I thought of this idea a while ago, but never spent the time to build it because I wasn't sure if it would work or not. Although, I don't know much about magnets, I can't think of one reason why it can't work, but I'm sure someone will try to shoot it down.
This SMOT utilizes both gravity and magnets to generate power and operates in the following way.
As seen in the diagram, the magnets move the ball up the ramp. As it nears the top, the magnets get slightly weaker and the ramp takes on a much slighter slope until it is almost parrallel to the ground and the top of the ramp begins to curve downward. This allows for the ball to escape the magnetic field. The ball then falls onto something resembling a water wheel directly below. This is obviously where power would be generated.
The ball then falls onto the ramp below and gravity brings it down until it takes a right turn near the bottom of the ramp where the downsloping and upsloping ramps meet. It takes a right turn and then goes back up the ramp thus completing the loop, and the process starts all over again.
Now, please tell me why it won't work.
Interesting very brave of you your mind is in the right place so is your drawing lets see ? Chet
Quote from: aegis on March 15, 2008, 02:15:57 PM
As it nears the top, the magnets get slightly weaker and the ramp takes on a much slighter slope until it is almost parrallel to the ground and the top of the ramp begins to curve downward. This allows for the ball to escape the magnetic field. The ball then falls onto something resembling a water wheel directly below. This is obviously where power would be generated.
I think the problem is going to be with the magnets becoming weaker near the top. For the SMOT to work, the magnetic force on the ball has to become stronger and stronger as the ball rises, or it will cease to rise and simply stay at the spot where magnets are strongest.
Shrug do you think accellerating the ball at all up the ramp is possible ? Chet
Quote from: shruggedatlas on March 15, 2008, 02:44:23 PM
Quote from: aegis on March 15, 2008, 02:15:57 PM
As it nears the top, the magnets get slightly weaker and the ramp takes on a much slighter slope until it is almost parrallel to the ground and the top of the ramp begins to curve downward. This allows for the ball to escape the magnetic field. The ball then falls onto something resembling a water wheel directly below. This is obviously where power would be generated.
I think the problem is going to be with the magnets becoming weaker near the top. For the SMOT to work, the magnetic force on the ball has to become stronger and stronger as the ball rises, or it will cease to rise and simply stay at the spot where magnets are strongest.
Look at this video: http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=xMb0OqK6gx8
You can see that the ball was able to move up the ramp and still escape. It looks like the magnets need to be placed in a V, where they are closer to the ball at it moves up the ramp.
I know that getting the ball to escape is the biggest challenge, and this is exactly what I'm trying to avoid: http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=yMoIExJEaBU&feature=related
Aeg Leggo's and velocity Inertia your Idea is there thanx for the vid is walmart still open? Chet
Quote from: aegis on March 15, 2008, 02:15:57 PM
The ball then falls onto the ramp below and gravity brings it down until it takes a right turn near the bottom of the ramp where the downsloping and upsloping ramps meet. It takes a right turn and then goes back up the ramp thus completing the loop, and the process starts all over again.
Hello Aegis,
So far ok. Two other problems are still to be solved:
-You have to insure the ball should not lose too much kinetic energy when after coming down the ramp it takes a right (or a left) turn, preparing for a reenter,
-You surely are aware of a repel spot in front of the enter point into the smot (just a few cm distance in front of the first smot magnets) so the ball should either have enough kinetic energy left after taking the turn to defeat the repel force or the ball can take a route after the turn to arrive at in between the repel spot and the enter point of the smot.
Good thinking by the way. Sorry if these two 'problems' may be not problems for you
Gyula
The ball could be sped up on the return trip just like leggoman sent it up the slope CHET
Hi all;
In Clanzers inclined ramp video we see an axle with weight W being pulled up an incline by
an interaction with a magnetic field. I hate to say this folks, but; a) that represents work
being done by a magnet, b) the axle remains under control of a local magnetic field as it
is transfered between two gates. The Tri-Force field lattice does the smoothing. An arbitrary
number of gates can apparently raise the axle to any higher level. The ramp-incline then
partions the work done by the magnetic field into two parts the momentum force of the axle
moving forward+rotating (arbitrated by metal sphere friction on the drive surface) + the gravitational
potential energy of the weight W increasing by increasing height of the axle by of about .8cm per
every Tri-force gate. What added the energy to the axle? A magnet pulling it's weight up the ramp.
