UPDATE I have now replaced the non-functioning youtube link with one that functions
Maybe not everyone has seen this
9 SMOTs in a circle, looping successfully .
https://youtu.be/nSQYjrLBMG4
Mentioned on wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simple_Magnetic_Overunity_Toy
Another high-profile site still claims that no magnet-motor device has ever successfully functioned.
I don't know what the consensus is on this site, but I know that a looped SMOT is not mentioned on this site.
Hi postingsite. When I try to view the Youtube video I get the following error message:
"This video is unavailable."
Are you still able to watch the video?
All the best...
Quote from: Void on January 23, 2018, 10:23:26 PM
Hi postingsite. When I try to view the Youtube video I get the following error message:
"This video is unavailable."
Are you still able to watch the video?
All the best...
I have now replaced the non-functioning youtube link with one that functions
https://youtu.be/nSQYjrLBMG4
Nice work!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RGpS-3XBO8A
:o
Quote from: postingsite on January 23, 2018, 10:40:44 PM
I have now replaced the non-functioning youtube link with one that functions
https://youtu.be/nSQYjrLBMG4
How that ball is moving? Is there any moving magnetic field at the bottom? If not, that ball will simply stick to exposed end of magnet track.
You don't believe ?!?! :-[
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYxEIyNA_mk
Quote from: Newton II on January 24, 2018, 02:18:01 AM
How that ball is moving? Is there any moving magnetic field at the bottom? If not, that ball will simply stick to exposed end of magnet track.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4FmFMA8TlL8 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4FmFMA8TlL8)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4VN6KWM8Rbc (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4VN6KWM8Rbc)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XJZDPO5VRxw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U9BsOW6P7QM
Quote from: TinselKoala on January 24, 2018, 03:55:17 AM
You don't believe ?!?! :-[
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYxEIyNA_mk
Nice clip. I feel a joker's job is better than a preacher's job because at least he will not be suspended from a pole with nails hammered on his hands and legs. Bad people!
Quote from: blueplanet on January 24, 2018, 04:18:40 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4FmFMA8TlL8 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4FmFMA8TlL8)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4VN6KWM8Rbc (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4VN6KWM8Rbc)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XJZDPO5VRxw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U9BsOW6P7QM
In all the above videos the ball is moving in only a part ramp or incomplete loop hence the ball is getting initial acceleration when placed at a distance from the magnet ramp because it attracted towards the magnet. when the loop is completed, you don't get that distance or gap for initial acceleration of the ball because it is pulled in both directions, front and back by front and preceding ramp magnets hence the ball cannot gain enough acceleration or kinetic energy to complete the loop.
Have a look at this video. Why is it not possible to complete the loop?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_AWWfwtaYT4
What happens if we add more RED magnets?? See pic!
Regards / Arne
Quote from: Newton II on January 24, 2018, 05:13:33 AM
In all the above videos the ball is moving in only a part ramp or incomplete loop hence the ball is getting initial acceleration when placed at a distance from the magnet ramp because it attracted towards the magnet. when the loop is completed, you don't get that distance or gap for initial acceleration of the ball because it is pulled in both directions, front and back by front and preceding ramp magnets hence the ball cannot gain enough acceleration or kinetic energy to complete the loop.
Have a look at this video. Why is it not possible to complete the loop?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_AWWfwtaYT4 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_AWWfwtaYT4)
I have not done this experiment, nor am i an expert on magnetic motor. I cannot say for sure if it can complete the whole loop.
[size=78%]My posts were about the sticky spots. According to the third video which I have posted, it seems that the sticky spot can be somehow overcome by the mass rather than the velocity.[/size]
[size=78%]
[/size]
[size=78%]About twenty five years ago, JNL demonstrated an SMOT experiment involving quite a few ramps. I could not remember how much initial force he had applied to the steel ball. Perhaps, he is a better person to explain this phenomenon.[/size]
Quote from: seaad on January 24, 2018, 06:53:23 AM
What happens if we add more RED magnets?? See pic!
Regards / Arne
If length of magnets on left side is more than on right side (as you have shown red magnets) the ball will not fall down at all. It is same as pulling water from drum using a tube by sucking air from the tube. If the end of tube is below the water level in drum, only then water falls continuously from the tube, if not water flow will stop.
Somebody has tried to replicate it (mentioned in that video comment, you might have seen that). At last attempt when he fills up all the magnets, the ball is not falling down at all.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_nRnokubC4
Thanks Newton II ! /Arne
There is no video, instruction set, or physical model that will convince people.
Many people have it set in their mind that this type of thing is "impossible".
For all sorts of reasons and logical fallacies.
The truth is, magnetic theory does not deal with field compression.
There is no scientific foundation when it comes to magnets, by which we
can prove "impossibility" to exist. But....
Unless the military declassifies the Lockheed-Martin Hojo turbine,
Or Ken Wheeler gets his shit together and writes a communicable theory...
Not many people will take a serious look at these things.
Any of us that demonstrate a magnetic system performing work
Will be questioned, refuted, accused of hoaxary, cyber bullied, or worse.
It doesn't matter if the experimentor is Clanzer or Mylow, myself, or the many others who
have tried to share these things.
If people don't believe, you can't change their minds very easily.
For those of us who know better, there is no question of "possibility", we already know it's possible.
Notice the function of the green tabs.
Why are they there?
What do they do?
What happens without them?
In a single smot? In a double smot? Chain of 3?
Or a loop of nine.
There's a simple solution:
Build one, and keep trying until you get yours to work.
Or
Be a horse. and we can have a horse parade shouting "nay nay" with no logical defense,
except that our religious leaders told us this is impossible, so it must be.....
Surely you know that clanzer never claimed to have a working SMOT, and that Mylow was an obvious, confessed and cynical hoaxer.
By all means sm0ky2, do "Build one, and keep trying until you get yours to work." At least it will keep you off the streets. Let's see you back up your claims with a video of your working SMOT.
The green tabs are there to keep the ball from exiting the loop altogether by falling through the gaps between the "magnets" of successive stages.
I guess the fact that the video was made and posted by someone who deliberately makes faked videos trying to get them to go viral doesn't mean anything to you.
Maybe you'd like to order some Chinese antigravity spray from Ebay.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNCAYbh55Dg
This is the website about JNL's experiment involving three ramps:
http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/3smtlnk.htm (http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/3smtlnk.htm)
Immediately after his experiment, I have communicated with a physicist to ask for his opinion. He told me in email that he "believed" the magnetic linear propulsion thing might have been classified before. It was a long time ago. I cannot remember all the details.
The sticky point argument has no leg because many people have succeeded in overcoming it.
My first thought was something under the table.
In the second scene the camera moves around slightly, so that at least is authentic .
Magnet-motors, if any actually function successfully, would be nothing compared to self-powered-motor-generators, that is, a motor turning several generators on the same shaft ( each generators rotor completely 'un-aligned' with the rotors of the other generators to completely erase cogging-torque(en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cogging_torque), the result being that the generators would present no load at all to the motor, and even better if the shaft is completely levitating( 100% ) on a magnetic-bearing.
However, an alternative to the above description of self-powered-motor-generators( where the generators have windings on iron-cores on their rotors, or vice versa ), would be, that the generators would simply be magnets on rotors sweeping past coils( on the outer radius ) to generate current with no-cogging-torque/load to the motor, and, there's also core-less( air-core ) generators( but I cannot see how they claim to have no cogging-torque )
If they're wrong about successful magnet-motors, they may also be wrong about these functioning successfully .
This link http://overunity.com/16284/new-here-several-questions/msg474324/#msg474324 takes you straight to the exact position on the page of an interesting post
( I don't know exactly how Finsrud's device works, only that it is specifically designed to destroy symmetry in an very anarchic way, too difficult to be practical, so it may not be relevant )
Quote from: TinselKoala on January 24, 2018, 10:13:06 AM
Maybe you'd like to order some Chinese antigravity spray from Ebay.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNCAYbh55Dg
If I drink that spray, can I float in air?
It will unlikely run forever.
The metal ball has its own eddy current which produces a magnetic field that opposes its movement.
When the ball has lost its own momentum, which is the key to overcome so-called sticky points, it will be sucked somewhere.
However, the problem of this experiment does not necessarily mean perpetual motion machines do not exist.
Quote from: postingsite on January 24, 2018, 07:47:57 PM
My first thought was something under the table.
In the second scene the camera moves around slightly, so that at least is authentic .
Magnet-motors, if any actually function successfully, would be nothing compared to self-powered-motor-generators, that is, a motor turning several generators on the same shaft ( each generators rotor completely 'un-aligned' with the rotors of the other generators to completely erase cogging-torque(en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cogging_torque), the result being that the generators would present no load at all to the motor, and even better if the shaft is completely levitating( 100% ) on a magnetic-bearing.
However, an alternative to the above description of self-powered-motor-generators( where the generators have windings on iron-cores on their rotors, or vice versa ), would be, that the generators would simply be magnets on rotors sweeping past coils( on the outer radius ) to generate current with no-cogging-torque/load to the motor, and, there's also core-less( air-core ) generators( but I cannot see how they claim to have no cogging-torque )
If they're wrong about successful magnet-motors, they may also be wrong about these functioning successfully .
This link http://overunity.com/16284/new-here-several-questions/msg474324/#msg474324 (http://overunity.com/16284/new-here-several-questions/msg474324/#msg474324) takes you straight to the exact position on the page of an interesting post
( I don't know exactly how Finsrud's device works, only that it is specifically designed to destroy symmetry in an very anarchic way, too difficult to be practical, so it may not be relevant )
How about Daedalus' bicycle wheel:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4VBNn-ids6M
This one has no issue of eddy current, sticky spots or whatever you like to call.
Quote from: blueplanet on January 25, 2018, 01:39:31 AM
How about Daedalus' bicycle wheel:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4VBNn-ids6M
This one has no issue of eddy current, sticky spots or whatever you like to call.
Google searched on it. Got this -
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4762778/How-riddle-bike-wheel-finally-solved.html
Quote
However, he made it clear from the start that his machines were fake, calling himself a 'court jester in the palace of science'. Dr Jones, who lived in Jesmond, Newcastle, said that he had included 'conjuring tricks' and 'cunning distractions', and scientists had been 'remarkably gullible' in failing to solve the riddle.
Quote from: blueplanet on January 24, 2018, 11:52:48 PM
It will unlikely run forever.
The metal ball has its own eddy current which produces a magnetic field that opposes its movement.
When the ball has lost its own momentum, which is the key to overcome so-called sticky points, it will be sucked somewhere.
However, the problem of this experiment does not necessarily mean perpetual motion machines do not exist.
There are eddy currents in the ball, as well as aluminum tracks, however, it is the field potential
gradient which creates the 'sticky spots', also the momentum to break them.
It is important to understand the distinction.
Unlike mechanical systems, which have direct energy input and output,
These systems gain energy from the field potential.
Very similar to gravity. Sure, there is wind resistance and friction with gravity,
But the ball doesn't care. It will fall to the point of least potential (or until it is stopped)
The ball does the same thing in the magnetic field.
In the simple smot, field strength (and by proxy: potential) is controlled by distance
between ball and magnet. (simple smot is two solid magnets)
in these devices, gravitational potential is gained from transition through the magnetic
field gradient, then consumed to escape the field. depending on the variables and how
they are applied, the results can be underunity, unity, or overunity.
A complex smot (complex simple toy, right...) uses multiple magnets in 2 arrays.
In a complex smot, or HJ configuration, there is field compression.
(like poles forced together, which alter the shape of the fields)
In some designs, there is also field dispersion (diversion through a paramagnetic material)
this is done on the opposite (inactive) side of the magnets, and/or points between them.
an uncompressed magnetic field is generally symmetrical.
in this form, field symmetry can be applied and energy in=out.
uncompressed magnetic fields are 'conservative fields', like gravity.
A magnetic field becomes "compressed" when two like poles are forced together.
This alters symmetry by changing the orientation and density of the field.
compressed magnetic fields (when compression is assymetrical) are non-conservative fields.
This means that the magnetic potential gradient does not follow the standard magnetic curve
over a given distance. There may be points of lower or higher potential within the field, in
addition to the overall potential gradient of the field as a whole. This leads to fields with
'net potential'. This is the ability to perform work. Unity cannot be a condition.
These systems are inherently underunity or overunity.
the change in force across an assymetrical magnetic field is dependent upon the distance
and the change in field strength. (irrespective of time)
Momentum, on the other hand, is dependent upon velocity (2nd integral of time)
When the field changes gradually over a longer distance then changes abruptly over a
shorter distance: this can lead to a condition where momentum exceeds the change in force
over time (because distance is short).
This is why the ball can exit passed the 'sticky spots'.
Gravity is also employed in many designs to add force to the momentum of the ball,
in opposition to the magnetic attraction. While it is a helpful tool, it is not necessary.
Howard Johnson made use of a dual-gradient. (double smot) in his linear accelerator.
or simplified magnetic gate.
Many of you have seen this on my YouTube.
(Yes, I noticed the middle name, and decided to not update that detail, but rather
leave it intact as a historical Mandela Marker)
In the linear gate, field compression takes place between the rotor and stator.
The Tri-Force expanded upon this by adding secondary compression effects
within the stator(s). As well as dispersion to re-establish the potential gradient.
