Successfully looped SMOT

[Newton II]

How about Daedalus' bicycle wheel:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4VBNn-ids6M
This one has no issue of eddy current, sticky spots or whatever you like to call.

Google searched on it.  Got this -

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4762778/How-riddle-bike-wheel-finally-solved.html

Quote

However, he made it clear from the start that his machines were fake, calling himself a 'court jester in the palace of science'. Dr Jones, who lived in Jesmond, Newcastle, said that he had included 'conjuring tricks' and 'cunning distractions', and scientists had been 'remarkably gullible' in failing to solve the riddle.

[sm0ky2]

It will unlikely run forever.
The metal ball has its own eddy current which produces a magnetic field that opposes its movement.
When the ball has lost its own momentum, which is the key to overcome so-called sticky points, it will be sucked somewhere.
However, the problem of this experiment does not necessarily mean perpetual motion machines do not exist.

There are eddy currents in the ball, as well as aluminum tracks, however, it is the field potential
gradient which creates the 'sticky spots', also the momentum to break them.
It is important to understand the distinction.
Unlike mechanical systems, which have direct energy input and output,
These systems gain energy from the field potential.
Very similar to gravity. Sure, there is wind resistance and friction with gravity,
But the ball doesn't care. It will fall to the point of least potential (or until it is stopped)
The ball does the same thing in the magnetic field.


In the simple smot, field strength (and by proxy: potential) is controlled by distance
between ball and magnet. (simple smot is two solid magnets)
in these devices, gravitational potential is gained from transition through the magnetic
field gradient, then consumed to escape the field. depending on the variables and how
they are applied, the results can be underunity, unity, or overunity.


A complex smot (complex simple toy, right...) uses multiple magnets in 2 arrays.
In a complex smot, or HJ configuration, there is field compression.
(like poles forced together, which alter the shape of the fields)
In some designs, there is also field dispersion (diversion through a paramagnetic material)
this is done on the opposite (inactive) side of the magnets, and/or points between them.




an uncompressed magnetic field is generally symmetrical.
in this form, field symmetry can be applied and energy in=out.
uncompressed magnetic fields are 'conservative fields', like gravity.


A magnetic field becomes "compressed" when two like poles are forced together.
This alters symmetry by changing the orientation and density of the field.
compressed magnetic fields (when compression is assymetrical) are non-conservative fields.


This means that the magnetic potential gradient does not follow the standard magnetic curve
over a given distance. There may be points of lower or higher potential within the field, in
addition to the overall potential gradient of the field as a whole. This leads to fields with
'net potential'. This is the ability to perform work. Unity cannot be a condition.
These systems are inherently underunity or overunity.


the change in force across an assymetrical magnetic field is dependent upon the distance
and the change in field strength. (irrespective of time)
Momentum, on the other hand, is dependent upon velocity (2nd integral of time)
When the field changes gradually over a longer distance then changes abruptly over a
shorter distance: this can lead to a condition where momentum exceeds the change in force
over time (because distance is short).
This is why the ball can exit passed the 'sticky spots'.


Gravity is also employed in many designs to add force to the momentum of the ball,
in opposition to the magnetic attraction. While it is a helpful tool, it is not necessary.


Howard Johnson made use of a dual-gradient. (double smot) in his linear accelerator.
or simplified magnetic gate.
Many of you have seen this on my YouTube.
(Yes, I noticed the middle name, and decided to not update that detail, but rather
leave it intact as a historical Mandela Marker)


In the linear gate, field compression takes place between the rotor and stator.
The Tri-Force expanded upon this by adding secondary compression effects
within the stator(s). As well as dispersion to re-establish the potential gradient.
(the balls disperse the field more uniformly than 2 fields in free space)


An important feature of field compression, is field expansion on the opposite
poles. This also, can be assymetrical.
And can be dispersed. (or diverted through a paramagnetic material)


the so-called "entry repulsion" of a linear gate can be reduced through manipulation
by dispersion, compression, or field cancellation.
———————————————————————————-
I shall accept the challenge presented to me. But ask that if anyone wishes to also
partake in this adventure, that we do so in an economically responsible manner.


To keep things simple, I'll build my demos using a complex smot design.
(personally I'm partial to the HJ double-smot, but we can start simple)


Basically the complex smot comes in 2 forms: (there are others, but 2 mains ones)


One where all the magnets are alligned on a single plane, which is then angled
towards the track at one end. Each side of the track is opposite polarity.


And another uses a staircase design, which is divided into 2 categories:
First - a same number of magnets are positioned in a staircase approaching the track.
And secondly- a staircase is formed by an increasing number of magnets.


my demos will primarily focus on the first staircase type for simplicity.
This allows for explicit control over field compression variables, while maintaining
consistent field strength maximums.


