I have been working on this for quite awhile. It's a new approach to attempting to close the loop and I offer it for the groups consideration.
I have not closed the loop yet with this demonstration but I have succeeded in looping the ball back within 1" or less of its drop point.
The uniqueness of the smot is that the ball can get past the "sticky point" and fall of the end of the ramp. The problem has been to
get the ball to loop back and position itself so it can again been drawn up the ramp.
What I have done is to construct smot ramp at a almost a 40 degree angle. The metal ball is dropped into a plastic tube which is high enough that it loops all the way around and enters the smot ramp where it is pulled up to the top extremely close to the drop point.
I also have made a few changes in such that the ball rides within the u channel instead of alond the top rails. I have found this to be more stable.
Since we know the ball can get past the sticky point of a smot and can now see the ball looping all the way up to almost its drop point
how can we close that 1 inch gap to achieve a closed loop?
I am claiming nothing here other than what I show.
My video camera I am sure is the worst in the world the pictures are grainy.
I hope this is of interest
Bill
www.youtube.com/watch?v=f_dBH_YKVlI
I wonder how long it will take Omnibus to start attacking people here, the word SMOT seems to set him off.
Hans von Lieven
Quote from: mramos on September 30, 2007, 12:44:03 AM
Right, but Omnibuss likes the SMOT.
Pity he doesn't understand it. :-)
Hans von Lieven
If successful, I think the way to extract power from a dvice like this is to replicate the workings of those "shake" flashlights. I'm sure everyone has seen those, I had fun taking one apart. A series of coils could be looped around the track, or the return tube and when the steel ball passed through them, a small current would be generated as in the flashlights....
And, if it could generate a lot of momentum as Mramos suggests that his did, why not shoot the ball at a curved surface such that it forced the ball to climb to a greater height so you would have more energy at your disposal for the "downhill" run through the return tube? Once I can afford a series of these rectanglular magnets, I may play around with this.
And Hans, don't even type the word SMOT (opps) it does appear to excite some individuals here.
Bill
Hi Bill,
Seeing your video, I think you have very strong magnets with respect to the weigth of your ball, hence the attract force traps the ball easily. To ease this, you
1) could use a heavier ball (this may involve a plastic tube of bigger diameter; make sure to cut some holes at the upper areas of the tube to help leave the trapped air inside the tube if the bigger diameter ball fills the inside diameter of the tube very tightly)
2) could place the sidemagnets at the top further aside/away from the u channel to reduce pulling force specifically at the sticky point or maybe place one or two attract magnets above and further outside of the sticky point also to ease the strong attracting sticky point (this way the accelerating ball may be able to defeat the weakened sticky point by its gained kinetic energy) The point is you reduce the attract force at the top just below gravitational force the ball experiences.
Omnibus elsewhere on this Forum gave link to a video: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2383887636280790847 where you can see the ball nicely escaping from the sticky spot at the top of the ramp. So the sticky point you presently experience can be avoided.
Perhaps the price to pay for this is the much less acceleration of the ball upwards the ramp (due to heavier ball and/or weaker magnets). To remedy this elsewhere, I think the suggestion by Pirate88179 could be applied to help the ball to gain further kinetic energy while rolling in your tube. See this link here with the attached video:
http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,2487.msg48656.html#msg48656 (kugela.mpg)
The video shows that gravitational energy can be added to the kinetic energy of a rolling ball so if you could shape somehow your plastic tube to that slopy curve, you could help your bigger ball to reach the entry point of the smot ramp more readily (but only if it is needed of course).
Gyula
Well, in all honesty, I think that this video is a very good way to see how SMOT is not OU.
In all SMOT experiments, the impression of OU is created because one is storing energy (unadvertedly) at the moment of placing the ball in the base of the ramp. Thus, the ball seems to shoot trough the ramp, but if you try to close the loop, it simply won't shoot trough the ramp again because the friction ate all the extra potential energy you added at the beginning with your hand, thus the ball gets stuck in the end of the ramp, where potential energy =0.