(the balls disperse the field more uniformly than 2 fields in free space)
An important feature of field compression, is field expansion on the opposite
poles. This also, can be assymetrical.
And can be dispersed. (or diverted through a paramagnetic material)
the so-called "entry repulsion" of a linear gate can be reduced through manipulation
by dispersion, compression, or field cancellation.
———————————————————————————-
I shall accept the challenge presented to me. But ask that if anyone wishes to also
partake in this adventure, that we do so in an economically responsible manner.
To keep things simple, I'll build my demos using a complex smot design.
(personally I'm partial to the HJ double-smot, but we can start simple)
Basically the complex smot comes in 2 forms: (there are others, but 2 mains ones)
One where all the magnets are alligned on a single plane, which is then angled
towards the track at one end. Each side of the track is opposite polarity.
And another uses a staircase design, which is divided into 2 categories:
First - a same number of magnets are positioned in a staircase approaching the track.
And secondly- a staircase is formed by an increasing number of magnets.
my demos will primarily focus on the first staircase type for simplicity.
This allows for explicit control over field compression variables, while maintaining
consistent field strength maximums.
Now I will NOT engage in discussions over what brand of magnets to use.
Nor will I be answering any questions regarding which brand I will use.
The last time we played with balls and magnets we inadvertently put a toy company
out of business, and we can't even get those magnets anymore....
But I will say that their cheap knock-off (while the magnets are crap) have nice
steel balls, so those products may be a good source, or steel ball bearing balls.
Your choice of balls and magnets, I leave up to you. And as such, I will try to keep
my discussions in terms of the conditions desired, rather than the specifics of components.
One important condition is the relationship between the mass of the ball and magnetic strength.
If it was not evident by the above stated (simple) smot condition, I will say now, that
the smot devices are affected by magnetogravitics.
It is not the driving force, but a very important variable to consider.
A simplified explanation of this, is that there is a force differential between the
downward force of gravity and the forces through the magnetic potential.
If magnetism is too strong or the ball too light, the ball will defy gravity and fly towards
the magnets.
If it is too weak, or the ball too massive, gravity (and inertia) wins and the ball stays put.
In the ramp configuration, the ball will roll downwards.
So there is a balance of forces to contend with.
The condition desirable in these experiments is such that the magnetism is strong enough
to roll the ball along the track, but gravity still provides enough force to keep it ON the track.
To understand this, push along a road or car uphill, vs lifting a car.
Applied force subtracts from gravitational force and vice versa.
We want the magnetic force to be a little stronger but not too strong.
A good way to get a handle on this is to take your ball, and a magnet:
place the ball on a flat surface and approach with the magnet from above but at an angle.
Locate the distance at which the ball moves to under the magnet, but does not lift off the surface.
At this distance you are within the desired range.
It is a range of differentiated forces.
further away the ball will be accelerated with less force,
closer- with more force.
Our variable should be constricted to within this range.
Often, the set-up will present a situation where the exit-end of the track falls outside of this range.
In this condition, the ball will stick to the end of the track, held against gravity, by the magnets.
This can be dealt with by increasing the distance between magnet and ball, thus decreasing
the magnetic force.
This is done by diverting the path of the ball, changes in the track, to increase distance.
The momentum of the moving ball can be used to overcome the attraction force, and allow this to
occur. But also this condition can be achieved by manipulation of the field itself. Caution must be used
in this approach to avoid undesirable magnetic potentials, mid-track.
How you design your particular smot is less important than how the ball behaves within it.
It is the potential through the field that imparts force onto the ball.
It is the velocity of the ball (momentum) that exceeds the end-potential force.
Or this can be done by allowing the gravitational force to exceed the magnetic.
Or a combination thereof.
The condition is prerequisite, that the ball, when allowed to enter the array from a stationary
state, travels through the array and exits the influence of the field with some non-zero velocity.
Any attempt to loop the devices or connect them in a continuous linear path is futile without
first meeting these requirements.
The first step, is therefore, to create a single smot, that functions in this manner.
The second step (although often non-intuitive) involves the final velocity
of the ball after exiting the effective field of the array, and any subsequent
remaining gravitational potential vertical from the initial starting point.
This is the "energy" quotient available for reentry into the array or entry into
a sequential array. (or energy output from a difinitive analysis)
The entry/reentry mechanism (path or otherwise) must be engineered to within
the above outlined specifications. Less than required entry force results in a
failed entry, too much can cause the ball to go off-path, or alter the time-variant
acceleration caused by the momentum to magnetic force conversion.
Meeting this condition is the second prerequisite.
Only after both of these are met, can discussions take place about the
geometrical variations of looped or continuous linear arrays.
My upcoming video series will first show examples of smot types,
then demonstrate each of these effects, as independently as I am able to,
as well as combined results of the conditions as a whole machine.
I present these details in text form, for those who don't like to watch videos,
and to allow discussion of these points during the time it takes me to prepare
the real-world models and video them.
I welcome any forethought and conjecture, or any additional input from those who
have experimented along these lines.
However, thermodynamically religious rhetoric will probably be ignored on my part...
what is "possible" under theory, and what occurs in reality are not the same thing.
The best example I can give you involves gravity and the "sling-shot" maneuver.
But conditions exist all throughout physics which are thermodynamically incoherent.
So if you are here to preach about "that's impossible!"
Or "there must be a motor somewhere"
I gladly give you the pulpit.
I'm not here to hide anything, and anyone with a ball and a few magnets can do this.
You guys are welcome to follow along using a type1 simple smot
Personally I am skipping over this because of the complexity of the variables.
With single-field symmetry, you have a uniformly increasing field strength, and a
field geometry that varies with thickness.
for reasons that aren't worth getting into here, the simple version works better if the outside
of the magnets are shielded by a metal plate the same area as the back of the magnet.
If the diametrically magnetized bar magnet is thick enough you don't need to do this.
I'm going to just go straight into the staircase version, but I will also show the planar version.
Do you have a "successfully looped" SMOT, or not?
If not, then you are just another one of those people who pretend to teach what they cannot themselves do.
And I'm betting a cheezburger that the answer is "NO". Go ahead, prove me wrong.
Here is an introduction video I made
Explaining the functional mechanism
or rather the piece of it that I feel is important
to begin with.
This magnetic situation can take on many shapes and forms
This is about the SMOT (or SMT),
So I will try to keep this contained to that set-up.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=xCFHKMou3M8 (https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=xCFHKMou3M8)
This is the same thing in a different set-up.
To give a more simplified perspective
the ball does not spin in this demo,
and there is only one magnetic array.
this is the north, but the south one does the same thing.
When both are employed, the force is increased.
with precision, two like fields can be used, adding another field compression dynamic.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=cRVZ3aGxAdk (https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=cRVZ3aGxAdk)
This can be further simplified with just a ball and a single magnet.
the ball accelerates towards the magnet, and decelerates away from it.
If the velocity at the time of passing is too low, the field will attract the ball back in.
and it will stop at the point closest to the magnet.
If the velocity is great enough, the ball will sling-shot passed the magnet and fly off.
This is a time-dependent variable.
The rate of deceleration divided by the time it is at each point or division of the analyzed field.
The deceleration (or opposing acceleration) changes with distance.
when the change in distance entering and leaving are assymetrical, the force is also assymetrical.
The accelerating condition is different than the decelerating condition.
This is important, when the field symmetry is maintained, the potential energy through the
gradient is conservative. Energy in = energy out (-friction ) and the system fails.
the change in distance entering should occur gradually, and the distance leaving should increase
abruptly.
So that at the end of the transition, the attraction force falls off quickly.
You know what?
When I first came cross his bicycle wheel, I also felt agitated.
I also had
[size=78%] a lot negative things to saying mind.[/size]
[size=78%]The only thing I cannot yell about is 30+ years of self-spinning.[/size]
[size=78%]For you, my only suggestion is to debunk it using your laws of science.[/size]
Period.
Quote from: Newton II on January 25, 2018, 03:43:37 AM
Google searched on it. Got this -
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4762778/How-riddle-bike-wheel-finally-solved.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4762778/How-riddle-bike-wheel-finally-solved.html)
Quote
However, he made it clear from the start that his machines were fake, calling himself a 'court jester in the palace of science'. Dr Jones, who lived in Jesmond, Newcastle, said that he had included 'conjuring tricks' and 'cunning distractions', and scientists had been 'remarkably gullible' in failing to solve the riddle.
Quote from: blueplanet on January 26, 2018, 03:17:02 AM
For you, my only suggestion is to debunk it using your laws of science.[/font][/size]
Read that quote again. When inventor himself has said that it is fake what is there to debunk? The working principle will be known if someone opens and sees the box and batteries etc.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MEOit3ff4Hg (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MEOit3ff4Hg)
Just make a hole on the track to let the metal ball drop before it becomes attracted by the upper end of the rail.
Quote from: sm0ky2 on January 25, 2018, 02:48:05 PM
This is the same thing in a different set-up.
To give a more simplified perspective
the ball does not spin in this demo,
and there is only one magnetic array.
this is the north, but the south one does the same thing.
When both are employed, the force is increased.
with precision, two like fields can be used, adding another field compression dynamic.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=cRVZ3aGxAdk (https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=cRVZ3aGxAdk)
Quote from: blueplanet on January 26, 2018, 05:28:22 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MEOit3ff4Hg (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MEOit3ff4Hg)
Just make a hole on the track to let the metal ball drop before it becomes attracted by the upper end of the rail.
Yes, that is one possible solution, the problems one encounters are in the return path.
1) in most conditions, the vertical drop is further than the incline the ball first took.
2) if the return path moves the ball underneath the array, you have the opposite side
of the magnets acting on the ball.
Both of these conditions must be avoided.
1) the drop-out path must not exceed the minimum necessary to leave the field.
(when I say "must", what I really mean is you can't waste too much gravitational
potential energy or you fail)
2) the return path should go completely around the field and enter only from the starting
position. Any unnecessary field interactions may deduct from the balls velocity, or accelerate
it in an inappropriate direction.
I am traveling across country right now but I will try to make more videos soon.
In my next demo, I show a Type-2 staircase smot
I only have one array in this demo, for reasons which
I will try to explain.
(with the right magnets, multiple arrays can be linked,
however, this is not indefinite, it will run out of energy,
after some number of arrays)
The drastic increase in field strength reduces the end-of-track
velocity. This is a decrease in momentum, and therefore a decrease
in available energy to enter the next array.
(I call the SMOT an 'array', because a magnetic gate designation is
reserved for the double-smot array)
A magnetic gate, such as the HJ linear gate, or the Tri-force technology,
is formed from two smot-type interactions, but the functional process is
the same. (gradient in magnetic field intensity over a distance)
The main difference between a "gate" and a SMOT (or SMT) is the driving
magnetic field. In a gate the moving field is a permanent magnet, and as
such, the field strength decreases only with distance.
In a SMOT the moving field is inductive, and field strength decreases
exponentially faster with increasing distance. Simply put, the induced field
in the paramagnetic material decreases with distance, as does the field
interactions themselves.
Now, with the Type-2 staircase smot: the field is additively increased by
additional number of magnets in each 'step' of the staircase.
This is coupled with the exponential increase with decreasing distance,
as the ball moves through the array.
This results in a great field intensity at the end of the array, which pulls
the ball back in.
For those of you following along with your own experiments, you can observe
this by extending the track beyond the end of the field.
The ball will travel some distance, then pull back to the last 'step' of the array.
For this reason, the Type-2 staircase smot requires the additional input of energy
from a drop in gravitational potential.
Eventually, this decrease in height will prevent access to the starting point.
(despite the apparent ability to roll uphill)
As we move onto the Type-1 (precision controlled) staircase smot, the disadvantages of
the Type-2 staircase will become more clear.
The reason I prefer the Type1, is that the field strength of each step is relatively the same.
We are only changing the distances, and therefore have more precise control over the
inductive interactions. And by doing so, remove more of the deceleration at the end of
each array.
I will add the link to the Type-2 demo as soon as YT is done processing the video.
Type-2 staircase SMT demo
https://youtu.be/jXdKWbbICpE (https://youtu.be/jXdKWbbICpE)
—————————————————
I was asked "why" am I taking you through all of this
non-working stuff, instead of just showing you a looped smot.
If I just made a video, and no one understands how it works,
and how it Doesn't work..... people will be left with confusion.
You could say that I have some hidden power source, or a midget
under my table moving a magnet around.
People would try to replicate the effect without the necessary knowledge.
and fail.
And they won't know why they failed.
The way I chose to present this leaves little to the imagination, and allows
anyone to replicate the desired conditions under a wide range of designs.
and when they fail, they will have an understanding of why, and be able to
make the appropriate adjustments to bring their device into working order.
So, those who already know this stuff, will have to bear with my slow and
boring process, for the sake of those who do not.
And hopefully when we get to the end, everyone will be on the same page.
I think this process will eliminate much of the conjecture and false assumptions
that surround magnetic interactions.
More importantly, everyone will be able to do these things themselves.
(plus, there's a cheeseburger at stake)
I want to talk about gravity for a moment, because the field potentials are very similar.
