Working Attraction Magnet Motor on Youtube!?

[Omnibus]

Otherwise he would have had to use two tubes, correct?

He uses one tube, and he turns the SMOT around because the tube is harder to reposition than the SMOT.

In the Output drop, he operates the SMOT in the classical fashion, placing the ball first at the Input and having it ascend up the ramp and then drop into the mouth of the tube from the top (the "Output") of the ramp.

In the Input drop, he turns the SMOT around so that ramp entrance faces the tube.  He also moves the magnets farther apart (if he did not, the ball would not drop, but ascend like in the Output drop), and then simply lets the ball drop from the bottom of the ramp into the mouth of the tube.

Would this change your opinion of whether this is a proper test?

This is exactly the proper test. Anything else would not be proper. In the SMOT case he puts the ball at the mentioned position and a whole plethora of events occurs causing the ball to cover spontaneously, I repeat, spontaneously, a hugely longer and complex trajectory than in the control where the start of the ball is at the same exact place as in the actual experiment Thus, not only that in the actual experiment the imparted energy is less than the energy imparted in the control experiment but the length and the complexity of the trajectory is much greater, that is, in the actual experiment the energy the ball loses, gives away, is most obviously greater than the energy lost in the control experiment despite the greater imparted energy in the control experiment.

[shruggedatlas]

This is exactly the proper test. Anything else would not be proper. In the SMOT case he puts the ball at the mentioned position and a whole plethora of events occurs causing the ball to cover spontaneously, I repeat, spontaneously, a hugely longer and complex trajectory than in the control where the start of the ball is at the same exact place as in the actual experiment Thus, not only that in the actual experiment the imparted energy is less than the energy imparted in the control experiment but the length and the complexity of the trajectory is much greater, that is, in the actual experiment the energy the ball loses, gives away, is most obviously greater than the energy lost in the control experiment despite the greater imparted energy in the control experiment.

So we are in agreement that the ball drops from different heights?  The photos clearly establish this.

Then I must ask.  Can we repeat Naudin's experiment exactly, with the minor difference that instead of spreading the magnets apart during the "Input Drop", we remove them altogether?  And would this be conclusive proof one way or the other whether the SMOT is overunity, meaning conclusive in both directions.

If this is not acceptable, what is the difference between moving them apart and taking them away during the Input Drop that suddenly makes the test invalid?

[Omnibus]

This is exactly the proper test. Anything else would not be proper. In the SMOT case he puts the ball at the mentioned position and a whole plethora of events occurs causing the ball to cover spontaneously, I repeat, spontaneously, a hugely longer and complex trajectory than in the control where the start of the ball is at the same exact place as in the actual experiment Thus, not only that in the actual experiment the imparted energy is less than the energy imparted in the control experiment but the length and the complexity of the trajectory is much greater, that is, in the actual experiment the energy the ball loses, gives away, is most obviously greater than the energy lost in the control experiment despite the greater imparted energy in the control experiment.

So we are in agreement that the ball drops from different heights?  The photos clearly establish this.

Then I must ask.  Can we repeat Naudin's experiment exactly, with the minor difference that instead of spreading the magnets apart during the "Input Drop", we remove them altogether?  And would this be conclusive proof one way or the other whether the SMOT is overunity, meaning conclusive in both directions.

If this is not acceptable, what is the difference between moving them apart and taking them away during the Input Drop that suddenly makes the test invalid?

Absolutely not. Please, go back and read the discussion again. The ball is always dropped from the same height of 31mm. I'm not going to go in circles here.

[shruggedatlas]

This is exactly the proper test. Anything else would not be proper. In the SMOT case he puts the ball at the mentioned position and a whole plethora of events occurs causing the ball to cover spontaneously, I repeat, spontaneously, a hugely longer and complex trajectory than in the control where the start of the ball is at the same exact place as in the actual experiment Thus, not only that in the actual experiment the imparted energy is less than the energy imparted in the control experiment but the length and the complexity of the trajectory is much greater, that is, in the actual experiment the energy the ball loses, gives away, is most obviously greater than the energy lost in the control experiment despite the greater imparted energy in the control experiment.

So we are in agreement that the ball drops from different heights?  The photos clearly establish this.

Then I must ask.  Can we repeat Naudin's experiment exactly, with the minor difference that instead of spreading the magnets apart during the "Input Drop", we remove them altogether?  And would this be conclusive proof one way or the other whether the SMOT is overunity, meaning conclusive in both directions.

If this is not acceptable, what is the difference between moving them apart and taking them away during the Input Drop that suddenly makes the test invalid?

Absolutely not. Please, go back and read the discussion again. The ball is always dropped from the same height of 31mm. I'm not going to go in circles here.

How can the ball drop from 31mm in the "Output Drop"?  The ramp ascends to 35mm.  I understand the ball is initially placed at 31mm, but that is not where it drops from.   Are we just misconstruing terms?

[Omnibus]

This is exactly the proper test. Anything else would not be proper. In the SMOT case he puts the ball at the mentioned position and a whole plethora of events occurs causing the ball to cover spontaneously, I repeat, spontaneously, a hugely longer and complex trajectory than in the control where the start of the ball is at the same exact place as in the actual experiment Thus, not only that in the actual experiment the imparted energy is less than the energy imparted in the control experiment but the length and the complexity of the trajectory is much greater, that is, in the actual experiment the energy the ball loses, gives away, is most obviously greater than the energy lost in the control experiment despite the greater imparted energy in the control experiment.

So we are in agreement that the ball drops from different heights?  The photos clearly establish this.

Then I must ask.  Can we repeat Naudin's experiment exactly, with the minor difference that instead of spreading the magnets apart during the "Input Drop", we remove them altogether?  And would this be conclusive proof one way or the other whether the SMOT is overunity, meaning conclusive in both directions.

If this is not acceptable, what is the difference between moving them apart and taking them away during the Input Drop that suddenly makes the test invalid?

Absolutely not. Please, go back and read the discussion again. The ball is always dropped from the same height of 31mm. I'm not going to go in circles here.

How can the ball drop from 31mm in the "Output Drop"?  The ramp ascends to 35mm.  I understand the ball is initially placed at 31mm, but that is not where it drops from.   Are we just misconstruing terms?

Now, this is exactly where your confusion stems from. Read very carefully what I explained once again and see if you can get it.