In the video that Bill is offering to us, he is clearly storing the potential energy only against the gravity field, not the magnetic field. Thus, the ball goes trough the track, enters the magnetic field with low energy and simply gets stuck in the magnetic field in a position of 0 potential energy.
I know that one could theoretically build a perpetual SMOT-looking-like device. But the engineering of it, and then the building of it, it's a daunting task. Perhaps it's a good educational project. Let's see if it becomes a reality in the next couple of years.
QuoteBut mine worked well and pushed the ball, not pulled it. If that is how you have it them ignore me.
Mr. Amos:
In my suggestion to generate some output from the SMOT I suggested the ball moving through a series of coils like in the shake lights. I made an assumption that the sphere was itself a magnet based upon your above statement. Steel or iron is not reppelled by a magnet but attracted so if you were "pushing" it I figured it had to be a magnet. This is why I suggested the coils which would generate a small current. As far as I know passing a steel ball through a coil would not do anything. I may have said "Steel ball" in my response earlier when I meant sphere, or magnetic sphere. I hope I am explaining this correctly. Thanks.
Bill
G'day Bill.
Not a bad try. You are wasting a considerable amount of energy though by pushing the ball through this kind of pipe. The ball, in order to travel, has to push an air column in front or it as long as the tube itself. That is clearly wasteful. May I suggest drilling holes every half inch or so into the top of the tube along its entire length. This way the air has only a short way to travel in order to escape.
I am not suggesting that it will work, the difference might not be enough to overcome the hurdle, what I am saying though is that it will cut out a lot of resistance that you are currently experiencing.
Good Luck
Hans von Lieven
Quote from: ChileanOne on September 30, 2007, 12:09:04 PM
In all SMOT experiments, the impression of OU is created because one is storing energy (unadvertedly) at the moment of placing the ball in the base of the ramp.
WRONG !
No energy needed !
Study it again.
Quote from: billmehess on September 29, 2007, 11:56:08 PM
I hope this is of interest
Bill
www.youtube.com/watch?v=f_dBH_YKVlI
Hi Bill,
well built !
Please try to place a few iron core pieces at the end of the ramp, so you guide the flux there
away from the steel ball.
Also the steel ball must exit the ramp through the "blue hole" ( see the FEMM magnet simulations)
so you must built the ramp a little more longer and have the ball exit about an inch earlier at around 90 degrees
to the ramp....
Also the iron core pieces at the end will help guide the flux away.
Just add enough iron there, until the field is so distorted, that the ball
can exit easily.
Regards, Stefan.
this also escapes the sticky spot.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=xMb0OqK6gx8
This also escapes the ?sticky spot?.
A absolutely brilliant example of a closed loop SMOT.
I estimate the RPM to be about 60 per minute.
You can clearly see the ball go from A-B-C-A.
Clever use of ?magnetic shielding? allows this device to work.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=pmsu9NbLxGk
All kidding aside, why didn?t this work.
burk,
Quote from: FreeEnergy on September 30, 2007, 07:24:26 PM
this also escapes the stick spot.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=xMb0OqK6gx8
Quote from: crazyman on September 30, 2007, 08:13:28 PM
http://youtube.com/watch?v=pmsu9NbLxGk
All kidding aside, why didn?t this work.
It is just not a SMOT !
Different principle with a very sticky spot at the end.
Much harder to overcome than in a SMOT !
Using the tube is really no problem. Air in the tube is not at all a factor the ball moves smothly and quickly from the drop through the tube to the smot and up the ramp very efficiently.
I have built many smots and have never had a problem rolling the ball of the end. The challenge is that when the smot is raised to the angle I need it to be so that the ramp can come into play its difficult to get the ball to drop over the end. This is because the magnets have to be very strong to run the ball to the top.
Don't quite understand the iron particle concept. Is this to change the flux to make the magnets not quite as strong? In that case I could use weaker magnets at the top or move them a little further apart.
When I try this the ball simply stops a little lower on the ramp.
Because I have such great speed with ball projecting up the ramp I am going to try directing the ball though a hole about 2/3 up the ramp.
The ball will not drop on its one so again the key will to "direct" it via a tube. I simply need to clear the magnets by such a small amount and this thing is a runner.
