Working Attraction Magnet Motor on Youtube!?

[shruggedatlas]

Not at all. That's the issue. Every little SMOT produces excess energy because the completion of its loop is assisted by the follow up independent little SMOT, the two SMOT's only being mechanically constrained. And so on. The very fact that this pattern is repeated and this goes on and on causing continuous rotation causing the drum to make full turns is itself the proof for the violation of CoE in @xpenzif's device.

Fine, how about the test below?  There are two SMOT ramps in succession, the second taking over before the first can complete itself.  This should be sufficient to create the phenomenon you speak of, and at B, we should be able to detect the change in velocity.  What do you think?

[Omnibus]

That's the same thing as the previous proposal. No excess energy here since everything is about juggling with an initially imparted amount of energy.

[shruggedatlas]

That's the same thing as the previous proposal. No excess energy here since everything is about juggling with an initially imparted amount of energy.

I am not simply juggling.  I am passing a moving ball through an allegedly overunity device.

This is bordering on the ridiculous, and I am beginning to feel silly.  You claim the SMOT is overunity.  You claim it imparts energy to the travelling ball.  You claim this energy is created out of nothing.  Yet when the ball leaves the SMOT, there is no trace of this extra energy.  This makes no sense whatsoever.

What practical test of a single SMOT can demonstrate its overunity?  Unless you mean it is only overunity during the ball's ascent, but is not overunity by the time the ball leaves the SMOT.  In which case the SMOT is not really overunity.

[Omnibus]

What I'm claiming is one thing while what you're presenting here is a completely different thing. You're trying to connect them and I've been telling you continuously that you're on the wrong path. Your device is not an overunity device and that should already be clear.

[shruggedatlas]

What I'm claiming is one thing while what you're presenting here is a completely different thing. You're trying to connect them and I've been telling you continuously that you're on the wrong path. Your device is not an overunity device and that should already be clear.

I am doing my best to understand.  Please help.  Which part am I getting wrong about a single SMOT scenario, where the ball starts out on a downward ramp, as shown below?  Let's break them into components.

1.  The ball enters the SMOT at point X, traveling at (k1) meters per second.
2.  The SMOT simultaneously lifts and accelerates the ball, thus imparting it with extra kinetic energy plus extra potential gravitational energy.
3.  The energy imparted in step 2 is created out of nothing.
4.  At the peak of the SMOT ramp, point Y, the ball is traveling at (k1 + k2) meters per second, with k2 being the additional kinetic energy imparted by the magnets.
5.  At the peak of the SMOT ramp, point Y, the ball then drops to point Z, gaining additional kinetic energy from the fall, though losing some kinetic energy due to the increase in magnetic potential energy (magnetic drag).
6.  At point Z, the ball is travelling at (k1 + k2 - k3) meters per second, where k3 is the magnetic drag after exiting Y (or My - Mz, if you will).
7.  At point B, the ball is travelling at (k1 + k2 - k3 + k4), where k4 is the increased speed due to the acceleration between point Z and point B.

Where did I go wrong?