of energy? concerns usually its ?transformation? part, that is, when energy is available it can be transformed in other types of energy whose sum must be equivalent to the initial amount. This is what conventional physics bases all of its derivations on. Validity of this part of the law of conservation of energy is assumed in my derivation.
It is seen from my derivation, however, that when two conservative fields are properly overlaid the resulting field is non-conservative and energy can be produced from nothing.
Wow, its a full blown debate!!!! Lets get the banjo music playing.... aah there we go.
Firstly, Jesus did walk on water, which is nothing related to a SMOT. Jesus' water walk came after he had risen from the dead, he was no longer human but a spirit. Spirits can do amazing things - I have seen them (being spirits, not Jesus haha) first hand and watched them manipulate objects. There is definitely something beyond our life here on earth.... and if you don't believe that, you'll find out sooner or later.
Secondly, SMOTs will not work, exnihiloest is right. I will slightly agree with Omnibus, there is an increase in energy, during the ball's acceleration. Unfortunately, everything that the ball gains is lost when it reaches the "sticky point" as they say. The only way to get around the "sticky point" is to be able to turn the magnet off - which you can't. That is the simplest answer, of course you can use the math to prove it too. Basically, you place the ball at a higher potential. The magnetic field accelerates it, but then takes back the energy it gave when the ball attempts to leave the field.
I still do not understand why science calls magnetic fields "potential" energy. It is stored energy, but NOT in the form of potential. It is stored as kinetic. Its the same thing as a quantum fly wheel. In a circuit a magnetic field is ONLY seen when the charges are moving. Moving energy is kinetic, not potential. An electric field is potential, since the charge is static and not moving.
To further my point, when kinetic energy is changed, what happens? The energy is transitioned to potential (assuming it is not used) like what happens in the simple case of a pendulum. This is also seen in circuits, when you change a magnet's field (usually by moving the magnet), an open circuit coil response by creating a potential difference between it's end points - just as a pendulum's kinetic energy is transitioned to potential when the ball reaches its maximum height.
This led me to a very interesting paradox. If a permanent magnet is the equivalent of a fly wheel, then why when you alter its field does it not loose flux? In simplified terms, when you generate electricity in a coil, using a magnet, why doesn't the flux of the magnet reduce? If you took a spinning fly wheel with ultra low friction bearings and had a clutch system to engage it to a load, the stored energy would decrease when the load was attached. This does not happen in the electrical analogy.
A SMOT works just like a ball on a track with hills. The hills represent the magnetic forces. Uphill is repulsion, and downhill is attraction. However there is only two hills on a SMOT, first a downhill, and then an uphill, where the first hill is higher than the next, hence the ball will pass the this next hill without stopping. Why a single SMOT works is because the ball is released from a higher level than the next level. If we make a closed loop, the ball will never have enough energy to pass the highest hill where it was released from in the first place. Therefor it will stop.
Try to figure out how to make a ball rolling downhill without the need to use energy to get to the top again to continue the roll. It is this hard to make a working SMOT. A ball must have downhill to move. To make the ball to move infinitely, the downhill must also be infinite. How do you solve that? Finsruds art Perpetuum Mobile (Watch the video here: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=553061720631716456&hl=en (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=553061720631716456&hl=en)) is a ball that rolls on an aluminum track which is controlled by heavy pendulums. The three pendulums will force the track to vacillate in a way that the ball is always running downhill. The ball is activating the pendulums by use of little energy every times it pass an activator. The energy used is as much it takes to move the pendulums continuously - in order to force the track to vacillate. On the pendulums there is also attached a magnet which escapes in the right moment, just to pull on the steel ball and escape to make the ball to pass the sticky point. At each revolution there is a "click". This sound, many believes is the energy that keeps the ball to run. So I'm not quite sure if this is a real perpetuum mobile. Anyway, the sum of all this makes the ball to roll on the track "forever".