I'll let you all know whats happening.
Bill
This is interesting, I just closed up my shop for the night but I noticed something I had not seen before. The ball of a regular smot
configuration runs on the two top rails of the uchannel. The ball I am using in my configuration runs inside the uchannel. I have notice that
the speed is extremely fast up the smot, faster than what would be expected. Looking down the channel when the ball was projected up I noticed that the ball is not riding on the bottom but actually suspended about 2mm high. It may touch a side in the less than 1 sec it takes to reach the end but generally it is suspended. When stopped at the end it remains suspended against one of the sides of the uchannel.
Moving the magnets on each side will also determine the relative height of the ball. But for the moment with the magnets flush to the bottom the ball is levitated in motion. I wonder if I can use this to help escape the uchannel.
Maybe instead of trying to direct the ball downwards through a "trap door" maybe having it ramp up so that it literally flings itself away.
This could be caught in a funnel arrangement and via the tube directed back to the smot.
I'll try this tommorrow.
It's quite exciting to be this close!
Bill
Hi Bill,
you can also try to put just one rampof magnets
ABOVE the plastic tube.
This saves magnets and you can bend up the magnetic flux
upwards via iron core pieces much more easily at the ramp exit to
divert away the flux from the ball, so it can exit better.
@billmehes,
The devil is in the details. The main thing you have to do, if you're serious about it ,is to build an experimental setup which would allow you to change slightly important parameters of your device. For instance, there must be 3D tables with micrometric screws to adjust the position of the magnets with great precision. Those of the participants who have worked towards their PhD's know exactly what I mean. Sometimes it takes years to build an appropriate setup with which to carry out scientifically meaningful research. Garage type of efforts won't lead anywhere. Consider building a DVD player in your garage. Would you be able to do it from scratch even if you have all the blueprints available? The task at hand is even more difficult. One thing is for sure, SMOT violates CoE. That's categorically proven. To utilize this to build a self-sustaining device, however, is a daunting engineering task, a quantum leap from just building a SMOT which proves violation of CoE. That's a separate, very difficult task which should be approached systematically as one would approach any difficult scientific problem.
The ball going up the ramp seems to have much energy and momentum. Perhaps just before the ball reaches the top of the ramp it would collide with a weight(s) on an axle (like a water wheel). The momentum would push the non magnetic weight radially around the axle and then re-contact the ball on the opposite side pushing it through the sticky spot and into the tube. Just my 2 cents. Great forum BTW!
Jerry
Some questions:
1. What would be the significance of a working smot, meaning a closed loop running system?
2. Since Stefan considers the smot to be capbable of over unity would then a working smot be considered a FE device?
3. Hence would it not win the OU price simply by defult?
Bill
Quote from: billmehess on October 02, 2007, 03:18:49 AM
Some questions:
1. What would be the significance of a working smot, meaning a closed loop running system?
2. Since Stefan considers the smot to be capbable of over unity would then a working smot be considered a FE device?
3. Hence would it not win the OU price simply by defult?
Bill
The answers are
1. Major
2. Yes
3. Build one and collect
This is one of those tasks that seems easy, but isn't. The hampster wheel idea is
intriguing, but has not matured as yet. There is an elegance to the original concept,
but getting it to deliver enough energy to run a hair dryer is tricky.
As many other people here already saw the idea, probably you have competition, Bill. ;D
Anyway, another very important requisite for collecting the Overunity prize, is the open sourcing of the working apparatus: This means that it must be possible to be replicated by, at least, 1 person other than the claimant.
Good Luck Bill! I would really like to be proven wrong about my disbelief in SMOT.
(PS: Just for the record, I am in no way a FE debunker, I believe OU is possible and has been supressed actively in the past and present. I just don't agree with the SMOT being OU).
Quote from: ChileanOne on October 02, 2007, 10:07:25 AM
As many other people here already saw the idea, probably you have competition, Bill. ;D
Anyway, another very important requisite for collecting the Overunity prize, is the open sourcing of the working apparatus: This means that it must be possible to be replicated by, at least, 1 person other than the claimant.