The main difference is, that for the induced potential to exceed the inducing potential,
magnetism requires a function of time, and gravity requires a function of time^2
in a "gravity assist" maneuver, or the "sling-shot" that NASA's Voyager spacecraft uses,
the craft achieves its' time constant from two sources of motion. (Time^2)
first is the motion of the gravity source (planet moving through space) m/s
the second is the acceleration force of the gravity. (m/s/s)
the craft has a relative velocity compared to the planet. (m/s)
This means the motion of the planet used here is not an absolute velocity, in space,
but a relative velocity compared to the craft.
It can also be said that one is moving, and the other is stationary. (the 3 equations are the same)
so we have a relative velocity in one vector, and an acceleration in another.
the combined vectored acceleration forms an arc-path, which has a decreasing distance,
followed by an increasing distance. When distance is decreasing the craft is accelerating,
when distance is increasing the craft is decelerating. (like the smot or magnetic gate)
Gravity (like a symmetrical magnetic field) is conservative.
this means that both sides of the arc-path impart equal but opposite magnitudes of
acceleration to the craft. It speeds up just as much as it slows down.
Because the craft and planet have a relative velocity, the source of the gravity is "moving".
(with respect to the craft)
this causes a change in distance over time (m/s).
so the relative velocity is added to the gravitational acceleration while distance is decreasing,
and subtracted from the gravitational acceleration while distance is decreasing.
(because of the changes in field strength over distance, like magnetism)
This occurs over some amount of time, and so we divide T back out, and we are left with
a final velocity (m/s) that is greater than the initial velocity.
(relative to the orbital axis of the planet)
The relative angular velocity between planet and craft does not change in magnitude.
but only in vector.
The displacement distance between them changes as a function of the square root of the
sum of the square of the vectored velocity. (angular pythagorism)
This defines the "speed" that the craft is leaving the orbital system.
There is a distinction between speed, and absolute velocity in this type of system.
So we see here, that we do not actually change velocity, but instead change the speed
of displacement, by changing relative vectors between craft and acceleration force (gravity).
This is exactly what occurs in the smot, or magnetic gate.
(the motion is linear, but vectored acceleration is angular)
But this is where we separate the two.
The force of field interactions is defined as:
F= [u0 * qm1 * qm2]/ 4(pi)r^2
Where r is the distance between the two centers of magnetic force.
this assumes certain symmetry of the magnets themselves, so if you
are playing with individually assymetrical magnets you need a more
complex equation (Gilbert may serve your purpose)
Note here that qm2 (being paramagnetic not magnetic) includes the
magnetic inductive constant, which also decreases force with distance)
So we have an acceleration approaching infinity at r=0,
and an acceleration approaching 0 as r= some effective radius of the field.
This works in both directions like gravity, the change in acceleration is the same
heading towards as heading away, but of opposite sign.
But note that unlike gravity, there is no time in the equation.
Only distance.
The derivation of the velocity gives the acceleration, and the derivative of
the acceleration gives the magnetic field.
Here we see that magnetism is synonymous to time in the gravity model.
We can prove this by setting the magnetic equations up in the way we do
gravity.
Then we have m/s/(delta)T or meters per second per change in Teslas.
Or, if you prefer: meters per second per change in Gauss/10000
By this analysis, we can prove mathematically,
that the "magnetic assist maneuver" is possible.
NASA already knows this, but the information has not yet made its way into
the acedemic theories of magnetism.
by incorporating assymetry into the field dynamics, we can increase the acceleration effects.
We see here, that assymetry changes the relative velocity, while the assist function
changes the "speed" of displacement.
Both of these functions are used in the SMT.
Assymetry is not necessary, as can be shown with the 1 magnetic field example.
In my next video, I will demonstrate that the smot
Is 1/2 of the Howard Johnson linear gate.
as well as the relative position to the diamagnetic inertial plane
(as ken Wheeler calls it)
which is the perpendicular dielectric plane found at the center of
a dipole field.
The magnetic center, which is only located at the physical center,
when the field is symmetrical.
The actual location of this plane is the center of magnetic force.
when the field is stronger on one side of the magnet, the location
is not at the physical center.
The reason the SMT uses opposing fields, rather than like fields,
is due to the inductive field attraction or repulsion to the dielectric plane.
Using 2 like fields, the ball is attracted to the dielectric plane.
Using 2 opposing fields, the ball is attracted to a point equidistant from
the faces of the two magnets.
Accompanying this demonstration, I will also sketch a few field diagrams
comparing the different magnetic interactions, and describe what is occurring.
For those following along with your own experiments, I apologize for the delay
I had to recently travel, and did not have all my resources with me.
sm0ky2 said
In my next video, I will demonstrate that
the smot Is 1/2 of the Howard Johnson linear gate.
Sure would be nice to shed some light on
the Howard Johnson linear gate.
Norman
Ingenious experiment! Liked it very much.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L0QkKgcumfc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L0QkKgcumfc (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L0QkKgcumfc) yes it is very interesting but
why does that ball at 6 oclock stay there? is a magnet holding it there?
and notice how little turning it takes to get the balls to continue going.
it reminds me of the chalkalis whee/penduluml that gets a boost from 10 to noon to
keep it going..
Norman
Norman
Yes, the magnet directly below the 6-o'clock magnet
Those two are locked.
Kinetic energy is transferred like Newton's Cradle
Except in the gauss cannon, you have to change the position
of the incoming ball.
You can move it manually, but you can also use other methods
to reset the cannon automatically.
You can use steel balls and 1 magnet to lock one of them
Or several spherical neos
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D6JBYUykDls
Why that plate has to be tilted? Why the ball is not coming out from already inclined plate?
when we tilts the tray, the ball from the center rolls out
so it can be reused
But also notice the peg on the launcher
That comes up through the hole when he tilts it
The peg pushes the magnet free and it rolls on
the track to the starting position
this is to reset the gauss cannon
each time a ball goes in, it sticks to the front
peg breaks it free and it moves to the back
Quote from: TinselKoala on January 24, 2018, 03:55:17 AM
You don't believe ?!?! :-[
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYxEIyNA_mk (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYxEIyNA_mk)
Stone wheel quarry sales person spotting the SMOT hamster:
Quote from: synchro1 on February 06, 2018, 10:28:54 AM
Stone wheel quarry sales person spotting the SMOT hamster:
he will teach us how to pee?
https://www.healthline.com/health/how-to-make-yourself-pee
right....
so umm, back to business?
in this video I show a few sketches of some of the magnetic interactions
that we find in magnetic linear gates and SMT arrays.
also, I briefly discuss one of the working principals of magnetic overunity
and how/why linear gates can be arranged in a manner which produces
an output in the form of final velocity at the exit of the "effective field".
https://youtu.be/biJsyd7it6U (https://youtu.be/biJsyd7it6U)
Nevertheless, no working SMOT has ever been built.
"It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong." - Richard Feynman
Quote from: TinselKoala on February 10, 2018, 02:02:50 PM
Nevertheless, no working SMOT has ever been built.
"It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong." - Richard Feynman
Yabba dabba doo!!!!https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qpGx4foRdPw (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qpGx4foRdPw)
Thamsankoala believes we should dredge the Erie Canal rather then catch up with Dubai.
A commenter stated that this "V" gate won't work in a circle. Does that invalidate the forward motion?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cSn4ucnUwrA
Quote from: synchro1 on February 10, 2018, 08:03:51 PM
A commenter stated that this "V" gate won't work in a circle. Does that invalidate the forward motion?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cSn4ucnUwrA
When the circle (track) is closed, you don't get enough starting acceleration because the rolling magnet is attracted back by previous V. As you see in the video, when rolling magnet is placed at the beginning of second V, it is unable to cross over, it is getting stuck at the edge of same V.
Da Vinci claimed the knowledge of flight
He had witnesses and the engineering to back it up
Yet it still took another 400 years for the weight brothers
to overcome the pubic opinion of the matter.
I don't concern myself with the failures of others,
except to learn from their mistakes.
This is why I am sharing the knowledge of how magnetic gates operate.
So anyone willing to learn the information has the knowledge to do so.
The SMT, and simple linear gates are just the tip of the iceberg
Once you understand the principles, the possible configurations are endless.
Those that were here 10 yrs ago saw what can be done with this.
(including our electrical engineer that has placed his cheeseburger on the table)
The next couple of videos will shed light on why most looped attempts fail.
And how to address these issues.
I have seen the engine at Lockheed Martin, this technology is workable.
The reason the military decommissioned it was because of interference
not because it didn't work.
I'm not going to build a comprehensive magnetic array like that which is used
in the HJ tech, but I will continue to show the basics of the effects that produce
linear and rotational motion, without energy input.
Then we will walk down the road of a complete cycle.
This is the only extended array video I have that survived from
the "tri-force" era.
here I demonstrated 4 consecutive gates on one of the flattest floors I have owned.
The wood floor is actually going slightly "uphill" at about 1/4" across 20 feet,
The gate array is about 2.5 feet long
the longest one I made was 13 gates and I ran out of magnets
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gzNyzSS3BYs (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gzNyzSS3BYs)
Smokey here are some examples of spin that you refered to....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4FzK2XKQ-74 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4FzK2XKQ-74) this pendulum dropped from 2 oclock
and goes past 10 to noon and does not get stuck...
notice how slowly it drops back down to 6 oclock. - spin? you betcha.
another one
http://www.fizzx.com/viewtopic.php?t=415 (http://www.fizzx.com/viewtopic.php?t=415)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SP_o1_jBUSM (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SP_o1_jBUSM)
overshoots at 3m 30s only one way...
Published on Apr 30, 2009
http://www.fizzx.org/viewtopic.php?p= (http://www.fizzx.org/viewtopic.php?p=)...
Per OC's recommendation I did perform this test which conclusively shows that
a gain can be derived from the magnetically assisted pendulum.
I hate to be a stickler at this point in the game
But self-deception is the bane of our existence
If you allow the rotor to rest just to the left of BDC
You see that the magnet on the ground holds it from
reaching BDC. It doesn't want to force itself passed the magnet.
This is important because what's actually going on is gravity is giving
the force to push passed it.
when it is at rest at the edge of the field,
you can physically push it into BDC and the magnet will take control
and lift it to the right of BDC and up to the other field boundary.
the apparent "gain" here is from the field compressed by gravity
and expanding again to lift the rotor out of the field.
Apparent- because the energy to enter the field comes from gravity
and the energy to hold it vertically off BDC is from the magnet.
in this set up, we don't have a real gain.
This can be shown by using multiple magnets in an arc
up one side of the wheel, or using an arced magnet that starts
at BDC and goes up one side.
Here we will see the wheel can be dropped from the non-magnet side
go completely passed noon and drop into the field again.
But it will not make a continuous rotation.
Only one turn, two sometimes in a very precise mechanism.
Then the wheel will stop at the entrance to the field.
Gravitational potential is input by the initial lift, and dissipates as it
approaches the magnet.
The apparent gain is lost when the pendulum oscillates back the other
way, because the fields are conservative. Energy in = energy out.
You can observe the different aspects of this effect by moving the BDC
magnet, to let's say 7 o'clock. or 5
Now angle the BDC magnet off horizontal, and notice the difference?
now the field symmetry has changed.
field strength entering is different than when it leaves.
this can allow for an "actual gain" when the angle is precise.
——————————————————————————————————-
Now - this is where most people get lost, because the angle is not a
set geometrical number. But in fact, is different from magnet to magnet.
Where one magnetic pair may work better at 12 degrees (just an example)
a different pair of magnets may require an angle of 15 degrees off horizontal.
It is difficult to calculate mathematically, because even when you purchase
several "identical" magnets, each pair behaves differently.
Even further, if we experiment to find a group that are closely similar,
Then swap out the BDC magnet, we find differences in the upper magnets
that we already determined were similar.
The pair is comprised of both magnets, not just the one, and it is the combination
that gives the field effect.
Like 3+2=5, but so does 4 + 1. (just an analogy, these numbers have no meaning)
now logic would tell you that if the one half was determined to be a 3, the other is a 2
so if I add a 4 I should have 6 right?
Not exactly....... magnets are odd in this manner because as one field compresses the other
the compressed field fights back, which changes the combined effect.
And so the exact angle is found experimentally.
we can show a working range, but every time you build the same device you will find it to be
slightly different because of the differences in the magnets.
Now, with the pendulum set-up you show in the video
If you have a turn-table mechanism that flips the BDC field
each oscillation
You can turn the apparent gain in gravitational potential into real work.
(minus the work to flip the BDC magnet)
provided the flipping occurs when the rotor magnet is outside the effective field.
Because the field reversal destroys field symmetry
Quote from: sm0ky2 on February 11, 2018, 09:20:42 AM
Now, with the pendulum set-up you show in the video
If you have a turn-table mechanism that flips the BDC field
each oscillation
You can turn the apparent gain in gravitational potential into real work.
(minus the work to flip the BDC magnet)
provided the flipping occurs when the rotor magnet is outside the effective field.
Because the field reversal destroys field symmetry
Check this oscillation out:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QT2TqZ9rTy0&index=19&list=UUo9ItsUt0n5ayZlb5K_cwaA
Where do those red wires go to?
Just your DMM? Or to an SG?
Or?
Quote from: sm0ky2 on February 10, 2018, 09:09:59 PM
This is the only extended array video I have that survived from
the "tri-force" era.
here I demonstrated 4 consecutive gates on one of the flattest floors I have owned.
