I know the opinion on this forum of gravity wheels and I do not disagree. I have played with them for years and it seems there is no way to beat the system. But, there is always a but, what if one combined the SMOT principle at exactly the right position utilizing the gravity to assist in passing the sticky spot. Would this give enough of a pulse to close the loop? The wheels I have built in the past come oh so close, but, no cigar. If indeed the SMOT is overunity as most seem to claim, then just a little help from this would make all of the difference. I am procurring a 26" bicycle rim with bearings next week to begin to experiment. What do you all think about this? I have been told that the SMOT does not give much of a push but I have seen the videos where the sphere runs uphill and shoots off the end of the ramp. I just need a very slight pulse/push to close the loop on the gravity wheel and I think this might do it...but, maybe not. Thoughts?
BIll
A SMOT in a closed loop you'll find that the sum of all forces acting on the rotor is 0. Then you have loss in the bearings and air resistance. Gravity works the same way. It takes the same energy to lift an item 1 meter as it release when you drop the same item frim 1 meter high.
SMOT does seam to work because the SMOT is activated in just partial of the closed loop, and where the sum of all forces is greater than 0 - hence the promising result.
I'm afraid your idea will never work.
Br.
Vidar
Only for information: i beleave in gravity wheels! But i need more time, to proof it.
Low-Q:
I agree with what you state however I don't think you understand what I am proposing. I wish I had the drafting software to make up a sketch. When I say, "closed loop" with the SMOT, I intended to mean utilizing the very small amount of output from the SMOT to make the wheel go past the 12:00 position thereby effectively closing the loop for the cycle to begin again. I have been told the SMOT puts out very little, this should be all I need although you may be correct and this may not be enough. I don't believe it is possible to "overbalance" a wheel without a pulse from an exterior source. The SMOT was where I was thinking of obtaining this pulse. I know that the pulse created by the SMOT will be nulled by the "sticking point" unless gravity is used as in the videos I have seen. This is what I am proposing. Anyway, it won't take much time or money to explore this and I should have my materials by next week so, I will see. Equilibrium may still rule. If nothing else, it keeps me out of trouble. (Smile)
Bill
G'day Bill,
Have a look here.
http://student.ccbcmd.edu/%7Enorman/pendulumtonoon.mpg
Hans von Lieven
Hans:
Thanks for the video. I am not sure what he was attempting but that is not what I am proposing. I will try to build it next week and post some videos along the way. I can do that easier than to attempt to draw it. I can make good drawings but I have no easy way to digitize them. I see some people use ms paint on here. I have no idea how they do it. I have tried to draw using my mouse and it ends up looking like a drunken blind man had created it.
I may be going down yet another dead end but, I enjoy the trip each time. Thanks.
Bill
G'day Bill,
The point of the video is that this guy has figured out an arrangement where he enters the ramp without undue repulsion and gets past the point of natural swing, combine that with gravity and you might have something.
It is worthy of study and might be helpful with your proposal.
It's quite impressive though, don't you think?
Hans von Lieven
Hans:
Yes, ok, now I see it. I first thought he had fiqured out a way to turn 3/4 of the way around, and that's all. Yes, this is exacly my point. to combine the SMOT or whatever you want to call it, with the gravity on the down side of the well balanced, low-friction, vertical wheel for just enough of a pulse or push to get past the zero position (12:00). I think I can do it with just four magnets in an adjustable "V" as in the SMOT. The sphere, or whatever shape I end up using, would be mounted on the circumference of the wheel. (As in 26" dia bicycle wheel and axle assembly) I was thinking that as the sphere would naturally begin to fall due to gravity on the downside (clockwise rotation) one might be able to adjust the magnets for a small pulse. If they are positioned correctly, I believe that as the sphere approaches the sticking point, the velocity from the pulse and the max gravity at the 3:00 position might carry it through. Also, I think one might be able to angle the assembly such that when the sphere approaches the maximum sticking point, the radius of the rotation would already be pulling it away from the assembly, somewhat replicating the SMOT where the sphere drops off the rail and "falls" out of the sticking spot.
I am going to view the video several more times to see what can be learned from it. Thanks Hans.
Bill
Very, very crude drawing of what I am speaking about. Maybe this should be called 1/4 baked ideas?