The device must at least generate 50 Watts contineously for getting the prize.
3 devices must be built which work and must be shipped to testers.
The SMOT just produces only MilliWatts in such a setup...
Quote
I just don't agree with the SMOT being OU).
Then you do not understand it yet...
Okay, I was already around, when Greg Watson
and Epitaxy did get it to loop, so I might have a better understanding of it...
Just study all the available videos again.
Thanks Stephan for providing the complete info on the prize. So, I see a Smot should use a bowling ball sized steel ball to produce such a power, I guess. ;)
Anyway, also thanks for your honest input in the SMOT issue. I'll look up for more videos, specially the ones that don't rely on hands to position the ball wrt the mag field.
Anyway, building a SMOT with verifiable and undeniable OU is possible AFAIK, but the construction requires material science and time taken into account. You know, I'm from the Steorn's school of thought.
If the SMOT is OU then the magnetic Wankel is OU.
They are based on precisely the same principle but the Wankel uses an magnetic pulse instead of gravity to escape the sticky spot.
In this case the Wankel is a lot easier to build. There is not really any difficult narrow tollerances in a Wankel.
A 1mm gap at the smallest area is good enough in a wankel. And the traveling pendulum will not "jump off" the track.
The Wankel will also be a lot small than a SMOT due to the higher flux densities and simplicity of the design.
If Paul Sprains Wankel proves be OverUnity beyond any doubt I will build such a beautiful beast myself.
I guess I could finish it within a month or two by getting the stuff I'll need precision cut by laser (for free).
The magnets will either be custom made slanted magnets or standard sizes of the shelf.
It all depends on Sprains public demo and his report and what can be determined from those.
I would really like to see evidence and or a video of Greg Watsons (or anybodies) closed loop smot. On the JLN site he claimes that on Aug. 2, 1997 he was able to close the loop and see run times of up to 5 minutes. he says also that his time to loop once was 1 min.
The JLN site show drawing of his closed loop system but again there is no videos to back this up.
Also in the video I have posted on youtube regarding the "almost' closed smot system I am using about 6' of tubing and it takes only 5 seconds fron the drop point to travel the loop and project up the smot to the top now within 1/2 of the drop point.
Gregs loop system would have to be 12 times longer (if it took 1 min.) or 72'. It would be moving at such a slow speed that friction alone would stop it. I guess all things are possible though but it would be nice to see some real verifable evidence.
Based on the cuurent requirement for the Over Unity price the smot would not be eligable. Thats the rules and thats okay.
Regarding Paul Sprains device the problem will be to be able to charge up his caps enough to trigger the electromagnet to puch it past the sticky point. The problem here is that he must do it in just revolution. This will be very very difficult!! I wish him the best though.
I agree with Bill. I too would like to see the videos.
Bill
I agree with Bill. I too would like to see the videos.
Bill
Quote from: billmehess on October 02, 2007, 02:32:12 PM
Regarding Paul Sprains device the problem will be to be able to charge up his caps enough to trigger the electromagnet to puch it past the sticky point. The problem here is that he must do it in just revolution. This will be very very difficult!! I wish him the best though.
If Paul need to overcome the sticky spot in one revolution, it's the same for the Smot that has to do it in one drop after the magnets.
No difference. Same deal.
But he doesn't need any caps.
He can start the Wankel by external current and when the Wankel is up to speed and fully powering the generator he can
just cut the external current and a simple AC-DC convertor will fit the generator voltage to the needs of the Wankel
I have never really understood the idea of running a device on caps to prove overunity. If OU, there's no need to run it on caps.
Just hook up a generator to the shaft and convert the output power to the needs of the motor.
If truly OU it will continue to run on the generator output. It's just as simple as this. Don't mess things up.
I believe people are messing up their testing when they use big capacitor in their devices. And it just feels so wrong.
I say this as an electronics engineer with many years of experience. Just don't use caps, unless absolutely necessary.
Well, if the OU of the device is so weakly that the losses of powering a generator eats it all, then the use of capacitors
can be in handy. But in then again. If so weak, it's not really of any use to power anything.
