Pauls Device; a damn shame he regrets revealing it.

[hartiberlin]

Maybe he does not understand, that the steel ball is sucked in automatically at the start into the track ?!
It does not have to be pushed in ! I am currently at my PDA and can?t see the graphics...

[Omnibus]

Don't see attachment ...

OK, now I see it ...

[Omnibus]

_GonZo_, the machine in the graph you've shown is not what we're discussing. We're discussing a SMOT and what you've shown is not a SMOT. Please, go back in the discussion to acquaint yourself with the setup we are talking about.

[_GonZo_]

Belive it or not it is the same machine, but much more simple.

I have no idea what is a SMOT, but looking at this grafic I do not need to see how it is... this grafic correspond to a machine like the one I posted even if you think that no, I am sure Berfer will tell you that it is correct.

[maxwellsdemon]

You never understood that the energy the operator spends to pick up the ball and place it at the input is fully compensated when the ball returns to the initial position.

It would be, if the ball returned to the initial position. The problem is that the ball doesn't return to the initial position.

It starts "here" (before the ramp) and ends "there" (after the ramp.)

That it ends up at the same height is irrelevant, because you're not taking into account the magnetic field.
If you make a SMOT that ends at a higher point than the start, the magnetic drag at the end will not allow the
ball to escape the field and roll back to the input. It is sitting at the bottom of a potential energy pit.

The SMOT device has been around for 20 years and no one has made a continous looping version.
Closing the loop would be TRIVIAL to do if there were a net energy gain in the system.

The fact that no one has a perpetually cycling SMOT sitting on their desk now, after the total number of manhours
and heaps of money that have been poured into this little toy worldwide, strongly suggests to me that it is impossible.