Bill
(//)
Quote from: Pirate88179 on October 07, 2007, 06:20:14 PM
Low-Q:
I agree with what you state however I don't think you understand what I am proposing. I wish I had the drafting software to make up a sketch. When I say, "closed loop" with the SMOT, I intended to mean utilizing the very small amount of output from the SMOT to make the wheel go past the 12:00 position thereby effectively closing the loop for the cycle to begin again. I have been told the SMOT puts out very little, this should be all I need although you may be correct and this may not be enough. I don't believe it is possible to "overbalance" a wheel without a pulse from an exterior source. The SMOT was where I was thinking of obtaining this pulse. I know that the pulse created by the SMOT will be nulled by the "sticking point" unless gravity is used as in the videos I have seen. This is what I am proposing. Anyway, it won't take much time or money to explore this and I should have my materials by next week so, I will see. Equilibrium may still rule. If nothing else, it keeps me out of trouble. (Smile)
Bill
The problem is that a SMOT, even a single one in your setup, will not work - because:
Lets say the rotor stops at 11:50 without the SMOT - as you probably already has discovered. I am quite sure the rotor will stop at the exact same place with a SMOT included. The SMOT will provide extra force to accelerate the rotor a little bit more, but not before 12:05 - 12:10 or so. Well the SMOT provides extra accceleration to the rotor at this state. No doubt about that. What you miss in your view however, is that it requires force to enter the SMOT as well. Maybe not at 11:50 to 12:00, but maybe at 11:30 to 11:50 or so. The rotor will accelerate from 11:50 to 12:10 because of the SMOT, but it will also deaccelerate equally between, let's say, 06:20 and 06:40, leaving the rotor in the same speed between 06:40 and 11:30 - as it was without the SMOT.
A SMOT is in sum of one revolution nothing more than a complex magnet that provides as much force as it provides counter force. If you could look at the magnetic fields of a SMOT if made infenitely small, the magnetic fields would act exactly like a single magnet. In other words, one single magnet would do the same job as a SMOT in the same device. Sorry, but thats how it works in real life.
Br.
Vidar
Quote from: Pirate88179 on October 07, 2007, 07:04:47 PM
Hans:
Yes, ok, now I see it. I first thought he had fiqured out a way to turn 3/4 of the way around, and that's all. Yes, this is exacly my point. to combine the SMOT or whatever you want to call it, with the gravity on the down side of the well balanced, low-friction, vertical wheel for just enough of a pulse or push to get past the zero position (12:00). I think I can do it with just four magnets in an adjustable "V" as in the SMOT. The sphere, or whatever shape I end up using, would be mounted on the circumference of the wheel. (As in 26" dia bicycle wheel and axle assembly) I was thinking that as the sphere would naturally begin to fall due to gravity on the downside (clockwise rotation) one might be able to adjust the magnets for a small pulse. If they are positioned correctly, I believe that as the sphere approaches the sticking point, the velocity from the pulse and the max gravity at the 3:00 position might carry it through. Also, I think one might be able to angle the assembly such that when the sphere approaches the maximum sticking point, the radius of the rotation would already be pulling it away from the assembly, somewhat replicating the SMOT where the sphere drops off the rail and "falls" out of the sticking spot.
I am going to view the video several more times to see what can be learned from it. Thanks Hans.
Bill
If this work, it will also work without gravity. The sum of gravity forces during one revolution is allways zero. So never mind the gravity in this setup at all. As I said, If it works, it does not matter what position you have your wheel. However, concidered my previous post, I do nok think the device will work anyway, but please try anyway. I don't think my thoughts will stop anyones curiousity - not even mine :)
Br.
Vidar
Low-Q:
I appreciate your responses to my proposal. I cannot disagree with your analysis at all. And yes, I have played with gravity wheels for a long time and you are correct. I have found that, alone it rotates from 12:00 to about 11:50. When I started adding different devices this improved, to a point and then, went the other way so it only went to about 10:00. I was/am just intriqued by the SMOT and was thinking I could steal just a little pulse from it. But, after reading your posts, I looked again at some of the SMOT videos and, yes, there appears to be some effort required when pushing the sphere into the begining of the magnet configuration. I had not accounted for this. So, if this is true, then the pulse I would get out of the SMOT would most likely be equal to the force required to enter the SMOT. I really hate when mother nature does this.
I am going to give it a go anyway just to see. Maybe I will accidently find something else out that will be useful while experimenting. Thanks again.