Now I will NOT engage in discussions over what brand of magnets to use.
Nor will I be answering any questions regarding which brand I will use.
The last time we played with balls and magnets we inadvertently put a toy company
out of business, and we can't even get those magnets anymore....
But I will say that their cheap knock-off (while the magnets are crap) have nice
steel balls, so those products may be a good source, or steel ball bearing balls.


Your choice of balls and magnets, I leave up to you. And as such, I will try to keep
my discussions in terms of the conditions desired, rather than the specifics of components.


One important condition is the relationship between the mass of the ball and magnetic strength.
If it was not evident by the above stated (simple) smot condition, I will say now, that
the smot devices are affected by magnetogravitics.
It is not the driving force, but a very important variable to consider.


A simplified explanation of this, is that there is a force differential between the
downward force of gravity and the forces through the magnetic potential.
If magnetism is too strong or the ball too light, the ball will defy gravity and fly towards
the magnets.
If it is too weak, or the ball too massive, gravity (and inertia) wins and the ball stays put.
In the ramp configuration, the ball will roll downwards.
So there is a balance of forces to contend with.
The condition desirable in these experiments is such that the magnetism is strong enough
to roll the ball along the track, but gravity still provides enough force to keep it ON the track.
To understand this, push along a road or car uphill, vs lifting a car.
Applied force subtracts from gravitational force and vice versa.
We want the magnetic force to be a little stronger but not too strong.


A good way to get a handle on this is to take your ball, and a magnet:
place the ball on a flat surface and approach with the magnet from above but at an angle.
Locate the distance at which the ball moves to under the magnet, but does not lift off the surface.
At this distance you are within the desired range.
It is a range of differentiated forces.
further away the ball will be accelerated with less force,
closer- with more force.
Our variable should be constricted to within this range.


Often, the set-up will present a situation where the exit-end of the track falls outside of this range.
In this condition, the ball will stick to the end of the track, held against gravity, by the magnets.
This can be dealt with by increasing the distance between magnet and ball, thus decreasing
the magnetic force.
This is done by diverting the path of the ball, changes in the track, to increase distance.
The momentum of the moving ball can be used to overcome the attraction force, and allow this to
occur. But also this condition can be achieved by manipulation of the field itself. Caution must be used
in this approach to avoid undesirable magnetic potentials, mid-track.


How you design your particular smot is less important than how the ball behaves within it.
It is the potential through the field that imparts force onto the ball.


It is the velocity of the ball (momentum) that exceeds the end-potential force.
Or this can be done by allowing the gravitational force to exceed the magnetic.
Or a combination thereof.


The condition is prerequisite, that the ball, when allowed to enter the array from a stationary
state, travels through the array and exits the influence of the field with some non-zero velocity.
Any attempt to loop the devices or connect them in a continuous linear path is futile without
first meeting these requirements.


The first step, is therefore, to create a single smot, that functions in this manner.

[sm0ky2]

The second step (although often non-intuitive) involves the final velocity
of the ball after exiting the effective field of the array, and any subsequent
remaining gravitational potential vertical from the initial starting point.


This is the "energy" quotient available for reentry into the array or entry into
a sequential array. (or energy output from a difinitive analysis)


The entry/reentry mechanism (path or otherwise) must be engineered to within
the above outlined specifications. Less than required entry force results in a
failed entry, too much can cause the ball to go off-path, or alter the time-variant
acceleration caused by the momentum to magnetic force conversion.


Meeting this condition is the second prerequisite.


Only after both of these are met, can discussions take place about the
geometrical variations of looped or continuous linear arrays.

[sm0ky2]

My upcoming video series will first show examples of smot types,
then demonstrate each of these effects, as independently as I am able to,
as well as combined results of the conditions as a whole machine.


I present these details in text form, for those who don't like to watch videos,
and to allow discussion of these points during the time it takes me to prepare
the real-world models and video them.


I welcome any forethought and conjecture, or any additional input from those who
have experimented along these lines.
However, thermodynamically religious rhetoric will probably be ignored on my part...
what is "possible" under theory, and what occurs in reality are not the same thing.
The best example I can give you involves gravity and the "sling-shot" maneuver.
But conditions exist all throughout physics which are thermodynamically incoherent.
So if you are here to preach about "that's impossible!"
Or "there must be a motor somewhere"
I gladly give you the pulpit.


I'm not here to hide anything, and anyone with a ball and a few magnets can do this.

[sm0ky2]

You guys are welcome to follow along using a type1 simple smot
Personally I am skipping over this because of the complexity of the variables.


With single-field symmetry, you have a uniformly increasing field strength, and a
field geometry that varies with thickness.


for reasons that aren't worth getting into here, the simple version works better if the outside
of the magnets are shielded by a metal plate the same area as the back of the magnet.
If the diametrically magnetized bar magnet is thick enough you don't need to do this.


I'm going to just go straight into the staircase version, but I will also show the planar version.