New Stagger Stator PMM Design. Review wanted before construction.

[Charlie_V]

I have made a SMOT, nothing to prove other than how to close the loop and generate power form it.

I have also made a SMOT.  I have also seen people with closed loop SMOTs.  The ball will go around about 2-5 times then it stops.  If this was more energy out than in, the ball would keep going around forever. 

Omnibus,
I'm not sure what in that link proves that SMOTs are overunity. 

Listen, if the SMOT produces more energy than what is put in, then why can't you close the loop?  If it really did produce an access of energy, then a loop would make the ball go around and around faster and faster, like an amplifier does.  THE BALL STOPS.... nothing gained only lost.

The only energy gained is when the ball is accelerating in the magnetic field gradient.  When it reaches the maximum point in the gradient and attempts to leave, the magnets try to pull it back.  What energy was gained from the acceleration is lost at that moment.  If the pull back can be neutralized, then it will work.

[Omnibus]

I?m going to say it once again and I won?t repeat it. Making a self-sustaining SMOT is a purely engineering task, difficult at that, completely different from proving that SMOT produces excess energy. Therefore, don?t ask me again why I have not closed the loop. All I?m interested is whether or not SMOT violates the principle of conservation of energy and I have proven that it does. I?m not interested in the engineering aspect of applying that violation in a closed-loop device.

The following is incorrect:

?The only energy gained is when the ball is accelerating in the magnetic field gradient.  When it reaches the maximum point in the gradient and attempts to leave, the magnets try to pull it back.  What energy was gained from the acceleration is lost at that moment.  If the pull back can be neutralized, then it will work.?

and you can see why in the analysis from the link I gave you. Here it is again:

Take a look at http://omnibus.fortunecity.com/smot.gif  (if the link doesn?t open try clicking on Go in the address line and then Reload). The energy the researcher spends to raise the ball from A to B is

Energy_spent = ?mgh1 +(Ma ? Mb).

The ball returns spontaneously along the B-C-A portion of the loop the energy:

Energy_obtained = +mgh1 +Mb = +mgh1 + mgh2 + (KE1 +RE2 +L1)

Where KE1 is the kinetic energy of the ball at C, RE1 is the rotational energy at C and L1 are the other energy losses at C. At point B? (not shown in the figure) the ball loses the height h2 and, respectively, loses its entire gravitational potential energy +mgh2 which at B? is transformed into [KE2 + RE2 +L2 + Mb?] where Mb? is the magnetic potential energy at point B? where the ball loses the height h2 (respectively, where the ball lose its entire +mgh2). Lumping the above terms together we get:

Energy_obtained = +mgh1 + [KE + RE +L] + Mb?

Therefore,

Energy_obtained ? Energy_spent = +mgh1 + [KE + RE +L] + Mb? - |?mgh1 +(Ma ? Mb)| = [KE + RE +L] +Mb? +Ma ?Mb > 0

Which is in violation of the principle of conservation of energy. The excess energy [KE + RE +L] +Mb? +Ma ?Mb produced has no source and is energy from nothing.

[Charlie_V]

If L1 is a loss then it needs to be subtracted from the energy obtained.  The magnetic potential is (m*m'/r^2), where m and m' are the pole strengths between the permanent magnets and the steel ball, and r^2 is the distance between them.  At the point B', which I imagine is when the ball leaves the magnetic field, there is a potential force between the ball and the magnet pulling it back.  You do not address this in your formula.  If you do, you will see that the ball is actually losing energy at this point.  By the time the ball reaches point A, and gravity has converted its potential energy at mgh1 to kinetic, any added energy it obtained between B to C was lost at B'.  So it is the equivalent of just dropping the ball from mgh1 without the magnetic ramp. 

In an ideal case with no friction, the ball would loop around continuously, however, the friction and losses that you are adding to the energy gain (which need to be subtracted since it is a loss) drops the efficiency of the system to well below 100%.  Which is why the ball will not loop over and over.  The engineering problem is found at B', when the magnetic potential between the ball is trying to pull it back into the magnetic field.  Find a solution to this and your SMOT will actually work. 

[nwman]

Hey Tim long time no post how are things going?

Sorry D3',

My best friend got married last week and I was his best man so I was helping him out. I'm also waiting until this next week to possibly order so magnets from Magnets4less.com. They don't start shipping again until Monday. I do wan to run a few ideas on materials, tests and theories I have before I buy anything. I'll try to digitize all my notes tomorrow to get your input. Just to tease your brain I'm working with an idea of bending the magnetic fields of the rails to allow the wheel (rotors) to enter a rail at its midpoint and then curve the rail around the wheel. The basic idea is to move the repulsion zone as far away from the rotor(wheel) as possible. Its hard to explain quickly so stay tuned.

Tim

[Charlie_V]

nwman,

You should use www.emovendo.net

That is where I order all my magnets, they are decently priced and very high quality.  Plus, I always receive them in no later than 3 days time (in the US).