New Gravity / Magnet Motor (Comments Please)

[bobo36us2]

Hi Steven and all,

Here is an idea I have for a gravity/magnet motor.
To fully unerstand the idea, you should first watch
this Youtube video which shows how small magnets
can propel much larger magnets upward at a speed
greater than gravity propels downward!
http://youtube.com/watch?v=yMoIExJEaBU

Secondly, it wouldn't hurt to read about the Murilo Luciano
gravity chain about "fractional repositioning of a constant mass".
http://www.panaceauniversity.org/D21.pdf  (bottom of page 7)

So here it is below, and also attached.  The weights are drawn
into the bottom of the chain by magnetic attraction at the point
they have performed all of their useful work.  They are then
accelerated upward in a fashion similar to the Youtube video link
above. 

The "sticking point" on this device is on the top left where the
magnetic rails come to an end.  The magnets will want to stick
here a little bit, and this is why we add "outside forces" to overcome
the sticking point.  The outside forces are:
1) Downward magnetic acceleration
2) Gravity
3) Mass of drive magnet much heavier than rail magnet
4) Pressure of accelerating balls behind first falling magnet
5) Drive rail curved outward to lessen magnetic pull at drop point.

Thoughts please!!!

Thanks, Bob

[Low-Q]

Hi,

You can forget the gravity part. There are the same mass on both sides, so gravity will work equally on both sides regardless of the magnetic gates and stuff.

Vidar

[hansvonlieven]

Show it to Omnibus, he will give you the maths why it works, after all, it's only a modified SMOT.

Hans von Lieven

[exnihiloest]

Hi Steven and all,

Here is an idea I have for a gravity/magnet motor.
To fully unerstand the idea, you should first watch
this Youtube video which shows how small magnets
can propel much larger magnets upward at a speed
greater than gravity propels downward!
http://youtube.com/watch?v=yMoIExJEaBU
...

Hi Bob,

Thanks for sharing your experiment. Very interesting work due to your measurements. Nevertheless the computation of the kinetic energy is not correct. You measured the time for the ball to cover the length of the track then you divided the length by the time to get the speed and used it to compute the energy using 1/2mv? . But the speed is not constant along the track. The ball is accelerating from the start up to near the end. You can't use a mean speed to compute kinetic energy. Kinetic energy is an instantaneous value.
I suggest you reduce to 1 cm or less the distance between the start and end signal detectors and put them near the end of the track where I guess the speed is maximum. As the length is now much shorter, we can  consider the speed is almost constant. For an accurate measure the start detector should be also optic.
You should find now a bigger kinetic energy, and also by moving the detectors along the ball track, see its evolvement as function of position, which would give us precious informations.

Fran?ois

[pequaide]

I would not want to pour cold water on anyone?s endeavor to make free energy, but you did ask for comments.

In reference to the youtube video with the sphere running up the track: why does the ball stick at the top, and how much energy does it take to get it off the top?

Why doesn?t the experimenter simply run the sphere off the top and put it in an overbalance wheel connected to a generator and make energy? After it rotates the wheel and makes energy it can be rolled back to the starting position.

I suggest that it takes more energy to remove the spheres from the top than it takes to roll the sphere to the top.