What happens next? The axle remains under control of the Tri-force magnetic field, ready for a
repeat performance in the next Tri-Force gate.
Now; A Magnetic force did this, and a Mag. force is an acceleration. So without some force holding
it back the axle should accelerate to any arbitrarily high speed. And since the axle seems to reach a
"top speed", a non-linear force must be holding it back. One non-linear force is air resistance with
a terminal velocity of 250MPH. So that is not it. It *must* be Lenz Law eddy current braking which
converts excess energy into heat, that is holding the axle back. Not some saturation by initial energy.
Because the forward momentum is saturated, the y-axis velocity represents an almost ideally efficient
mechanism for potential energy storage. (By the way - if you look carefully, you will see that the
Wheel machines has none of these things!, so it is not suprising that the wheel machine rotor does
not accelerate. The wheel rotor makes it easy to pick off excess energy but hard to change the mass
center of gravity of whirling parts. A spinning magnetic dipole also has RF radio frequency energy
losses which the wheel has and the ramp does not)
What I propose is that the Tri-force lattice array acts like a refrigerator absorbing latent heat from
all of it's parts in the environments and concentrates that heat into the axle's metal parts, and
suppling the energy to move it.
An interesting experiment then would involve sending maybe ten axles up a 30 gate Tri-Force ramp and
capturing all ten in a cup filled with some water and seeing if there is any small temperature rise in the
water in the cup after a brief period.
If there is excess heat it would be possible to use a "drinking bird toy" arrangement which contains
a freon boiler...But *please* no water. The custom designed mechanism would be able to capture an
axle absorb the heat out of it and use that heat to arm itself so that the next axle that comes along would
cause the first to flip up to a drive surface mounted above the magnetic field array which would pull the axle
down the slope at above 1xG with eddy current braking powered full on. The neat thing about this is the
axle would go from the bottom ramp to the top ramp at very high speed, Creating a very short undesirable
out-of-magnetic-field control pop-up time. The gravitational potential energy would not be used, except to
create a clearance for the rotating mechanism.
The only way I can see that this would not work is if magnetic forces refrigerates the axle too. I would
believe that too much of the machine's energy is concentrated in the axle for it not to be heated to
some small extent. Since moving the weight up the incline represents work, I would tend to experiment
with that configuration then optimize it. Those Wheel machines have additional RF losses due to spinning
magnetic dipoles in space and those RF losses are fractionally proportionate to the eddy current losses seen
by the the wheel. The inclined ramps are showing what one wants to see, acceleration limited by a non-linear
force and efficient potential energy storage. Do not forget that G the force of gravity on the planet earth is
arbitrary among all the G values in the universe, not some absolute value designed to purposely defeat the
operation of a magnetic machine design (that we know of).
So if someone could measure a temperature rise in the axles then the operation of this machine could pretty
much be assured. On the other hand, if there is not temperature rise, one would have to find some other
way to use the gravitational potential energy of the raised weight to switch tracks.
Sorry, for the length of this post and I now would be glad to answer any questions about it.
MarkSCoffman
check this out , http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=_L3zzVBn774&feature=user .
( there is prolly some one in the tunnel giving it a push ?) ;D j/k
Mark just for clarafication the idea AEG posted with the video on you tube would not this be considered a closed loop SMOT once the ball is returned to the bottom of the slope Chet
Mark,
Thank you for your reply.
Sorry, if I don't understand, but what are suggesting exactly? Rather than using the wheel to pick off the excess energy, we should instead rely on the heat generated by the ball moving up the ramp at high speed to generate energy?
Another thing that has always bothered me is that many people seem to have this idea that the loop has to be closed.
Why does the loop have to be closed? If enough energy was generated in a straight line, closing the loop shouldn't be that big of an issue.
For example, let's look at Clanzer's triforce setups. Rather than the axle moving up the ramp at a slight incline with the intent of generating power on the decline, what if it simply went in a straight line with no slope?
Imagine having a similar setup that started on the West coast of California and spanned across the entire country to the East coast (assuming no mountains or large hills got in the way). You could then build another rail system right next to it that would bring the axle back to where it came from.