Bill
The one factor that I believe you are all missing is that sure you could fire a ball from the smot to strike and hopefully push the unit past the stickey point but the problem is two fold:
1. The ball would hit with such little force that it would move nothing.
2. Also it would be could for only one time how do you reset the smot to "fire again". You would be better off using a gauss rifle effect. Much faster and stronger hit. But agin only good for one shot.
Bill
Bill:
If you look at my very crude drawing posted above, you will see I am not planning on firing at anything. The sphere would be attached to the outside diameter of a low friction wheel (about 26" dia) on a mount that would allow very accurate height adjustments. This way, when the sphere enters the SMOT array, the firing would accelerate (in my weak theory) the sphere and therefore the wheel and the process would repeat itself. (hopefully) No requirement to reload the SMOT as it too is mounted in a 3 axis adjustable mounting that would also allow for angle adjustment as well. The question raised here, and it's a good one, is will the energy required to allow the sphere into the SMOT array be equal to the pulse of the SMOT. I wish my materials were here already so I could begin to experiment. Thank you for your reply and your input.
Bill
I can understand what you are saying, being that gravity would over-come the force out of the array. It still comes down to equal pressures in and out. Even though gravity is pulling down on that side, its also pulling down the other side which equals out. Perhaps we need a combination of a smot, gravity wheel, and perhaps something else all together. Maybe even use the Finsruf mechanism, just mounted 90' degrees. I'm currently trying to model the Cambel gravity wheel in 3d, and try and work out a simpler mechanism. I'm gonna try incorporate all the techniques from all 4 designs into one. Maybe we could use the expertise of those guys who build pin-ball machine mechanisms.
Freezer:
If this is possible, and I underline if, I believe it will be done with a combination of various devices and approaches, just as you are saying. It may not be possible but, that is what intrigued me about combining the SMOT and the gravity wheel. It may require a different approach entirely or adding yet another technology to it. I just love the chase. I wish I had an old pinball machine...can you imagine the great parts you could salvage from that?
Bill
Freezer:
Have you done any modeling yet? I would be very interested to see what you have come up with.
Bill
Quote from: Freezer on October 09, 2007, 07:53:17 PM
Perhaps we need a combination of a smot, gravity wheel, and perhaps something else all together.
Since neither the smot nor the gravity wheel help in any way, why not just leave them out and just focus on the something else?
Quote from: Pirate88179 on October 11, 2007, 09:07:18 PM
Freezer:
Have you done any modeling yet? I would be very interested to see what you have come up with.
Bill
I posted a rendering in the cambell thread, but I haven't added other designs into yet. I kind of have to draw it on paper and work out the ideas first, and then see if it fits and can work in 3d.
Shruggedatlas:
Has anyone tried the SMOT coupled with the gravity wheel? Maybe not. Maybe not for a good reason. But, if it has not been attempted then what's wrong with giving it a try? They claim on here that SMOT is overunity...including Stephan, I don't know this to be a fact but they say it is. So, if, and I mean IF, that is the case, then I think my experiments will at least teach me something. It will either work, or not. If not, and probability says that will be the case, I will learn yet another thing not to do. I have spent most of my life learning what not to do. Why should I stop now???? (smile)
Bill
The smot will not work with a gravity wheel. There is a misconception that the smot ball has a lot of force when it reaches or exits the end of the ramp. Just the opposite is true.
I understand the concept here is to have the smot setup on the wheel to in effect pull the wheel through the sticky point and then gravity would do the rest. The sticky point would simply stop the wheel, it will not pull though. If you spun the wheel hard it might pull through a couple of times due to inertia but it will eventually stop when the energy needed to get past the sticky point is greater than the inertia
that sent the wheel spinning.
Remember in a regular smot setup at a low angle when the ball does go over the end of the uchannel it goes over very slowly. It drops down and does not simply "shoot off" the end. Very very little force at that point.
Again gravity wheels simply do not work.
QuoteAgain gravity wheels simply do not work.
What are people trying to accomplish with saying this AGAIN and AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN and AGAIN AND AGAIN. I think this is a theory involving absolutes and dogma. Like an universal truth that must apply always and everywhere just because.
I mean you have any proof of it?
Without proof I can argue it works the other way around, gravity engines are so simple it's a miracle we haven't figured it out jet.
We must be occupied with something else right? LOL
Quote from: Low-Q on October 07, 2007, 08:21:06 AM
A SMOT in a closed loop you'll find that the sum of all forces acting on the rotor is 0.
Say's who?