And it's no fun just to see it barely self running. I crave for raw power. And I do hope for a breaktrough in the future.
Perhaps Pauls Wankel or Hildenbrands Motor.??? Time will tell.
I really like the pvc tube return scheme. Would it be possible to do away with the aluminium U channel in the SMOT and just have one smooth run of PVC tube all the way round?
Has anyone considered blending the SMOT technology with a rotating over-balance wheel? I have been thinking about this all day after it came to me last night. I don't have the software to draw this but just think of a SMOT located at the 3:00 position, or thereabouts, on a clockwise rotating over-balance wheel that has the steel (iron) sphere fixed to the circumference. The sticky spot may be over come with gravity and the push from the SMOT might give the wheel enough of a pulse to come over the 12:00 position to begin again. I am going to construct one of these, but I have to earn a little money first. It should not be expensive to try....what do you think?
Bill
You would find that there is very lttle push from the smot. Place your finger at the top of the ramp and you will feel very little force when the ball hits it even at full force.
Don't waste time on gravity wheels- THEY DO NOT WORK!!! they will always achieve equilibrium.
As far as a smot being capable of being OU I can say this without any reservation. If the goal of a closed loop is realized then by defult the smot is OU!!.
After all it is then capable of in effect recharging itself to keep running. It would be the same as dropping a ball and having the ball return to exactly the same height each time it was dropped. Currently this can never happen the ball will always have what is called "a coefficient of restitution" of less than one. One being returning to the same height each time. Now a closed loop smott would have the coefficient of resititution of 1 BUT since it also overcame friction and wind resistance its COR is more than one. Just trying to illustrate a point.
With a doubt a closed loop smot is OU a smot not closed is not.
How could a smot produce power? Actually there is a number of ways. Since the ball is traveling throug a loop there is a vibration as the ball moves through. Quite possible electricity could be generated by stringing a piezoelectric configuration placed along the length of the return tube..
Think of a number of smotts side by side with a light magnetic shield between them generating energy from the piezo crystals all connected in series. Just a thought.
Also a small windmill would easily be turned as the ball projects up the ramp. This again with other "windmills" ( one per smott) all connected in series. As a matter of fact here's a thought:
Ball goes up ramp spins small windmill connected to a small generator, ball drops though tube generating energy along it path by it's vibration being used in a piezoelectric configuration.
In the standard smot we see say on JLN Labs website the ball moves fairly slowly up the hardly inclined ramp. On my device because I am
really projecting this fast it would turn a windmill blade, To see if this would work I took a small plastic windmill and put in the path
of the ball. The ball shot thought it like it was even there and the blades spun. Obviouly very little torque to turn a generator but of course this is all very scaleable. Again hooking up x number of smott output in series might give us something. Again down the road thoughts.
The force from even my smoot would not push a gravity wheel setup - besides gravity wheels DO NOT WORK!!
One of the biggest challenges with smott technology has been to find away to rerout the ball from its drop point back to the smott and up the ramp. This has been achieved. We know that a ball will drop off the ramp under a lower height. So knowing that the problem seems to me that it is only necessary to "fine tune" the end to cause the ball to drop. Once it drops it will via the tube take its self back to the smott enterence and up the ramp without any problem. I did that probably 200 times today.
Fine tuning the end is of course that "quantum leap" that Omnibus talked about. But since we know that we can get the ball to drop of the end of a smott with the correct config. of magnets and spacing (thus fine tuning) is this then really not possible with the more inclined ramp? I Believe there are ways of fine tuning the end by placing a magnet at the end of the ramp to "pull" the ball out from the magetic hold of the end magnets but not quite strong enough that the ball becomes attached to it.
In other words a precision adjustment config. to change distance and angle to achieve the point where that ball seperates from the end and falls into the return channel. I will be working on this idea all day on Wed.
Will keep you advised.
Its 11:30 pm Tues here in Oregon. Good night all
Bill
just an idea..
But what about using 2 or more balls?
Basically, one sitting on the top of the smot ramp that can not escape
the feild.. Yet another ball launches up and smashes into it with
great speed and force - knocking the other ball back thru the loop...
continuing the cycle.