In order to close the loop, all you would have to do is pick the ball up at the end of the line and put it on the other track. Surely, enough power would be generated during the axle's commute to more than compensate for the task of picking the ball up and moving it.
Quote from: aegis on March 17, 2008, 02:09:51 PM
Why does the loop have to be closed? If enough energy was generated in a straight line, closing the loop shouldn't be that big of an issue.
If enough energy was generated in a straight line, why not simply close the loop? Sorry, but your logic does not work. If you cannot close the loop, that means the overall system is losing energy, not creating it.
Quote from: shruggedatlas on March 17, 2008, 11:52:01 PM
Quote from: aegis on March 17, 2008, 02:09:51 PM
Why does the loop have to be closed? If enough energy was generated in a straight line, closing the loop shouldn't be that big of an issue.
If enough energy was generated in a straight line, why not simply close the loop? Sorry, but your logic does not work. If you cannot close the loop, that means the overall system is losing energy, not creating it.
Not necessarily. The excess energy in SMOT isn't obtained in a form that could easily be fed into the input. I told you this a number of times. The lack of self-sustaining SMOT isn't an argument against the fact that SMOT violates CoE. The only criterion for CoE violation is to have the ball lose more energy than the energy imparted to it and that's exactly what happens.
Quote from: Omnibus on March 18, 2008, 12:44:21 AM
Quote from: shruggedatlas on March 17, 2008, 11:52:01 PM
Quote from: aegis on March 17, 2008, 02:09:51 PM
Why does the loop have to be closed? If enough energy was generated in a straight line, closing the loop shouldn't be that big of an issue.
If enough energy was generated in a straight line, why not simply close the loop? Sorry, but your logic does not work. If you cannot close the loop, that means the overall system is losing energy, not creating it.
Not necessarily. The excess energy in SMOT isn't obtained in a form that could easily be fed into the input. I told you this a number of times. The lack of self-sustaining SMOT isn't an argument against the fact that SMOT violates CoE. The only criterion for CoE violation is to have the ball lose more energy than the energy imparted to it and that's exactly what happens.
Yes, indeed, you have pointed this out many times. However, this discussion is not about the violation of CoE. The discussion is about extracting useful energy, which is currently not possible with the SMOT.
Quote from: shruggedatlas on March 18, 2008, 02:27:42 AM
Quote from: Omnibus on March 18, 2008, 12:44:21 AM
Quote from: shruggedatlas on March 17, 2008, 11:52:01 PM
Quote from: aegis on March 17, 2008, 02:09:51 PM
Why does the loop have to be closed? If enough energy was generated in a straight line, closing the loop shouldn't be that big of an issue.
If enough energy was generated in a straight line, why not simply close the loop? Sorry, but your logic does not work. If you cannot close the loop, that means the overall system is losing energy, not creating it.
Not necessarily. The excess energy in SMOT isn't obtained in a form that could easily be fed into the input. I told you this a number of times. The lack of self-sustaining SMOT isn't an argument against the fact that SMOT violates CoE. The only criterion for CoE violation is to have the ball lose more energy than the energy imparted to it and that's exactly what happens.
Yes, indeed, you have pointed this out many times. However, this discussion is not about the violation of CoE. The discussion is about extracting useful energy, which is currently not possible with the SMOT.
Depends what you mean by useful energy. If useful energy for you is only such energy which would make SMOT self-sustaining then having such kind of energy hasn't been achieved. Harnessing that kind of energy is a very difficult engineering problem. Excess energy, however, is produced in forms other than your above definition of being useful and it may be harnessed for purposes other than making SMOT self-sustaining. Why limit the usage of energy given to you as a gift, coming out of no energy source, to only one application--the self-sustaining run of SMOT? Isn't energy used for other purposes too?
Quote from: Omnibus on March 18, 2008, 03:03:14 AM
Depends what you mean by useful energy. If useful energy for you is only such energy which would make SMOT self-sustaining then having such kind of energy hasn't been achieved. Harnessing that kind of energy is a very difficult engineering problem. Excess energy, however, is produced in forms other than your above definition of being useful and it may be harnessed for purposes other than making SMOT self-sustaining. Why limit the usage of energy given to you as a gift, coming out of no energy source, to only one application--the self-sustaining run of SMOT? Isn't energy used for other purposes too?
