'T.O.M.I. Flapper' applied to a S.M.O.T., Self-Runner...

[psychopath]

If the ball gets closer to the ground it loses some gravitational potential energy.
That how hydroelectric works. It collects energy from velocity added to mass as it falls.
If the water could be put back to the same hieght it could fall again... Forever... Free...
With out returning to the same height you're just converting gravitational potential.

Sorry if this sounds like crap to you, but denying this simple fact weakens your case.

I still want to see the absolute proof you spoke of,
~Dingus Mungus

You see, if perpetual motion or free energy is possible, or even if the laws of thermodynamics are right but other things such as magnetism are just poorly understood, that means the current understanding of physics is still wrong. There is nothing bad about that, science is supposed to be about finding new theories and throwing away the obsolete ones.

If you believe perpetual motion is possible, then you probably believe that some laws of physics are wrong. So that means it is a total waste of time stating the current laws.

What I mean is, it is silly to use the current laws of physics to pursue something which needs those laws to be wrong in order to be existent.

And if you do not believe it is possible, then fine...we'll see if it is

[Omnibus]

@Dingus Mungus,

Never mind. Don't bother.

[shruggedatlas]

If you believe perpetual motion is possible, then you probably believe that some laws of physics are wrong. So that means it is a total waste of time stating the current laws.

What I mean is, it is silly to use the current laws of physics to pursue something which needs those laws to be wrong in order to be existent.

I think you are overgeneralizing, and while stating the law of CoE would be nonsensical, other laws of physics would be part of any necessary explanation of a perpetual motion device. 

But really, proving a violation of CoE, like Omnibus has tried to do numerous times, via equations only is not really going to convince anyone except the choir.  A working demonstration of a perpetual motion device is what is needed.  Otherwise, it is too easy to believe that you have overunity with a simple "engineering problem" keeping you from closing the loop, when what you really have is a 99.5% (if that) efficient device, and the remaining 1% is the "engineering problem" that you will spend your lifetime solving, but never will.

[Dingus Mungus]

99% efficient... Maybe in you know who's dreams...

Look at the loss of PE in the device. If the ball doesn't fall it gets caught in the magnetic sticky spot...
Esentially translates in to massive losses in PE even after lifting the ball slightly with the track.
JLN labs example of the SMOT lifts the ball 5mm, but then it has to drop the ball 35mm to escape.

Once again... This is not complicated if you approach it while considering ALL input energy including PE.

~Dingus Mungus

EDIT:
We must define practical and incompetent diferently...
Practical would mean you could show some sort of physical evidence.

[Omnibus]

@Dinus Mungus,

Please restrain from cluttering the discussions with your nonsense. You are incompetent and therefore you should keep you opinions only to yourself.