Towards a working SMOT Gravity Wheel

[ovyyus]

Hi BZ,

An "ad-infinitum" closed loop SMOT has never been demonstrated. Theory is not fact.

[jim_mich]

Hi guys,
The SMOT is the same as the Gary motor and the Howard motor. To work they all use the same principle. Most experimenters overlook or don't even know that principle. That principle is that when a permanent magnet magnetizes iron or steel then the combined magnetic strength of the two is stronger than the original permanent magnet. By repeatedly using the permanent magnet to repeatedly change the polar orientation of the magnetized iron one can harness the small difference in total magnetic energy. The problem is that the workable parameters are very small and dificult to find. Also the pull between the magnet and iron must be repeatedly broken (regauged) somehow without wasting more energy than is gained. The SMOT uses a steel ball which is continually being remagnetized as it rolls. The Gary motor uses a steel bar which continually swings into and out of the magnetic field while staying in a 'sweet' spot where it does not need to be pulled from the magnets field. The Howard motor continually changes the magnetic field in the backer plate behind the rows of magnets.

All three keep switching the magnetic field in steel or iron and take advantage of the stronger combined magnetism produced. To make any of the three work requires a very delicate balancing act. Too much magnetic strength overpowers the steel. Too little does not magnetize the steel. If one gets it just right then one can harness the slight imbalance produced by magnetizing iron or steel.

Just my goofy opinion.
Jim_Mich

[BZ]

I thought it was Edward Somerset, the Marquis of Worcester (1601-1667), and his wheel was the one shown here?

You're right Jon, my mistake. Rolling Ball machine was Leupold's.

[John Collins]

Jonathan and BZ, I have a copy of the supposed design of the Marquis of Worcester's wheel,which was done by H.Dircks, who wrote an amazing history of the search for PM (probably the most extensive record ever done and I have copies of both volumes).

I can post a copy of the wheel if anyone is interested, but it consists of a wheel carrying 40 weights. Each weight is suspended from two short ropes and is designed so that on the falling side, the weights hang from a point further out from the centre and on the rising side they are suspended fronm a point nearer to the centre. Dircks points out that two of the weights are directly under and over the cog, and the emainder are balanced by there being more on the rising side to balance the fewer on the falling side.

There exists no drawing of the M. of Worcs wheel so we can only surmise what it looked like fro the brief description (as Dircks did).

John C.

[Jonathan]

If anyone cares know the dogmatic view: Jim's view of magnetic PM is wrong because current theory says that when something is pulled into a magnetic field, the field gets weaker. But I've not seen the experiments which universally prove this, and the theory already has other flaws, so he could be right.

[jim_mich]

I'm away from my home computer so this is from memory...

Take a piece of paper clip wire or small brad type nail. Lay it on a non-magnetic table surface. Move a permenent magnet near the wire and note the horizontal distance at which it jumps to the magnet. Now add a piece of steel to the magnet and try again. The wire will jump from a longer distance. By adding a piece of iron or steel to a magnet you will have increased it's strength, not decreased it.

Jim_Mich

[ovyyus]

An apparent increase in the field strength of a magnet can be mistaken for a change in field geometry. Adding different iron shapes to the poles of magnets will alter the spacial flux distribution around and between the poles resulting in different effects at different distances.

IMO, the Gary device is quite different to the SMOT. In Gary's process the aim is to achieve true polarity reversal in the keeper iron, not just increases and decreases in a single polarity as is normally achieved by bringing iron closer to or further away from a magnet pole.

[Jonathan]

I agree with Bill, Jim. In the first case most of the magnetic field doesn't interact with the object. Adding the iron weakens the total field, while possibly redirecting most of the rest of the field to one area, making it seem overall stronger. I did think of a general, but not necessarily universal, disproof. If you take one magnet and a lot of magnetic sand, you can pick up a lot of sand. In your theory all this sand would just add to the magnetic field, so that if you bring it near the rest of the sand again, it will pick up still more, which would make it stronger agian, etc. This would mean that one magnet can attract and hold all the sand you can throw at it, but this is not so. Once you get some amount already on there, it gets harder for it to pick up more, until you can even pick up one more grain.