Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [hameltech] Re: Geometry/Weight Cone Testing

Expand Messages
  • Dan LaRochelle
    Hi Mike, How about a rough drawing or something of this set up? Dan LaRochelle ... __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Kick off
    Message 1 of 6 , Aug 9, 2000
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi Mike,

      How about a rough drawing or something of this set up?

      Dan LaRochelle



      --- Mike Morrissey <mjm500@...> wrote:
      > Ludo-
      >
      > My Universe Model consists of:
      >
      > 1. A circle track for a steel ball to roll in. This
      > track is tilted
      > from horizontal slightly, so that the ball will
      > settle at the low
      > point.
      > 2. A disk magnet offset from center in the middle of
      > the track. This
      > helps pull the magnet to the top. If you consider 0
      > degrees the
      > positive X-axis, and 90 degrees the positive y-axis,
      > then the magnet
      > is offset around the 95 degree mark, with the low
      > point of the track
      > at the 270 degree mark.
      > 3. A ring of magnets directly above the track which
      > helps reduce the
      > force of gravity at all points on the ball path. The
      > interesting part
      > is this: The plain in which these magnets are
      > oriented is first
      > aligned parallel to the track plain, and then
      > shimmed up at the 180
      > degree mark.
      >
      > Like I mentioned before, this is nothing more than a
      > curved SMOT. I'm
      > just sure this can work, and so I release this idea
      > saddly to the
      > public, since I have not gotten it to work yet. I
      > would have liked to
      > have positive results to release as well.
      >
      > When you plot all of the forces individually (use
      > x-axis as the
      > position on the track in radians----use y-axis as
      > the force acting on
      > the ball--forces that help the ball move forward are
      > positive, forces
      > that hinder the ball are negative), you get some
      > interesting sine
      > looking waves. Then when you sum them, you have
      > positive directional
      > forces on ALMOST the entire revolution of the ball.
      > The one spot
      > where you don't depends upon the weight of the ball
      > and velocity of
      > the rotation to get past this spot.
      >
      > I hope you try this. After working with it a while,
      > you will see how
      > directly this relates to the oscillation of a cone.
      >
      > Mike Mo.
      >
      > --- In hameltech@egroups.com, "Ludo Willems"
      > <willems_segers@p...>
      > wrote:
      > > Mike,
      > > This looks very promessing, if you have plans
      > please let me know,
      > I'd like
      > > to do some experimenting myself
      > > Regards,
      > > Ludo
      > > Belgium
      > > ----- Original Message -----
      > > From: Mike Morrissey <mjm500@e...>
      > > To: <hameltech@egroups.com>
      > > Sent: Monday, August 07, 2000 3:34 PM
      > > Subject: [hameltech] Geometry/Weight Cone Testing
      > >
      > >
      > > > After many attempts at the Universe Model, I
      > have decided that a
      > > > single cone should oscillate perpetually outside
      > the drum by
      > using a
      > > > fixed base and a top rejection magnet at a
      > slight tilt.
      > > >
      > > > My theory suggests that the driving force of the
      > cones is purely
      > > > gravitational momentum, with a momentum 'kick'
      > through the tough
      > spot
      > > > on the rejection magnet. This is nothing more
      > than a curved SMOT.
      > > >
      > > > To work, the rejection magnet should be at a
      > slight tilt, to boost
      > > > the gravitational force on the tilted cone at
      > one spot on the
      > > > oscillation. The WEIGHT of the cone times the
      > cosine of the tilt
      > > > angle times the rim radius gives you the angular
      > momentum factor.
      > > > This is then multiplied by the velocity (v) of
      > the oscillation =
      > > > ANGULAR MOMENTUM. This is the force that gets
      > the cone past the
      > > > tough spot on the rejection magent.
      > > >
      > > > So you can see that a wider cone will produce a
      > larger angular
      > > > momentum. So will the weight of the rim, and the
      > angle of tilt.
      > You
      > > > must balance these factors to get the single
      > cone to oscillate
      > > > perpetually, given an initial starting
      > oscillation at the minimum
      > > > velocity(v). If you can't do this with a single
      > cone, your cone
      > > > design will not work in the 3CD either.
      > > >
      > > > Of course, the single cone will not produce
      > energy effects, but it
      > > > should show perpetual motion. Understanding the
      > driving force of a
      > > > single cone is critical when trying to get three
      > cones to work
      > > > together inside a drum.
      > > >
      > > > Suggestion---Experiment with different tilts of
      > the rejection
      > magnet
      > > > in your 3CD's. Start with just a bit of sheet
      > metal to shim one
      > edge
      > > > of the lid magnet on one side. Then add more and
      > more thicknesses
      > to
      > > > the shim. I'm betting that the required shim for
      > starting a
      > machine
      > > > is greater that the required shim for a machine
      > at full speed. So
      > > > ideally, you should try to design an adjustable
      > tilting rejection
      > > > magnet. This way, after you start your 3CD you
      > can slowly flatten
      > out
      > > > the rejection magnet.
      > > >
      > > > Mike Mo.
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > To Post a message, send it to: hameltech@e...
      > > >
      > > > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to:
      > hameltech-
      > unsubscribe@e...
      > > >
      > > > Subscribe: hameltech-subscribe@egroups.com
      > > >
      > > > List owner: hameltech-owner@egroups.com
      > > >
      > > > URL to egroups hameltech page:
      > > > http://www.egroups.com/group/hameltech
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      >
      >


      __________________________________________________
      Do You Yahoo!?
      Kick off your party with Yahoo! Invites.
      http://invites.yahoo.com/
    • The Szymanek's
      Hi Mike This is a interesting idea you have, where you are headed with it is leading you closer to a weight into speed setup. WIS (weight into speed), has the
      Message 2 of 6 , Aug 9, 2000
      • 0 Attachment
        Hi Mike
        This is a interesting idea you have, where you are headed with it is
        leading you closer to a weight into speed setup. WIS (weight into
        speed), has the ball rolling on a cone, just like the planets move. It
        is forever falling. The moon is continuously falling towards the earth,
        it is falling fast enough that the surface of the earth falls out from
        under it at the same rate (because the earth is round), and thus the
        moon never hits the earth. I learned this in physics 30 and had a good
        argument with the teacher as why this isn't harnessing gravity to create
        a continuous motion. With the proper setup in a WIS device the ball acts
        like the moon, falling forever, thanks to the isotope line.
        You have a very interesting proposal for a non linear SMOT. I like the
        idea of using magnets to carry most of the ball's weight. This will help
        reduce losses, which has been a problem with roll around SMOTs.
        Something you might want to consider adding to your setup is to make the
        track elliptical. This will make it more like the planets. You might be
        able to get more of a slight shot effect with that? I found with my TOMI
        experiments I could make the track flat and make the roller go with out
        regauging if the acceleration was fast enough. I don't know if making
        the track elliptical would be good or not, just something to consider I
        guess.
        While this is still different than the Hamel tech, I think weight into
        speed can yield some clues. If you use a weighty ball (a large ball
        bearing, like 1" or more) and use the magnets above it to support it
        weight, you will get plenty of inertia, which you need to get the ball
        over the "hump", and still have very little friction. I would also make
        the upper magnetic ring adjustable, so you can get it so the ball is
        just ready to jump up, but not quite. Then you can get lots of inertia
        without lots of friction. JLN labs measured the SMOT to be up to 113%
        efficient, but it had like 34% losses at the drop. If you can keep the
        losses under 13% you will have it. The support magnets will take care of
        most of the friction. I don't know if your using a drop to regauge, but
        if you are don't make it a drop, but a very steep hill, so you will get
        more of the drop converted to forward motion. That is where most (nearly
        all) of the losses were in Jean-Louis' test. Greg Watson was building
        roll around devices, his record continuous run time was over 5 minutes I
        think. It was very close, but the losses must have been just a little
        over the output, and caught up with it.
        Anyway that is just my "dual copper discs" worth. I enjoyed working with
        this kinda stuff for quite a while last year. Heck maybe if I get some
        extra time I will work with it again. I think your on the right track,
        good luck!
        -Justin



