Successfully looped SMOT

[Newton II]

For you, my only suggestion is to debunk it using your laws of science.[/font][/size]

Read that quote again.  When inventor himself has said that it is fake what is there to debunk? The working principle will be known if someone opens and sees the box and batteries etc.

[blueplanet]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MEOit3ff4Hg



Just make a hole on the track to let the metal ball drop before it becomes attracted by the upper end of the rail.

This is the same thing in a different set-up.
To give a more simplified perspective
the ball does not spin in this demo,
and there is only one magnetic array.
this is the north, but the south one does the same thing.


When both are employed, the force is increased.
with precision, two like fields can be used, adding another field compression dynamic.


https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=cRVZ3aGxAdk

[sm0ky2]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MEOit3ff4Hg



Just make a hole on the track to let the metal ball drop before it becomes attracted by the upper end of the rail.

Yes, that is one possible solution, the problems one encounters are in the return path.
1) in most conditions, the vertical drop is further than the incline the ball first took.
2) if the return path moves the ball underneath the array, you have the opposite side
of the magnets acting on the ball.


Both of these conditions must be avoided.


1) the drop-out path must not exceed the minimum necessary to leave the field.
    (when I say "must", what I really mean is you can't waste too much gravitational
      potential energy or you fail)
2) the return path should go completely around the field and enter only from the starting
position. Any unnecessary field interactions may deduct from the balls velocity, or accelerate
it in an inappropriate direction.


I am traveling across country right now but I will try to make more videos soon.

[sm0ky2]

In my next demo, I show a Type-2 staircase smot


I only have one array in this demo, for reasons which
I will try to explain.
(with the right magnets, multiple arrays can be linked,
   however, this is not indefinite, it will run out of energy,
   after some number of arrays)


The drastic increase in field strength reduces the end-of-track
velocity. This is a decrease in momentum, and therefore a decrease
in available energy to enter the next array.
(I call the SMOT an 'array', because a magnetic gate designation is
   reserved for the double-smot array)
A magnetic gate, such as the HJ linear gate, or the Tri-force technology,
is formed from two smot-type interactions, but the functional process is
the same. (gradient in magnetic field intensity over a distance)


The main difference between a "gate" and a SMOT (or SMT) is the driving
magnetic field. In a gate the moving field is a permanent magnet, and as
such, the field strength decreases only with distance.
In a SMOT the moving field is inductive, and field strength decreases
exponentially faster with increasing distance. Simply put, the induced field
in the paramagnetic material decreases with distance, as does the field
interactions themselves.


Now, with the Type-2 staircase smot: the field is additively increased by
additional number of magnets in each 'step' of the staircase.
This is coupled with the exponential increase with decreasing distance,
as the ball moves through the array.
This results in a great field intensity at the end of the array, which pulls
the ball back in.


For those of you following along with your own experiments, you can observe
this by extending the track beyond the end of the field.
The ball will travel some distance, then pull back to the last 'step' of the array.


For this reason, the Type-2 staircase smot requires the additional input of energy
from a drop in gravitational potential.
Eventually, this decrease in height will prevent access to the starting point.
(despite the apparent ability to roll uphill)


As we move onto the Type-1 (precision controlled) staircase smot, the disadvantages of
the Type-2 staircase will become more clear.


The reason I prefer the Type1, is that the field strength of each step is relatively the same.
We are only changing the distances, and therefore have more precise control over the
inductive interactions. And by doing so, remove more of the deceleration at the end of
each array.


I will add the link to the Type-2 demo as soon as YT is done processing the video.

[sm0ky2]

Type-2 staircase SMT demo


https://youtu.be/jXdKWbbICpE


—————————————————


I was asked "why" am I taking you through all of this
non-working stuff, instead of just showing you a looped smot.


If I just made a video, and no one understands how it works,
and how it Doesn't work.....  people will be left with confusion.
You could say that I have some hidden power source, or a midget
under my table moving a magnet around.


People would try to replicate the effect without the necessary knowledge.
and fail.
And they won't know why they failed.


The way I chose to present this leaves little to the imagination, and allows
anyone to replicate the desired conditions under a wide range of designs.


and when they fail, they will have an understanding of why, and be able to
make the appropriate adjustments to bring their device into working order.


So, those who already know this stuff, will have to bear with my slow and
boring process, for the sake of those who do not.


And hopefully when we get to the end, everyone will be on the same page.
I think this process will eliminate much of the conjecture and false assumptions
that surround magnetic interactions.


More importantly, everyone will be able to do these things themselves.
(plus, there's a cheeseburger at stake)