The wood floor is actually going slightly "uphill" at about 1/4" across 20 feet,
The gate array is about 2.5 feet long
the longest one I made was 13 gates and I ran out of magnets
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gzNyzSS3BYs (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gzNyzSS3BYs)
Very well done. The hateful loud mouth will have a hard time in swallowing this result.
This is an obvious proof that the inertia itself can overcome the sticky spots. The inertia is dependent on the mass and magnetic force.
Quote from: sm0ky2 on February 11, 2018, 10:34:18 AM
Where do those red wires go to?
Just your DMM? Or to an SG?
Or?
@smOky2,
The red wires are not connected to anything during the capture of the video; However, they were hooked up to a 12 volt D.C power source shortly before the oscillation started. The coil is wired serial bifilar with a cold molded high perm ferrite core. This video is one of a series where I demonstrate the magnetization of a bifilar core through the power of resonance. The coil is ringing and generating a magnetic field in the ferrite core spontaneously. I believe this effect is powering the perpetual pendulum motion in the overhead pile of permanent magnets.
I spent years discussing this effect with Tinselkoala and Milehigh on the "Bifilar coil as Electromagnet" threads here on the Overunity site, starting with the twice the Trombone paperclip magnet strength pickup video.
In fairness to Tinselkoala, the "Infinity Loop" video producer has at least two glaring hoax videos in his repertory.
Quote from: blueplanet on February 11, 2018, 11:19:06 AM
Very well done. The hateful loud mouth will have a hard time in swallowing this result.
This is an obvious proof that the inertia itself can overcome the sticky spots. The inertia is dependent on the mass and magnetic force.
He already saw this and much more, that me and many others were doing
Like I said, this all happen 10 yrs ago.
To the extent that the company making those magnets started mass production again
And when we stopped buying them for experiments, they went bankrupt
Now the toy stores just have cheap Chinese knock-offs, which basically suck for HJ's
May be some back stock somewhere
There's some neo cylinders that do the job as an alternative
Quote from: synchro1 on February 11, 2018, 11:30:09 AM
@smOky2,
The red wires are not connected to anything during the capture of the video; However, they were hooked up to a 12 volt D.C power source shortly before the oscillation started. The coil is wired serial bifilar with a cold molded high perm ferrite core. This video is one of a series where I demonstrate the magnetization of a bifilar core through the power of resonance. The coil is ringing and generating a magnetic field in the ferrite core spontaneously. I believe this effect is powering the perpetual pendulum motion in the overhead pile of permanent magnets.
I spent years discussing this effect with Tinselkoala and Milehigh on the "Bifilar coil as Electromagnet" threads here on the Overunity site, starting with the twice the Trombone paperclip magnet strength pickup video.
In fairness to Tinselkoala, the "Infinity Loop" video producer has at least two glaring hoax videos in his repertory.
So the coil is 'open circuit'?
I couldn't sleep a couple nights ago, so I made a triple transformer
Center coil is 6x bifilar in series across a capacitor
so the center coil acts in place of the ferrite
then the inner/outer coils act as the primary/ secondary
I may do some experiments with your gizmo
got plenty of balls and magnets
not the right kind for HJ gates,
But I can definitely work up several of what you show here
In a variety of sizes
@Synch
When we were playing with the tri-force we learned a lot about
how the fields interact within the steel ball
arrangements of 2 or more magnets at varying angles
changes the field lines through the steel and when saturated, outside it
resulting in an infinite configuration of field effects ranging from a
'checkerboard' of n/s to a single polarity magnetic laser that reaches meters
two at 45-degrees cross/crosses with a field division in the center of the ball
center of magnetism runs 90 degrees
and center of poles are at 135
(simplest arrangement, and the one used in the tri-force)
You can follow it graphically if you think about how the fields would be
if the ball wasn't there, the fields take a sort of parabolic curve as they
are drawn n to s through the air.
add the ball : the "field lines" would sort of truncate to pi
through the steel ball
polarity interchanges will always have a perpendicular apex
Regardless of how many there are, up to a point where we can fit
no more magnets on our ball
and the polar vectors are the difference in angle
Quote from: sm0ky2 on February 12, 2018, 07:04:57 AM
So the coil is 'open circuit'?
I couldn't sleep a couple nights ago, so I made a triple transformer
Center coil is 6x bifilar in series across a capacitor
so the center coil acts in place of the ferrite
then the inner/outer coils act as the primary/ secondary
I may do some experiments with your gizmo
got plenty of balls and magnets
not the right kind for HJ gates,
But I can definitely work up several of what you show here
In a variety of sizes
@smOky2,
This area of experimentation is off topic for the SMOT thread. Perhaps we should open a new one? Generally, we're dealing with The "Tesla Bifilar for Electromagnets". This topic has filled the Overunity site with numerous, lengthy threads that have generated a lot of controversy. I personally have uploaded thousands of comments on Tesla's patent.
Conradelectro asked the same question of me several years ago; How can the bifilar coil store energy when the coil is an open circuit? Tesla discovered the effect of magnetizing a ferrite core with bifilar resonance. Properly wound, the Tesla bifilar coil can go into self resonance spontaneously. Each coil wire loop can store a magnetic field.
Imagine two single circle wire hoops placed upright facing each other; Let's say we tap a tuning fork and touch it to one of the unattached hoops. The second wire hoop will begin to vibrate at the same frequency as the tuning fork, even though there's no connection between the wires. This effect is analogous to electro-magnetic induction.
Let's say we disconnect the ends of the hoops so we have an open ended one loop wire spiral on each side and again touch one spiral with the tuning fork. We can easily imagine the vibration once again re-appearing in the adjacent open ended wire spiral.
The very important point I'm making is that a copper wire turn can store a magnetic field without any physical connection between the conductor ends. A naturally occuring oscillation can spontaneously appear between the wire turns of a bifilar coil alone.
It's not hard to understand how the subtle oscillation of magnetic fields between coil wire loops can begin to align magnetic domains in a ferrite core. We can build a coil this way, just set it aside, and the wraps can attract a sufficient charge from the electric field in the environment, to start a magnetic resonance that begins to show up as a permanent magnetic force in the ferrite core.
thank you for the description
I agree it's not exactly a "smot", though it is a
self-initiated motion of permanent magnets.
(if that's what we are really seeing in the video)
and because the action is derived from induction
through a ferrous sphere, there may be interrelated
content.
interesting none the less
(by the way, how long did it continue oscillation?)
@smOky2,
I was dismantling a test setup when the magnets collapsed in on themselves as they appear in the video. I turned my attention to a different job then noticed the mysterious back and forth rocking motion. I watched it for at least a couple of hours before I picked the camera up to record it, then I set the camera up for a timed video and the battery ran out while it continued rocking and I lost the video. I finally got tired of it and took it down.
I didn't seek the effect. However, I realized what was most likely happening and supplied the explanation afterwards. I really can't be sure my explanation is the correct one, but I think it's the most highly probable. Recreating the effect would represent a demonstration of over unity and would be worthwhile to try and replicate. It could be simple or turn into a dead end series of frustrating non accomplishments.
Maybe it's O.K. to keep it here on the SMOT thread as you pointed out "Induction through a ferrous sphere". This is your call.
I wrapped a six inch ferrite rod with a permeability of 1000 from (Lasersaber's JT 3) with 2 coils side by side one bifilar series connected and the other single wire to run tests. I "Snap" charged" both coils to make them ring. I measured the coils for Ohmic resistance. I would start there. After ringing the bifilar, the resonant oscillation began to magnetize the ferrite and the Ohmic resistance began to rise in the bifilar coil; It rises, then the ferrite relinquishes it's field and the Ohm's begin to drop. I tried to measure the field with a reed switch and magnetometer but got no results.
It wasn't until after I noticed this effect that I applied the theory, but formerly I couldn't achieve it by trying. It would amount to a break through if someone could succeed at it from the outset with controlled apparatus. This would amount to a motor powered by resonance; Something viewed as impossible and in violation of the second law etc. Naturally your tri-gate videos defy that one anyway.
That brings me to the next point of discussion
If you haven't figured it out yet from the path I've been
walking us down, the reason I have shown the comparisons
is to prove to you that magnetism is magnetism.
regardless of the source or form it appears in.
How we choose to create the magnetic field determines its strength
but a field produces by electrical current, or molten metal, or a magnet,
or that which comes forth from a paramagnetic material under an
inducing field : is all the same thing.
now, in my last video I show two diagrams of our SMoT
and give you a little hint of where the "free energy" in this device
actually comes from.
I did this, to introduce everyone to the concept while avoiding most
of the common conjecture and speculation surrounding these devices.
And I tried to do this in a manner in which anyone with a few magnets
can do themselves.
And I have shown you that the "magnet" formed by the steel ball
(except for its strength) is the same field effects as using a permanent
magnet in its' place.
Doing so intensifies a secondary field effect which is imperceptible in
the SMoT, but can be proven to exist. I showed this in the HJ diagram.
But we can skip that until the final energy analysis, as it is a matter of
efficiency.
The SMoT generally utilizes a difference in field intensity to cause acceleration
I have proven that the force exists without this
and that the change in field intensity affects only velocity.
But that the force is a function of a change in polarity.
To or from the magnetic meridian.
And that the SMOT and the inverted SMOT do this.
And that the HJ linear gate is both of these (mirror)
now, the HJ will cause motion of a ferrite, (such as the SMoT ball)
however, induction decreases with a decrease in distance from the meridian.
This is the center of magnetism, where exists a perpendicular polarity reversal.
(diamagnetic inertial plane, as Ken Wheeler calls it)
As the ball approaches the magnetic meridian, induction drops to zero.
This causes an area where the ball can rest with no or little force on it.
In short, it will sometimes (seemingly random) stop at the meridian.
And so in the HJ, we use a permanent magnet, so that the rotor-field always
exists, and produces constant force.
This is a similar theology to how we use the 3-phase induction motor.
In fact, the complete HJ rotary engine is magnetically synonymous.
The problem we encounter when forming a loop is a problem of magnetic symmetry.
To bring the gate around unto itself, changes the aspects of the magnetic meridian.
(which is why the ball on the string is interesting to us here)
The field always forms a loop. Any way it can
N goes to S and S goes to N
They are equal and opposite and caused by two particle interactions, one of which
many here are familiar with. But that discussion is for another thread.
Well just say, there is an "invisible force" that wants to go to the opposite "invisible force"
when a symmetrical loop is formed (field symmetry comes in many forms)
the perpendicular magnetic meridian solidifies into a finite plane.
In effect, we narrow our field division to something intangible.
a blip in space, it was north, now its south.
This is why many people fail.
What Howard Johnson teaches us, is to break this symmetry
and the easiest way to do so, is to insert an opposing magnet (repulsion)
to expand and contract portions of the field loop, to unstabalize the meridian.
and we do this at the point(s) of least magnetic resistance.
Or, as I called it in the video, the area of lowest magnetic potential.
Your homework, is now to study HJ's "Stonehenge Lazy Susan"
Keeping in mind what I have shown you.
Once you understand this, you can easily see how his advanced linear track works.
And from there, the real motor is engineerable.
But as it comes to looping a SMT, or any other magnetic gate array
We can use the manipulation of the magnetic meridian to maintain constant force.
Eliminating the "dead zones" in a looped array.
When two magnets approach in repulsion, a meridian exists and the space on either side
of this artificial meridian forms two di-poles in space.
they are compressed with a decrease in distance of the two permanent magnets.
As the magnets approach each other, the dipoles are confined to a finite plane
With an extremely intense perpendicular meridian, and intense polarity interchange.
It's spatial conditions limit our perceptibly of these effects, but this can be proven
through experiment.
It is this change in polarity that I show in my video
With the two rectangular magnets and the ball,
That is the driving force of the magnetic gate.
The effects of which are a function of nature,
and of the universe as a whole.
Without which, we can no more define energy
than to ridiculously proclaim that it requires a place to originate from.
It is not "energy" that we are creating, but we are utilizing the forces of nature.
That precede our theories of energy.
Maxwell is difficult to fully understand (I'm still working on it myself)
But the work he did is invaluable to our understanding of the universe,
and nothing he stated should be discounted at first glance,
even the parts that seemingly manifest "overunity" situations.
A magnetic field, in an of itself, is energy infintatum
The problems we have in using magnetic fields are due to
our own mechanisms.
I'll let you guys ferment for a bit while I work on this next demonstration
There is only one demonstration that you should present... a successfully self-looping SMOT. But we already know that you cannot.
Because there is no such thing as a SMOT.
:'(
Anyone trying to make a successfully looping SMOT, try to also film under the table, or use a transparent table or something.
I have always thought that there's much easier( and maybe cheaper ) ways of making a successfully looping SMOT( if it's possible ), i.e. :
- by using a transparent-plastic-hose in which the ball would run,
- and maybe the number of magnets required could be reduced , by only having one magnet above the transparent-plastic-hose( at the end of the SMOT ) to propel the ball, or even having it only on one side of the transparent-plastic-hose
I also think it should be possible to loop a single ( but maybe powerful ) SMOT( or similar device ).
Quote from: postingsite on February 13, 2018, 03:14:14 PM
Anyone trying to make a successfully looping SMOT, try to also film under the table, or use a transparent table or something.
