Steel bearing accelerator using neo's -- where does the energy come from?

PhysicsProf · 2013.02.28, 06:02:06

had not seen this before.

Steel bearing accelerator aka Gaussian accelerator.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LqKCblEluqM Circular version.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ylf4CZ_aXEA With description -- linear.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OuP_pdkOJuo How to make, using a ruler, 9 half-inch steel ball bearings and 4 half-inch cube neos

Clearly the kinetic energy of the final ball in each case is MUCH greater than that of the initial ball. It may be that the energy comes from the magnets, in which case the magnets should get weaker and weaker.... I would like to find out!

What do you think? Has this been discussed on one of the ou research forums before? or explained anywhere? thanks.

Steve

Slider2732 · 2013.02.28, 06:41:29

That's ace !
It's like a Newton's Cradle for the military

Or, what we build when the 2nd Amendment gets removed.

OK, this is what I believe happens.
The initial energy is enough to break the bond of the second steel ball on the other side of the first magnet. That ball is then attracted by a constant force from the second magnet...a force which would be constant over a wide range of initial forces that the first ball struck the first magnet with. The first ball need only break the magnetic bond in a shunt effect.
Onward that same situation goes, but the regulated and constant energy imparted by one ball released will always give a kick effect to the next setup along the way.
At some point, the release and kick will find a maximum and that could well be why there are 4 sets of pieces.

At the impact speeds of the assembly, the neo's should last as long as they would in any other circumstance, 100's of years.
The best part, is that the first contact of the assembly need not be at a set speed and that all stages afterward are self regulated by the Newton's Cradle-esque mechanism.

TinMan · 2013.02.28, 09:38:13

Make's for a great toy,and some i have seen get the last ball realy flying.
But i would think the energy required to remove the balls from the magnets so as you can do it again,would be equal to the energy gain of the last ball??

PhysicsProf · 2013.02.28, 14:02:53

Let's simplify this, considering just one stage, one ball in and one ball out.

The initial Kinetic energy K is 1/2 m V^2, and v is small. The ball going out has V say 5 times the Vinit, so Kout is 25 times Kin. Kout >> Kin.

These velocities can (and should) be measured. I would send ball out UPwards and measure either height to get mgh = Kout (straight up) or a more complicated formula if launched at say a 45deg angle.

The question, if Kout>> Kin, where does the energy come from? I was taught somewhere that magnets cannot do net work.

Chet K · 2013.02.28, 14:11:12

Steve
"magnets can not do useful work "

Some folks sitting on the Big magnet planet earth might feel the same way!

intuition.......it just "Nags" at the possibilities ,regardless of "perceived" realities .

Thx
Chet

PhysicsProf · 2013.02.28, 17:35:49

Quote from: tinman on 2013.02.28, 09:38:13
Make's for a great toy,and some i have seen get the last ball realy flying.
But i would think the energy required to remove the balls from the magnets so as you can do it again,would be equal to the energy gain of the last ball??

OK - I'm seeing your point here. It boils down to lower potential energy in the final system, compared to the initial -- and you're probably right.

Slider2732 · 2013.02.28, 21:00:06

This is just a rough mental sketch out of an idea.
Am thinking of a feed and refeed system.
The whole assembly would rest at a downward gradient of a couple of degrees.
Replace the first steel ball with some other material...diamagnetic Bismuth perhaps. Something that would impart eddy currents, rather than metallic mass influence on the magnetic fields. Even copper could be tried.
The ball would strike the first magnet, but be repelled, not until after having influenced the fields of the first magnet.
The same ball material would be used at the other end.
A hair trigger wire would be run over by the exiting ball, which drops the first ball along a track and sends it to the end ball point using gravity.
The time taken would be slightly less than the time taken for the end ball to travel along a similar channel on the other side, around to the start position.
In doing so, both balls would have swapped - but the net gain has been used to form a running machine.
As the exit velocity is much greater than the arrival velocity, the couple of degrees difference in elevation would be covered without issue, as would the ability to run over that hair trigger.

It reminds of that guy with the perpetual machine, that he keeps locked in a room and the balls go around a Rube Goldberg looking contraption.

All forces need not equate out.
For example. Pyrolytic carbon levitating above a neodymium magnet. It will be levitated, stable and the magnet is performing work to the tune of anti-gravitic effects permanently !
Another example would be a fridge magnet holding papers on a fridge door. The magnet can do that forever, with a load always wishing to fall to the floor.
Same situation with the steel bearing accelerator. It can be net work when the magnets are not the whole story of reactions in a machine. In this case the natural constant force would be gravity.

