Richard
----- Original Message ----- From: "Grimer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <vortex-L@eskimo.com>
Sent: Friday, May 13, 2005 11:56 PM
Subject: RE: non-looping smot
At 06:48 pm 13-05-05 -0400, Keith wrote:
I hadn't really thought of that...a funny image, that.
All the same, it seems clear from experiment that multiple ramps can be joined in a line. Perhaps as you say, after many such ramps the ball will peter out, hooking somewhere between the exit and entrance. It would seem like frictional losses would mount as you progressed down the line. Yet each ramp could also been seen to be adding a certain amount of energy, to be subtracted on the return trip.
It'd really be better to focus on one ramp, and the critical return circuit. I suggested to Greg, with the usual utter lack of acknowledgement, that this would be his unique piece of IP to be patented. The "heart and soul" of the SMOT. The ramp had already been done by someone else, as I mentioned. He claimed to have not followed up on Emil Hartman, but someone should, probably an interesting story there.
K.
If the SMOT does actually work I can see theoretical reasons why it might. In effect one would be taking the ball around a generalized Carnot cycle with magnetic field stress as the analog of pressure and gravity as the analogue of temperature. I discussed the hierarchical nature of the Carnot cycle in one of my previous emails.
If you think about it carefully, the magnetic field is stretching the ball horizontally and the gravitational field is stretching the ball vertically.
=================== In Hoc Signo Vinces ;-) ===================
Also, because the two effects are acting at right angles they are acting as virtually independent variables like finite x and y dimensions.
I shall do as you suggest and look at Naudin's site more thoroughly.
If the effect is real then it could depend on the orientation of the apparatus in relation to the "fixed stars" for the reasons discussed on Ing.Saviour's web-site some time ago.
However, like the Wright brothers flight, it only needs one legitimate example for PoP.
Cheers
Frank Grimer
P.S. I have just re-read your post above and realise that you make a very important observation:
"Yet each ramp could also been seen to be adding a certain amount of energy, to be subtracted on the return trip."
If orientation in space is important then it will be impossible to close the circle since energy will indeed be gained in one direction but lost in the reverse.
