Pauls Device; a damn shame he regrets revealing it.

[Omnibus]

But, notice that to get the thing started you need to pick up the ball and place it at point A.  In doing this you are raising the ball's combined gravitational/magnetic potential. You are adding energy to the system.  This energy comes back out of the system as the ball moves to point B then to point C.

Only half true. Indeed, in moving the ball from point C to point A you?re raising its gravitational potential (this means you have to correct your graph ? see attachment). However, in doing so you?re decreasing its magnetic potential ? you?re getting the ball closer to the magnet. Point A is closer to the magnet than C.

You say that all the energy you add to the system in doing this is returned, and in addition you get a "present" of some excess energy.

All I am asking is that you illustrate where that excess energy is coming from.

Now that you?ve finally agreed that the cycle starts and ends at the same point C (closed loop) which has one and the same gravitational and magnetic potential you should further understand the following, which I already said several times but will repeat now once again:

Because the ball moves along a closed loop in the conservative magnetic field despite the fact that energy is gained along the first part of the loop C (?initial position?) ? B (?top of ramp?), this energy is lost along the second part of the loop B (?top of ramp?) ? C (?initial position?). Therefore, there is no net energy along the closed loop in the conservative magnetic field.

Not so with the closed loop in the gravitational field. In the gravitational field you do work only to transfer the ball along part of the first half of the closed loop ? from C (?initial position?) to A (?input to the device?). However, for the other part of the first half of the loop, namely, from A (?input to the device?) to B (?top of ramp?) you do no work. Curiously, however, when the ball falls spontaneously along the second half of the loop, namely, from B (?top of ramp?) back to C (?initial position?) the ball recovers all the energy spent to have it raised along the entire first half of the loop, namely from C to B. Therefore, the ball recovers more than you have spent ? recall, you?ve spent energy only along C-A but the first half also has section A-B for which you haven?t spent energy to move the ball along. This part of the energy not spent by you, however, is also recovered along the reverse, second part of the loop B-C. This is the excess energy which the SMOT produces.

I have provided two graphical representations of the SMOT showing the gravitational and magnetic potential energy budgeting through the entire cycle, and I have shown that the operator adds energy to the system in moving the ball from the "initial position" (C) to the "input to the device" (A).  You take issue with this.  Please provide what you believe to be the correct energy budgeting through the entire cycle and show where excess energy is coming from.

Don't just tell me I'm wrong.  Show me.

As I already explained, you graph (see attachment) is wrong and should not be referred to when doing the analysis. As far as the energy balance goes, I have explained it already many times, the last time in this post (see above). The energy balance indicates that the SMOT produces excess energy periodically.

[berferd]

As I already explained, you graph (see attachment) is wrong and should not be referred to when doing the analysis. As far as the energy balance goes, I have explained it already many times, the last time in this post (see above). The energy balance indicates that the SMOT produces excess energy periodically.

Again, don't just tell me I'm wrong, show me.

You should have no trouble putting your description of the "correct" energy budgeting of the SMOT into graphical terms.

Please provide a corrected graph.  Please show where the excess energy is coming from.

You like to ignore the motion through the magnetic potential field when it's convenient.  Putting your description in graphical terms will prevent you from ignoring it.

[Omnibus]

You like to ignore the motion through the magnetic potential field when it's convenient.

This is ridiculous. Read what I've explained and stop demonstrating your incompetence. Enough is enough.

[WalMartGreeter]

Please provide a corrected graph.? Please show where the excess energy is coming from.

You like to ignore the motion through the magnetic potential field when it's convenient.? Putting your description in graphical terms will prevent you from ignoring it.

Berferd, give it up.  You might as well be trying to teach a pig to fly.  I agree it would be interesting to see Omnibus's version, but it's pretty obvious he can't produce one and you're wasting your time.  He has it in his head that the SMOT produces energy, and nothing will convince him otherwise.  It was entertaining to see you try to get through to him, but it's time to stop.

By the way, thanks for the explanations and graphs.  They make it pretty clear.  But again, please, give it up.  Some people are beyond help.

[Omnibus]

Berferd, give it up.  You might as well be trying to teach a pig to fly.  I agree it would be interesting to see Omnibus's version, but it's pretty obvious he can't produce one and you're wasting your time.  He has it in his head that the SMOT produces energy, and nothing will convince him otherwise.  It was entertaining to see you try to get through to him, but it's time to stop.

By the way, thanks for the explanations and graphs.  They make it pretty clear.  But again, please, give it up.  Some people are beyond help.

Bereferd should give it up for reasons other than you indicate. Bereferd should give it up because he is incompetent. Anyone who cares can look back at the discussion and convince himself in that. It is embarrassing to read the incompetent rants of Bereferd.

You?re thanking him for the graphs but in vain. The graphs Bereferd shows are incorrect and I have explained why at length. You don?t add anything to the discussion either. Just some kind of empty support based on no arguments. Some people, such as you and Bereferd, are beyond help.