TinMan · 2013.03.01, 11:06:44

Quote from: ramset on 2013.02.28, 14:11:12
Steve
"magnets can not do useful work "

Thx
Chet

Hey Chet-take the PM's out of your PM motor,and lets see how useful it is then lol.

TinMan · 2013.03.01, 14:43:39

Ok-for those that think magnets cant do usful work.
In the video below,we see steel ball's being pulled up a magnetic ramp-nothing new i know,as the ball always gets stuck at the gate ! right? !
Well not in this case.Here we see the steel balls travel up the ramp,exit the gate,change direction and then up another ramp
Some say -but the bucket at the end is lower than the starting ramp.
Forget that-look at the first ramp
The ball being our mass,we can see the mass being excellerated horizontally as well as being lifted virtically-then being released from the gate at the end.
Then it happens all over again after that mass change direction.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mUFhv-QsDvA

Slider2732 · 2013.03.01, 20:01:58

Yes, but would the experiment work if Emily wasn't present ? LOL

What we have there is a transportation of goods method, like a MagLev train system, with no electromagnets.
If the rail was 200 miles long, it would cost a fortune in magnets, but more work would have been done than the dropping of the ball into the track. And, it could do it all day long with zero costs.

In fact, it would be significantly cheaper to do it another way, if used in an assembly line factory - the two systems could be linked. The materials from one area arrive via the magnetic track. As it does so it hits the rail gun type system of the first video and the material of the next part in the assembly process go shooting off to the next stage. However many processing departments were needed could all be transported around for free, using the 2 systems.

Also, that experiment in the vid links with the first one shown for a perpetual machine thought...using a gate to drop the ball by gravity.
Now, obviously having a hole next to the first magnet wouldn't do anything, the ball would suspend in mid air attached to the first magnet.
But, if we consider that while attracted to the next magnet in the rail gun chain, the ball will have magnetic fields of its own, could those fields impart electrical energy to an air core coil to its side as it passes ?
If so, the coil would impart charge to a capacitor and there could be many such collector coils.
The first magnet is replaced with an electromagnet.
By the end of the rail gun thing, the charge would be sufficient to energize the start electromagnet at the exact moment that the ball strikes the coil - so causing the rail gun to work.
That first ball then drops down in the 'gate' fashion that the guy in the second video has built.
And it runs to the end of the rail gun via gravity and attracts to the end magnet - ready to run all over again.

PhysicsProf · 2013.03.01, 20:43:19

Interesting vid, Tinman -- very simple also. Hmmm... I'll think about it as we drive along.

Slider: "
Also, that experiment in the vid links with the first one shown for a perpetual machine thought...using a gate to drop the ball by gravity."

Can you provide the link for THAT vid?
gotta run, or rather, roll.

PhysicsProf · 2013.03.01, 21:35:43

Tinamn: "we see steel ball's being pulled up a magnetic ramp" -- what is the detailed nature of the 'magnetic ramp'? magnets along the way? (sorry, no time to dig for it right now, can you help me out here?)

TinMan · 2013.03.01, 23:04:33

Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2013.03.01, 21:35:43
Tinamn: "we see steel ball's being pulled up a magnetic ramp" -- what is the detailed nature of the 'magnetic ramp'? magnets along the way? (sorry, no time to dig for it right now, can you help me out here?)

It just looks like a normal V gate ramp to me,but the ball drops out of the end gate-insted of getting stuck there.

Slider2732 · 2013.03.02, 03:14:22

@Steve - I was referencing the first video of the thread, with the accelerating ball assembly and linking it with the one that Tinman posted

PhysicsProf · 2013.03.02, 05:02:39

Thanks, Tinman and Slider -- OK, I see now.

Quote from: tinman on 2013.03.01, 23:04:33
It just looks like a normal V gate ramp to me,but the ball drops out of the end gate-insted of getting stuck there.

Has anyone built one of these "V-gate ramps" or equivalent? I'm intrigued...

