Pauls Device; a damn shame he regrets revealing it.

[Omnibus]

First, you should convince yourself that the SMOT produces periodically excess energy before you ask further questions. You are trying to sidetrack the conversation and in this way to cover up your lack of understanding.

Your lack of understanding shows in the following sentence:

One would think the fact that it stops after one cycle, and requires you to manually place the ball back at the input would be a big clue that it doesn't create free energy.  (And if it's a "trivial engineering task" to arrange it so the ball does wind up back at the beginning to cycle itself ad infinitum, why has nobody done it?  This would surely blow the skeptics' minds.)

That is incorrect. The fact that it stops and requires you manually to place the ball back at the input cannot serve at all as an argument against the production of excess energy after a particular cycle.

As I explained already several times the work to place manually the ball back at the input is more than fully compensated by the energy the ball releases when it falls back from the output of the device to the initial position. Not only that the said work is recovered but an additional energy is also given off equal to the potential energy which the ball has acquired spontaneously (under the action of the magnetic field) when the field lifted it up the ramp.

You make me repeat this over and over again because you don?t want to hear it. Your lack of desire to hear this argument and to understand it doesn?t constitute a refutation.

Both gravity and magnetism are conservative fields.  No matter how clever you think you are in arranging motion through either field or a combination of both fields, it's impossible to extract energy from a process whose starting and ending points are exactly the same (i.e. the same magnetic potential and the same gravitational potential).  The fact that you have to pick up the ball from the ending point (your "initial position") and manually place it at the starting point (your "input to the device") should tell you these two points are not the same.

This is incorrect. In the conservative magnetic field of the SMOT part of the motion along the closed loop is done spontaneously, without you spending work (namely, the work to raise the ball up the ramp). On the other hand, the work along this closed loop to raise the ball from the initial position to the input is also compensated fully and spontaneously by the gravity. Thus, the closed loop consists of three parts

1) work spent by you to lift the ball from the initial position to the level where the input is,

2) work returned to you by gravity to bring down the ball from the level the input is to the initial position. This recovered work fully compensates the work spent by you when lifting the ball.

3) plus the work returned to you by gravity which brings the ball from the top of the ramp to the level where input is. This work is in addition to any work that you have spent during the cycle.

You, of course, don?t gain any energy along a closed loop in a conservative field if you have gone along the loop all by yourself. If somewhere along this closed loop you have been helped for free to go along some part of it you do gain energy. Indeed, for the section of the closed loop which causes the ball to go up the ramp you have spent no energy. The energy spent for the said raising is a ?present? to you when you do the overall balance.

Understand this first before you go further with your questions.

[berferd]

Understand this first before you go further with your questions.

OK.  I will stipulate to whatever you claim about the deivce.  Now, please answer this:

This is a pretty simple device.  Do you have any guesses why nobody has ever succeeded in accomplishing the "trivial engineering task" of getting the ball to get back to the "input of the device" by itself so it recycles by itself?  This would definitely blow the skeptics' minds.  Why hasn't anybody done it?

[Omnibus]

Understand this first before you go further with your questions.

OK.  I will stipulate to whatever you claim about the deivce.  Now, please answer this:

This is a pretty simple device.  Do you have any guesses why nobody has ever succeeded in accomplishing the "trivial engineering task" of getting the ball to get back to the "input of the device" by itself so it recycles by itself?  This would definitely blow the skeptics' minds.  Why hasn't anybody done it?

As I said, before asking questions such as the above, understand what I already explained. You are trying to avoid this step and you think in avoiding it you refute something. No, you don?t.

[berferd]

Understand this first before you go further with your questions.

OK.? I will stipulate to whatever you claim about the deivce.? Now, please answer this:

This is a pretty simple device.? Do you have any guesses why nobody has ever succeeded in accomplishing the "trivial engineering task" of getting the ball to get back to the "input of the device" by itself so it recycles by itself?? This would definitely blow the skeptics' minds.? Why hasn't anybody done it?

As I said, before asking questions such as the above, understand what I already explained. You are trying to avoid this step and you think in avoiding it you refute something. No, you don?t.

Oh, come on.  I understand exactly what you've already explained.  I just don't agree with it.

Whether I believe the device produces free energy or not has absolutely nothing to do with any reasons why nobody has ever accomplished the "trivial engineering task" (your words) of getting the ball to get back to the "input of the device" by itself so it recycles by itself.

I am asking you a simple question.  Why do you refuse to answer?

My position is that the device does *not* produce free energy.  This is consistent with well known and thorougly tested physical laws, and it explains why nobody has ever "closed the loop".  Your position is that the device *does* produce free energy.  This goes against well known and thoroughly testes physical laws and raises the question: Why hasn't anybody ever "closed the loop" and shut the skeptics up?

Your refusal to answer the question speaks volumes.

[Omnibus]

Oh, come on.  I understand exactly what you've already explained.  I just don't agree with it.

This statement is unsupported by viable arguments. People utter various things and claim they agree or disagree. This doesn?t mean that their opinions express truth. Truth in science is only achieved through viable arguments based on the scientific method. You have given none.

My position is that the device does *not* produce free energy.

Your position on that matter is wrong and I explained why. You opinion cannot express truth just because it?s your opinion. You have to understand that.

This is consistent with well known and thorougly tested physical laws, and it explains why nobody has ever "closed the loop".

My explanation is consistent with the well known and thoroughly tested physical laws. The fact that you don?t understand that doesn?t mean that my explanation is in violation of these laws.

Closing the loop is not one of the requirements for the explanation I gave to be consistent with the known physical laws. You do not understand that. This lack of understanding bothers you and you keep asking questions irrelevant to the discussion.

Your position is that the device *does* produce free energy.  This goes against well known and thoroughly testes physical laws

No, it doesn?t. My explanation doesn?t go against well known and thoroughly tested physical laws. You don?t understand that and you?d better try to understand it before you go any further. Otherwise you will keep asking questions which are irrelevant to this discussion.

and raises the question: Why hasn't anybody ever "closed the loop" and shut the skeptics up?

As I said, closing the loop is not a requirement for the SMOT to produce periodically excess energy.

Periodically ...

Your refusal to answer the question speaks volumes.

This is nonsense. Your question is as childish as the following questions:

Why is it that we have not seen a self-sustained Tokamak and every time we ask the recipients of billions of dollars for the project they always postpone the deadline with 50 years?

Why weren?t computers on our desks 57 years ago? Scam artists then were talking gibberish about some new sort of binary computation that may turn one day useful.