Quote from: Pirate88179 on October 09, 2007, 08:13:12 PM
Freezer:
If this is possible, and I underline if, I believe it will be done with a combination of various devices and approaches, just as you are saying. It may not be possible but, that is what intrigued me about combining the SMOT and the gravity wheel. It may require a different approach entirely or adding yet another technology to it. I just love the chase. I wish I had an old pinball machine...can you imagine the great parts you could salvage from that?
Bill
I had added the Chas device and spiralling the balls inwards (should that be in the golden ratio?).
(https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.go-here.nl%2Fchas-is-cool.png&hash=09641d3bf95e3f1bcb97a5cfca153255b4fd0ddf)
Gaby:
Nice drawing! What software did you use? Interesting concept there.
Bill
Quote from: gaby de wilde on October 12, 2007, 04:49:49 AM
Quote from: Low-Q on October 07, 2007, 08:21:06 AM
A SMOT in a closed loop you'll find that the sum of all forces acting on the rotor is 0.
Say's who?
Use some common sense, and you'll figure out ;)
Quote from: gaby de wilde on October 12, 2007, 05:00:18 AM
Quote from: Pirate88179 on October 09, 2007, 08:13:12 PM
Freezer:
If this is possible, and I underline if, I believe it will be done with a combination of various devices and approaches, just as you are saying. It may not be possible but, that is what intrigued me about combining the SMOT and the gravity wheel. It may require a different approach entirely or adding yet another technology to it. I just love the chase. I wish I had an old pinball machine...can you imagine the great parts you could salvage from that?
Bill
I had added the Chas device and spiralling the balls inwards (should that be in the golden ratio?).
(https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.go-here.nl%2Fchas-is-cool.png&hash=09641d3bf95e3f1bcb97a5cfca153255b4fd0ddf)
Concider the red ball right before it drops outside the SMOT-ramp. What force are moving the ball up the ramp? Magnetic force! What prevents the same magnetic force to work on the same ball right after it has start dropping? Nothing! So the acceleration of the ball downwards is therfor not 9,81m/s
2, but less.
So the ball does not have the natural acceleration of gravity, because of the influence of magnetic fields that is holding the ball back a bit.
So when the ball is suppose to enter the SMOT again, the magnetic force at the beginning of the SMOT, and the reduced acceleration of the ball + friction, is not sufficiant to make a closed loop. Nice drawing, but no hope ;)
Br.
Vidar
G'day all,
If you can get that sort of gradient with a smot, what do you need the wheel for??
Hans von Lieven
Quote from: Low-Q on October 12, 2007, 05:27:36 PM
Quote from: gaby de wilde on October 12, 2007, 05:00:18 AM
Quote from: Pirate88179 on October 09, 2007, 08:13:12 PM
Freezer:
If this is possible, and I underline if, I believe it will be done with a combination of various devices and approaches, just as you are saying. It may not be possible but, that is what intrigued me about combining the SMOT and the gravity wheel. It may require a different approach entirely or adding yet another technology to it. I just love the chase. I wish I had an old pinball machine...can you imagine the great parts you could salvage from that?
Bill
I had added the Chas device and spiralling the balls inwards (should that be in the golden ratio?).
(https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.go-here.nl%2Fchas-is-cool.png&hash=09641d3bf95e3f1bcb97a5cfca153255b4fd0ddf)
Concider the red ball right before it drops outside the SMOT-ramp. What force are moving the ball up the ramp? Magnetic force! What prevents the same magnetic force to work on the same ball right after it has start dropping? Nothing! So the acceleration of the ball downwards is therfor not 9,81m/s2, but less.
Yes, it's less then 9.8 but it's not zero either. :)
Say we have 2 ramps
1 ramp of zero degrees
1 ramp of 10 degrees utilising SMOT tech
the ramp under zero degrees adds a ball to the wheel. This ball is moving slower as the wheel. Either we need to use up some gravity to first accelerate the ball before deploying it or we end up slowing down the wheel while accelerating the ball. Either way:
accelerating the ball costs energy.When the ball is dropping out of a smot ramp and when the ball is passing the entrance height it is moving downwards already, when deployed onto the wheel it's moving dramatically faster as on our horizontal ramp where it was not moving vertically at all.
While using a perfectly horizontal ramp we would need energy to transport the ball to the other end. If we could borrow this from the system in an elegant way that would be a big improvement.