        Mike Morrissey wrote:
        >
        > Ludo-
        >
        > My Universe Model consists of:
        >
        > 1. A circle track for a steel ball to roll in. This track is tilted
        > from horizontal slightly, so that the ball will settle at the low
        > point.
        > 2. A disk magnet offset from center in the middle of the track. This
        > helps pull the magnet to the top. If you consider 0 degrees the
        > positive X-axis, and 90 degrees the positive y-axis, then the magnet
        > is offset around the 95 degree mark, with the low point of the track
        > at the 270 degree mark.
        > 3. A ring of magnets directly above the track which helps reduce the
        > force of gravity at all points on the ball path. The interesting part
        > is this: The plain in which these magnets are oriented is first
        > aligned parallel to the track plain, and then shimmed up at the 180
        > degree mark.
        >
        > Like I mentioned before, this is nothing more than a curved SMOT. I'm
        > just sure this can work, and so I release this idea saddly to the
        > public, since I have not gotten it to work yet. I would have liked to
        > have positive results to release as well.
        >
        > When you plot all of the forces individually (use x-axis as the
        > position on the track in radians----use y-axis as the force acting on
        > the ball--forces that help the ball move forward are positive, forces
        > that hinder the ball are negative), you get some interesting sine
        > looking waves. Then when you sum them, you have positive directional
        > forces on ALMOST the entire revolution of the ball. The one spot
        > where you don't depends upon the weight of the ball and velocity of
        > the rotation to get past this spot.
        >
        > I hope you try this. After working with it a while, you will see how
        > directly this relates to the oscillation of a cone.
        >
        > Mike Mo.
        >
        > --- In hameltech@egroups.com, "Ludo Willems" <willems_segers@p...>
        > wrote:
        > > Mike,
        > > This looks very promessing, if you have plans please let me know,
        > I'd like
        > > to do some experimenting myself
        > > Regards,
        > > Ludo
        > > Belgium
        > > ----- Original Message -----
        > > From: Mike Morrissey <mjm500@e...>
        > > To: <hameltech@egroups.com>
        > > Sent: Monday, August 07, 2000 3:34 PM
        > > Subject: [hameltech] Geometry/Weight Cone Testing
        > >
        > >
        > > > After many attempts at the Universe Model, I have decided that a
        > > > single cone should oscillate perpetually outside the drum by
        > using a
        > > > fixed base and a top rejection magnet at a slight tilt.
        > > >
        > > > My theory suggests that the driving force of the cones is purely
        > > > gravitational momentum, with a momentum 'kick' through the tough
        > spot
        > > > on the rejection magnet. This is nothing more than a curved SMOT.
        > > >
        > > > To work, the rejection magnet should be at a slight tilt, to boost
        > > > the gravitational force on the tilted cone at one spot on the
        > > > oscillation. The WEIGHT of the cone times the cosine of the tilt
        > > > angle times the rim radius gives you the angular momentum factor.
        > > > This is then multiplied by the velocity (v) of the oscillation =
        > > > ANGULAR MOMENTUM. This is the force that gets the cone past the
        > > > tough spot on the rejection magent.
        > > >
        > > > So you can see that a wider cone will produce a larger angular
        > > > momentum. So will the weight of the rim, and the angle of tilt.
        > You
        > > > must balance these factors to get the single cone to oscillate
        > > > perpetually, given an initial starting oscillation at the minimum
        > > > velocity(v). If you can't do this with a single cone, your cone
        > > > design will not work in the 3CD either.
        > > >
        > > > Of course, the single cone will not produce energy effects, but it
        > > > should show perpetual motion. Understanding the driving force of a
        > > > single cone is critical when trying to get three cones to work
        > > > together inside a drum.
        > > >
        > > > Suggestion---Experiment with different tilts of the rejection
        > magnet
        > > > in your 3CD's. Start with just a bit of sheet metal to shim one
        > edge
        > > > of the lid magnet on one side. Then add more and more thicknesses
        > to
        > > > the shim. I'm betting that the required shim for starting a
        > machine
        > > > is greater that the required shim for a machine at full speed. So
        > > > ideally, you should try to design an adjustable tilting rejection
        > > > magnet. This way, after you start your 3CD you can slowly flatten
        > out
        > > > the rejection magnet.
        > > >
        > > > Mike Mo.
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > > > To Post a message, send it to: hameltech@e...
        > > >
        > > > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: hameltech-
        > unsubscribe@e...
        > > >
        > > > Subscribe: hameltech-subscribe@egroups.com
        > > >
        > > > List owner: hameltech-owner@egroups.com
        > > >
        > > > URL to egroups hameltech page:
        > > > http://www.egroups.com/group/hameltech
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        >
        >
        >
        > To Post a message, send it to: hameltech@...
        >
        > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: hameltech-unsubscribe@...
        >
        > Subscribe: hameltech-subscribe@egroups.com
        >
        > List owner: hameltech-owner@egroups.com
        >
        > URL to egroups hameltech page:
        > http://www.egroups.com/group/hameltech
      • Mike Morrissey
        I m glad you all are interrested! Justin, your right--the elliptical path you mentioned IS essential--I had been using circles, but after graphing the center
        Message 3 of 6 , Aug 9, 2000
        • 0 Attachment
          I'm glad you all are interrested!

          Justin, your right--the elliptical path you mentioned IS essential--I
          had been using circles, but after graphing the center magnets pull
          using an elliptical ball path, the results are MUCH better! ----Now
          how can I build a nice ellipse track for my ball? I was using a
          router on a homemade 'compass arm' to route out a circle in a piece
          of plywood. But ellipses may be much more difficult.