Vidar
I?m also still not sure whether or not Finsrud?s machine is producing excess energy continuously. Some simple additional experiments have to be carried out to exclude the possibility that it?s just a very efficient re-distributor of initially input energy which is trivial.
It is beyond doubt, however, that SMOT produces excess energy discontinuously, that is, SMOT produces discontinuously energy from nothing. Whether or not there would be successful engineering efforts to harness this discontinuous production of energy from nothing to construct a self-sustaining device has nothing to do with the reality of the said excess energy. Again, its reality is proven definitively. That one is unable to construct a car in his garage is not a proof that cars that run on the roads cannot be made. Neither is a proof for whether or not a car can be made, the fact that in the year 1700 there were no internal combustion engines.
It should be quite simple to make a SMOT with several devices on a row, or in a loop. Why haven't anyone made a working one yet if the solution to over unity is this close?
The answer is because there is suddenly unforeseen obstacles when one try to close the loop.
There is only one way to find this out: Trying myself :)
Vidar
As I already said, constructing a self-sustaining SMOT is only a purely enegineering problem and has nothing to do with the undeniable fact that SMOT produces energy from nothing and thus violates the principle of conservation of energy. It's a common misconception that one (violation of the principle) cannot be proven without the other (self-sustaining SMOT). They ar unconnected.
Omnibus, I agree,
maybe it would be best to try to put an electromagnet into the
SMOT steel ball or instead of the steel ball, just use an iron core with
an electromagnet around it and then store the induced energy
in the accelerating part of the ramp in a capacitor and use this
energy then atthe sticking spot of the ramp
to kick this runner then out there with giving
it a reversed magnetic pulse from the capacitor back to the electromagnet.
So we have to make the "SMOT ball" more intelligent ! ;)
Did anybody just accelerated am electromagnet inside a SMOT
ramp and measured how much induction energy you can get this way
until it sticks at the end ?
Quote from: Charlie_V on May 11, 2007, 11:02:31 PM
...
I still do not understand why science calls magnetic fields "potential" energy. It is stored energy, but NOT in the form of potential. It is stored as kinetic.
...
Sorry to quote myself:
"The energy of magnets is just the energy in the magnetic field that you put when you magnetize the magnet. It is very weak (=0.5*B?/mu per unit volume).
What seems big is the "potential energy" due to the relative position of magnets or masses in their respective magnetic or gravity fields. "
The magnetic potential energy let the ball move from the start point of a smot.
When a ferromagnetic object is attracted by a permanent magnet, it acquires kinetic energy and this energy comes from the initial magnetic potential energy of the object. This transformation is reversible.
Magnets permits to transforms magnetic potential energy into mechanical energy and vice versa without change in their internal magnetization.
A ferromagnetic body at a distance from a magnet is as a mass at a distance from a planet: it possesses potential energy that let it to "fall" to the magnet as a mass to the ground.
QuoteSorry to quote myself:
"The energy of magnets is just the energy in the magnetic field that you put when you magnetize the magnet. It is very weak (=0.5*B?/mu per unit volume).
What seems big is the "potential energy" due to the relative position of magnets or masses in their respective magnetic or gravity fields. "
The magnetic potential energy let the ball move from the start point of a smot.
When a ferromagnetic object is attracted by a permanent magnet, it acquires kinetic energy and this energy comes from the initial magnetic potential energy of the object. This transformation is reversible.
Magnets permits to transforms magnetic potential energy into mechanical energy and vice versa without change in their internal magnetization.
A ferromagnetic body at a distance from a magnet is as a mass at a distance from a planet: it possesses potential energy that let it to "fall" to the magnet as a mass to the ground.
This is incorrect. The correct analysis of SMOT proves that it produces energy from nothing and violates the principle of conservation of energy.
Indeed, take a look at http://omnibus.fortunecity.com/smot.gif (if the link doesn?t open try clicking on Go in the address line and then Reload). The energy the researcher spends to raise the ball from A to B is
Energy_spent = ?mgh1 +(Ma ? Mb).
