Pauls Device; a damn shame he regrets revealing it.

[lancaIV]

metacafe-video:magnetic-balls-gun

S
  d L

[Omnibus]

After the ball stops at the end of the cycle (in the "initial position") , is there any magnetic force acting upon it?

Magnetic force on the ball, if any, at the initial position is always the same after each cycle.

When you place the ball in the "input to the device" and before you let go of it, is there any magnetic force acting upon it?

Yes there is and it is exactly the same for each cycle. Besides, the magnetic force acting on the ball when placing it at the input of the device is attractive. This makes the work you do to place it there less than the work you would need to place the ball there if there were no magnetic field. This is in favor of producing even more excess energy (in the overall energy balance) than if not accounting for the said attractive force.

When you move the ball from the "initial position" to the "input to the device", are you moving the ball from one physical location to another?  (i.e. are the "initial position" and the "input to the device" separated in space by any distance, or are they precisely the same location?)

Sure. When I move the ball from the "initial position" to the "input to the device" I?m moving the ball from one physical location to another. These are two different physical locations.

The work for this motion, which is the same for every cycle, is accounted for in the overall energy balance which comes out positive, that is, excess energy is produced after every cycle.

[berferd]

The work for this motion, which is the same for every cycle, is accounted for in the overall energy balance which comes out positive, that is, excess energy is produced after every cycle.

So, you place the ball at the "input of the device" and release it, and the ball moves to the "initial postion" and stops.  For it to go again, you must manually pick up the ball and place it at the "input of the device" so it can again move once and and stop.

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?

[Omnibus]

The work for this motion, which is the same for every cycle, is accounted for in the overall energy balance which comes out positive, that is, excess energy is produced after every cycle.

So, you place the ball at the "input of the device" and release it, and the ball moves to the "initial postion" and stops.  For it to go again, you must manually pick up the ball and place it at the "input of the device" so it can again move once and and stop.

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?

First answer this ? did you convince yourself that the SMOT produces periodically excess energy?

[berferd]

The work for this motion, which is the same for every cycle, is accounted for in the overall energy balance which comes out positive, that is, excess energy is produced after every cycle.

So, you place the ball at the "input of the device" and release it, and the ball moves to the "initial postion" and stops.? For it to go again, you must manually pick up the ball and place it at the "input of the device" so it can again move once and and stop.

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?

First answer this ? did you convince yourself that the SMOT produces periodically excess energy?

No.  I haven't, and it doesn't.  I'm just trying to figure out why you think it does.  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.)

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.

So, in light of your belief that the device does create free energy, 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?