          One thing about graphing the forces acting on the ball---only count
          the partial vector of each force TANGENT to the ball path. The tracks
          hold the ball in place and absorb the remainder of the forces.
          Example--at the top of the circle, the gravity force is zero. Same as
          at the bottom of the circle. On the upward moving side, gravity is a
          negative force-that is, it doesn't help us. On the downward side,
          gravity is positive-it does help us. Just graphing the gravity then
          gets us a negative cosine wave. The amplitude depends upon the angle
          you have the plane of the track. THIS is where gravity wheels usually
          fail---they try to beat ALL 9.81 of gravity instead of just trying to
          beat a little bit of it like the SMOT! Now make another graph of the
          top magets forces, and the another graph of the center magnrts
          forces. Then sum the three---It is soooo cool. I'm rambling now.

          But aside from my Universe model, my M3CD is coming along--I need to
          mount my magnets to my base pieces, which are ready with pinions. I
          used a small circle cut from pingpong balls and embedded them into
          epoxy. This is just like the marble thing with epoxy, and W-D 40 to
          keep it from sticking. I had a hard time keeping mine from sticking,
          so I just used cut up pingpong balls and left the pieces in the
          epoxy. I have really been procrastinating taking photos for the web.
          Sorry---I will try to get to that soon.

          Mike Mo.

          BTW---Its great to hear about all those cool breezes!!! Making some
          energy!!!!

          --- In hameltech@egroups.com, "The Szymanek's" <szymanek@c...> wrote:
          > Hi Mike
          > This is a interesting idea you have, where you are headed
          with it is
          > leading you closer to a weight into speed setup. WIS (weight into
          > speed), has the ball rolling on a cone, just like the planets move.
          It
          > is forever falling. The moon is continuously falling towards the
          earth,
          > it is falling fast enough that the surface of the earth falls out
          from
          > under it at the same rate (because the earth is round), and thus the
          > moon never hits the earth. I learned this in physics 30 and had a
          good
          > argument with the teacher as why this isn't harnessing gravity to
          create
          > a continuous motion. With the proper setup in a WIS device the ball
          acts
          > like the moon, falling forever, thanks to the isotope line.
          > You have a very interesting proposal for a non linear SMOT. I
          like the
          > idea of using magnets to carry most of the ball's weight. This will
          help
          > reduce losses, which has been a problem with roll around SMOTs.
          > Something you might want to consider adding to your setup is to
          make the
          > track elliptical. This will make it more like the planets. You
          might be
          > able to get more of a slight shot effect with that? I found with my
          TOMI
          > experiments I could make the track flat and make the roller go with
          out
          > regauging if the acceleration was fast enough. I don't know if
          making
          > the track elliptical would be good or not, just something to
          consider I
          > guess.
          > While this is still different than the Hamel tech, I think
          weight into
          > speed can yield some clues. If you use a weighty ball (a large ball
          > bearing, like 1" or more) and use the magnets above it to support it
          > weight, you will get plenty of inertia, which you need to get the
          ball
          > over the "hump", and still have very little friction. I would also
          make
          > the upper magnetic ring adjustable, so you can get it so the ball is
          > just ready to jump up, but not quite. Then you can get lots of
          inertia
          > without lots of friction. JLN labs measured the SMOT to be up to
          113%
          > efficient, but it had like 34% losses at the drop. If you can keep
          the
          > losses under 13% you will have it. The support magnets will take
          care of
          > most of the friction. I don't know if your using a drop to regauge,
          but
          > if you are don't make it a drop, but a very steep hill, so you will
          get
          > more of the drop converted to forward motion. That is where most
          (nearly
          > all) of the losses were in Jean-Louis' test. Greg Watson was
          building
          > roll around devices, his record continuous run time was over 5
          minutes I
          > think. It was very close, but the losses must have been just a
          little
          > over the output, and caught up with it.
          > Anyway that is just my "dual copper discs" worth. I enjoyed working
          with
          > this kinda stuff for quite a while last year. Heck maybe if I get
          some
          > extra time I will work with it again. I think your on the right
          track,
          > good luck!
          > -Justin
          >
          >
          >
          > Mike Morrissey wrote:
          > >
          > > Ludo-
          > >
          > > My Universe Model consists of:
          > >
          > > 1. A circle track for a steel ball to roll in. This track is
          tilted
          > > from horizontal slightly, so that the ball will settle at the low
          > > point.
          > > 2. A disk magnet offset from center in the middle of the track.
          This
          > > helps pull the magnet to the top. If you consider 0 degrees the
          > > positive X-axis, and 90 degrees the positive y-axis, then the
          magnet
          > > is offset around the 95 degree mark, with the low point of the
          track
          > > at the 270 degree mark.
          > > 3. A ring of magnets directly above the track which helps reduce
          the
          > > force of gravity at all points on the ball path. The interesting
          part
          > > is this: The plain in which these magnets are oriented is first
          > > aligned parallel to the track plain, and then shimmed up at the
          180
          > > degree mark.
          > >
          > > Like I mentioned before, this is nothing more than a curved SMOT.
          I'm
          > > just sure this can work, and so I release this idea saddly to the
          > > public, since I have not gotten it to work yet. I would have
          liked to
          > > have positive results to release as well.
          > >
          > > When you plot all of the forces individually (use x-axis as the
          > > position on the track in radians----use y-axis as the force
          acting on
          > > the ball--forces that help the ball move forward are positive,
          forces
          > > that hinder the ball are negative), you get some interesting sine
          > > looking waves. Then when you sum them, you have positive
          directional
          > > forces on ALMOST the entire revolution of the ball. The one spot
          > > where you don't depends upon the weight of the ball and velocity
          of
          > > the rotation to get past this spot.
          > >
          > > I hope you try this. After working with it a while, you will see
          how
          > > directly this relates to the oscillation of a cone.
          > >
          > > Mike Mo.
          > >
          > > --- In hameltech@egroups.com, "Ludo Willems" <willems_segers@p...>
          > > wrote:
          > > > Mike,
          > > > This looks very promessing, if you have plans please let me
          know,
          > > I'd like
          > > > to do some experimenting myself
          > > > Regards,
          > > > Ludo
          > > > Belgium
          > > > ----- Original Message -----
          > > > From: Mike Morrissey <mjm500@e...>
          > > > To: <hameltech@egroups.com>
          > > > Sent: Monday, August 07, 2000 3:34 PM
          > > > Subject: [hameltech] Geometry/Weight Cone Testing
          > > >
          > > >
          > > > > After many attempts at the Universe Model, I have decided
          that a
          > > > > single cone should oscillate perpetually outside the drum by
          > > using a
          > > > > fixed base and a top rejection magnet at a slight tilt.
          > > > >
          > > > > My theory suggests that the driving force of the cones is
          purely
          > > > > gravitational momentum, with a momentum 'kick' through the
          tough
          > > spot
          > > > > on the rejection magnet. This is nothing more than a curved
          SMOT.
          > > > >
          > > > > To work, the rejection magnet should be at a slight tilt, to
          boost
          > > > > the gravitational force on the tilted cone at one spot on the
          > > > > oscillation. The WEIGHT of the cone times the cosine of the
          tilt
          > > > > angle times the rim radius gives you the angular momentum
          factor.
          > > > > This is then multiplied by the velocity (v) of the
          oscillation =
          > > > > ANGULAR MOMENTUM. This is the force that gets the cone past
          the
          > > > > tough spot on the rejection magent.
          > > > >
          > > > > So you can see that a wider cone will produce a larger angular
          > > > > momentum. So will the weight of the rim, and the angle of
          tilt.
          > > You
          > > > > must balance these factors to get the single cone to oscillate
          > > > > perpetually, given an initial starting oscillation at the
          minimum
          > > > > velocity(v). If you can't do this with a single cone, your
          cone
          > > > > design will not work in the 3CD either.
          > > > >
          > > > > Of course, the single cone will not produce energy effects,
          but it
          > > > > should show perpetual motion. Understanding the driving force
          of a
          > > > > single cone is critical when trying to get three cones to work
          > > > > together inside a drum.
          > > > >
          > > > > Suggestion---Experiment with different tilts of the rejection
          > > magnet
          > > > > in your 3CD's. Start with just a bit of sheet metal to shim
          one
          > > edge
          > > > > of the lid magnet on one side. Then add more and more
          thicknesses
          > > to
          > > > > the shim. I'm betting that the required shim for starting a
          > > machine
          > > > > is greater that the required shim for a machine at full
          speed. So
          > > > > ideally, you should try to design an adjustable tilting
          rejection
          > > > > magnet. This way, after you start your 3CD you can slowly
          flatten
          > > out
          > > > > the rejection magnet.
          > > > >
          > > > > Mike Mo.
          > > > >
          > > > >
          > > > >
          > > > >
          > > > > To Post a message, send it to: hameltech@e...
          > > > >
          > > > > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: hameltech-
          > > unsubscribe@e...
          > > > >
          > > > > Subscribe: hameltech-subscribe@egroups.com
          > > > >
          > > > > List owner: hameltech-owner@egroups.com
          > > > >
          > > > > URL to egroups hameltech page:
          > > > > http://www.egroups.com/group/hameltech
          > > > >
          > > > >
          > > > >
          > > > >
          > > > >
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > > To Post a message, send it to: hameltech@e...
          > >
          > > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: hameltech-
          unsubscribe@e...
          > >
          > > Subscribe: hameltech-subscribe@egroups.com
          > >
          > > List owner: hameltech-owner@egroups.com
          > >
          > > URL to egroups hameltech page:
          > > http://www.egroups.com/group/hameltech
        • Patrick Parsons
          Hi Mike, Ok , I can visualize this setup and almost see it working. To my thinking, a setup very much like you describe with the magnet directly above the
          Message 4 of 6 , Aug 9, 2000
          • 0 Attachment
            Hi Mike,