You are dancing on a head of a pin here. Energy is energy. If it were possible to harness the energy of the SMOT for other purposes, and the end result was more energy out than in, then it would be possible to make the thing self-sustaining. However, it is currently impossible to harness any energy out of the SMOT whatsoever under any kind of load, without the entire device being effectively underunity.
If you have an actual (not purely mathematical) example of discontinuous energy harnessing from a SMOT, where the end result is that the SMOT generates more energy than what is used to manually return the ball to the starting point, then I am sure we would all like to see this marvellous overunity device.
Quote from: shruggedatlas on March 18, 2008, 10:57:46 AM
Quote from: Omnibus on March 18, 2008, 03:03:14 AM
Depends what you mean by useful energy. If useful energy for you is only such energy which would make SMOT self-sustaining then having such kind of energy hasn't been achieved. Harnessing that kind of energy is a very difficult engineering problem. Excess energy, however, is produced in forms other than your above definition of being useful and it may be harnessed for purposes other than making SMOT self-sustaining. Why limit the usage of energy given to you as a gift, coming out of no energy source, to only one application--the self-sustaining run of SMOT? Isn't energy used for other purposes too?
You are dancing on a head of a pin here. Energy is energy. If it were possible to harness the energy of the SMOT for other purposes, and the end result was more energy out than in, then it would be possible to make the thing self-sustaining. However, it is currently impossible to harness any energy out of the SMOT whatsoever under any kind of load, without the entire device being effectively underunity.
If you have an actual (not purely mathematical) example of discontinuous energy harnessing from a SMOT, where the end result is that the SMOT generates more energy than what is used to manually return the ball to the starting point, then I am sure we would all like to see this marvellous overunity device.
No, that's not true. Lack of engineering application of a scientific effect can never be a proof that the scientific effect isn't real. There won't be science if this were the case.
As for mathematics used, that mathematics is only a tool describing real physical quantities. Physics is the important realm here, not mathematics. It is physics that concludes that the ball at a certain point possesses more energy which stands to be transformed into other energies than the energy that was imparted to it. Such discrepancy between said energies is nothing else but violation of CoE. That is physics, not mathematics. because the amounts of energy we're talking about are real quantities of energy not fictitious, abstract mathematical constructs.
Quote from: Omnibus on March 18, 2008, 11:16:53 AM
No, that's not true. Lack of engineering application of a scientific effect can never be a proof that the scientific effect isn't real. There won't be science if this were the case.
That is true, but similarly, controversial views like yours, with zero empirical evidence of overunity, inevitably end up marginalized. If you want to get anywhere, at least set up a SMOT that discontinuously produces more energy than it consumes. And by that, I mean that it allows energy to be harnessed from it, and that amount of energy is greater than the energy required to constantly return the ball to the starting spot. But wait, if that were possible, then you could make it self sustain. See where I am getting at?
All that is necessary to show OU is to have that ball perpetually running around the ramps. Because there
are losses in everything that the ball does. Including friction, impacts, noise etc. Forget about applications,
If you give me a SMOT with a steel ball running around continuously, I will put magnetic pickup coils on it
and produce excess free energy to light a led or whatever, that part I can guarantee. Don't forget we haven't
tuned any parmeters to optimize them yet for maximum performance - that's the fun part, if you can get to it.
This is a very unpowerful machine though and care would need to be exercised to see that is not doing it's
thing because of stray magnetic hum fields. Forget about the wheel machines for right now because they
don't have the same characteristics as the ramp.
I think one should stick to SMOT because the increase in the height of the W weight shows experimental
potential for the magnets to have done work. The inclined ramp is very shallow so there is only so much potential
gravitational energy to work with but clanzer videos have shown it can be extended to nearly any absolute amount
that one wants by repeating gates. And the magnetic fields of the unit can do nasty things as you try to remove
the runner from them so that gravitational potential energy amounts as seen are not guaranteed.
For the magnetic field to have done work, the force would have to have been an acceleration and some
braking against acceleration would have to have occurred, resulting in braking heat. On the other hand
maybe the force was not an acceleration because it took back some but not all of it's (heat) energy and
therefore there could be 'no excess heat'.
But it would be dangerous if a Magnetic field did work but expected to always be able to take it *all* back on
work-out. As shown in my next future post.