Quote from: zero on October 03, 2007, 07:10:22 AM
just an idea..
But what about using 2 or more balls?
Basically, one sitting on the top of the smot ramp that can not escape
the feild.. Yet another ball launches up and smashes into it with
great speed and force - knocking the other ball back thru the loop...
continuing the cycle.
I read through the whole thread thinking that same thing. I saw the video posted of two balls being smacked together, and they ball seem to accelerate at a good speed.
I also thought of a toy you could make with this. Have a little miniature Indiana Jones being chased by the ball.
Here's the next step towards closing the loop with a smot.
1. The ball projects up the smot ramp
2. The ball exits the end because of the attraction of the 3 stacked permanent magnets.
3. The ball stikes the permanent magnet causing a gauss rifle effect to occur
4. The last ball in the series projects down the loop and loops all around to the front of the smot ramp where it is drawn up and the process is repeated.
It all happens so fast it is really hard for me to capture it on my camera.
It do not believe this is really yet closing the loop because each ball does not really go all the way around. In effect one hits the other and via a gauss rifle effect causes the second ball to project all the way around. And this happens two times in a row for two complete loops.
Also the balls will gang up on the permanent magnet when it projects off the end of the smot.
I do feel it is another step closer.
First step was to see if it is possible to loop via the tube
Second step to actually loop around
Again I apoligize for the quality of the video.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=h9GdWUOHyLM
Its really quite fun to see this thing work!!
Bill
Bill:
I have to agree with you that that may be one step closer to a closed loop. This is telling us something. I salute your investigations and experimentations. Keep it up.
Bill
Have you tried with just two balls? I think we need to try and setup the magnets to ideally only allow one magnet in a attraction spot, of course way harder than just saying it. I'm starting a track, and waiting for some balls, and will give it a try. For something like a 6" ring track, all we need it to move is like 1 inch for perpetual motion, and let gravity do the rest.
Anyone tried this guys device or even the mechanism which drives it? I think I saw the video here before, but has anyone tried making something like this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=us7YB7eiOeQ
I tried to draw it up as I saw it, but the pivot points are probably wrong. The magnet is pulled downward away from the incoming ball. Seems like the rest of the energy is conserved by the pendulum. I think the stuff in the middle is just decoration. Theres 3 of these moving swinging setups.
(https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Faycu35.webshots.com%2Fimage%2F27954%2F2002357309255463584_rs.jpg&hash=163e5fdc41953dda327c6033a18fa94d869afbed)
Very interesting device on the video! It appeared to me that the ball was only hitting 2 of the 3 levers, at least it sounded that way. It looked like when the ball approached the lever on the right it was already moving down below the track from it's pivot motion.
I found a comment on youtube particularly interesting. They said that since this device depends on the rotation of the earth to function, and the earth will eventually stop rotating, therefore this is not perpetual motion. I think that when the earth stops rotating, who cares? ha ha
Is this device not a closed loop SMOT? And if not, why not? It appears to me to be.
Bill
It Should be continuous (or at least cycle a Lot more)
if you use only balls and no magnets to absorb
some of that force. Have you tried it?
@Pirate88179,
Of course this device is a closed-loop SMOT. There's no doubt about it. So far, this is the closest demonstration of a working perpetuum mobile, continuously producing energy out of nothing, which I've seen personally (aside from the closed-loop SMOT here http://data.image.zabim.com/o-wa51V9glc9.jpg which definitively proves violation of CoE through discontinuous production of energy out of nothing ).
If one wants to be a devil's advocate, however, one would require a clear proof that said device isn't just a very efficient redistributor of an initially imparted energy. Unfortunately, Finsrud hasn't been cooperative so far in clarifying that point.
@Omnibus:
The reason I asked is because, from everything I have read on here, the closed loop SMOT appears to be one of the holy grails. This looks to me to be the real thing. However, your point about redistribution of initially imparted energy is well taken. I would like to see a video of this where it starts from a dead stop, with a slight push of the sphere. But, even if proved to not be OU, I give the man credit for a very interesting device.