            Ok , I can visualize this setup and almost see it working.
            To my thinking, a setup very much like you describe with the magnet
            directly above the track might work IF you where to "cut" the the track and
            the surface the steel ball rolls on from the outside to the center axis.
            Then raise one side of this "cut" a bit. Keep the ring of magnets that are
            above , level or possibly make then get a bit closer to the track by
            "dipping" down the closer the ball gets the the cut in the track.

            If set up properly the ball should roll "uphill" getting closer and closer
            to the magnets but not so close that when it falls off the high side of the
            track that it is pulled to the upper magnets.

            THIS is how I visualize it working, However when I have had time to
            thoroughly think this through, I will probably find a flaw in it.

            But Hay! It sure does sound interesting to play with.

            Patrick P.


            > Ludo-
            >
            > My Universe Model consists of:
            >
            > 1. A circle track for a steel ball to roll in. This track is tilted
            > from horizontal slightly, so that the ball will settle at the low
            > point.
            > 2. A disk magnet offset from center in the middle of the track. This
            > helps pull the magnet to the top. If you consider 0 degrees the
            > positive X-axis, and 90 degrees the positive y-axis, then the magnet
            > is offset around the 95 degree mark, with the low point of the track
            > at the 270 degree mark.
            > 3. A ring of magnets directly above the track which helps reduce the
            > force of gravity at all points on the ball path. The interesting part
            > is this: The plain in which these magnets are oriented is first
            > aligned parallel to the track plain, and then shimmed up at the 180
            > degree mark.
            >
            > Like I mentioned before, this is nothing more than a curved SMOT. I'm
            > just sure this can work, and so I release this idea saddly to the
            > public, since I have not gotten it to work yet. I would have liked to
            > have positive results to release as well.
            >
            > When you plot all of the forces individually (use x-axis as the
            > position on the track in radians----use y-axis as the force acting on
            > the ball--forces that help the ball move forward are positive, forces
            > that hinder the ball are negative), you get some interesting sine
            > looking waves. Then when you sum them, you have positive directional
            > forces on ALMOST the entire revolution of the ball. The one spot
            > where you don't depends upon the weight of the ball and velocity of
            > the rotation to get past this spot.
            >
            > I hope you try this. After working with it a while, you will see how
            > directly this relates to the oscillation of a cone.
            >
            > Mike Mo.
            >
            > --- In hameltech@egroups.com, "Ludo Willems" <willems_segers@p...>
            > wrote:
            > > Mike,
            > > This looks very promessing, if you have plans please let me know,
            > I'd like
            > > to do some experimenting myself
            > > Regards,
            > > Ludo
            > > Belgium
            > > ----- Original Message -----
            > > From: Mike Morrissey <mjm500@e...>
            > > To: <hameltech@egroups.com>
            > > Sent: Monday, August 07, 2000 3:34 PM
            > > Subject: [hameltech] Geometry/Weight Cone Testing
            > >
            > >
            > > > After many attempts at the Universe Model, I have decided that a
            > > > single cone should oscillate perpetually outside the drum by
            > using a
            > > > fixed base and a top rejection magnet at a slight tilt.
            > > >
            > > > My theory suggests that the driving force of the cones is purely
            > > > gravitational momentum, with a momentum 'kick' through the tough
            > spot
            > > > on the rejection magnet. This is nothing more than a curved SMOT.
            > > >
            > > > To work, the rejection magnet should be at a slight tilt, to boost
            > > > the gravitational force on the tilted cone at one spot on the
            > > > oscillation. The WEIGHT of the cone times the cosine of the tilt
            > > > angle times the rim radius gives you the angular momentum factor.
            > > > This is then multiplied by the velocity (v) of the oscillation =
            > > > ANGULAR MOMENTUM. This is the force that gets the cone past the
            > > > tough spot on the rejection magent.
            > > >
            > > > So you can see that a wider cone will produce a larger angular
            > > > momentum. So will the weight of the rim, and the angle of tilt.
            > You
            > > > must balance these factors to get the single cone to oscillate
            > > > perpetually, given an initial starting oscillation at the minimum
            > > > velocity(v). If you can't do this with a single cone, your cone
            > > > design will not work in the 3CD either.
            > > >
            > > > Of course, the single cone will not produce energy effects, but it
            > > > should show perpetual motion. Understanding the driving force of a
            > > > single cone is critical when trying to get three cones to work
            > > > together inside a drum.
            > > >
            > > > Suggestion---Experiment with different tilts of the rejection
            > magnet
            > > > in your 3CD's. Start with just a bit of sheet metal to shim one
            > edge
            > > > of the lid magnet on one side. Then add more and more thicknesses
            > to
            > > > the shim. I'm betting that the required shim for starting a
            > machine
            > > > is greater that the required shim for a machine at full speed. So
            > > > ideally, you should try to design an adjustable tilting rejection
            > > > magnet. This way, after you start your 3CD you can slowly flatten
            > out
            > > > the rejection magnet.
            > > >
            > > > Mike Mo.
            > > >
            > > >
            > > >
            > > >
            > > > To Post a message, send it to: hameltech@e...
            > > >
            > > > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: hameltech-
            > unsubscribe@e...
            > > >
            > > > Subscribe: hameltech-subscribe@egroups.com
            > > >
            > > > List owner: hameltech-owner@egroups.com
            > > >
            > > > URL to egroups hameltech page:
            > > > http://www.egroups.com/group/hameltech
            > > >
            > > >
            > > >
            > > >
            > > >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            > To Post a message, send it to: hameltech@...
            >
            > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: hameltech-unsubscribe@...
            >
            > Subscribe: hameltech-subscribe@egroups.com
            >
            > List owner: hameltech-owner@egroups.com
            >
            > URL to egroups hameltech page:
            > http://www.egroups.com/group/hameltech
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
          • Mike Morrissey
            BTW--Here s another idea that I think will help show the relation of the Universe Model to the cones of a 3CD: Try hanging your top cone by a string from the
            Message 5 of 6 , Aug 10, 2000
            • 0 Attachment
              BTW--Here's another idea that I think will help show the relation of
              the Universe Model to the cones of a 3CD:

              Try hanging your top cone by a string from the point. Now the cone is
              upside-down. Lower the hanging point until the rim is within a ring
              of magnets, just like the 3CD. Now put a repelling magnet underneath
              the cone to push it up. Now just give it an initial swing. It's a
              hoola-hoop type deal. In a hoola-hoop, you move your hips
              continuously to keep the thing oscillating. But with this setup, you
              shim up the repelling magnet slightly on one side to give a single
              boost of the 'hips'. One thing, though, the gap between the rim and
              the ring magnets should be much bigger than in a 3CD. If it isn't,
              the cone will just bounce back and forth instead of following a
              circular oscillation. In a 3CD, this is true also, except we are
              trying to build so perfectly that the oscillation circle has a teeny-
              tiny little path. You may have to adjust the string length to get
              the 'effective' cone height right.

              This relates to the Universe Model in that if you take a snapshot
              photo during motion, you see that the cone is offset from the center
              of the ring magnets. This is true in the 3CD too, just on a much
              smaller scale (you can't even see the offset because it is so small).

              Mike Mo.

              --- In hameltech@egroups.com, "Mike Morrissey" <mjm500@e...> wrote:
              > I'm glad you all are interrested!
              >
              > Justin, your right--the elliptical path you mentioned IS essential--
              I
              > had been using circles, but after graphing the center magnets pull
              > using an elliptical ball path, the results are MUCH better! ----Now
              > how can I build a nice ellipse track for my ball? I was using a
              > router on a homemade 'compass arm' to route out a circle in a piece
              > of plywood. But ellipses may be much more difficult.
              >
              > One thing about graphing the forces acting on the ball---only count
              > the partial vector of each force TANGENT to the ball path. The
              tracks
              > hold the ball in place and absorb the remainder of the forces.
              > Example--at the top of the circle, the gravity force is zero. Same
              as
              > at the bottom of the circle. On the upward moving side, gravity is
              a
              > negative force-that is, it doesn't help us. On the downward side,
              > gravity is positive-it does help us. Just graphing the gravity then
              > gets us a negative cosine wave. The amplitude depends upon the
              angle
              > you have the plane of the track. THIS is where gravity wheels
              usually
              > fail---they try to beat ALL 9.81 of gravity instead of just trying
              to
              > beat a little bit of it like the SMOT! Now make another graph of
              the
              > top magets forces, and the another graph of the center magnrts
              > forces. Then sum the three---It is soooo cool. I'm rambling now.
              >
              > But aside from my Universe model, my M3CD is coming along--I need
              to
              > mount my magnets to my base pieces, which are ready with pinions. I
              > used a small circle cut from pingpong balls and embedded them into
              > epoxy. This is just like the marble thing with epoxy, and W-D 40 to
              > keep it from sticking. I had a hard time keeping mine from
              sticking,
              > so I just used cut up pingpong balls and left the pieces in the
              > epoxy. I have really been procrastinating taking photos for the
              web.
              > Sorry---I will try to get to that soon.
              >
              > Mike Mo.
              >
              > BTW---Its great to hear about all those cool breezes!!! Making some
              > energy!!!!
              >
              > --- In hameltech@egroups.com, "The Szymanek's" <szymanek@c...>
              wrote:
              > > Hi Mike
              > > This is a interesting idea you have, where you are headed
              > with it is
              > > leading you closer to a weight into speed setup. WIS (weight into
              > > speed), has the ball rolling on a cone, just like the planets
              move.
              > It
              > > is forever falling. The moon is continuously falling towards the
              > earth,
              > > it is falling fast enough that the surface of the earth falls out
              > from
              > > under it at the same rate (because the earth is round), and thus
              the
              > > moon never hits the earth. I learned this in physics 30 and had a
              > good
              > > argument with the teacher as why this isn't harnessing gravity to
              > create
              > > a continuous motion. With the proper setup in a WIS device the
              ball
              > acts
              > > like the moon, falling forever, thanks to the isotope line.
              > > You have a very interesting proposal for a non linear SMOT. I
              > like the
              > > idea of using magnets to carry most of the ball's weight. This
              will
              > help
              > > reduce losses, which has been a problem with roll around SMOTs.
              > > Something you might want to consider adding to your setup is to
              > make the
              > > track elliptical. This will make it more like the planets. You
              > might be
              > > able to get more of a slight shot effect with that? I found with
              my
              > TOMI
              > > experiments I could make the track flat and make the roller go
              with
              > out
              > > regauging if the acceleration was fast enough. I don't know if
              > making
              > > the track elliptical would be good or not, just something to
              > consider I
              > > guess.
              > > While this is still different than the Hamel tech, I think
              > weight into
              > > speed can yield some clues. If you use a weighty ball (a large
              ball
              > > bearing, like 1" or more) and use the magnets above it to support
              it
              > > weight, you will get plenty of inertia, which you need to get the
              > ball
              > > over the "hump", and still have very little friction. I would
              also
              > make
              > > the upper magnetic ring adjustable, so you can get it so the ball
              is
              > > just ready to jump up, but not quite. Then you can get lots of
              > inertia
              > > without lots of friction. JLN labs measured the SMOT to be up to
              > 113%
              > > efficient, but it had like 34% losses at the drop. If you can
              keep
              > the
              > > losses under 13% you will have it. The support magnets will take
              > care of
              > > most of the friction. I don't know if your using a drop to
              regauge,
              > but
              > > if you are don't make it a drop, but a very steep hill, so you
              will
              > get
              > > more of the drop converted to forward motion. That is where most
              > (nearly
              > > all) of the losses were in Jean-Louis' test. Greg Watson was
              > building
              > > roll around devices, his record continuous run time was over 5
              > minutes I
              > > think. It was very close, but the losses must have been just a
              > little
              > > over the output, and caught up with it.
              > > Anyway that is just my "dual copper discs" worth. I enjoyed
              working
              > with
              > > this kinda stuff for quite a while last year. Heck maybe if I get
              > some
              > > extra time I will work with it again. I think your on the right
              > track,
              > > good luck!
              > > -Justin
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > > Mike Morrissey wrote:
              > > >
              > > > Ludo-
              > > >
              > > > My Universe Model consists of:
              > > >
              > > > 1. A circle track for a steel ball to roll in. This track is
              > tilted
              > > > from horizontal slightly, so that the ball will settle at the
              low
              > > > point.
              > > > 2. A disk magnet offset from center in the middle of the track.
              > This
              > > > helps pull the magnet to the top. If you consider 0 degrees the