I have always thought that there's much easier( and maybe cheaper ) ways of making a successfully looping SMOT( if it's possible ), i.e. :
- by using a transparent-plastic-hose in which the ball would run,
- and maybe the number of magnets required could be reduced , by only having one magnet above the transparent-plastic-hose( at the end of the SMOT ) to propel the ball, or even having it only on one side of the transparent-plastic-hose
I also think it should be possible to loop a single ( but maybe powerful ) SMOT( or similar device ).
Here's the "Abandon all Hope" video from ViralVideoLab:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s0PFA9WrHWE (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s0PFA9WrHWE)
well
if anyone can figure a way to get a magnet back into the gate with gain
Sm0ky2 can.
but I agree... as of this moment
there's no such thing as a SMOT or simple magnetic over unity toy.
Plenty have tried .
does this mean Smoky2 will be famous ??
I certainly hope so !!
I do recall a time when he did have some very good results with another type of array
but it was not repeatable at the time...
Quote from: TinselKoala on February 13, 2018, 02:05:27 PM
There is only one demonstration that you should present... a successfully self-looping SMOT. But we already know that you cannot.
Because there is no such thing as a SMOT.
:'(
I also prefer to call it the SMT.
yes I "should" just do that, but then it would just be you me and my cheeseburger
I have to do this the way that I am,
because when people understand how this technology works
They can build it themselves by any design they choose.
no one has to "look under the table"
because anyone with a few magnets can go "look there it is"
if anything I have said this far, or anything I have shown is unclear
feel free to ask me to do it in a more receivable manner, or to explain anything
in more detail if is needed.
If not
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metamagnetism (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metamagnetism)
this is overview of a little trick HJ taught people before I was born.
If it's not real, why does it still need classification?
Why can't I tell you what you really need to know?
It doesn't matter, because we will work right around the laws
and I will teach you how to engineer your own things based on the root
not on a specific patent or secret schematic
When we examine the SMT in a frozen state during transition
with sensitive instruments, we can detect the artificial meridian
in the steel ball. And the same can be done in free space.
and the dipoles induced in the ball, change polarity twice at this meridian.
N| s-(s):n-(n) |(S)
The ball being the lowercase and the caps are the stator fields
The field induced by the N is s-n
The field induced by the (S) is (n)-(s)
The main meridian is stronger :
the sub meridians - and - are compressed (repulsion)
These are along a plane perpendicular to the inducing field
with respect to each individual stator magnet in the effective field range.
The actual field extends into the infinite realm of our universe
With ever decreasing intensity.
But for our purposes, the effective field is whatever is required to move the rotor
In our case, a steel sphere of random size, mass, density...
In the center of the steel ball is where the : artificial meridian tends to occur
(may actually vary depending on precision)
we have shown that the induced field doesn't need to rotate
But the rolling ball gives us a vectorable momentum we can use to assist
in a beneficial angular displacement away from the field.
And we have seen that the induced field is the same as having 2 adjacent magnets
(or the two-force made from the cheap Chinese knockoffs)
and the same as the HJ gate.
and we can build a SMT using a spherical magnet just the same
we can widen the rotor and narrow the track distance
and the SMT is the same inside out
with the stator magnets on an inner track
and the rotor magnet-ends outside the track
and we have the same situation
We can also place the ball on a cart, or I don't know... maybe a toy fire truck??
and the wheels will perform a similar benefit to what the rolling ball does for us
Or on a wheel that spins
but the wheel that spins has a pi issue
unless the wheel is huge or magnets tiny
So we have a few options with a smot,
We can have a car go around a track
Or a ball go around a track
We can go uphill and roll back down to the beginning
or continue on to another track, then another
until we get back to the first
Or we can use the momentum of the ball to activate a mechanism
that moves it to the beginning
there's nothing secret about the number 9,
We could just as simply have a loop of 2, or a loop of 49
But in general, the more field interactions you have to work through
the more problems you will encounter.
you must avoid field symmetry in the loop
or you lose the function.
This is your intellectual property, not theirs.
If you don't protect it, i fear that it would be treated as a scam rather than as intellectual property.
Quote from: sm0ky2 on February 13, 2018, 08:53:40 PM
I also prefer to call it the SMT.
yes I "should" just do that, but then it would just be you me and my cheeseburger
....
It is Not my property
Intellectual or otherwise
I didn't invent this
I spent a lifetime learning it from those that came before me
It's a long list and they were all treated like scammers
But they all proved the same basic magnetic functions
that I have shown you.
James Maxwell
Howard Johnson
John Searl
David Hamel (pay no attention to the ufos)
Greg Watson
Ken Wheeler
It's all the same thing
Science does not provide an understanding of magnetism
Maxwell did, but no one understands it, even Einstein needed
help.
There may only be one person alive right now that fully gets it
https://archive.org/details/magnetism1small (https://archive.org/details/magnetism1small)
Quote from: sm0ky2 on February 14, 2018, 06:29:01 AM
It is Not my property
Intellectual or otherwise
I didn't invent this
I spent a lifetime learning it from those that came before me
It's a long list and they were all treated like scammers
But they all proved the same basic magnetic functions
that I have shown you.
Howard Johnson
John Searl
David Hamel (pay no attention to the ufos)
Greg Watson
It's all the same thing
You are right. John Searl is definitely not a scammers.
Quote from: sm0ky2 on February 14, 2018, 06:29:01 AM
It is Not my property
Intellectual or otherwise
I didn't invent this
I spent a lifetime learning it from those that came before me
It's a long list and they were all treated like scammers
But they all proved the same basic magnetic functions
that I have shown you.
James Maxwell
Howard Johnson
John Searl
David Hamel (pay no attention to the ufos)
Greg Watson
Ken Wheeler
It's all the same thing
Science does not provide an understanding of magnetism
Maxwell did, but no one understands it, even Einstein needed
help.
There may only be one person alive right now that fully gets it
https://archive.org/details/magnetism1small (https://archive.org/details/magnetism1small)
You have just lost any credibility you may once have had. Go ahead and build your SMOT according to what you have "learned" from the Great Genius Buddhist Ken Wheeler. It will keep you occupied, and is less dangerous than playing in the street -- but will accomplish much the same thing.
Quote from: TinselKoala on February 14, 2018, 06:53:17 AM
You have just lost any credibility you may once have had. Go ahead and build your SMOT according to what you have "learned" from the Great Genius Buddhist Ken Wheeler. It will keep you occupied, and is less dangerous than playing in the street -- but will accomplish much the same thing.
I can't use Ken's terminology, because he tries to coin things as his own proprietary
language. And I'm not willing to re-write physics just to incorporate his small changes
to magnetic theory.
(He is a pompous ass, self-diluted, and tries to claim everything as his own)
I do sometimes make use of his description of the magnetic meridian,
or center of magnetism, or "dielectric inertial plane".
His mathematics are solid and do not conflict with Maxwell's equations.
(except for one part which is not relevant here, and even then he proves it visually
using a magnetic viewing tool invented by an unrelated person)
I don't care about "who he is" or what his religion is.
None of that matters in science.
Not many of the great scientists of history are what I would
consider "good people".
Most do their work for the wrong reasons, personal greed, nationalism, or pure destruction.
The only thing that matters here is what the magnetic field is/does and what WE can do with it.
Discredit the sources of knowledge if you choose to.
Einstein was a lazy slacker, a plagiarist, and had other people do a lot of his math for him.
But Einstein was (mostly) correct, and in science that is more important than personal idealism.
Who has the answer is not important
What the answer Is, is important.
There is evidence that indicates Ken didn't come up with this stuff himself
(though he claims to have)
But the work he has done as a magnitician, is invaluable to his field.
He mathematically identified the 3rd field aspect, and gives a more accurate
depiction of the 3 dimensional magnetic field than anyone before him.
Science cannot accept his theories in their current form,
and unless or until he is willing to bridge that gap,
it will probably never happen.
He just wants to sell his book, and take out his anger on the acedemics that shunned him
like a teenage schoolgirl seeking vengeance.
But that has no bearing on the actual knowledge he shares,
a lot of which he released for free, long before he ever wrote his book.
If you don't like the guy, don't buy his stuff.
You can learn what you need from his YouTube channel
or d/l a pirate copy or completely ignore him.
eventually a 'real scientist' will come along and give us a better description of
the 3rd aspect of magnetism that lies perpendicular to the magnetic polarity.
This same aspect of the meridian that I have shown you here in this thread.
@Tinselkoala,
Do you feel the negative inductance measurement in this video is an indication of the presence of an increasing magnetic field in the one series bifilar coil of the "Quadfilar Spiral Torus"? We had a heated exchange about this subject last year as you probably remember.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uP2xEKH4qdc&list=UUo9ItsUt0n5ayZlb5K_cwaA&index=20 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uP2xEKH4qdc&list=UUo9ItsUt0n5ayZlb5K_cwaA&index=20)
Heated and threatening discussions here are a thing of the past.
attempts at rebooting will not go well.
Smoky2
The person you mention made claims here that many could not reproduce [with true caloric measurement ]
and he would not discuss this disparity when I called him NOR later admit he made an error with his new camera [an artifact of the imaging gave him false readings which did not prove out under scrutiny.[which was pointed out by a member presently posting in this thread ...
the claim being... a strong magnet in the presence of Bismuth made heat due to his spinning field claims.
there were a lot of happy Bismuth and magnet salesmen...but many experimenters with lighter wallets and sad faces...
--------------------------------------
Been a lotta bumps in this road...would be better to take a smoother friendlier path...
respectfully
Chet K
Thanks Chet,
At the risk of my "low credibility rating" forcing me to finance my own cheeseburger
Let's continue...
This next demonstration concerns gate transition.
That is, the mechanism required to leave one gate and enter the next.
That mechanism, is field compression (flux switching, named so by HJ)
And the criteria presented by the wiki link above.
I can prove that this occurs in all magnetic gates, not just the extreme values
referenced by Wikipedia, or the work of Howard Johnson.
But for now we will simply show this with the SMoT, since that was the explicit challenge.
keep in mind however, the smot is magnetically synonymous to 1/2 of a magnetic gate
so what I show with SMOT, applies to all such gates.
https://youtu.be/TWlnnk0qsS4 (https://youtu.be/TWlnnk0qsS4)
This next video is an inverse-SMOT, (center-attractive smot)
and I have implemented the Howard Johnson pole-reversal.
"pole-flipping", "metamagnetism" caused by field compression.
https://youtu.be/NzBuKGlvxf8 (https://youtu.be/NzBuKGlvxf8)
In this set-up, gravity is employed along the 2nd track portion
The 2nd track is declining away from the field, to free the ball.
The magnets are very weak (SmCo), and wasn't quite enough kick
So, rather than continuing to make adjustments, I took a shortcut
and gave the exit ramp ~2-degree decline to allow a gravity assist.
@chet
The spinning field claims were first made in the early 1900's
Some of the scientific publications that presented this, were
plagiarized by Ed Leedskalnin, in experiments that better prove
the effect, than Mr Wheeler has been able to show.
Mathematically, the field is moving, as the electrons that cause
the magnetic moment are in motion.
The assumptions that the 'net field' is stationary, is a macro-scale
convenience, and has little or no bearing on the reality of the field.
If you want to prove THAT—— simply try to balance a magnet in repulsion
above another magnet.
Then we can talk about whether or not the field moves.
if I were to theorize the reaction of Bismuth,
I would say that due to the bond-energy of the crystalline structure
causes reordering to be an endothermic reaction
Bismuth metal should get slightly colder when you approach its diamagnetic vector
with a magnetic field. To imagine it heating up doesn't even sound right.
There are better ways to prove the motion of magnetism, as it relates to the motion of the source.
Also, we have never achieved "full magnetization" of physical matter.
Even in neodymium, there are unordered spin-momenta, which result in incoherent magnetic moments.
why is a non-magnetic material NOT magnetic?
Because all of its tiny fields are spinning......
For there to be electromagnetism, there is first motion.
What is the magnetic field of a piece of ionized iron?
This SMOT is made using a very large steel ball.
This sphere is hollow, and was originally a non-magnetic 305 stainless steel.
I have restructured the crystalline structure
From Austenite to martensite
By placing it in a Leedskalnin PMH loop.
What's important here, is the large diameter of the sphere
And the effects the accelerating outer surface have on rotational momentum.
In relation to the linear displacement of the ball, through the field.
https://youtu.be/Owkz6w4AhRM (https://youtu.be/Owkz6w4AhRM)
Don't worry, I'm not going to loop a smot of giant balls,
But I wanted to show you this in exaggerated form to demonstrate
the effects of changing the size of sphere in your particular design.
The point of referencing the magneticians in my previous post
Was not to make people go follow Ken like the guru he would be.
But to show everyone that all of the people on that list
Say exactly the same things, in their own perspectives,
That I have shown here, in a language a 3rd grader should be able
to understand.
The problem isn't HJ's technology
It's people's inability to comprehend it.
That's what I'm trying to fix here.
Greg Watson learned from Howard Johnson, just like the rest of us.
But it's confusing, because it is different from the way magnetic theory is explained.
What science admits to "knowing" about magnetics, exists in the same 3 paragraphs
in textbooks that have been there for generations, copied from book to book.