QuoteSo the ball does not have the natural acceleration of gravity, because of the influence of magnetic fields that is holding the ball back a bit.
yes, a bit but not all the way.
I think the field makes the ball appear less heavy, it still drops as fast as a brick. Just try to levitate a coin under a magnet. Then you will see it drops just as fast, it's the impact that is reduced. This may of course still prevent the device from operating but it's very different from what you describe right? Logically it should slow down proportionally with getting it's weight back. I'm not so sure that's the case. I think it "keeps" some of the kinetic energy.
QuoteSo when the ball is suppose to enter the SMOT again, the magnetic force at the beginning of the SMOT, and the reduced acceleration of the ball + friction, is not sufficiant to make a closed loop. Nice drawing, but no hope ;)
You don't have to kill hope, hope is pretty much dead and buried on this forum. :-\
Again, the SMOT is only there to transport the balls from the left to the right. If it can gain some height then hurray!
You take a stick you hold it in the center then you suspend a weight from either end. Put one weight close to you and the other one as far away as you can.
A second SMOT could be used to transport the balls back to the left again.
lemme draw it....
o wow.... I just discovered jet another trick.....
to much ideas not enough spectators.... lolzz...
Hello all:
These are very interesting ideas to be sure. I still think that a fixed sphere on the circumference of the wheel could be made to pass through a SMOT type device on the downward side of the cycle to take advantage of the pulse from the SMOT and use the gravity to escape the sticky spot as the linear SMOTs do. I got my wheel in yesterday and also found two others. I rebuilt the bearings and instead of grease, I used a very light instrument oil on them. I am now truing the wheel to minimize runout. I think I have all the magnets I need but will have to wait and see. I think the SMOT will have to simulate the curvature of the outside diameter of the wheel, at least up to a point. I have devised a system to allow very accurate adjustments on all axis because I think, if this will work, the answer lies in a very limited range of adjustment. Possibly within a few 1/1000 of an inch. I am not sure what size sphere to use but thinking of about 1/2 inch dia. I will keep you posted on my progress, if any. If it does not work, at least my cat enjoys playing with the spinning wheel, possibly a new cat toy worth millions... ha ha. Now if I could only find a use for used kitty litter, I would be a rich man.
Bill
Quote from: gaby de wilde on October 14, 2007, 12:19:43 AM
Quote from: Low-Q on October 12, 2007, 05:27:36 PM
Quote from: gaby de wilde on October 12, 2007, 05:00:18 AM
Quote from: Pirate88179 on October 09, 2007, 08:13:12 PM
Freezer:
If this is possible, and I underline if, I believe it will be done with a combination of various devices and approaches, just as you are saying. It may not be possible but, that is what intrigued me about combining the SMOT and the gravity wheel. It may require a different approach entirely or adding yet another technology to it. I just love the chase. I wish I had an old pinball machine...can you imagine the great parts you could salvage from that?
Bill
I had added the Chas device and spiralling the balls inwards (should that be in the golden ratio?).
(https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.go-here.nl%2Fchas-is-cool.png&hash=09641d3bf95e3f1bcb97a5cfca153255b4fd0ddf)
Concider the red ball right before it drops outside the SMOT-ramp. What force are moving the ball up the ramp? Magnetic force! What prevents the same magnetic force to work on the same ball right after it has start dropping? Nothing! So the acceleration of the ball downwards is therfor not 9,81m/s2, but less.
Yes, it's less then 9.8 but it's not zero either. :)
Say we have 2 ramps
1 ramp of zero degrees
1 ramp of 10 degrees utilising SMOT tech
the ramp under zero degrees adds a ball to the wheel. This ball is moving slower as the wheel. Either we need to use up some gravity to first accelerate the ball before deploying it or we end up slowing down the wheel while accelerating the ball. Either way: accelerating the ball costs energy.
When the ball is dropping out of a smot ramp and when the ball is passing the entrance height it is moving downwards already, when deployed onto the wheel it's moving dramatically faster as on our horizontal ramp where it was not moving vertically at all.
While using a perfectly horizontal ramp we would need energy to transport the ball to the other end. If we could borrow this from the system in an elegant way that would be a big improvement.
QuoteSo the ball does not have the natural acceleration of gravity, because of the influence of magnetic fields that is holding the ball back a bit.
yes, a bit but not all the way.