Slider2732 · 2013.03.02, 06:10:37

Not yet here, but those cylinder V's seen on YouTube are intriguing.
Seems they have a magnet stationary above a rotating assembly of magnets...turning the movements upside down compared to the example in the video above. instead of the 1 magnet moving and the V being stationary, it's the other way around.
At the end of the expanding magnets V shape there is a need to lift over the natural polarity swap gate. The increasing speed of the device as it turns is thought likely enough to supply energy from a small pin or something to lift the attracted magnet up away from the cyclinder at that point.
Kinda like Lenz.
Presumed though, is that whatever extra energy is introduced with rotation, would be 100% used up again in the lifting of the magnet away from the rotating cyclinder.

Here's one example:

NerzhDishual · 2013.03.14, 00:12:05

Hi Prof. Jones and Distinguished Researchers,

Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2013.02.28, 14:02:53
............ I was taught somewhere that magnets cannot do net work.

I'm not scientist but I, curiously(?) was taught this too.

------------------
First (stationary case) : yes, a magnet can hold an heavy object against gravity. But:
"Work, according to the physics definition, is being accomplished while the heavy object
is being lifted but not while the object is stationary."
http://www.cliffsnotes.com/study_guide/Work-and-Energy.topicArticleId-10453,articleId-10418.html

I did read, somewhere, from some scientist, that the fact that a magnet can hold an heavy object against gravity is not surprising at all as a mere nail can performs the same thing.

For that case, I'm just wondering why we do not use inexpensive nails instead of magnets in all these brushed DC motors.

------------------
Second (moving case):
Yes, a magnet seems to perform some work while is is attracted to something or while you put your fingers between 2 attracting magnets. But his is an illusion (save for your poor fingers, of course)...

Actually, this is only half of the story as you have to spend the same amount of energy to restore the initial situation.

Really?
When two (strong) magnets are stuck together, or one single magnet is stuck to the fridge,
which kind of 'pull' do you (or any child!) use to separate them? The 'perpendicular/axial' pull or the 'shearing/tangential' one?

Jean Louis Naudin seems to have some hints about this question:
"The Two Magnets Push-Pull Experiment". Created on 11-10-98!
http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/2magpup.htm
-------------------
>>>>> This is Off Topic:

BTW, IMO: what stands for magnets stands also for plan capacitors.
I mean: it is a well known fact that if you 'increase the gap' between the two plates of of a previously charged plan capacitor you proportionally increase the energy stored in the said capacitor.

Example:

Area of the plates: 1 m2
Air gap between the plates : 8.84 mm
Condenser capacity : 10-3 microFarad (1 nano)

Let the voltage between the plates be : Uinit = 3000 Volts.
The initial energy (IE) stored in the condenser is: 4.5 miliJoules

If we, by any mean, increase the gap between the plate by 10.
New condenser capacity 10-4 microFarad (100 pico).
The new capacity is divided by 10 and the new voltage (Uend) become : 30 000 Volts
Q = C*V ----> V= Q/C (Q is conserved).
The new energy (NE) is : 45 miliJoules.

The energy has been multiplied by 10. What a miracle!

But -according to the same official story- you acquire nothing as you have to use the same amount of gained energy to separate the condenser plates (that are stuck by electrostatic forces). The official maths are right for the 'perpendicular/axial' way. I once verified this.
---------------------
Now: 'increasing the gap' between the two plates of a previously charged plan capacitor = lessen his capacity. Right?
You do not need to increase the gap to lessen the capacity. Please think about these old air plate capacitors used in radio sets.

The only question remains: is -in that case too- a 'shearing/tangential' way more efficient that the 'perpendicular/axial' one?

JL Naudin seems to have begun to answer this question about magnets.
--------------------
Now, my personal question is: might this be one of the secret of the Paul Baumans's Testatika device?
------------------
In topic now:
Anyway, are not a lot of (claimed, indeed) Free Energy devices using this 'useless' magnets? This list is huge. You know it.

Gwella soñjou a-berz Jean-Yves

PhysicsProf · 2013.03.14, 05:10:07

Great to hear from you again, Nerzh mon ami!

I'll digest your notes more later -- too late to digest now perhaps...

Slider2732 · 2013.03.15, 02:23:55

QuoteFor that case, I'm just wondering why we do not use inexpensive nails instead of magnets in all these brushed DC motors

Very glad to read you again !

Yes, shear force against axial force and the radio air capacitors...very very interesting observation. Also perhaps applies to capacitive couplings in Tesla towers, where we may light a fluoro tube near the tower and then walk away with it still lit. The tube goes out at a point, but will not light again until it's back near to the tower. Like some form of elastic electro-magnetic effect is at play, or better termed as capacitive coupling in that radio air capacitor way.
We can consider magnetism related and your off topic example to actually be very much on topic....some believe magnetics to be the same force as electricity. Attractive electricity compared to Resistive electricity.

