Re: Hydraulic perpetual motion and the SMOT ramp

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Bessler Discussion Board ] [ FAQ ] [ Back to BesslerWheel.com ]

Posted by Scott Ellis (216.87.95.64) on January 11, 2002 at 23:26:58:

In Reply to: Hydraulic perpetual motion and the SMOT ramp posted by Davis Landstrom on December 29, 2001 at 19:00:30:

Thanks for you post Davis,

I didn't think a closed loop smot had ever been built so I emailed Jean-Louis Naudin and recieved the following response:

Dear Scott Ellis,
Thank you very much for your interest in my researches.
The SMOT device is only a simple demonstrator, its purpose is to shows how it is possible to generates works without initial kinetic energy. This is an opened system which uses two kind of energy in interaction, the magnetic energy and the gravitational energy. The most important fact is that the steel ball is completly free to run after its drop. The ball gain kinetic energy and potential energy and it is released completly free for running outside the system... Some independant people have proved that the energy gain is about 113%.
The SMOT is only a toy for exploring the Free energy field.
The SMOT v1.01 is the small model whith the small magnetic ramps (105x17mm), a 8 mm aluminum U channel and a 16mm steel ball. There are 3 layers of stacked magnets and a 5mm thick soft iron as back shield. The closest setup in my web site is the v1.0 blue print. The size of the SMOT depends of the size of the magnets used.(4x8x20mm) ferrite barrium (commonly used for magnetic boards).
The SMOT is NOT a magnetic slingshot contrary to the Bedini's magnetic gate. In the SMOT the only energy spent to set the ball at the entrance of the ball, is the initial potential energy of the 16g steel ball (4.865mJ at 31mm above the ground base). This is a steel ball, NOT a magnet (like the magnetic gate or Tomi) so, this ball is always attracted through the magnetic potential. As you can notice in my drawing ( http://jnaudin.free.fr/images/smtstdia.gif ), you have all the energy states values (calculated/measured).
1) At the entrance of the ramp :
- the calculated potential energy of the steel ball is : 0.016 * 9.81 * 31 = 4.865mJ
- the drop of the ball through the glass tube from this point, give : 3.186mJ
So, the mechanical losses (friction and hit) is = 4.865 - 3.186 = 1.679 mJ ( 34.51% )
2) At the exit of the ramp (after the ball run through the SMOT) :
- the calculated potential energy of the steel ball is : 0.016 * 9.81 * 35 = 5.494 mJ
- the drop of the ball through the glass tube from this point, give : 3.610mJ
So, the mechanical losses (friction and hit) is = 5.494 - 3.610 = 1.884 mJ ( 34.29% )
You see that the mechanical losses (friction and hit) in the glass tube is very close in the two tests : 34.29% and 34.51%
The roll aways distance is very easily reproductible the differential change is about +- 5mm in the variation of the lenght, this give: delta H = 5 * sin (2.815) = 0.246mm
the delta E = 9.81 * 0.016 * 0.246 = +- 0.039 mJ so, the accuracy of the energy measurement is about : 1%
The measured efficiency : Eff% = ( 3.610 / 3.186) * 100 = 113.3 %
Full test report of the SMOT at: http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/smotnrgt.htm
The measured efficiency of my SMOT is 113.3%... BUT the mechanical losses AFTER the drop of the ball is about 34%...
So this explain why the closed loop is not yet obtained. So this is not due to the principle of the device, but only due to the actual means used for catching the output energy ( the glass tube ). This is only a mechanical design problem...
If you want to learn about the main principle of overunity regauging process, I suggest you to explore this web server :
http://www.hsv.com/writers/bearden/tommenu.htm
Best Regards
Jean-Louis Naudin

I followed up with the specific question: "Is it possible to put multiple SMOT v1.01 devices together in a loop (so 4 SMOT's would make a square, 5 a pentagon, 6 a hexagon,
etc)? "

and recieved this response:

May be, but don't forget that the energy gain is very very weak, so the roll away must be frictionless....
Good luck and good experiments,
Best Regards
Jean-Louis Naudin

I think if a closed loop SMOT could be built, it would be a huge breakthrough, and would receive worldwide attention because, use more than one rotor at different stages in rotation all fixed along a common shaft.
: This device could be manufactured in such a way that should it work, you could see all the components. The piston casing could be constructed from a transparent perspex tube, the weights could be made quite easily, I would melt down Bismuth (which melts at about 400 degrees C) and mold it into cylinders that would fit snugly in the tubes. Bismuth is a good metal to use in this instance as it is non toxic unlike lead or mercuary, and it has a higher atomic mass than those two so will weigh more. Perhaps a medium less viscous than water could be used?