The magnetic field is invisible, untastable, unfeelable, unsmellable, unhearable.
It is bipolar, having a north and a south
North repels north, south repels south.
North and south attract each other.
Some people can be satisfied and content with this pebble of knowledge.
The rest of us become magniticians.
When we stop learning, science has no use for us.
You are so wrong it's not even funny any more. I used to give you a score of 80% right, 20% wrong, but you've boosted your "wrong" score considerably today.
When you actually understand how that green magnetic-field-viewing stuff works, you'll see how nonsensical Kenny's claims about "dielectric inertial plane" are.
Nothing, and I mean nothing, has ever been engineered using the fake silly ideas promulgated by KW. Just look at the claims about bismuth and a magnet producing a temperature rise! Ridiculous, disproven by real experiments over and over, artifacts of his camera that are actually even warned about in the camera manufacturer's own literature... yet he still has not retracted his silly claim.
Smoky, you do yourself (and the rest of us) no favours by endorsing that kind of nonsense.
Quote from: sm0ky2 on February 14, 2018, 11:23:53 AM
This SMOT is made using a very large steel ball.
This sphere is hollow, and was originally a non-magnetic 305 stainless steel.
I have restructured the crystalline structure
From Austenite to martensite
By placing it in a Leedskalnin PMH loop.
What's important here, is the large diameter of the sphere
And the effects the accelerating outer surface have on rotational momentum.
In relation to the linear displacement of the ball, through the field.
https://youtu.be/Owkz6w4AhRM (https://youtu.be/Owkz6w4AhRM)
Don't worry, I'm not going to loop a smot of giant balls,
But I wanted to show you this in exaggerated form to demonstrate
the effects of changing the size of sphere in your particular design.
No, you didn't change any crystalline structure by putting your balls into a Leedskalnin PMH.
I have those balls too, and without any treatment by me, I can see that they are slightly ferromagnetic around the seam where the two hemispheres are joined together (call this the equator) and less so the further away from the equator you get. It's easy to reproduce your demonstration with my sphere, which has not been subjected to any Leedskalnin fantasy treatment.
Quote from: TinselKoala on February 14, 2018, 02:52:55 PM
No, you didn't change any crystalline structure by putting your balls into a Leedskalnin PMH.
I have those balls too, and without any treatment by me, I can see that they are slightly ferromagnetic around the seam where the two hemispheres are joined together (call this the equator) and less so the further away from the equator you get. It's easy to reproduce your demonstration with my sphere, which has not been subjected to any Leedskalnin fantasy treatment.
I'm not sure why you are willing to argue against that
(unless you just like saying nay with no logical reasoning)
But it is easy to prove that the pmh changes the magnetic
properties of ANYTHING!
Including copper, aluminum, wood, plastics, etc.
Build one, test it.
See the PMH thread I have been recently posting to,
see David Lambright's YouTube channel
He was the one who discovered this. and it is repeatable and verifiable.
Stick anything in a pmh loop for several hours and it is paramagnetic.
Leave it for longer and it becomes ferromagnetic. Regardless of what it is.
When I first got my set of 9 hollow spheres, for use as electrostatic conductors
the first thing I did was test them for magnetism.
None of the magnets had ANY effect on the metal, except my strongest neo
and that magnet would only stick slightly, falling off from its own weight.
Now even my weak SmCo magnets stick to the ball, move the ball, etc.
Which they definitely did not do, before leaving it in the pmh loop overnight.
You are right about the seams, any holes drilled into them, or areas that have
been heated to extreme temperatures during manufacturing
and that is why I test them when I get them.
any magnetism in the spheres changes the properties of the electrostatic spark.
The sparks take on a different color, and even shoot off in strange directions
In "electrostatics", I consider these effects to be unnecessary losses.
And for the record, the PMH did not belong to Leedskalnin
He stole that experiment from the British Royal Society publications
As he did with every one of his experiments in his book or that he showed
to the public at his castle.
Remember, we're talking about a guy that got his training from Robert Ripley himself.
There is nothing "fantasy" about the PMH, outside Leedskalnin's writings.
I have no reason to argue with you about that.
You have no evidence to back up your claims of "nay"
It is what it is.
Everything is magnetic.
Deal with it
https://youtu.be/pkD2qD3xOTA (https://youtu.be/pkD2qD3xOTA)
https://youtu.be/pkD2qD3xOTA (https://youtu.be/pkD2qD3xOTA)
Any questions?
This was 10 yrs ago, since then we have magnetized
everything under the sun
(solids anyways, I have plans for liquids but not sure yet how to go about it)
Quote from: sm0ky2 on February 14, 2018, 05:09:42 PM
https://youtu.be/pkD2qD3xOTA (https://youtu.be/pkD2qD3xOTA)
https://youtu.be/pkD2qD3xOTA (https://youtu.be/pkD2qD3xOTA)
Any questions?
This was 10 yrs ago, since then we have magnetized
everything under the sun
(solids anyways, I have plans for liquids but not sure yet how to go about it)
@smOky2,
How long does the aluminum remain magnetic? Is that a permanent effect? I'm deeply impressed! Lo and behold!
The previously mentioned PMH thread
http://overunity.com/14859/need-leedskalnin-pmh-coil-winding-diagram/#.WoTSg7mWzoY
Quote from: sm0ky2 on February 14, 2018, 05:09:42 PM
https://youtu.be/pkD2qD3xOTA (https://youtu.be/pkD2qD3xOTA)
https://youtu.be/pkD2qD3xOTA (https://youtu.be/pkD2qD3xOTA)
Any questions?
Yeah... why did you post two links to the same video? ::)
Quote
This was 10 yrs ago, since then we have magnetized
everything under the sun
(solids anyways, I have plans for liquids but not sure yet how to go about it)
Well, finally you've shown me something interesting! I was able to "magnetize" some bits of AL foil just by sandwiching them together with some strong N56 magnets, no PMH required. A control piece from the same foil, but not treated, was not attracted at all. The treated pieces are attracted, and also appear to have "n" and "s" polarities.
The fact that the control piece wasn't attracted, appears to disprove the idea that impurities in the aluminum are responsible, and also knocks out the "eddy current" explanation. At the moment I have no good explanation, so for that I thank you. It's good to be stumped, as that is how holes are opened through which new knowledge can leak in.
Now--- can you demonstrate magnetizing a wooden toothpick? That would really be something, I think.
Actually reverse of that experiment is also possible. A very small piece of magnet attracting towards a big aluminum strip. When I was playing with magnets, once I hammered a magnet into pieces and made it like a paste. That time I observed that very small chips (may be less than one mm) of magnet get attracted to aluminum and other metals and sticks to them.
@TK
Sorry I meant to link two videos
One aluminum the other was lead
Made by different people
@Synchro1
I'm not really sure. Sometimes it lasts longer than others, I think the strength of the inducing magnetic field has a lot to do with the time.
But the general consensus is that it does fade over time.
I've had things stay magnetic for years
But for example, a steel ball i tampered with a few weeks ago has mostly reverted
While the other balls from the same experiment still hold some magnetism.
Here's dave's Lead video
https://youtu.be/oLlvri6UNKw (https://youtu.be/oLlvri6UNKw)
Seems he's taken down the wood and paper videos from way back
When Vinny and I replicated it we were both using flat thin pieces of wood
I'm surprised that N52's are strong enough to do it without a flux loop
I have some older neos, but they're not that strong
I want to try and structure water, using magnetic fields
my mind tells me it should work, but fluid convection is a recipe for insanity
so I didn't run the numbers on that one.
Wasn't sure how to form the loop with water in a the gap
But now that I know that we can do it with just magnets, maybe I'll give it a go
Permanent magnets have been one of the last remaining
"scientific frontiers" in my lifetime.
That's why I study them so much.
There are a multitude of books on theories of every other subject.
But when it comes to magnets,
we didn't have enough to fill one page, with pictures.
I could write a book about them today, but there's still so much to learn.
Quote from: sm0ky2 on February 15, 2018, 12:29:15 AM
Permanent magnets have been one of the last remaining
"scientific frontiers" in my lifetime.
That's why I study them so much.
There are a multitude of books on theories of every other subject.
But when it comes to magnets,
we didn't have enough to fill one page, with pictures.
I could write a book about them today, but there's still so much to learn.
Publishing a book or a scientific paper or patenting your work is always a good idea.
It would save a lot of unnecessary arguments.
In the United Kingdom, a granted patent costs only 400 pounds.
Quote from: blueplanet on February 15, 2018, 03:34:10 AM
Publishing a book or a scientific paper or patenting your work is always a good idea.
It would save a lot of unnecessary arguments.
In the United Kingdom, a granted patent costs only 400 pounds.
when it comes to permanent magnets
I think there's still more questions than answers.
anything more advanced than a children's book
is probably still decades away.
As we see in the short videos I presented, even when we simplifiy
Greg Watson's simplified version of Howard Johnson's linear gate
forming a single magnet 1/4 gate and a steel ball
There are still quite a few complications, and things that aren't
fully explainable.
suppose we had an iron meteor traveling through space
and it passes through the magnetic field of a star
or the field from a magnetized meteor
There can be situations that result in acceleration and subsequent
energy increases, that aren't viable under the current scientific regimes.
Watching these videos of the PMH magnetization of non-magnetic materials reminded me of the lenghty struggle I had on this site trying to explain how I managed to lift twice the paper clips with the bifilar coil and Iron nail core. The interesting aspect is that magnetization pulse doesn't work with the single wire coil of equal Ohmic resistance. I concluded this is "Flyback" related.
Here's the original video from nearly five years ago:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9mxtwS2OsaA&list=PUGj-eKaG5_tMGNr_yuLePkA&index=16 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9mxtwS2OsaA&list=PUGj-eKaG5_tMGNr_yuLePkA&index=16)
It appears now that replacing the bifilar iron nail core with an aluminum one and pulsing it, would transmute the aluminum into a magnetic material, Lo and behold!
as far as magnets are concerned, the effect has little "usefulness"
it is not likely that we will make a stronger magnet from a non-magnetic material
but it may have some value in atomic and molecular physics.
and in helping us learn the true nature of matter.
This excerpt from the "Tesla Patent" explains why the Tesla series connected bifilar coil magnetizes by impulse. "Neutralization of Self Inductance". This feature eliminates any "Flyback Current" from reversing the effect of the initial pulse. The Leedskalnin PMH shares a similar kind of winding:
Tinselkoala ran endless banal tests comparing the Tesla bifilar to the single wire coil and determined there was no difference between the magnetic fields. He stubbornly ignored the correct purpose and function of the "Tesla series bifilar coil" for years. He's probably still blind to it.
http://www.packratworkshop.com/pics/smot4-a.gif (http://www.packratworkshop.com/pics/smot4-a.gif)
Quote from: sm0ky2 on February 16, 2018, 01:39:40 AM
http://www.packratworkshop.com/pics/smot4-a.gif (http://www.packratworkshop.com/pics/smot4-a.gif)
I am not hopeful with this one.
Energy can be "free" but the mother Nature would not be that generous.
Quote from: blueplanet on February 16, 2018, 08:30:10 AM
I am not hopeful with this one.
Energy can be "free" but the mother Nature would not be that generous.
circles are fun
you can go all the way around them
and end up right where you began....
anyways.....
the next thing we need to do after gate transition
is introduce an angle.
This can be done in several ways, but the easiest two methods
are to angle the gate
or to angle the track at a point outside the field.
both tasks can introduce additional problems
which we will discuss the ins and outs of.
The latter is simple, change in angular momentum can
introduce frictional losses which quickly become undesirable.
a ball moving in a linear fashion, hits a curved track and can slow down.
therefore we want to limit the angle of curvature, or use gravity to bring
the ball around the angle and into the next subsequent track.
If the angle is too acute, the ball passes through a secondary low-potential
point at the gate-end closest to the curved part of the track.
gravity can be just as detrimental as it is beneficial, because of the inherent
increase in magnetic field strength. most situations will result in a drop in
gravitational potential, leaving the ball lower than the beginning of the track.
With 'just the right' incline through the gate, and drop in exit-track, the ball
can be curved around to enter the next gate at a different angle than the first.
baby steps: gate-curve-gate-curve, with the ball going up through the gate and
down around the curve.
In this methodology, the track portion that initiated the change in angle must be
sufficiently long so as to leave the effective field.
The first medthod, where we angle the gates themselves, instead of the track,
contains its own set of problems.
field compression becomes assymetric on one side of the gate.
namely the inside of the curve.
there is a subsequent expansion of the field on the side of the gate outside of
the curve.
This will be the demonstration in the next videos of the series.
And I would imagine if you have a true Gain....
every "lap" should add to the speed..
Side note RE recent non ferrous and "other" magnetizing
can you start a separate dedicated thread [some investigations and "theories" are in the wind]
{Big Brain scratching}
or specify where you wish to keep "that" topic [PMH ?
respectfully
Chet
@chet
I started that topic in an already existing PMH thread
rather than opening a new one.
"Need Leedskalnin PMH coil winding diagram"
———————————————————————————-
In terms of lap-gain
A gated track generally maintains a consistent velocity.
Entering the linear gate with too much speed, the rotor magnet
will usually slow down accordingly.
However, in a looped-actuator, lap-gain does occur.