              > > > positive X-axis, and 90 degrees the positive y-axis, then the
              > magnet
              > > > is offset around the 95 degree mark, with the low point of the
              > track
              > > > at the 270 degree mark.
              > > > 3. A ring of magnets directly above the track which helps
              reduce
              > the
              > > > force of gravity at all points on the ball path. The
              interesting
              > part
              > > > is this: The plain in which these magnets are oriented is first
              > > > aligned parallel to the track plain, and then shimmed up at the
              > 180
              > > > degree mark.
              > > >
              > > > Like I mentioned before, this is nothing more than a curved
              SMOT.
              > I'm
              > > > just sure this can work, and so I release this idea saddly to
              the
              > > > public, since I have not gotten it to work yet. I would have
              > liked to
              > > > have positive results to release as well.
              > > >
              > > > When you plot all of the forces individually (use x-axis as the
              > > > position on the track in radians----use y-axis as the force
              > acting on
              > > > the ball--forces that help the ball move forward are positive,
              > forces
              > > > that hinder the ball are negative), you get some interesting
              sine
              > > > looking waves. Then when you sum them, you have positive
              > directional
              > > > forces on ALMOST the entire revolution of the ball. The one spot
              > > > where you don't depends upon the weight of the ball and
              velocity
              > of
              > > > the rotation to get past this spot.
              > > >
              > > > I hope you try this. After working with it a while, you will
              see
              > how
              > > > directly this relates to the oscillation of a cone.
              > > >
              > > > Mike Mo.
              > > >
              > > > --- In hameltech@egroups.com, "Ludo Willems"
              <willems_segers@p...>
              > > > wrote:
              > > > > Mike,
              > > > > This looks very promessing, if you have plans please let me
              > know,
              > > > I'd like
              > > > > to do some experimenting myself
              > > > > Regards,
              > > > > Ludo
              > > > > Belgium
              > > > > ----- Original Message -----
              > > > > From: Mike Morrissey <mjm500@e...>
              > > > > To: <hameltech@egroups.com>
              > > > > Sent: Monday, August 07, 2000 3:34 PM
              > > > > Subject: [hameltech] Geometry/Weight Cone Testing
              > > > >
              > > > >
              > > > > > After many attempts at the Universe Model, I have decided
              > that a
              > > > > > single cone should oscillate perpetually outside the drum by
              > > > using a
              > > > > > fixed base and a top rejection magnet at a slight tilt.
              > > > > >
              > > > > > My theory suggests that the driving force of the cones is
              > purely
              > > > > > gravitational momentum, with a momentum 'kick' through the
              > tough
              > > > spot
              > > > > > on the rejection magnet. This is nothing more than a curved
              > SMOT.
              > > > > >
              > > > > > To work, the rejection magnet should be at a slight tilt,
              to
              > boost
              > > > > > the gravitational force on the tilted cone at one spot on
              the
              > > > > > oscillation. The WEIGHT of the cone times the cosine of the
              > tilt
              > > > > > angle times the rim radius gives you the angular momentum
              > factor.
              > > > > > This is then multiplied by the velocity (v) of the
              > oscillation =
              > > > > > ANGULAR MOMENTUM. This is the force that gets the cone
              past
              > the
              > > > > > tough spot on the rejection magent.
              > > > > >
              > > > > > So you can see that a wider cone will produce a larger
              angular
              > > > > > momentum. So will the weight of the rim, and the angle of
              > tilt.
              > > > You
              > > > > > must balance these factors to get the single cone to
              oscillate
              > > > > > perpetually, given an initial starting oscillation at the
              > minimum
              > > > > > velocity(v). If you can't do this with a single cone, your
              > cone
              > > > > > design will not work in the 3CD either.
              > > > > >
              > > > > > Of course, the single cone will not produce energy effects,
              > but it
              > > > > > should show perpetual motion. Understanding the driving
              force
              > of a
              > > > > > single cone is critical when trying to get three cones to
              work
              > > > > > together inside a drum.
              > > > > >
              > > > > > Suggestion---Experiment with different tilts of the
              rejection
              > > > magnet
              > > > > > in your 3CD's. Start with just a bit of sheet metal to shim
              > one
              > > > edge
              > > > > > of the lid magnet on one side. Then add more and more
              > thicknesses
              > > > to
              > > > > > the shim. I'm betting that the required shim for starting a
              > > > machine
              > > > > > is greater that the required shim for a machine at full
              > speed. So
              > > > > > ideally, you should try to design an adjustable tilting
              > rejection
              > > > > > magnet. This way, after you start your 3CD you can slowly
              > flatten
              > > > out
              > > > > > the rejection magnet.
              > > > > >
              > > > > > Mike Mo.
              > > > > >
              > > > > >
              > > > > >
              > > > > >
              > > > > > To Post a message, send it to: hameltech@e...
              > > > > >
              > > > > > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: hameltech-
              > > > unsubscribe@e...
              > > > > >
              > > > > > Subscribe: hameltech-subscribe@egroups.com
              > > > > >
              > > > > > List owner: hameltech-owner@egroups.com
              > > > > >
              > > > > > URL to egroups hameltech page:
              > > > > > http://www.egroups.com/group/hameltech
              > > > > >
              > > > > >
              > > > > >
              > > > > >
              > > > > >
              > > >
              > > >
              > > >
              > > > To Post a message, send it to: hameltech@e...
              > > >
              > > > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: hameltech-
              > unsubscribe@e...
              > > >
              > > > Subscribe: hameltech-subscribe@egroups.com
              > > >
              > > > List owner: hameltech-owner@egroups.com
              > > >
              > > > URL to egroups hameltech page:
              > > > http://www.egroups.com/group/hameltech
            • The Szymanek's
              Hi Mike, It might also be a good idea to raise the ends that are elliptical. Or maybe somewhere else. What I am saying is that the planets probably don t orbit
              Message 6 of 6 , Aug 10, 2000
              • 0 Attachment
                Hi Mike,
                It might also be a good idea to raise the ends that are elliptical. Or
                maybe somewhere else. What I am saying is that the planets probably
                don't orbit on a flat plane. I think raising the ends and having the
                acceleration magnets on both ends (narrow ends) pulling the ball up the
                ramp, and "sling shot"-ing it around the narrow ends of the track.
                Making a elliptical track will be a tad tricky. Most SMOT builders have
                used aluminum U channel to make their tracks. If you make small cuts in
                the side you can bend it. However the track will have to be fairly
                large, as it can't be bent much. Something that just came to me is that
                plastic lids (off ice cream pails or butter containers) have a groove in
                the underside. Marbles roll good in these. You might be able to cut a
                piece out and glue the rest back together to get a elliptical track. Hot
                glue, wax, or other material could be used to round the corners.
                Well just some ideas to consider...
                -Justin