I think the field makes the ball appear less heavy, it still drops as fast as a brick. Just try to levitate a coin under a magnet. Then you will see it drops just as fast, it's the impact that is reduced. This may of course still prevent the device from operating but it's very different from what you describe right? Logically it should slow down proportionally with getting it's weight back. I'm not so sure that's the case. I think it "keeps" some of the kinetic energy.
QuoteSo when the ball is suppose to enter the SMOT again, the magnetic force at the beginning of the SMOT, and the reduced acceleration of the ball + friction, is not sufficiant to make a closed loop. Nice drawing, but no hope ;)
You don't have to kill hope, hope is pretty much dead and buried on this forum. :-\
Again, the SMOT is only there to transport the balls from the left to the right. If it can gain some height then hurray!
You take a stick you hold it in the center then you suspend a weight from either end. Put one weight close to you and the other one as far away as you can.
A second SMOT could be used to transport the balls back to the left again.
lemme draw it....
o wow.... I just discovered jet another trick.....
to much ideas not enough spectators.... lolzz...
To drop a magnetic item from a magnetic field is the same as dropping it from a lower hight without the magnet. However, you need the full hight, and full speed of the ball to close the loop. The magnetic field is preventing it to do so. A second SMOT will just be another obstacle to prevent the ball even more to close the loop.
SMOT does simply not work. A magnet is already a closed and seald loop. You cannot extract energy from it that easy.
Br.
Vidar
Pirate88179 and anybody else.
Try this
A smot/old paddle type which should make a nice toy. From one side it will look allot like the old paddle flipper but on the other side the magnets will be doing the flipping, instead of your finger making it flip. It uses wood of course and refrigorator magnets (the large ones) You place 1 embedded in the side of each flipper with N down, now on a stand you that will be in track with the magnets and place 2 with the N up side by side about 1/2 inch apart and the first lower than the other at an angle. You will have to play a bit with that angle and then watch it go. PS make sure your hinges work freely before attaching them.
This toy should get people into more SMOT.
Quote from: Low-Q on October 14, 2007, 08:59:25 AM
To drop a magnetic item from a magnetic field is the same as dropping it from a lower hight without the magnet.
Absolutely not, they have different descriptions, they are different things. The mass is in a different position.
QuoteHowever, you need the full hight, and full speed of the ball to close the loop. The magnetic field is preventing it to do so.
Yes, that's what we have learned to accept.
But Sean from steorn said that if you move a ferromagnetic mass quickly towards a magnet induction is delayed and you get far less attraction. His question was "where does the energy go?"
This is MORE then enough of a clue to investigate configurations using slow in fast out, there are lots of motors already using this concept. Your excuses not to do a hands on constructive investigation don't have any basis.
QuoteA second SMOT will just be another obstacle to prevent the ball even more to close the loop.
Try to advance your understanding as well as the construction. Don't come debunk my ideas using malicious logic. When the application of 1 smot proves to be a success it will be worth it to check out a contraption with 2 smots. There is not an inch of doubt about this fact.
QuoteSMOT does simply not work.
I had more then enough of this simplicity mantra. This is just a baseless statement, it's nonsense! Nothing about life is ever simple, the assumption it would be is an error. You lack effort. And because of this your premature finalised conclusion is just nonsense. Are you trying to say I am an idiot for thinking about the topic with your simplicity statements ah?
It's all so simple but I don't get it right? That's what you are trying to say?
QuoteA magnet is already a closed and seald loop. You cannot extract energy from it that easy.
Exactly, not that easy. You would have to actulally do something towards the goal.
If not it just ain't going to happn homez.
What a bummer such simple facts escape your attention?
LOL
I'm sorry but I'm a little bored with hearing
"oh, but I personally (me!) think that this can not work!" Makes me wonder
why. Then I get more nonsense all the way up to noetroens thoeroem where there really isn't a living soul capable of actually understanding the thoerem. ROFL!! People say
"this are teh facts". I demand to know
why, why, why and why. Or I will say it's unacceptable. I have no use for anyone to tell me what the facts are I desire to understand them.
I'm trying to build perpetual motion devices, this will be hard if not impossible. What else is new?
I think it's easy, my proof is in the clear and obvious fact that everyone is looking the other way. Not many people are really motivated to build such devices. And for those who are it's just a hobby in most cases. The serious research doesn't exist. Just like the serious opinion hasn't arrived.
Quote from: Pirate88179 on October 07, 2007, 01:21:56 AMI have been told that the SMOT does not give much of a push but I have seen the videos where the sphere runs uphill and shoots off the end of the ramp. I just need a very slight pulse/push to close the loop on the gravity wheel and I think this might do it...but, maybe not. Thoughts?
