Working Attraction Magnet Motor on Youtube!?

[Omnibus]

This spontaneous jump appears to be central to your analysis.  In the SMOT scenario, the mechanical advantage the ramp allows the magnetic bars to overcome the force of gravity and pull the ball up to point C.  But without this mechanical advantage, there would be no "jumping up and falling back."

Of course. Central to my analysis is the specific construction which allows for excess energy to be obtained. Should the construction be different there will be no excess energy obtained in the general case. That?s the whole point. And the fact that excess energy is obtained with this particular construction is true beyond doubt, hope you already understand that. Production of excess energy is construction dependent, it?s a function of the construction, if you will.

How can any excess energy can be created when all that happens is that a temporary mechanical advantage allows one force to temporarily dominate another?  The SMOT's design is clever in that the ramp ends. If the ramp did not end, the ball would get stuck at C.  Conversely, if there was no ramp, the ball would be at B forever.  But even in the clever classical configuration, there is no way to get the ball back to B with even the tiniest frictional losses, because a ramp does not create energy, it just allows one side to prevail for a while.

That?s exactly the point?if there?s a way (and there is, indeed; SMOT shows that there is) for the part of the closed loop in one field the ball to be dominated by another field, then the net energy in the first field will not be zero. Zero is only the integral in a conservative field along a closed loop. The integral along non-closed loop in a conservative field is not zero.

Therefore, don?t speculate what will happen if this or that. In this particular configuration it does what my analysis shows, in other configurations it may or may not. Understand first what it does in the configuration we?re discussing. Don?t distract yourself with other configurations.

Mind you again, prevailing for a while is the key here. It prevails for a while properly so that one field assists the other and vice versa. As a result energy is obtained which does not have a source. This is seen more thoroughly by the concrete analysis of the energy terms I?ve presented.

This reminds me of all the failed perpetual motion wheel designs.  They all invariably rely solely on mechanical advantage, with things shifting from inside parts of the wheel to the exterior.  We all know at this point that mechanical advantage alone is a dead end, and I really do not see how the SMOT is anything more.

No, as seen in this particular case (the SMOT) it isn?t a dead end if by ?mechanical advantage? you mean one properly overlaid conservative field assisting another one and vice versa. In whatever perpetuum mobile?s you have in mind it may be a dead end, not here, though.

Finally, I have to ask, do you really think that the reason the ball cannot make it back to B is due to frictional losses?  Honestly?  A steel ball rolling along a smooth surface has very low rolling friction, because unlike a tire wheel or something similar, there is virtually no deformation.  SMOT enthusiasts make claims of 113% unity.  Surely the extra 13% percent, or heck even 3%, ought to be enough to keep a steel ball rolling along a smooth track, no?  Doesn't this observation give you the slightest pause?

I really think that the excess energy produced in SMOT is not produced in the proper form (see, for instance, how far from A-B line is the excess kinetic energy produced and what inappropriate for the purposes of going from A to B the direction of ball?s velocity is). Let alone the frictional losses, rotational energy losses, etc. The proper way to utilize SMOT-like mechanisms is along the way @xpenzif?s construction does (or Finsrud?s for that matter).

Don't you think it would be prudent to actually measure frictional losses and see if they can possibly account for the lack of kinetic energy of the ball as it arrives back at A (or exits C, or escapes the magnetic pull of C, whichever you prefer)?

No, I don?t. The analysis of the SMOT stands on its own legs without any further necessity of additional measurements to validate it. It definitively proves that excess energy is produced discontinuously. Like I said, because of the problems explained above I don?t think that SMOT in it?s original rendition can be made easily into a self-sustaining machine. Not to speak that there will be no practical use for such a self-sustaining machine. As I?ve said many times already, the practical solutions must be sought along the lines of the SMOT-like devices such as the one shown by @xpenzif (Finsrud?s self-sustaining device, although of great scientific value, won?t serve any practical purpose either).