Bill
The device is very interesting, no doubt. And, in all likelihood this is a machine continuously producing excess energy (energy from nothing). It is very unfortunate that Finsrud doesn't want to cooperate in clarifying this trivial concern by a very simple experiment. I've seen (and I have a video of it) how Finsrud initiates the rolling of the ball. Doesn't seem likely that those slight pushes may force the working of the device for days. Besides, I've analyzed with 0.001s precision the time between two clicks and it appears that the ball slightly accelerates during the ~40min run. Nevertheles, for the sake of a rigorous argument some additional very simple experiments have to be made in order to exclude definitively that it is a very efficient redistributor of the in itially imparted energy.
Probably couldn't work, I'm not sure how this center punch works or if the force to compress it could be lessened. Anyone?
(https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg122.imageshack.us%2Fimg122%2F4396%2Fcpzk9.jpg&hash=88edd1526b9656ffafd2284964494cd6fdbb06e3)
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/20040154171.html
@Bill
I agree with Stefan that the SMOT needs to be longer.
Looking at the Lego SMOT video I noticed that the ball got stuck when not introduced at the beginning of the ramp, but every other time, it just dropped of.
Gaining momentum does it, I think.
Your idea of dropping it through a hole sounds fine, but maybe an easier way would be to combine another poster's idea of a closed tube loop with your 'drop in a hole'-idea, by not letting the tube go up the entire ramp, but guide it down gradually, away from the top magnets.
An alternative might be, to have a couple of extra top magnets that widen just a little instead of converging.
@Stefan
I've seen a lot of videos, but never the Greg Watson or Epitaxy closed loopers.
Would you guide us there, please ? ;D
I don't have any materials to build a smot, but I have had some ideas. I have been told that when the ball is sent up the smot it has decreased momentum when it reaches the top, because even though the magnets may be pushing it, gravity is still pulling it down. If it decreases in momentum when going up, will it gain momentum going down? Say you have a smot that is going straight up; when it reaches the top, it doesn't have much momentum left. But what if we kept going up, over the side of the support, and started going straight down? To me it would start to gain momentum. However, the magnets on the other side will be effecting the ball through the support, thus the support will have to be made out of a material that will block the field. We could possibly use magnetic shielding. If the device is large enough could it gain enough momentum to escape the sticky spot as it reaches the end? Then as the ball is falling because it escaped, we could add a hole in the support with a funnel and tube to channel it back through into the other side, then getting sucked back into the magnetic field and the entire process is repeated all over again.
I have not had any experience with building smots, and I would like others input on this idea. To me, it seems very probable that it could become perpetual.
My very first posting on page one (which started this thread) shows that it is possible via the return tube concept to bring the ball back up to the exact height from which it was released.I did many many experiments to find this height and it is at 4" when the ball enters the tube it will cycle to the smot and back up the ramp. Look at the utube URL posted in my first post for the video.
The challange is that to achieve this 4" incline the smot ramp is a a fairly sharp angle. My uchannel is 6" long.
When the ball shoots up the ramp it is stopped at the end by the stickey point which is simply the magnetic field that the two sets of end magnets are creating.
It is held there with great force!! The problem is to get it past and down the tube. If this can be done the loop is closed!!
Having it strike another ball at the end will not push the ball past this point they will both simply "hang up" at the end.
It has been suggested that two additional sets of magnets in effect flared out at the end will pull the ball through. This will not work again the ball will simply hang up at the end.
I was successful in building a smot ramp with a hole about 75% up the ramp that the ball did fall through. The problem is that for the ball to fall through my "trap door" it was raised only very slightly only about 1" from the end. Again 4" is the magic number.
Also "if you "block the field" at the end then the ball will not reach the end but stop before the end of the uchannel.
Quote from: billmehess on September 29, 2007, 11:56:08 PM
www.youtube.com/watch?v=f_dBH_YKVlI
The video does illustrate the idea nicely. :)You use up a lot of height to make the loop. The ball has to drop out of the smot quite vertically. The circular ramp should probably be more of finstrud's kind of design. He used 2 rings.
http://magnetmotor.go-here.nl/reidar-finsrud