Follow Ups:

Post a Followup

Name:
E-Mail:
Subject:
Comments:	: Thanks for you post Davis, : I didn't think a closed loop smot had ever been built so I emailed Jean-Louis Naudin and recieved the following response: : <blockquote> : Dear Scott Ellis, : Thank you very much for your interest in my researches. : The SMOT device is only a simple demonstrator, its purpose is to shows how it is possible to generates works without initial kinetic energy. This is an opened system which uses two kind of energy in interaction, the magnetic energy and the gravitational energy. The most important fact is that the steel ball is completly free to run after its drop. The ball gain kinetic energy and potential energy and it is released completly free for running outside the system... Some independant people have proved that the energy gain is about 113%. : The SMOT is only a toy for exploring the Free energy field. : The SMOT v1.01 is the small model whith the small magnetic ramps (105x17mm), a 8 mm aluminum U channel and a 16mm steel ball. There are 3 layers of stacked magnets and a 5mm thick soft iron as back shield. The closest setup in my web site is the v1.0 blue print. The size of the SMOT depends of the size of the magnets used.(4x8x20mm) ferrite barrium (commonly used for magnetic boards). : The SMOT is NOT a magnetic slingshot contrary to the Bedini's magnetic gate. In the SMOT the only energy spent to set the ball at the entrance of the ball, is the initial potential energy of the 16g steel ball (4.865mJ at 31mm above the ground base). This is a steel ball, NOT a magnet (like the magnetic gate or Tomi) so, this ball is always attracted through the magnetic potential. As you can notice in my drawing ( http://jnaudin.free.fr/images/smtstdia.gif ), you have all the energy states values (calculated/measured). : 1) At the entrance of the ramp : : - the calculated potential energy of the steel ball is : 0.016 * 9.81 * 31 = 4.865mJ : - the drop of the ball through the glass tube from this point, give : 3.186mJ : So, the mechanical losses (friction and hit) is = 4.865 - 3.186 = 1.679 mJ ( 34.51% ) : 2) At the exit of the ramp (after the ball run through the SMOT) : : - the calculated potential energy of the steel ball is : 0.016 * 9.81 * 35 = 5.494 mJ : - the drop of the ball through the glass tube from this point, give : 3.610mJ : So, the mechanical losses (friction and hit) is = 5.494 - 3.610 = 1.884 mJ ( 34.29% ) : You see that the mechanical losses (friction and hit) in the glass tube is very close in the two tests : 34.29% and 34.51% : The roll aways distance is very easily reproductible the differential change is about +- 5mm in the variation of the lenght, this give: delta H = 5 * sin (2.815) = 0.246mm : the delta E = 9.81 * 0.016 * 0.246 = +- 0.039 mJ so, the accuracy of the energy measurement is about : 1% : The measured efficiency : Eff% = ( 3.610 / 3.186) * 100 = 113.3 % : Full test report of the SMOT at: http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/smotnrgt.htm : The measured efficiency of my SMOT is 113.3%... BUT the mechanical losses AFTER the drop of the ball is about 34%... : So this explain why the closed loop is not yet obtained. So this is not due to the principle of the device, but only due to the actual means used for catching the output energy ( the glass tube ). This is only a mechanical design problem... : If you want to learn about the main principle of overunity regauging process, I suggest you to explore this web server : : http://www.hsv.com/writers/bearden/tommenu.htm : Best Regards : Jean-Louis Naudin : </blockquote> : I followed up with the specific question: "Is it possible to put multiple SMOT v1.01 devices together in a loop (so 4 SMOT's would make a square, 5 a pentagon, 6 a hexagon, : etc)? " : and recieved this response: : <blockquote> : May be, but don't forget that the energy gain is very very weak, so the roll away must be frictionless.... : Good luck and good experiments, : Best Regards : Jean-Louis Naudin : </blockquote> : I think if a closed loop SMOT could be built, it would be a huge breakthrough, and would receive worldwide attention because, whether it could do useful work or not, it would be the first real PM machine. : So best of luck to you, Davis, in your attempts to build one! : Scott : : Greg Watson has aparently constructed a self running SMOT circuit and has kindly given all the information on how to build two variants of this interesting little device on the jln labs web site. This device is in his own words a tricky thing to build, percise adjustments have to be made, and the end product won't produce useful amounts of energy, it is nothing more than a perpetual motion toy. I was in the process of constructing my own variant, I had purchased all the track and manufactured the ramps and the steel keepers, but I found out that the ramp sizes were too small so I will have to start over. : : As for the hydraulic perpetual motion machine idea, I can only see a problem if the weights are not sufficiantly lubricated, this is the only way they would cease up. I think that using uneven numbers of weights and pistons is a good idea as it would disrupt the geometry so to speak. Another idea is to use a geometric arrangement of pistons and weights for your rotor, but to use more than one rotor at different stages in rotation all fixed along a common shaft. : : This device could be manufactured in such a way that should it work, you could see all the components. The piston casing could be constructed from a transparent perspex tube, the weights could be made quite easily, I would melt down Bismuth (which melts at about 400 degrees C) and mold it into cylinders that would fit snugly in the tubes. Bismuth is a good metal to use in this instance as it is non toxic unlike lead or mercuary, and it has a higher atomic mass than those two so will weigh more. Perhaps a medium less viscous than water could be used?
(Archived Message)

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Bessler Discussion Board ] [ FAQ ] [ Back to BesslerWheel.com ]