[tinu]

Finsrud is a very decent and honest person. I don?t see what he has to do with SMOT or with perpetual motion/free energy. He stated several times that he created a perpetual work-of-art sculpture. Which means that he never claimed it is perpetual in the sense of over-unity or free energy.
I appreciate him for his genius. He is a genius indeed, as so many looks to his machines and few (if any) imagine what?s keeping it moving. But remember: it is work-of-art. That?s why he is reluctant in discussing it.
Now: I may be wrong, of course. But until I find a statement directly coming from Finsrud that his machine is a free-energy one, I guess I?ll keep my views.

Tinu

[Omnibus]

Finsrud is a very decent and honest person. I don?t see what he has to do with SMOT or with perpetual motion/free energy. He stated several times that he created a perpetual work-of-art sculpture. Which means that he never claimed it is perpetual in the sense of over-unity or free energy.
I appreciate him for his genius. He is a genius indeed, as so many looks to his machines and few (if any) imagine what?s keeping it moving. But remember: it is work-of-art. That?s why he is reluctant in discussing it.
Now: I may be wrong, of course. But until I find a statement directly coming from Finsrud that his machine is a free-energy one, I guess I?ll keep my views.

Tinu

You're wrong. I've met with him personally and he does claim this to be a perpetuum mobile. He also showed me a number of contraptions which he has made in the course of 30 years in his quest for perpetuum mobile. The device which he is showing on display now, based on the SMOT principle, is the only one working. As I have said many, many times I still have some subtle questions regarding his device and I told him there are some very simple additional experiments to be made in order to exclude that this is a very efficient re-distributor of initially imparted energy. Unfortunately, the guy is too burnt-out from trying to convince people in the validity of his claim (he's been visited by all kinds of parties, in the course of more than a decade, unsuccessfully trying to debunk it) that he just doesn't care anymore to convince anyone in anything.

[shruggedatlas]

Of course. Central to my analysis is the specific construction which allows for excess energy to be obtained. Should the construction be different there will be no excess energy obtained in the general case. That?s the whole point. And the fact that excess energy is obtained with this particular construction is true beyond doubt, hope you already understand that. Production of excess energy is construction dependent, it?s a function of the construction, if you will.

OK, how about a test?  What do you think of the test below.  In the first trial, you just have a straight ramp.  Place a steel ball at A, let it go, and measure exit velocity at B.  In the second trial, you have a SMOT ramp in between.  Do the same thing.

Do you think this is a valid experiment of whether or not the SMOT can produce excess energy?  I think it is.  After all, the ball's velocity upon exiting the SMOT ramp is still going in the correct direction.  We can even smooth out the curves of the SMOT, since the ball will have sufficient built-up velocity to escape the SMOT even with a gentle slope at the end.

The thing I like about this experiment is that it does not require overunity, and the drag on the ball is largely identical in both ramps.  We just have to see if the SMOT adds any velocity.

What do you think?

[Omnibus]

Of course. Central to my analysis is the specific construction which allows for excess energy to be obtained. Should the construction be different there will be no excess energy obtained in the general case. That?s the whole point. And the fact that excess energy is obtained with this particular construction is true beyond doubt, hope you already understand that. Production of excess energy is construction dependent, it?s a function of the construction, if you will.

OK, how about a test?  What do you think of the test below.  In the first trial, you just have a straight ramp.  Place a steel ball at A, let it go, and measure exit velocity at B.  In the second trial, you have a SMOT ramp in between.  Do the same thing.

Do you think this is a valid experiment of whether or not the SMOT can produce excess energy?  I think it is.  After all, the ball's velocity upon exiting the SMOT ramp is still going in the correct direction.  We can even smooth out the curves of the SMOT, since the ball will have sufficient built-up velocity to escape the SMOT even with a gentle slope at the end.

The thing I like about this experiment is that it does not require overunity, and the drag on the ball is largely identical in both ramps.  We just have to see if the SMOT adds any velocity.

What do you think?

I see you're trying but that's not a good analogy either. Just read carefully what I explained above and try not to distract yourself with such obviously bogus analogies.