                Mike Morrissey wrote:
                >
                > I'm glad you all are interrested!
                >
                > Justin, your right--the elliptical path you mentioned IS essential--I
                > had been using circles, but after graphing the center magnets pull
                > using an elliptical ball path, the results are MUCH better! ----Now
                > how can I build a nice ellipse track for my ball? I was using a
                > router on a homemade 'compass arm' to route out a circle in a piece
                > of plywood. But ellipses may be much more difficult.
                >
                > One thing about graphing the forces acting on the ball---only count
                > the partial vector of each force TANGENT to the ball path. The tracks
                > hold the ball in place and absorb the remainder of the forces.
                > Example--at the top of the circle, the gravity force is zero. Same as
                > at the bottom of the circle. On the upward moving side, gravity is a
                > negative force-that is, it doesn't help us. On the downward side,
                > gravity is positive-it does help us. Just graphing the gravity then
                > gets us a negative cosine wave. The amplitude depends upon the angle
                > you have the plane of the track. THIS is where gravity wheels usually
                > fail---they try to beat ALL 9.81 of gravity instead of just trying to
                > beat a little bit of it like the SMOT! Now make another graph of the
                > top magets forces, and the another graph of the center magnrts
                > forces. Then sum the three---It is soooo cool. I'm rambling now.
                >
                > But aside from my Universe model, my M3CD is coming along--I need to
                > mount my magnets to my base pieces, which are ready with pinions. I
                > used a small circle cut from pingpong balls and embedded them into
                > epoxy. This is just like the marble thing with epoxy, and W-D 40 to
                > keep it from sticking. I had a hard time keeping mine from sticking,
                > so I just used cut up pingpong balls and left the pieces in the
                > epoxy. I have really been procrastinating taking photos for the web.
                > Sorry---I will try to get to that soon.
                >
                > Mike Mo.
                >
                > BTW---Its great to hear about all those cool breezes!!! Making some
                > energy!!!!
                >
                > --- In hameltech@egroups.com, "The Szymanek's" <szymanek@c...> wrote:
                > > Hi Mike
                > > This is a interesting idea you have, where you are headed
                > with it is
                > > leading you closer to a weight into speed setup. WIS (weight into
                > > speed), has the ball rolling on a cone, just like the planets move.
                > It
                > > is forever falling. The moon is continuously falling towards the
                > earth,
                > > it is falling fast enough that the surface of the earth falls out
                > from
                > > under it at the same rate (because the earth is round), and thus the
                > > moon never hits the earth. I learned this in physics 30 and had a
                > good
                > > argument with the teacher as why this isn't harnessing gravity to
                > create
                > > a continuous motion. With the proper setup in a WIS device the ball
                > acts
                > > like the moon, falling forever, thanks to the isotope line.
                > > You have a very interesting proposal for a non linear SMOT. I
                > like the
                > > idea of using magnets to carry most of the ball's weight. This will
                > help
                > > reduce losses, which has been a problem with roll around SMOTs.
                > > Something you might want to consider adding to your setup is to
                > make the
                > > track elliptical. This will make it more like the planets. You
                > might be
                > > able to get more of a slight shot effect with that? I found with my
                > TOMI
                > > experiments I could make the track flat and make the roller go with
                > out
                > > regauging if the acceleration was fast enough. I don't know if
                > making
                > > the track elliptical would be good or not, just something to
                > consider I
                > > guess.
                > > While this is still different than the Hamel tech, I think
                > weight into
                > > speed can yield some clues. If you use a weighty ball (a large ball
                > > bearing, like 1" or more) and use the magnets above it to support it
                > > weight, you will get plenty of inertia, which you need to get the
                > ball
                > > over the "hump", and still have very little friction. I would also
                > make
                > > the upper magnetic ring adjustable, so you can get it so the ball is
                > > just ready to jump up, but not quite. Then you can get lots of
                > inertia
                > > without lots of friction. JLN labs measured the SMOT to be up to
                > 113%
                > > efficient, but it had like 34% losses at the drop. If you can keep
                > the
                > > losses under 13% you will have it. The support magnets will take
                > care of
                > > most of the friction. I don't know if your using a drop to regauge,
                > but
                > > if you are don't make it a drop, but a very steep hill, so you will
                > get
                > > more of the drop converted to forward motion. That is where most
                > (nearly
                > > all) of the losses were in Jean-Louis' test. Greg Watson was
                > building
                > > roll around devices, his record continuous run time was over 5
                > minutes I
                > > think. It was very close, but the losses must have been just a
                > little
                > > over the output, and caught up with it.
                > > Anyway that is just my "dual copper discs" worth. I enjoyed working
                > with
                > > this kinda stuff for quite a while last year. Heck maybe if I get
                > some
                > > extra time I will work with it again. I think your on the right
                > track,
                > > good luck!
                > > -Justin
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > > Mike Morrissey wrote:
                > > >
                > > > Ludo-
                > > >
                > > > My Universe Model consists of:
                > > >
                > > > 1. A circle track for a steel ball to roll in. This track is
                > tilted
                > > > from horizontal slightly, so that the ball will settle at the low
                > > > point.
                > > > 2. A disk magnet offset from center in the middle of the track.
                > This
                > > > helps pull the magnet to the top. If you consider 0 degrees the
                > > > positive X-axis, and 90 degrees the positive y-axis, then the
                > magnet
                > > > is offset around the 95 degree mark, with the low point of the
                > track
                > > > at the 270 degree mark.
                > > > 3. A ring of magnets directly above the track which helps reduce
                > the
