Chas Campbell free power motor

[RoadRunner]

here is the reasoning behind this, in reuplsion mode the magnet has to swing around in a circular fashion.
in attracting mode the magnet is allowed to swing back and forth, shorter path less time.

I would certainly agree with your reasoning, but that would not explain a difference between 'attraction' and 'no magnet' because both swings should take the same path.
The comparison which really interests me is the comparison between 'no magnet' and 'attraction'.

Anyway, this is somewhat offtopic as it has drifted beyond the realms of Chas Campbell's rotating pool-table.
If there's a thread where this magnet-pendulum idea has been discussed, we can take it there.


The RoadRunner..

[ltseung888]

A word of caution when doing these experiments with attracting polarities:::

secure both magnets so that they do not fly towards one another!!!

Distance between magnets = 5cm
Stationary magnet placed at bottom-dead-centre (I assume that's where it's supposed to be).
The bob was released from the same point each time. (approx 85 deg from BDC)

I was obtaining a consistent 42 (and a bit) swings.
Without magnet = 42 and a bit.
Magnets in attraction = 42 and a bit.
Magnets in repulsion = 42 and a bit.

The only differences were that with the magnet, the pendulum would sometimes go off course, bounce into something (usually the nearby armchair) and void that run.
and...
That with the magnets in attraction, the swinging would stop much sooner.

I have no reason to suspect that two (or more) people are lying to me so the fact that we are obtaining conflicting results is interesting.

I need to go and do some other things for a while but I intend to come back to this.

My intermediate hypothesis is that I am using a much longer pendulum than Forever Yuen (as evidenced by her count of ~100 and my count of ~40 over a minute) and this may have some bearing on the results. My magnets are likely to be in proximity for a smaller proportion of the entire swing than hers and this may cause the differences in runs to be less dramatic.
After all... 42 and a bit each run... That 'bit' is certainly not a complete swing but it is unmeasured.
It could be a big bit or a small bit and without measurement, the differences could be less than my margin for error.

Results:
Inconclusive - Further experimentation needed.

The RoadRunner..

Dear RoadRunner,

Try to use shorter length (approximately 30 cm).   Forever Yuen used disc magnets with hole in the middle costing USD0.5.  I believe your magnets are much stronger.  The magnetic attraction or repulsion do not need to be too strong.  If the magnetic bob moves slightly at a distance of about 5 cm, the force is sufficient.

The shorter string and keeping the pendulum away from other objects will help.  Since you are using fishing lines, you can put a fishing pole on top of two Chairs.  The Chairs can be one or two meters apart.  There should not be other objects (especially magnetic or iron) to upset the experiment. (I believe Forever used non-stretchable strings.)

I shall wait for you and others to repeat the experiment.  If the results were still inconclusive, I would ask Ms. Forever Yuen to repeat and video the experiment next Sunday (or during her holidays).

Anyway, this is somewhat offtopic as it has drifted beyond the realms of Chas Campbell's rotating pool-table.
If there's a thread where this magnet-pendulum idea has been discussed, we can take it there.

Good Idea.  We can continue at my Lee-Tseung Theory thread at:

http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,2794.msg49950.html#msg49950

Lawrence Tseung
Friendly Experimenters Lead Out lower Pulse Rate for Tseung.

[RoadRunner]

Good Idea.  We can continue at my Lee-Tseung Theory thread at:

http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,2794.msg49950.html#msg49950

Continued there...

The RoadRunner..

[gaby de wilde]

I guess we are all cheap and disabled in our own perverted ways. Maybe we should all patch in and build the worlds biggest smot device? One of the drawbacks of the smot is that the height of the ramp is limited by the size of the ball? lol?

If we bother him enough I bet we can get Finsrud himself to build it for us. Then we get Richard Brandston to roll the balls up the ramp. Attaching a wheel to our big smot should be easy for us profesional free energy research nerds. We have all the arguments insertion height complications right here in the topic already.

I think 50 Euros per participant would be good to get rid of this cheap feeling. It will bring us closer together like in a cult.

But it would still take a lot of people to buy our own custom made Finstrud-mobile.

I even made a construction drawing.



I think it's very artistic already? no?

But doesn't this fix the complications with Chas device already?

There could be a second SMOT at the lower end?

Hi Gaby,
I still like your idea very much with the integrated SMOT ramp,
as in this case you don?t need to fiddle with the "blue hole", but just let the ball
drop into the wheel after the ramp.

But I think your spiral inward thing is not a good idea,
as it makes the torque arm smaller and thus
deminishes the useable torque to lift the other balls.

Lets say there are 4 kinds of torque:

1- Ball on inside

2- Ball on outside

3- Ball moving towards axle (while still on the wheel)

4- ball moving towards rim (while still on the wheel)

Here 2 obviously makes more momentum as 1. This was the whole discovery.  But in 3 like a ballerina pulling in her arms the rpms will go up even further as in 2. Just like 4 will slow the wheel down most dramatically. You must know what a governor is? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governor_(device)
When accelerated the mass moves outwards making it rotate at a steady speed. Pulling mass inwards on a wheel will accelerate it.

I guess the big question is: where are all the closed loop smot devices? hummm

I thought this video makes Chas innovation a bit more obvious.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e77eOgylsBc

[shruggedatlas]

I guess the big question is: where are all the closed loop smot devices? hummm

I think the problem we will run into is that the SMOT robs the ball of more of its gravitational force after the ball drops off the SMOT than the benefit gained from elevating the ball.  This is why there are no closed loop SMOTs yet.