How this was done in 1821.....

[Omnibus]

you guys are missing an important fact here. the ball does not require a drop to Point A - this drop is set there for a convienence. once the ball leaves the magnetic field there is kenetic energy imparted on the ball its travel UP the ramp. Someone needs to give this set-up a secondary ramp BACK DOWN, at a slightly lesser grade, so that the ramp ends at point B, where the ball started. NOT below it.

The input energy = the energy needed to lift the ball through the gravitational field to point B MINUS the energy imparted on the ball at slightly before point B when it starts to PULL the bal INTO the ramp!!!
The output energy = the Kenetic energy of the moving ball PLUS the potential energy gained by the incline.

An accurate measurement of this devices Intput vs Output will be the energy rremaining to transport the ball from point C BACK DOWN a secondary (nonmagnetic) ramp around the point B. - If the ball does not have the energy to do that, then te device is obviously not OU. 

BUT dropping the ball all the way down to Point A makes arguing over this a mute point, for the simple fact that the energy to lift ball from point A UP to point B is MUCH more than the energy put into the system initially.

Take point A out of the equation and do NOT let the ball drop BELOW point B. This is the only way you will get it to work, unles your smot ramp is approx 3 feet longer to compensate for the losses you incurr moving from A to B.

This is an incorrect analysis because instead of reading what I wrote you're trying to fantasize groundlessly. Restrain from posting such gibberish. The correct analysis is already given above and the only thing you need to do is to read it carefully and to try to  understand it.

[sm0ky2]

(+mgh1 +Mb) - (+mgh1 ?(Ma ? Mb) - Mb) = +Ma + Mb = +Ma +mgh2 + [kinetic ...+]


i believe this is YOUR equation?  ou are missing something at the end, which is a subtraction of energy from Point A to Point B which the cycle must undergo to sustain itself - hence energy taken away from the ball from the time it reaches point A until it reaches point B and restarts the cycle.

the end of he equation should include ::

    - mgh(B - A)  where B and A are the heights of the point respectively. This ammount of energy is put INTO the system to start the next cycle, and is not ACCOUNTED FOR in your equation above.

HOW does the ball get FROM point A TO point B WITHOUT this additional energy subtracted from the system?

if you feel i am wrong about this, then please explain to to me where that energy is accounted for. 

that is a pure vertical climb from point A to point B, which i believe in your particular model is approx. 8.75" ?

the ball MUST make this climb in order to repeat the cycle, and the energy value for which is represented as

- mgh(B - A), the ONLY way to change this so it fits your original equation is to place both points A and B at the same height.

[Omnibus]

(+mgh1 +Mb) - (+mgh1 ?(Ma ? Mb) - Mb) = +Ma + Mb = +Ma +mgh2 + [kinetic ...+]


i believe this is YOUR equation?  ou are missing something at the end, which is a subtraction of energy from Point A to Point B which the cycle must undergo to sustain itself - hence energy taken away from the ball from the time it reaches point A until it reaches point B and restarts the cycle.

the end of he equation should include ::

    - mgh(B - A)  where B and A are the heights of the point respectively. This ammount of energy is put INTO the system to start the next cycle, and is not ACCOUNTED FOR in your equation above.

HOW does the ball get FROM point A TO point B WITHOUT this additional energy subtracted from the system?

if you feel i am wrong about this, then please explain to to me where that energy is accounted for. 

that is a pure vertical climb from point A to point B, which i believe in your particular model is approx. 8.75" ?

the ball MUST make this climb in order to repeat the cycle, and the energy value for which is represented as

- mgh(B - A), the ONLY way to change this so it fits your original equation is to place both points A and B at the same height.

Like I said, read carefully my analysis, try to understand it and stop writing stupidities such as the above. Enough of this.

[hansvonlieven]

The only gibberish posted in this thread is from Omnibus.

You might have convinced Stefan that you are a physics professor, in my eyes and in the eyes of many others you have no idea of physics and you are a complete ill mannered, arrogant idiot.

Please note that I am writing this under my real name with a real photograph and a real website and e-mail address and don't shield under an idiotic name like Omnibus.

Hans von Lieven

Incidentally, SMOT is NOT a religion, so don't attack anyone who questions it as a heretic.

LET THE FLAMES BEGIN !

[Omnibus]

Listen, you incompetent idiot. Not only that you don't understand Physics and therefore have no say in the matters at hand but you are arrogant and are continuously offending me not only by calling me names but mainly by ignoring my legitimate arguments. Stupid jerk, shut up or you will hear more of these characteristics which you most definitely deserve. Enough is enough. Someone must put a stop to the stupidities, ignoring of the scientific method and the offensive language the likes of you are practicing.