                > > > force of gravity at all points on the ball path. The interesting
                > part
                > > > is this: The plain in which these magnets are oriented is first
                > > > aligned parallel to the track plain, and then shimmed up at the
                > 180
                > > > degree mark.
                > > >
                > > > Like I mentioned before, this is nothing more than a curved SMOT.
                > I'm
                > > > just sure this can work, and so I release this idea saddly to the
                > > > public, since I have not gotten it to work yet. I would have
                > liked to
                > > > have positive results to release as well.
                > > >
                > > > When you plot all of the forces individually (use x-axis as the
                > > > position on the track in radians----use y-axis as the force
                > acting on
                > > > the ball--forces that help the ball move forward are positive,
                > forces
                > > > that hinder the ball are negative), you get some interesting sine
                > > > looking waves. Then when you sum them, you have positive
                > directional
                > > > forces on ALMOST the entire revolution of the ball. The one spot
                > > > where you don't depends upon the weight of the ball and velocity
                > of
                > > > the rotation to get past this spot.
                > > >
                > > > I hope you try this. After working with it a while, you will see
                > how
                > > > directly this relates to the oscillation of a cone.
                > > >
                > > > Mike Mo.
                > > >
                > > > --- In hameltech@egroups.com, "Ludo Willems" <willems_segers@p...>
                > > > wrote:
                > > > > Mike,
                > > > > This looks very promessing, if you have plans please let me
                > know,
                > > > I'd like
                > > > > to do some experimenting myself
                > > > > Regards,
                > > > > Ludo
                > > > > Belgium
                > > > > ----- Original Message -----
                > > > > From: Mike Morrissey <mjm500@e...>
                > > > > To: <hameltech@egroups.com>
                > > > > Sent: Monday, August 07, 2000 3:34 PM
                > > > > Subject: [hameltech] Geometry/Weight Cone Testing
                > > > >
                > > > >
                > > > > > After many attempts at the Universe Model, I have decided
                > that a
                > > > > > single cone should oscillate perpetually outside the drum by
                > > > using a
                > > > > > fixed base and a top rejection magnet at a slight tilt.
                > > > > >
                > > > > > My theory suggests that the driving force of the cones is
                > purely
                > > > > > gravitational momentum, with a momentum 'kick' through the
                > tough
                > > > spot
                > > > > > on the rejection magnet. This is nothing more than a curved
                > SMOT.
                > > > > >
                > > > > > To work, the rejection magnet should be at a slight tilt, to
                > boost
                > > > > > the gravitational force on the tilted cone at one spot on the
                > > > > > oscillation. The WEIGHT of the cone times the cosine of the
                > tilt
                > > > > > angle times the rim radius gives you the angular momentum
                > factor.
                > > > > > This is then multiplied by the velocity (v) of the
                > oscillation =
                > > > > > ANGULAR MOMENTUM. This is the force that gets the cone past
                > the
                > > > > > tough spot on the rejection magent.
                > > > > >
                > > > > > So you can see that a wider cone will produce a larger angular
                > > > > > momentum. So will the weight of the rim, and the angle of
                > tilt.
                > > > You
                > > > > > must balance these factors to get the single cone to oscillate
                > > > > > perpetually, given an initial starting oscillation at the
                > minimum
                > > > > > velocity(v). If you can't do this with a single cone, your
                > cone
                > > > > > design will not work in the 3CD either.
                > > > > >
                > > > > > Of course, the single cone will not produce energy effects,
                > but it
                > > > > > should show perpetual motion. Understanding the driving force
                > of a
                > > > > > single cone is critical when trying to get three cones to work
                > > > > > together inside a drum.
                > > > > >
                > > > > > Suggestion---Experiment with different tilts of the rejection
                > > > magnet
                > > > > > in your 3CD's. Start with just a bit of sheet metal to shim
                > one
                > > > edge
                > > > > > of the lid magnet on one side. Then add more and more
                > thicknesses
                > > > to
                > > > > > the shim. I'm betting that the required shim for starting a
                > > > machine
                > > > > > is greater that the required shim for a machine at full
                > speed. So
                > > > > > ideally, you should try to design an adjustable tilting
                > rejection
                > > > > > magnet. This way, after you start your 3CD you can slowly
                > flatten
                > > > out
                > > > > > the rejection magnet.
                > > > > >
                > > > > > Mike Mo.
                > > > > >
                > > > > >
                > > > > >
                > > > > >
                > > > > > To Post a message, send it to: hameltech@e...
                > > > > >
                > > > > > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: hameltech-
                > > > unsubscribe@e...
                > > > > >
                > > > > > Subscribe: hameltech-subscribe@egroups.com
                > > > > >
                > > > > > List owner: hameltech-owner@egroups.com
                > > > > >
                > > > > > URL to egroups hameltech page:
                > > > > > http://www.egroups.com/group/hameltech
                > > > > >
                > > > > >
                > > > > >
                > > > > >
                > > > > >
                > > >
                > > >
                > > >
                > > > To Post a message, send it to: hameltech@e...
                > > >
                > > > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: hameltech-
                > unsubscribe@e...
                > > >
                > > > Subscribe: hameltech-subscribe@egroups.com
                > > >
                > > > List owner: hameltech-owner@egroups.com
                > > >
                > > > URL to egroups hameltech page:
                > > > http://www.egroups.com/group/hameltech
                >
                >
                >
                > To Post a message, send it to: hameltech@...
                >
                > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: hameltech-unsubscribe@...
                >
                > Subscribe: hameltech-subscribe@egroups.com
                >
                > List owner: hameltech-owner@egroups.com
                >
                > URL to egroups hameltech page:
                > http://www.egroups.com/group/hameltech
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.