Which is invariably catastrophic.
Quote from: sm0ky2 on February 17, 2018, 12:26:17 PM
@chet
I started that topic in an already existing PMH thread
rather than opening a new one.
"Need Leedskalnin PMH coil winding diagram"
———————————————————————————-
In terms of lap-gain
A gated track generally maintains a consistent velocity.
Entering the linear gate with too much speed, the rotor magnet
will usually slow down accordingly.
However, in a looped-actuator, lap-gain does occur.
Which is invariably catastrophic.
@smOky2,
Surely you've seen the "Finsrud Machine"; It looks like Finsrud may have slowed the ball down through a combination of swinging pendulums and horseshoe magnets:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oEkK87m-2B8 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oEkK87m-2B8)
I see so much bullshit on these threads that it's hard to keep up with it all. But here I just have to step in:
Lap-gain is NOT "invariably catastrophic". Because certain drag or loss coefficients go up as the square or even higher powers of the speed, while "lap gain" may not. So a circling ball or rotor, under the influence of some kind of "free energy", may only speed up to the point where the various sources of drag now equal the magical input lap-gain, and from that point forward it will circle at a constant speed. Now if this speed is beyond the physical limitations of your apparatus due to sloppy building or something like that, then of course you may experience a catastrophe... but it is clearly not inevitable or invariable.
I do cringe whenever I see people building rotating magnet structures without securely preventing any possible departures of the magnets from the apparatus.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4num28k4EnA
Quote from: TinselKoala on February 19, 2018, 08:03:55 PM
I see so much bullshit on these threads that it's hard to keep up with it all. But here I just have to step in:
Lap-gain is NOT "invariably catastrophic". Because certain drag or loss coefficients go up as the square or even higher powers of the speed, while "lap gain" may not. So a circling ball or rotor, under the influence of some kind of "free energy", may only speed up to the point where the various sources of drag now equal the magical input lap-gain, and from that point forward it will circle at a constant speed. Now if this speed is beyond the physical limitations of your apparatus due to sloppy building or something like that, then of course you may experience a catastrophe... but it is clearly not inevitable or invariable.
I do cringe whenever I see people building rotating magnet structures without securely preventing any possible departures of the magnets from the apparatus.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4num28k4EnA (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4num28k4EnA)
Bullshit in Mandarin:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W9Z0hZuTfNU 废话
Quote from: synchro1 on February 14, 2018, 08:25:44 AM
@Tinselkoala,
Do you feel the negative inductance measurement in this video is an indication of the presence of an increasing magnetic field in the one series bifilar coil of the "Quadfilar Spiral Torus"? We had a heated exchange about this subject last year as you probably remember.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uP2xEKH4qdc&list=UUo9ItsUt0n5ayZlb5K_cwaA&index=20 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uP2xEKH4qdc&list=UUo9ItsUt0n5ayZlb5K_cwaA&index=20)
Tinselkoala,
I challenge you to replicate this kind of rising negative inductance measurement effect on your inductance meter or explain what's going on with mine.
Quote from: TinselKoala on February 19, 2018, 08:03:55 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4num28k4EnA (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4num28k4EnA)
Interesting
How long did you let it run?
And at what velocity did the ball fly off the track?
Obviously we can have a system where the losses exceed the
acceleration, resulting in no more acceleration.
Thank you for emphasizing our ability to be inefficient.
I think you know that wasn't what I was talking about.
There's a reason I still haven't shared the device from '07
and I think I was clear with my statement above.
Partial information was given to 3 trusted replicators
but not the self-actuating mechanism
this is one of the experiments in that series
https://youtu.be/dkjY7qLH3PA (https://youtu.be/dkjY7qLH3PA)
and if his hand could keep up with the increasing actuation speed
these magnets would fly around his room like the ones that nearly
killed me.
Go to my old house in Ks., there's still a ceramic-ferrite magnet
embedded in the 2x4, I couldn't remove it with vice grips so I
patched over the hole.
there will come a day, Mr. T
when you realize that I don't just pull stuff out of my ass
Just because you don't believe something, does not mean
your knowledge is complete.
It is far too exhausting to keep trying to prove things to you.
You say "no" to everything, without even looking at it.
Does that course of action make you happy?
Are you able to learn anything when you do that?
You are a very smart person, probably one of the few that I would
bow down to in the field of electronic engineering.
But you are hindering your own growth.
We can tackle additive/exponential acceleration on another journey
Here, we are doing SMOT school
I believe we left off at: gate transition angles?
https://youtu.be/CXSVwvEKfAQ (https://youtu.be/CXSVwvEKfAQ)
The difference in field compression inside vs outside of the turn
controls the transition to the next gate.
The sharper the turn, the greater the difference in compression
if this is not handled appropriately, the result is gate reversion
and the ball will return to the previous gate.
Tinzelcoolala cooked up a pretty cool pulse toy, but where are the magnets?
Quote from: synchro1 on February 20, 2018, 10:17:22 AM
Tinzelcoolala cooked up a pretty cool pulse toy, but where are the magnets?
he replaced them with an electromagnet
and pretended it was "the same thing"
You really have no clue, have you. I never said that my electromagnet was "the same thing" . The video I posted shows a ball accelerating on each loop until the losses equal the "loop gain" and a constant speed is attained. This illustrates my point that a "loop gain" isn't necessarily a disaster. And I find it hilarious that you are bragging about your dangerous failures. "Hire this pilot, he's survived many crashes so he's qualified to take your precious cargo home." Right.
Smoky, this thread perfectly illustrates that you are just another person who cannot DO what he pretends to TEACH other people to do. You have no idea how to make a "Successfully looped SMOT" so why don't you just admit it and move on to something you actually do understand.
Right......
Steer a discussion about permanent magnet acceleration
By introducing current-limited electrodynamics
I don't expect any sort of apology or retraction
Hell, in 15+ yrs the best I have bet gotten was the other day
Where instead of admitting you were wrong
You said. "Well you finally showed me something"
The truth is "you finally listened to something I said"
Now I'm going to go buy a bunch of magnets that ironically
cost more than a cheeseburger
So I can get my cheeseburger
And teach these kids the final lesson on the field compression dynamics
at the end/beginning of a looped gate
This is something that only Howard Johnson could teach us
As Greg Watson failed to do so.
As we see in the angled gate transition, the outer field is expanded
When we bring this full-loop, it creates an undesirable field assymetry
Assymetry can be just as detrimental as field symmetry
Because it is not just assymetry we are after, but a very specific assymetry
This is achieved by placing a gap between the first and last gate
and introducing another magnet near the outer field where they come together
To create the proper field compression.
And I wasn't "bragging".
Truth be told, it is an absolute failure on my part that after
all these years, I still don't have a way to safely control it.
'braking' disrupts the rythm of the actuator, as does adding
frictional resistance.
The point of linking that video was to show you something about
the way the rotor was accelerating, and how that situation is completely
different from your pulse motor and long track.
You seem to think that inefficiency is the path to overunity
and I'm the one who "doesn't have a clue"
that's beautiful
I want to talk about why people often fail when looping
a magnetic gate device.
As I showed previously, field compression is the key to assymetry.
However, in a complete loop, symmetrical compression creates
field symmetry again.
When the loop comes back to the beginning, the same as the other
gate transitions, we destroy the effect we had created.
This is where some of the best replicators go wrong.
Up to this point, the information I have posted here
can be used by even a child, to create 90% of a looped gate.
It is the last leg that prevents looping.
This is essential to not go wrong here, most people throw their hands up
at this point and say "oh well, it doesn't work"
The reason it doesn't work, is because when we simply loop the last gate
in the same way we transitioned through the rest,
what we are actually doing is creating equal points of low magnetic potential
in each of the gates. This is wrong! We want to avoid doing this.
Otherwise, the ball has basically an equal chance of stopping in each gate,
at their respective point of lowest potential.
Which is the points of strongest magnetic attraction for the ball.
It is important to compress the outer field slightly more at one of the gate-junctions.
because we are forming a complete loop, it doesn't matter which junction we do this.
The magnetic situation we are trying to create is one that forms a potential gradient
all the way around the circle. While maintaining our momentum to renter the first gate.
Howard Johnson shows us how to do this in his lazy-susan Stonehenge video.
For those who have never watched the full version, I will try to find a copy and link
it here, because, try as I may, there are probably things in there which I take for granted
as 'common sense', but others may overlook.
HJ was more advanced as a magnetician than myself, and as experiments are done with
the new 3-d printed custom magnets, we are learning more about some of the strange
things he talks about. (See metamagnetism)
By compression of the outer field in one of the gates, we are creating a polarity switch
That is to say, as the induced field in the ball transitions through the last gate, to the first
the n-s relationship changes spontaneously.
The approaching field of the ball further compresses the gate-field, until it 'snaps'.
This pushes the ball into the first gate, because the response time of the induced field
is greater than the pole flipping event.
and there is an actual magnetic repulsion occurring where attraction was present.
(the attraction is in reverse of the ball direction at this moment, and tries to pull the ball
back into the last gate)
The effect of proper compression at this point in the gate array, is a noticeable kick to the
ball as it passes the compressed junction.
these rectangular magnets I'm using for my demos are SmCo
and appear to be obsolete, the company is coating them now
and the replacement magnets are shiny silvery like neos.
(I think this is to protect them and increase longevity)
I'm not sure if they are equivalent, so to avoid certain issues
I am ordering 50 ceramics of similar size, to ensure that they are
the same strength.
They are never 'exactly' the same, even when sourced from the
same manufacturer, but getting all of them from the same batch
usually gives enough similarity that the gates can be constructed
in pretty much the same way.
I want to stress adjustment capabilities of your particular design
Because a perfectly manufactured gate array isn't going to behave
perfectly. We need to be able to adjust the magnets in/out in order
to achieve the precise compression of the fields to make this work.
Due to slight variances from magnet to magnet.
when they arrive, I will make the final few demonstration videos
and show you guys what I am talking about with the switch-gate
I found what may be the HJ video on Tom Bearden's shoppingcart
But I'm hesitant to throw $$ at it without knowing wether or not
it is the full version of the film.
If anyone knows where to find the full version for free,
Please link it here, I will continue searching.
I don't know if my contact at Lockheed Martin can get
it from the Arlington archive, but it may be worth a shot
to ask.
He works in their Atlanta office, so maybe a long shot.
Quote from: TinselKoala on February 20, 2018, 01:44:12 PM
You really have no clue, have you. I never said that my electromagnet was "the same thing" . The video I posted shows a ball accelerating on each loop until the losses equal the "loop gain" and a constant speed is attained. This illustrates my point that a "loop gain" isn't necessarily a disaster. And I find it hilarious that you are bragging about your dangerous failures. "Hire this pilot, he's survived many crashes so he's qualified to take your precious cargo home." Right.
Smoky, this thread perfectly illustrates that you are just another person who cannot DO what he pretends to TEACH other people to do. You have no idea how to make a "Successfully looped SMOT" so why don't you just admit it and move on to something you actually do understand.
@Tinselkoala,
I'll have you know that I was honorably discharged from the United States Navy after earning my wings of gold with a perfect filght safety record. Now, once again let's have your opinion on the serial bifilar negative inductance reading I demonstrated in the video I posted above.
I personally have witnessed a demo of a real magnetic motor before. The theory involves a heat transfer and it is far more complicated. My belief is there is no such thing as overunity without energy harvesting.
Seriously I doubt if the pulse induced "acceleration" has anything to do with energy harvesting. Almost everything starting from a stationary state involves an acceleration, particularly when the acceleration is induced by an external power source.
Why bother so much about circular looped SMOT at this stage?
Isn't linear propulsion more useful?
When you need to move water uphill, you need an antigravity linear movement.
Quote from: blueplanet on February 21, 2018, 01:14:16 PM
Why bother so much about circular looped SMOT at this stage?
Isn't linear propulsion more useful?
When you need to move water uphill, you need an antigravity linear movement.
There's a cheeseburger at stake here!
Quote from: blueplanet on February 21, 2018, 01:14:16 PM
Why bother so much about circular looped SMOT at this stage?
Isn't linear propulsion more useful?
When you need to move water uphill, you need an antigravity linear movement.
@blueplanet,
Theoretically a linear propulsion SMOT could loop circularly if it traveled around the Globe.
@TK,
You remember your position on the "Negative Micro Henry" last year. I finally dug up my old series bifilar coil to show you how we measure for bifilar gain. I want to re-hear from you now. Don't try and hide from me because I caught you trying to pull a similar stunt on smOky2, and I'm not letting you get away with it.
Synchro1
Strait up
whats that a dozen or two unanswered calls from you to TinselKoala with mixed in name calling and innuendos...??
including responses he made to Smoky2 which you twisted to imply you were being addressed??
you got something to share ?
share it .
it should not need the eyes of TK to show it has merit ?
running around with Gasoline trying to restart old flame wars here will not go well.
Quote from: ramset on February 21, 2018, 05:49:55 PM
Syncro
Strait up
whats that a dozen or two unanswered calls from you to TinselKoala with mixed in name calling and innuendos...
including responses he made to Smoky2 which you twisted to imply you were being addressed??
you got something to share ?
share it .
it should not need the eyes of TK to show it has merit ?
running around with Gasoline trying to restart old flame wars here will not go well.
