Pauls Device; a damn shame he regrets revealing it.

[Omnibus]

im not fighting agianst free energy...im trying to figure it out by building it...which i have done unsuccessfully

That's why I'm saying, convince yourself first that single SMOT does the job. If you have built a single SMOT and it works then you have been successful in periodic production of excess energy.

[berferd]

Friction has nothing to do with the production of excess energy in SMOT. The excess energy produced is the difference between the potential energy at the output of the device and the potential energy at the input of the device. This difference is acieved spontaneously, by the magnetic field, without external energy input.

Achieved "spontaneously" as long as you ignore the influence of the operator each time he picks the ball up from the final position and places it at the input.

The experimenter doesn't expend energy for the obtainment of the said difference.

This is an article of faith to you, isn't it?

[berferd]

SMOT is an experimental device which demonstrates periodic production of excess energy. The number which you get for the output energy is greater than the number you get for the input energy What other math?

What numbers?  You have posted no numbers.  All we've seen are your empty assertions that you get energy out without putting energy in.

Let's see a full "first law" analysis of this system accounting for gravitational potential energy, magnetic potential energy, and kinetic energy at each step in the process.  If you are careful, you will see that the ball winds up at a lower potential (combined gravitational/magnetic) than where it starts, and that the operator is raising the ball's potential by removing it from the final position and placing it at the input to start another cycle.

Your repeated statement "First you must convince yourself that the SMOT produces excess energy." is very typical of a cult mentality.  The indoctrinee must accept certain assertions as true before any further discussion can take place.  Sorry, science doesn't work that way.

So, please post a full first law analysis accounting for gravitational potential energy, magnetic potential energy, and kinetic energy at each step in the process. 

Empty assertions don't cut it -- especially when they violate physical laws.  Let's see your analysis.

[Omnibus]

Friction has nothing to do with the production of excess energy in SMOT. The excess energy produced is the difference between the potential energy at the output of the device and the potential energy at the input of the device. This difference is acieved spontaneously, by the magnetic field, without external energy input.

Achieved "spontaneously" as long as you ignore the influence of the operator each time he picks the ball up from the final position and places it at the input.

Not at all. The work done by the operator is fully compensated when the ball falls back to the initial position.

The experimenter doesn't expend energy for the obtainment of the said difference.

This is an article of faith to you, isn't it?

Not so. This is a point which you don?t understand. Don?t accuse others for your lack of understanding.

SMOT is an experimental device which demonstrates periodic production of excess energy. The number which you get for the output energy is greater than the number you get for the input energy What other math?

What numbers?  You have posted no numbers.  All we've seen are your empty assertions that you get energy out without putting energy in.

Numbers to that matter exist. See here http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/smotidx.htm

The person whom I replied to (lancaIV) didn?t post numbers although he was mentioning numbers. What numbers? He posted no numbers. All we?ve seen are his empty assertions about numbers.

Let's see a full "first law" analysis of this system accounting for gravitational potential energy, magnetic potential energy, and kinetic energy at each step in the process.  If you are careful, you will see that the ball winds up at a lower potential (combined gravitational/magnetic) than where it starts, and that the operator is raising the ball's potential by removing it from the final position and placing it at the input to start another cycle.

The ball ends up exactly at the same position where it started. The combined gravitational-magnetic potential at the end is exactly the same as at the beginning. You don?t need numbers to figure that out. A ball at one and the same position (at the beginning and at the end) cannot have two different potentials. Your requirement to give numbers to that effect only speaks about your confusion.

Numbers play a role before that ? when along the loop the ball covers a section of it spontaneously, gaining spontaneously gravitational potential energy and then spontaneously releasing it.

You don?t get this and never will. Give it up. Don?t torture yourself.

Your repeated statement "First you must convince yourself that the SMOT produces excess energy." is very typical of a cult mentality.  The indoctrinee must accept certain assertions as true before any further discussion can take place.  Sorry, science doesn't work that way.

So, please post a full first law analysis accounting for gravitational potential energy, magnetic potential energy, and kinetic energy at each step in the process.

Empty assertions don't cut it -- especially when they violate physical laws.  Let's see your analysis.

This is nonsense which needn?t be answered. See explanation above.

[Paul-R]

The SMOT ball gains potential energy, m x g x h. It is as
simple as that, Berferd.

With reference to the Paul Sprain motor, the
interesting point is why Yasunori Takahashi, the father
of VCRs with many patents behind him, did not patent his device.
I think it is because his view was that there was no real
"Inventive Step" between Minato's patent and his motor. It
was not worth the risk and cost.

The US office granted Paul's patent. Why they did not
quote Minato is odd. But they are sloppy people. The EPO
has failed to move to a grant as yet, and that is significant.