Pauls Device; a damn shame he regrets revealing it.

[hartiberlin]

2 people had it already running in a loop, Greg Watson and Epitaxy, unfortunately he died in a car crash. Watson said, that it was too unreliable and now sell his new solar cubes. Only a very few guys in the world tried it until now and in my opinion this must be build very big and exact, so that the ramps are at lest 1 Meter long and every single magnet has to be made adjustable, otherwise it will have too much different field  changes..so it is not easy to build, if you have not much time and space and patience for it...

[berferd]

2 people had it already running in a loop, Greg Watson and Epitaxy, unfortunately he died in a car crash. Watson said, that it was too unreliable and now sell his new solar cubes. Only a very few guys in the world tried it until now and in my opinion this must be build very big and exact, so that the ramps are at lest 1 Meter long and every single magnet has to be made adjustable, otherwise it will have too much different field? changes..so it is not easy to build, if you have not much time and space and patience for it...

It's mighty strange that virtually every successful perpetual motion machine ever built is either lost after its inventor dies, or is abandoned just because it's too finnicky or too much trouble.

[berferd]

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

Gonzo, for kicks I've uploaded a graph for a variation where the ball winds up at the starting magnetic potential but lower gravitational potential.

I'm really baffled how people can think these things make free energy.  If they're confused by something this simple, there's little hope.

[Omnibus]

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

No, it?s not. It?s similar but is not the same machine. Read the beginning of the thread carefully to see the difference.

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.

No, I have said it several times already, the graphic doesn?t correspond to the machine we?re discussing (not the one you have posted but the machine we?re discussing).

I?ve posted this several times and I?m repeating it specially for you. Read it carefully so that I won?t be forced to continue repeating it:

Point A indicates the starting point of the ball at the bottom of the lower end of the ramp (Omnibus' "input"). Point B indicates the top of the ramp. Point C indicates the final position of the ball, at the original elevation but under the raised end of the ramp (Omnibus' "initial position", which is really a misnomer because it's not where the ball starts out).

Your graph, considering the above notation, is incorrect:

First, the experiment (each cycle) starts and ends at point C and not the way you have described it. The way you have described it the ball doesn?t close the loop when it?s moving.

Besides, it is not true that in moving from point C (?initial position? ? which is under the SMOT) to point A (?input to the device?) the gravitational energy doesn?t change. Unlike what you?ve indicated, the ball gains potential energy because it is raised from point C to point A. Point C (below the SMOT) and point A at the input of the SMOT are not at the same elevation. Also, it is not true that the magnetic potential energy increases from point C to point A. Point A is closer to the magnet than point C, therefore, it is just the opposite to what you?ve written.

[Omnibus]

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

On the contrary, in the experiment we?re discussing the ball returns to the initial position. I?m talking about the experiment we?re discussing and not about who knows what experiment you have in mind.

Before setting to discuss something you must first understand well what is being discussed and not impose some fantasies of yours that have nothing to do with the discussion at hand.

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.

Not so. This is not what is being discussed. Please acquaint yourself first with the essence of the discussion and then post opinions.

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 discussion at hand is not about continuous production of excess energy, therefore, invoking looping is irrelevant. What is being discussed is periodic production of excess energy.

It?s very annoying to have to answer irrelevant posts.

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.

That?s nonsense. The discussion at hand is not about perpetually cycling SMOT. You may think that it is but it is not.

Read carefully the thread so far and acquaint yourself well with what is being discussed before posting frivolous posts.