@Ramset,
My inquiries to Tinselkoala don't concern you. SmOky2 runs this thread not you. SmOky2 believes my topic is germaine to the thread. You want to grant TinselKoala sanctuary in your bell tower of Notre Dame. Just butt out. TK is a chronic cynic and needs to be hassled back for hassling smOky2. Whatever you do, I'm warni9ng you; Do not bother Stephan Hartiberlin with your censorship issue.
Allen
Quote
@Ramset,[/size]My inquiries to him don't concern you. SmOky2 runs this thread not you. SmOky2 believes my topic[size=78%] is germaine to the thread. You want to grant TinselKoala sanctuary in your bell tower of Notre Dame. Just butt out. TK is a chronic cynic and needs to be hassled back for hassling smOky2. Whatever you do, I'm warni9ng you; Do not bother Stephan Hartiberlin with your censorship issue.[size=78%]
end quote
@ Synchro
I speak with Smoky all the time
he does not need support from you or be associated with your taunting or threatening flame war methods [which are not allowed here.
you will not get a response from TinselKoala , but you will get a response from administration if you threaten or taunt
your claims should stand on merit .
I know of no one here who understands your claims ?
respectfully
Chet K
Quote from: ramset on February 21, 2018, 06:09:32 PM
Allen
Quote
@Ramset,[/size]My inquiries to him don't concern you. SmOky2 runs this thread not you. SmOky2 believes my topic[size=78%] is germaine to the thread. You want to grant TinselKoala sanctuary in your bell tower of Notre Dame. Just butt out. TK is a chronic cynic and needs to be hassled back for hassling smOky2. Whatever you do, I'm warni9ng you; Do not bother Stephan Hartiberlin with your censorship issue.[size=78%]
end quote
@ Synchro
I speak with Smoky all the time
he does not need support from you or be associated with your taunting or threatening flame war methods [which are not allowed here.
you will not get a response from TinselKoala , but you will get a response from administration if you threaten or taunt
your claims should stand on merit .
I know of no one here who understands your claims ?
respectfully
Chet K
@ramset,
You asked me to show something. I uploaded at least a hundred build videos over the past six months while you uploaded zero. Maybe you're the one who should show something for a change. The other thing is; You violated my copyright by falsely and indiscriminately adding a bold case to my comment without my permission. That amounts to a shameless act of forgery.
You state you don't know of anyone who can understand my claims; Yet you allege you speak with smOky2 all the time. Are you including smOky2 in you group of know nothings?
Synchro
I don't make videos,nor do I make claims.
and ATM I am quite busy .
people really get the ten foot pole out when you start threatening and trying to scream your way thru a claim
I for one would greatly appreciate understanding what your claim actually means in the real world ??
however
since you always refuse to start a new topic and instead start flame wars in other peoples topics [what you are doing here right now]
maybe it'll take another five to ten years while you fight over Words and terms in Smoky's thread.
I must tell you ,if you are trying to start your flame war all over again...
that would be a really Bad option [as opposed to just explaining your claim in a dedicated thread].
Chet
PS
I will not respond here again in Smoky's SMOT thread ,he is very busy with this topic and honestly does not need to get pulled into your attempts at taunting and threatening members here.
it never ends well , please do something to change that
start your own topic and make a claim which people understand [without all the threats
I don't "run" anything.
I am not a moderator
I did not create this thread
And for the record, your device is (in my opinion) completely off topic.
The original video was presumed to have been edited
to look like a successful looped SMOT.
and if that is the case, the hoaxer doesn't know how close he really is.
I am simply accepting a challenge (to possibly win a cheeseburger)
And to prove the point that it is possible and has been done way before me.
and to teach people how to do it as I demonstrate the key magnetic principles
of this and almost all other permanent magnet gates.
Now we are going to employ one of Albert Einstein's favorite scientific methods.
A thought experiment
Think about gravity as being a diplolar field like magnetism.
But more explicitly, scattered like an unmagnetized ferrous material.
so that the field is incoherent, or degaussed.
and in this form, it attracts to the gravitational field of everything
and in this form, we have gravity and anti-gravity mixed and equally
scattered, such that there is no discernible polarity.
the potential gradient is unidirectional, always attracting.
the way magnets attract iron
now think of magnetism as having a bipolar potential field.
so that through a series of hills and valleys, there is a potential
gradient, both up the hill and down it.
Like if we 'magnetized' a gravitational source (mass)
and oriented the polarity.
and we have 2 equations, not just one.
E=mBd(north)
E=mBd(south)
Or for gravity
E=mgh(down)
E=mgh(up)
Now because our gravitational field is incoherent
or unpolarized
"up" and "down" are both towards the source
so there is only E=mgh
But for our magnetism,
we have a potential at a distance from north
and a potential at a distance from south
the direction of force (attract or repel) is dependent
upon the orientation of the dipole.
if we polarize our gravity, we will still only have down.
Because we didn't polarize the other gravitational source
it is only when two gravitational dipoles interact
that we can have an "up" force, or a gravitational repulsion.
For this reason, "anti-gravity" cannot exist on Earth.
For our magnets:
We have a magnetic potential energy at any distance greater than 0
For attraction
And at any distance less than infinity
For repulsion
Now consider 3 magnets in series, at some distance apart
We have a force in the center magnet in both directions
Our center magnet, being a dipole itself,
has its' south attracted by a north
and its' north attracted by a south
(for now we will dismiss the open ends of the outer 2)
To the center magnet, either direction is downhill
and uphill from the perspective of the other.
at a point between them, the net force is 0
but there is still force.
the equivalent of pressure.
but in only two vectors
equal, and opposite
On either side of this point, the force is greater
towards that side.
If free to move, the magnet will decrease in
magnetic potential energy from one pole
while increasing magnetic potential energy from the other
The force increases with a decrease in distance
this process is similar to gravity
in that the energy required to "lift" it back towards
the 0-point, is equal to the energy gained as it fell.
So this magnet, at the 0-point
while it has no net force in either direction
is at the maximum potential energy state
of the system
by decreasing the distance between the center magnet
and both poles simultaneously
we are increasing the pressure
while lowering the potential energy
and we change the vector of the force
by 90-degrees to both poles.
this is exactly the same as simply orienting the poles 90-degrees
https://youtu.be/o6F9I5OiSTE (https://youtu.be/o6F9I5OiSTE)
New new fast food franchise: Tinsel Kenturky Fried Chicken.
I added a new comment to my negative inductance and magnet field thread to help.
So maybe there could be an Electrostatic version of an SMT, but much more difficult, and there'd be no point if a magnetic one loops continually
Note, the video moves around in the the 2nd scene, so I doubt there has been any editing
I didn't know that there may also be some Solid-State overunity-self-powered generators actually available, but still, since they're not recognized outside of where they make them, which would give them all the protocols( etc ) of normal products, it makes it very difficult to consider buying one
Although, for those people who personally know( close friends etc ) people who have received a functioning product, they would hesitate less, since they can then inspect it etc, before buying one
_____ _____
@sm0ky2
sm0ky2 mentioned on a thread that when he applied current to 2 hollow metal-spheres, that they remained locked together after he disconnected the current
- Maybe it was 'Electro-Static-Charge-Seperation' , and maybe the sphere's also held the charge inside , unless it was something magnetic or electromagnetic
It would be excellent if we had some links or diagrams about the "singular-pole magnetic beam. (magnetic laser)" that sm0ky2 mentioned, but some of those tri-force threads have too many pages to read through
If it is correct that the magnetic-field is actually the electric-field, then maybe an 'Electros-Static' version of the 'Permanent-Magnet-Laser' mentioned by sm0ky2 could also be achieved.
I say that, because I wonder if inside a highly positively-charged piece of styrofoam( electret ), if there is an equally( ? ) high negative-charge( inside of the styrofoam( electret ), which is similar to a Permanent-Magnet
Quote from: postingsite on February 22, 2018, 03:19:47 PM
If it is correct that the magnetic-field is actually the electric-field, then maybe an 'Electros-Static' version of the 'Permanent-Magnet-Laser' mentioned by sm0ky2 could also be achieved.
I say that, because I wonder if inside a highly positively-charged piece of styrofoam( electret ), if there is an equally( ? ) high negative-charge( inside of the styrofoam( electret ), which is similar to a Permanent-Magnet
I forgot to add, that in order to make an 'Electros-Static' version of the 'Permanent-Magnet-Laser' mentioned by sm0ky2, you would have to push a postive-electrostatic-charge to one side of an electret( eg. styrofoam ), so that the electret( eg. styrofoam ) would have an 'Electros-Static' N and S pole .
Maybe not.....
From what little could be learned from the magneticnlaser experiment
is was a field compression effect
It can be done with the magnetic meridian, as well as either pole.
But the simplest form
was n-n-n
or s-s-s
Repelling each other, until the center field collapsed into a finite beam.
Which suggests that, yes we should be able to do it with 3 charged conductors.
using electrostatic fields of either polarity.
The test should be simple enough
The way it works is: two fields approach from an angle on each side
Like from kind of behind the 3rd field
Like the shape of the two-force
But using 3 like poles on one ball
So electrostatically, it would be 3 charged spheres in the air (not touching) but forming a triangle
Basically forcing the charge in.the sphere to the outer curvature away from both of the other 2
The 2 approaching spheres should be further from each other than they are to the 3rd
so the more to the sides than a perfect equilateral triangle
There were different approaches, with varying degrees of success and failure
But that's the basic idea behind it
Force the like-polarity into a small space (compress the field)
and it stretches out into a line instead of looping around through space like it normally would.
an electrostatic smot seems simple enough
like the 'snake coil' or those large steel balls
that roll back and forth between 2 charges.
using 2 cylinders for the side fields
+ and -
with the ball between them
could form an "electrostatic gate"
the charge in the ball would cancel itself out
so I'm not sure how that works.....
could be interesting to experiment with.
I'm waiting on another large disk for the 4-ft Voss,
and my little one is disassembled at the moment..
after the weekend I can maybe put it back together
and try to make an electrostatic gate.
or learn why I can't......
@sm0ky2
I sent some information, in a message through this site
__
It would be great if anyone can sometime post a video of a Permanent-Magnet-Laser
The following post, 2hrs ago, has some very interesting webpage links to this :
http://overunity.com/17616/monopoles-by-only-using-permanent-magnets/msg517032/#msg517032
__
sm0ky2 typed :
"Repelling each other, until the center field collapsed into a finite beam"
So he says beam instead of laser, but he may mean laser, since earlier on the monopole thread he described the distance as being several meters
Also, wonder if it was it like a temporary pulse, or like a permanent beam/laser
The terms "beam" and "laser" are merely descriptive terms
and probably somewhat misleading
I suppose we would rather call it a linear magnetic field.
And it is permanent, as long as the magnets last in that configuration
which does weaken them over time.
I dug up one video in clanzer's thread, but it has been 'removed by user'
If I find any of the others I'll link to their thread.
There was soooooo many tri-force posts going on at that time.
The poor guy we were buying magnets from thought his product was trending again
So he overproduced and when we stopped experimenting and buying the toys,
it killed his co. (not directly our fault, but we caused it)
With that many of us experimenting at one time, there's too much info to re-read
Hundreds of thousands of posts, and streams of interrelated effects.
what I can tell you, it was towards the end, when the rotating contraptions
we're being magnetically suspended. (low friction magnetic bearings)
I don't remember who discovered it, but many of us were replicating it
and there was a lot of deep discussion about what was actually happening.
The field was clearly confined to a single vector.
I loosely call it a magnetic laser beam because we can point it to a single spot
in a straight line.
Might be easier to just make one, and do a demo video.
I don't really have extra hours, and the search engine on this site is having issues.
I think there's too much content for its' algorithms to function properly.
Is this video already posted here? (David Jone's perpetual wheel)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muruba8ORGA
His friend Sir Martyn Poliakoff (to whom secret was handed over in a sealed envelope) felt that he has been cheated!
The economy is very good now.
Many news channels are looking for fake news reporters.
Its not a chance to be missed.
Quote from: Newton II on October 09, 2018, 08:19:48 AM
Is this video already posted here? (David Jone's perpetual wheel)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muruba8ORGA (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muruba8ORGA)
His friend Sir Martyn Poliakoff (to whom secret was handed over in a sealed envelope) felt that he has been cheated!
Quote from: blueplanet on October 15, 2018, 11:13:39 AM
The economy is very good now.
Many news channels are looking for fake news reporters.
Its not a chance to be missed.
What do you mean? That video is fake?
To me it looks like a simple DC motor. Current from the battery kept in a box flows through the spokes of bicycle wheel which act as current carrying conductors and experience force while passing through two coils provided on either side of fixed horizontal bar at the middle portion. The wheel is provided with split ring at the center. On a low friction bearing, a very little force is required to keep the wheel rotating with perfectly balanced weights once the initial inertia is overcome. Hence the professors has felt that he has been fooled (cheated).
So did sm0ky2 (https://overunity.com/profile/sm0ky2.8767/) win the cheeseburger ? The end of the story is missing... :(
No cheeseburger for me :(
I pissed off everyone in the house and am forbidden from
arranging magnets all over the floors....
When I get a place to set up an annoying contraption
I will resume my futile quest.
Haven't given up, just don't have a place to do that type of thing.