I would update a page with my findings. Like so.
http://magnetmotor.go-here.nl/smot
You can just copy the links from my site, no body has a copyright on links to other peoples websites. Then you add your own stuff to the page. This way you can keep the feedback on track and it's very nice for future researchers. This forum is good for that, you can add the link to the first post to your forum signature. Then add everything you can find to that posting. It's just as good as any other website, just put everything in one place for us. I have not seen a smot shooting balls jet. I'm convinced it can be done but I haven't seen it jet. I did see ramps with magnet rollers. Not sure where tho LOL that should make my point? no? hehe Must keep some kind of archive ofthe stuff you find online before you forget where it is. It's nice to do that some place public. etc
Quote from: gaby de wilde on October 14, 2007, 05:23:15 PM
Quote from: Low-Q on October 14, 2007, 08:59:25 AM
To drop a magnetic item from a magnetic field is the same as dropping it from a lower hight without the magnet.
Absolutely not, they have different descriptions, they are different things. The mass is in a different position.
QuoteHowever, you need the full hight, and full speed of the ball to close the loop. The magnetic field is preventing it to do so.
Yes, that's what we have learned to accept.
But Sean from steorn said that if you move a ferromagnetic mass quickly towards a magnet induction is delayed and you get far less attraction. His question was "where does the energy go?"
This is MORE then enough of a clue to investigate configurations using slow in fast out, there are lots of motors already using this concept. Your excuses not to do a hands on constructive investigation don't have any basis.
QuoteA second SMOT will just be another obstacle to prevent the ball even more to close the loop.
Try to advance your understanding as well as the construction. Don't come debunk my ideas using malicious logic. When the application of 1 smot proves to be a success it will be worth it to check out a contraption with 2 smots. There is not an inch of doubt about this fact.
QuoteSMOT does simply not work.
I had more then enough of this simplicity mantra. This is just a baseless statement, it's nonsense! Nothing about life is ever simple, the assumption it would be is an error. You lack effort. And because of this your premature finalised conclusion is just nonsense. Are you trying to say I am an idiot for thinking about the topic with your simplicity statements ah?
It's all so simple but I don't get it right? That's what you are trying to say?
QuoteA magnet is already a closed and seald loop. You cannot extract energy from it that easy.
Exactly, not that easy. You would have to actulally do something towards the goal.
If not it just ain't going to happn homez.
What a bummer such simple facts escape your attention?
LOL
I'm sorry but I'm a little bored with hearing "oh, but I personally (me!) think that this can not work!" Makes me wonder why. Then I get more nonsense all the way up to noetroens thoeroem where there really isn't a living soul capable of actually understanding the thoerem. ROFL!! People say "this are teh facts". I demand to know why, why, why and why. Or I will say it's unacceptable. I have no use for anyone to tell me what the facts are I desire to understand them.
I'm trying to build perpetual motion devices, this will be hard if not impossible. What else is new?
I think it's easy, my proof is in the clear and obvious fact that everyone is looking the other way. Not many people are really motivated to build such devices. And for those who are it's just a hobby in most cases. The serious research doesn't exist. Just like the serious opinion hasn't arrived.
Yes, it is a question about why it don't work. It is also a question about why it works. We cannot give an exact answer to the first question, because we only have endless of evidence that has failed, and theories about how we cannot gain energy from nothing. I have also many attempts made magnet motors. Started with one magnet setup, just to see how or if it will work on an item in mostly one direction. The Femm application do also simulate one direction force with a certain magnetic setup. However, the sum of forces are allways equalized in a closed loop - for some reason. Maybe a bug in Femm, and a bug in my practical magnetic setups, I don't know. I just know that it doesn't work.
We are looking for a way to make "2 + 2 = 4+1".
Br.
Vidar
Actually, I would be happy with 2+2=4.00000000000000000001.
Bill
Update:
I have put my research aside temporarily to explore the possibilities of the "attraction magnet motor on youtube." I have already voiced my opinions there so I won't repeat them here. Along the way, I have been advised of yet other possibilities with my wheel design that I will try if the first theory fails. Experimentation is the key, and along the way we all learn something.
I will keep this forum posted of my attempts. Thanks to all that voiced support. Also, thanks to the detractors because, after all, they may be right.
Bill