If either in the heat area or by splitting the axle mass into two parts we get something that can exit
the magnetic field unhindered - leaving the magnetic parts of the runner contained within the field we
can potentially give the magnetic field problems. It should not have raised that mass against gravity
in the first place!
Having a self-running machine is always a true indication of overunity...It's just trickery in which
environmental energy field is being tapped to supply it, that is negative.
See my subsequent future post.
MarkSCoffman
Yes aegis' design is OK. I guess one could fight about the the details. I don't like the steel ball,
as it could magnetize over time and become harder to control, So I would like the runner to be a
magnet itself. Once you do that then the runner should be an axle if it's to maintain it's steering
direction. Clanzer's videos on youtube.com sort of sets the specifications on what can be done
in the area of Tri-Force smoothing.
See, the problem is that the runner can be kept under control by the track's field magnets on the
straightaways. But when it's turning around in the end zone it might have to go outside the magnetic
field to take advantage of stored gravitational potential energy. The magnetic field is threatening to
"take back" it's work potential energy during that time.
A magnetic field is not just associated with matter it is it, so I would rather not try to outsmart it.
In my view; why fight the magnetic field at all. By using stored heat energy we can have an "engine"
that spans the magnetic field and doesn't even sense the magnets. It may be able to keep the runner
totally inside the magnetic field at all times, enhancing control.
The problem is if the magnetic field wants to "take back" it's work then it could start by not leaving
net heat in the axle due to refrigeration. So one could use heat - if it's there.
--->
One idea I just had even if there is not heat energy, is to have a runner that splits into two parts
at the top of the ramp- a magnetic part remains inside the magnetic field dominated by the local
r^2. The nonmagnetic part would be tossed over the edge and used to convert an arbitrarily large
gravitational potential into energy to force the magnetic part to orbit the end field magnet vertically.
A small amount of gravitational energy would remain to carry a well behaved nonmagnetic part
back to the beginning to be reassembled with the magnetic part at the bottom of both the ramps.
Complicated mechanically, but the energy balance looks interesting.
--->
I am going to go back and study some formal magnetic physics to see if I've gotten
anything wrong. If I find there is indeed excess heat in the axles I will design the freon
boiler mechanism.
Mark S. Coffman
Quote from: shruggedatlas on March 18, 2008, 11:39:07 AM
Quote from: Omnibus on March 18, 2008, 11:16:53 AM
No, that's not true. Lack of engineering application of a scientific effect can never be a proof that the scientific effect isn't real. There won't be science if this were the case.
That is true, but similarly, controversial views like yours, with zero empirical evidence of overunity, inevitably end up marginalized. If you want to get anywhere, at least set up a SMOT that discontinuously produces more energy than it consumes. And by that, I mean that it allows energy to be harnessed from it, and that amount of energy is greater than the energy required to constantly return the ball to the starting spot. But wait, if that were possible, then you could make it self sustain. See where I am getting at?
How come zero empirical evidence? On the contrary, it is exactly the empirical evidence proving that the ball has available at a certain point more energy to transfer into other energies than all the energy ever imparted to it. I already told you, these energies we are comparing are real, empirical energies, not some fictitious entities, result of imagination and mathematical juggling.
So, we have an experimental physical fact going against a principle considered universal in science. As usual, one such experimental fact is enough to overthrow a theoretical principle such as CoE which was only accepted due to claims for empirical universality. Thus, you have it backwards.
The above clear cut empirical fact of energy disbalance going against a theoretical proposal that such balance is impossible cannot be controversial for any honest qualified scientist.
And I should repeat, harnessing the excess energy due to the observed energy discrepancy is a purely engineering problem whose success or lack of success has nothing to do with the scientific fact and cannot serve as any basis for accepting or rejecting that scientific fact.
As I've told you many times before, the question of marginalization has nothing to do with physics. This a purely sociological problem. Presenting a self-sustaining device, harnessing continuously the excess energy already proven beyond doubt, has only a psychological role as part of that sociology of acceptance. Existence of a self-sustaining device is not a necessary element in the reasoning hard sciences require for a physical fact to be considered real. When two real amounts of energy of the kind we're discussing differ that is enough evidence for physics to reject a principle stating that such amounts of energy should never differ. Never mind whether or not this difference is harnessed for practical purposes.