The ball returns spontaneously along the B-C-A portion of the loop the enegy:
Energy_obtained = +mgh1 +Mb = +mgh1 + mgh2 + (KE1 +RE2 +L1)
Where KE1 is the kinetic energy of the ball at C, RE1 is the rotational energy at C and L1 are the other energy losses at C. At point B? (not shown in the figure) the ball loses the height h2 and, respectively, loses its entire gravitational potential energy +mgh2 which at B? is transformed into [KE2 + RE2 +L2 + Mb?] where Mb? is the magnetic potential energy at point B? where the ball loses the height h2 (respectively, where the ball lose its entire +mgh2). Lumping the above terms together we get:
Energy_obtained = +mgh1 + [KE + RE +L] + Mb?
Therefore,
Energy_obtained ? Energy_spent = +mgh1 + [KE + RE +L] + Mb? - |?mgh1 +(Ma ? Mb)| = [KE + RE +L] +Mb? +Ma ?Mb > 0
Which is in violation of the principe of conservation of energy. The excess energy [KE + RE +L] +Mb? +Ma ?Mb produced has no source and is energy from nothing.
Omnibus,
the free fortunecity hosting is just "crap",
they have IP tracking enabled, so you can?t link
directly to pictures hosted therefromoutside,
onlyif you go via their servers...
Better host something like this at
download sides as
www.megaupload.com
or other free picture services like flickr.com
or simular...
or just make a index.htm file there at fortunecity
that points to your GIF picture.
Thanks.
P.S: The energy comes probably from converting
the magnet spin precession or via thermal cooling
via magnetic cycling effect.
Greg Watson and Epitaxy, who got the SMOT to rotate a few
times said, that after a few revolutions the ball sticked
to the track, so the ball changed its own
magnetisation after a few looped cycle rounds...
So you see, we really need an "intelligent ball"
made from an electromagnet with an iron core
that can kick itsself out of the track after having collected
induction energy while being accelerated through the track...
But this SMOT topic should be moved to the SMOT area over here.
so let?s stay ontopic here. Thanks.
if you are looking just for image hosting use http://www.photobucket.com
its free and work really well
also www.zabim.de (com)
very usefull
with text !!
with messager !!
Pese
Thanks everybody. I was just wondering what to do with this fortunecity.com. One of these days will re-upload everything.
Stefan, I don't want to discuss SMOT here. It somehow came up and the ball started rolling.
Quote from: hartiberlin on May 14, 2007, 04:22:33 PM
P.S: The energy comes probably from converting
the magnet spin precession or via thermal cooling
via magnetic cycling effect.
Greg Watson and Epitaxy, who got the SMOT to rotate a few
times said, that after a few revolutions the ball sticked
to the track, so the ball changed its own
magnetisation after a few looped cycle rounds...
So you see, we really need an "intelligent ball"
made from an electromagnet with an iron core
that can kick itsself out of the track after having collected
induction energy while being accelerated through the track...
But this SMOT topic should be moved to the SMOT area over here.
so let?s stay ontopic here. Thanks.
The change in the ball properties happens gradually. A gradual change might have the properties to do work. So, If we place an intelligent ball in the SMOT, it will probably stop. There must be some kind of change somewhere in order to do work - in my opinion :)
Br.
Vidar
Hello everyone,
This is my first post on overunity. I've downloaded this WM2D design and I just had a few questions, but first I must say to the designer that it is a beautiful design.
1. The electrostatics for the file were turned off?
2. Both sides of the magnetic materials had a positive charge. (One should be negative)
3. The rest of the the elements in the design also had a positive charge. (This should be at 0 like for wood!)
4. The force field assumes the entire device is surrounded in a strong magnetic field. This should just be turned
off.
5. There is no pin friction simulated.
Just some observations from someone who uses WM2D.