NerzhDishual · 2013.03.18, 23:35:57

Hello Everybody,

@PhysicsProf: thanks for you very kind reply.

@Slider2732: to me, you are a real Guru. I just feel like an uneducated Newbie.

Quote from: Slider2732 on 2013.03.15, 02:23:55
The tube goes out at a point, but will not light again until it's back near to the tower.

You can say that again! I have noticed this phenomenon.

Yes, "shear" is the correct word.
Would I dare to connect the word "shear" to the word "cheat" via the word "fleece"?
This, according to: http://dico.isc.cnrs.fr/dico/en/search

Now, about 'sharing' (my poor idea) and 'shearing' (IE "cheating"):
What if 'shearing' were a way to 'cheat' Nature?

I'm just thinking about this (first) Bedini's 'Zero Force Motor' vid. Sorry, I can not find the original vid. A kinda 'shearing' configuration, indeed.

Now, according to Paul Babcock (Magnetic Energy Secrets) it is not forbidden but even possible to 'cheat' Nature. Is it not? You 'just' have to figure out the trick.
The question could be: is 'shearing' a more efficient way?

Gwella Soñjou (a tutti) et (gambatte kudasai)
Jean-Yves

PS: OK! The name BEDINI is replaced by a bunch of #.
This name is "B" and "E" and "D" and "I" and "N" and "I"

TinMan · 2013.03.19, 04:45:13

Quote from: NerzhDishual on 2013.03.18, 23:35:57
Hello Everybody,

@PhysicsProf: thanks for you very kind reply.

@Slider2732: to me, you are a real Guru. I just feel like an uneducated Newbie.
You can say that again! I have noticed this phenomenon.

Yes, "shear" is the correct word.
Would I dare to connect the word "shear" to the word "cheat" via the word "fleece"?
This, according to: http://dico.isc.cnrs.fr/dico/en/search

Now, about 'sharing' (my poor idea) and 'shearing' (IE "cheating"):
What if 'shearing' were a way to 'cheat' Nature?

Yes berdineee is a no go name here, and is replaced with #s - which seems to be more fitting.
I'm just thinking about this (first) ######'s 'Zero Force Motor' vid. Sorry, I can not find the original vid. A kinda 'shearing' configuration, indeed.

Now, according to Paul Babcock (Magnetic Energy Secrets) it is not forbidden but even possible to 'cheat' Nature. Is it not? You 'just' have to figure out the trick.
The question could be: is 'shearing' a more efficient way?

Gwella Soñjou (a tutti) et (gambatte kudasai)
Jean-Yves

PS: OK! The name ###### is replaced by a bunch of #.
This name is "B" and "E" and "D" and "I" and "N" and "I"

TinMan · 2013.03.19, 04:48:14

Sorry ND- don't know how my reply ended up in the middle of your quote?
The iPhones seem to have a mind of there own.

NerzhDishual · 2013.03.22, 20:55:39

Hi Mr Tinman (Yet Another Guru, IMO).

Sorry(#1), I'm a very naive individual (although being 65 YO).
Is that the secret for not looking his age?

I was not aware that some specific names were automatically 'eluded/shunned'.

The rules of the game are not so explicit, IMO. Are they?
If some private explanations suits you, I would be very pleased to read them.

Anyway, I -of course- can understand that there could be some (even a lot of) discrepancies
between some people.
So, I will -now- avoid quoting one(?) name here.

Sorry(#2). If the idea is: might any enough complex apparatus exhibit some "mind of their own", my
answer would be: who knows?

Now, if the idea is not the previous one, I must confess that your statement is too cryptic for me.

All the Best From Brest (little Brittany).
Jean

PhysicsProf · 2013.03.25, 16:44:54

Quote from: tinman on 2013.03.01, 14:43:39
...
The ball being our mass,we can see the mass being excellerated horizontally as well as being lifted virtically-then being released from the gate at the end.
Then it happens all over again after that mass change direction.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mUFhv-QsDvA

Being an experimentalist, I look at that vid and wonder -- what if we put that steel ball in a plastic tube in a rough oval shape, not in one plane I think, such that the exiting ball rolls through the tube back to the starting position?

Could we get the ball to repeat its motion up the ramp, then back down to the start position, over and over?