Pauls Device; a damn shame he regrets revealing it.

[Omnibus]

You're making unsubstantiated claims.  Please show me a graphical representation of the gravitational and magnetic potential energy budgeting of the SMOT, and show me where the excess energy comes from.

I already did that on several occasions in this thread. Go back and read what I explained. I cannot post the same thing over and over again just because you don?t understand it. It will turn into a perpetual discussion if I?d do that which is useless (unlike a perpetual motion machine which is not).

The ball in the SMOT moss assuredly winds up at a lower potential than when it starts (but is raised to the starting potential when the operator picks it up and places it at the "input" again.

As I said, in the device we?re discussing the ball starts and ends up at the same magnetic and gravitational potential ? the ball starts at point C (?initial position?) and ends up at point C (?initial position?). In the device we?re discussing the ball goes along a closed loop. One cycle in the device we?re discussing consists of a closed loop. Therefore, most assuredly, the ball in the device under discussion here winds up at exactly the same potential as its potential when it starts.

Stop your arm waving and prove your point.  I've proven mine, so prove yours.

No, you have not proven your point. You think you have but you haven?t.

[_GonZo_]

On the contrary. A device which is turning by itself, that is, a device producing energy, without energy being spent for its turning, is the ultimate overunity device ? a perpetuum mobile (perpetual motion machine).

An elecron turning and vibrating around the nucleous never stops (perpetual motion) and it is not given out any enegy and it is not taking any energy to turn.
A satelite turning around the earth never stops (perpetual motion) and it is not given out any enegy and it is not taking any energy to turn.
The earth turning around the earth never stops (perpetual motion) and it is not given out any enegy and it is not taking any energy to turn.
Etc.

Almost all of the devices posted in this forum if acelerated by hand and then realesed, will turn for ever by itself and never stop. And they will not need any energy to keep turning and they will not give out any energy, they just will keep theyr momentum. 
But there is friction in the earth so they stop 

That is the newton law of conservation of the momentun that aparently you have no idea what it is...

Every post you do are just supositions, your "demostrations" are not based on observation or on theory or on calculations, they are just supositions...
Why I say this:
I have not seen any deviced constructed by you.
I have not seen any theory or calculartions made by you on any post.
Just only supositios like: if that were and if and if and if... man, phisiscs does not work that way, you have to write down the formulas, you have to do grafs, you have to experiment. To do so you need to know the laws, the formulas, the theorya, etc... and you do not know them, so stop talking about things that you do not know and dont understand.

Just listen, observe and learn.

[Omnibus]

An elecron turning and vibrating around the nucleous never stops (perpetual motion) and it is not given out any enegy and it is not taking any energy to turn.

Mechanical turning of an electron around the nucleus is a notion from the high school textbooks. This is not the current professional view of the behavior of the electron.

A satelite turning around the earth never stops (perpetual motion) and it is not given out any enegy and it is not taking any energy to turn. The earth turning around the earth never stops (perpetual motion) and it is not given out any enegy and it is not taking any energy to turn.
Etc.

This is a wrong analogy. You figure it out why.

Almost all of the devices posted in this forum if acelerated by hand and then realesed, will turn for ever by itself and never stop. And they will not need any energy to keep turning and they will not give out any energy, they just will keep theyr momentum.  Shocked
But there is friction in the earth so they stop

Not so. Snyder?s and Torbay?s devices will not stop turning because there is friction. And, yes, they give out energy.

That is the newton law of conservation of the momentun that aparently you have no idea what it is...

Newton?s law of conservation of momentum is mentioned here out of context.

Every post you do are just supositions, your "demostrations" are not based on observation or on theory or on calculations, they are just supositions...

Not so, Snyder?s and Torbay?s demonstrations are not suppositions but actual experiments.

Why I say this:
I have not seen any deviced constructed by you.
I have not seen any theory or calculartions made by you on any post.
Just only supositios like: if that were and if and if and if... man, phisiscs does not work that way, you have to write down the formulas, you have to do grafs, you have to experiment. To do so you need to know the laws, the formulas, the theorya, etc... and you do not know them, so stop talking about things that you do not know and dont understand.

Just listen, observe and learn.

Obviously, you?re not an accomplished scientist. If you were you would know that you don?t need to have done every experiment yourself so that you can draw theoretical conclusions. Besides, quality theoretical conclusions in physics can be drawn also without formuli. Math is only a helping hand in physics, to make life easier. Physics makes math not vice versa.

See, you don?t know these things probably because you haven?t been engaged in serious research, publishing in peer-reviewed journals etc. The way you present yourself in this discussion is of a person with limited credentials in science.

[berferd]

As I said, in the device we?re discussing the ball starts and ends up at the same magnetic and gravitational potential ? the ball starts at point C (?initial position?) and ends up at point C (?initial position?). In the device we?re discussing the ball goes along a closed loop. One cycle in the device we?re discussing consists of a closed loop. Therefore, most assuredly, the ball in the device under discussion here winds up at exactly the same potential as its potential when it starts.

You say the ball starts at point C and ends at point C.  I agree, both the gravitational and magnetic potentials are unchanged in going from point C to point C.

But, notice that to get the thing started you need to pick up the ball and place it at point A.  In doing this you are raising the ball's combined gravitational/magnetic potential.  You are addiing energy to the system.  This energy comes back out of the system as the ball moves to point B then to point C.

You say that all the energy you add to the system in doing this is returned, and in addition you get a "present" of some excess energy.

All I am asking is that you illustrate where that excess energy is coming from.

I have provided two graphical representations of the SMOT showing the gravitational and magnetic potential energy budgeting through the entire cycle, and I have shown that the operator adds energy to the system in moving the ball from the "initial position" (C) to the "input to the device" (A).  You take issue with this.  Please provide what you believe to be the correct energy budgeting through the entire cycle and show where excess energy is coming from.

Don't just tell me I'm wrong.  Show me.

[lancaIV]

More interesting as the SMOT(-Watson/Naudin experiment) is the
Naudin "Push and Pull" experiment and the result
and the step-for-step potentials !
(Greater "SMOT" version:butlerlabs)

Sincerely
            de Lanca