Ring Magnet SMOT

[Floor]

@vineet_ Kiran

I am so glad to see that you are still at it.

OU designs require the ultimate in bullet proof, proof.

Personally I think it is possible  to accomplish what you are working on.

If you can transition your magnet array, into something like the type of array
presented in the  Thin Magnetic Ramp experiment topic  (here at OU. com.) (combine yours with it).

                       cheers
                            floor

[gyulasun]

In the second experiment, the ramp magnets are involved to some extent - because they are there. If he did not need that SMOT-ramp at all, he could likely removed the magnets completely and used a magnetless ramp. In that case the experiment will fail anyways.
What he should do next is not to tilt those magnets at all. Only then you can measure the energy involved for the ball to enter the SMOT. If he do not change the SMOT ramp, I am quite sure the ball will roll up that tube just as far as in the first experiment.


The experiment is not reliable. Really.


Vidar

Vidar,

You still seem to have not understood Naudin's tests. Ask yourself how the ramp magnets placed sideways to a steel ball could influence pro or con the 'just about to fall' ball??  Because the ball was deliberately placed by hand to the very edge of the ramp and carefully let it fall into the glass pipe. In this scenario the magnets have no any 'cheeting' effect pro or con: the ball was simply let fall down by its own weight after Naudin carefully put it to the very edge of the ramp. 

Please when you have a few minutes, go through the test described in this link: http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/smotnrgt.htm  it is very clear. It compares two potential energy levels obtained by the ball when Test 1 and Test 2 is done. One such energy for the ball is when the ball falls into the glass pipe from the output of the SMOT. The other energy level for the ball is when the ball is let freely fall into the glass pipe from the input side of the SMOT. The input side is chosen to insure the same height for the free fall the ball had in test 1 when it started to go through the SMOT magnet ramp. 

Regardless of whether this setup shown by Naudin could be looped or not, your objections are not relevant.  And if you close your eyes on the obviously higher potential energy result when the ball fell from the output of the SMOT versus the one where the ball was let fall from the (180° turned) SMOT platform's input side just by normal free fall, it is up to you. 

Gyula

[Low-Q]

Vidar,

You still seem to have not understood Naudin's tests. Ask yourself how the ramp magnets placed sideways to a steel ball could influence pro or con the 'just about to fall' ball??  Because the ball was deliberately placed by hand to the very edge of the ramp and carefully let it fall into the glass pipe. In this scenario the magnets have no any 'cheeting' effect pro or con: the ball was simply let fall down by its own weight after Naudin carefully put it to the very edge of the ramp. 

Please when you have a few minutes, go through the test described in this link: http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/smotnrgt.htm  it is very clear. It compares two potential energy levels obtained by the ball when Test 1 and Test 2 is done. One such energy for the ball is when the ball falls into the glass pipe from the output of the SMOT. The other energy level for the ball is when the ball is let freely fall into the glass pipe from the input side of the SMOT. The input side is chosen to insure the same height for the free fall the ball had in test 1 when it started to go through the SMOT magnet ramp. 

Regardless of whether this setup shown by Naudin could be looped or not, your objections are not relevant.  And if you close your eyes on the obviously higher potential energy result when the ball fell from the output of the SMOT versus the one where the ball was let fall from the (180° turned) SMOT platform's input side just by normal free fall, it is up to you. 

Gyula

"The input side is chosen to insure the same height for the free fall the ball had in test 1 when it started to go through the SMOT magnet ramp."
This is where the problem occurs. This is exactly what he wants the audience to believe!
However, aside from insuring correct hight, he changes the SMOT in the second experiment, instead of letting the magnets be in the correct position all the time.
I understand that he want the audience to believe he wants to insure the correct hight, but at the same time he also fools you, by you ignoring the changes in the SMOT's magnet configuration. This change is not irrelevant. It has everything to do with the outcome.


Why?
Because the field outside the gap between the magnets are repelling the ball. Yes, repelling. This force will accelerate the ball.
This repelling field outside the gaps is stronger and has shorter range the closer the magnets are. When you increase the distance between the magnets by flipping them away 90 degrees of each other, this force weakens in both ends, and do not longer provide the same repelling force.


What you, and so many others do not (want to) understand, is that the ball would roll just as far as in the first experiment if the magnets was not flipped away in the second experiment. Remember that the repelling forces at the input is weaker, but has greater range due to the wider gap. This corresponds perfectly to the necessary input energy needed for the ball to enter the SMOT in the first place.
Increasing the gap manually from one experiment to the other, invalidates the experiment completely.


Permanent magnet carry a conservative field, and cannot by any chance provide some of its potential energy into the surroundings without loosing its own potential energy. The field must change, and to change a magnetic field you need energy input - such as rearranging the magnets by hand.


Vidar

[gyulasun]

"The input side is chosen to insure the same height for the free fall the ball had in test 1 when it started to go through the SMOT magnet ramp."
This is where the problem occurs. This is exactly what he wants the audience to believe!
However, aside from insuring correct hight, he changes the SMOT in the second experiment, instead of letting the magnets be in the correct position all the time.
I understand that he want the audience to believe he wants to insure the correct hight, but at the same time he also fools you, by you ignoring the changes in the SMOT's magnet configuration. This change is not irrelevant. It has everything to do with the outcome.


Why?
Because the field outside the gap between the magnets are repelling the ball. Yes, repelling. This force will accelerate the ball.
This repelling field outside the gaps is stronger and has shorter range the closer the magnets are. When you increase the distance between the magnets by flipping them away 90 degrees of each other, this force weakens in both ends, and do not longer provide the same repelling force.


What you, and so many others do not (want to) understand, is that the ball would roll just as far as in the first experiment if the magnets was not flipped away in the second experiment. Remember that the repelling forces at the input is weaker, but has greater range due to the wider gap. This corresponds perfectly to the necessary input energy needed for the ball to enter the SMOT in the first place.
Increasing the gap manually from one experiment to the other, invalidates the experiment completely.


Permanent magnet carry a conservative field, and cannot by any chance provide some of its potential energy into the surroundings without loosing its own potential energy. The field must change, and to change a magnetic field you need energy input - such as rearranging the magnets by hand.


Vidar

Vidar,

How can permanent magnets placed at least 5 cm away from the steel ball repel the steel ball?   Please explain.

Gyula

[vineet_kiran]

@webby1


What if we use half little magnets on the top array or cover the right half of little magnet with a shield?