Pauls Device; a damn shame he regrets revealing it.

[DarkLight]

berferd, you said that there can not be a free energy, because this violates the conservation lows. That is not so. No low violation here. The free energy comes from orbital movement of the electrons and their magnetic momentum. Some examples:

Let we have a coil  with flowing current in it. It will produce a magnetic field.
What will happen if we put in the coil a feromagnetic core? With same power input (U*I)  we measure severel thousend times stronger magnetic field!

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/magnetic/elemag.html#c5

If we want to achieve the same intensity without feromagnetic core we have to put in thousend times more energy in the coil!

From conservation lows we know that energy can't come from nothing. But in the case with feromagnetic core we put in the same input energy and the energy of magnetic field is growing up thousend times. This additional energy of the field has to come from somewhere. It is not an electrical energy, because the electriical energy that we put in is the same.  Then it has to be the feromagnetic core that gives us this additional energy. And this amount of energy is not a few percents, it' s a thousands times more then energy we put in! If we use "mumetal"  it is 20 000 times more energy  !

[berferd]

As I said, closing the loop is not a requirement for the SMOT to produce periodically excess energy.

And re-depositing money into my bank account is not a requirement for withdrawing $100 from an ATM, as long as I already have $100 in my account to begin with.  If that $100 withdrawl depletes my account, I must deposit $100 into my account before I can make another $100 withdrawl.  (For some unknown reason, the ATM won't let me withdraw another $100 unless I first deposit $100.)

I can withdraw $100 over and over again, each time depleting my account, as many times as I wish, as long as I deposit $100 into my account before each withdrawl.  (This requirment to deposit money into my account isn't really significant.  I'm not really depositing money when I put money into my account - just focus on the withdrawls.  I simply get a free $100 each time I make a withdrawl.)

No matter how many times I repeat the process, I wind up with $100 in my hand and $0 in my account.  This "initial position" is exactly the same every time.  It can be repeated as many times as I want.

There!  Free money!  The fact that I can go to the ATM and withdraw $100 is proof-positive of free money.

Your explanation of the SMOT is no less silly than this.

And the fact that nobody has shut the skeptics up by accomplishing the "trivial engineering task" of close-looping such a simple device (that purportedly creates free energy) so it keeps cycling by itself should tell you something.  But obviously that goes way over your head.

[Omnibus]

Your example is the silly one.

Unlike what you have understood, SMOT works like this. I deposit $80 into my account, then the bank deposits into my account another $20 because the bank likes me. Then I withdraw $100 from the ATM. I have gotten a ?present? of $20. Do you understand it or you need more explanation?

Don?t try to confuse yourself again with irrelevant ?close-looping? or trying to find green cheese on the moon. Do as I do and you?ll get free $20 from the bank. You snooze, you lose.

That this whole business is way over your head is more than obvious. What can you do, not everyone is a winner.

[berferd]

Your example is the silly one.

Unlike what you have understood, SMOT works like this. I deposit $80 into my account, then the bank deposits into my account another $20 because the bank likes me. Then I withdraw $100 from the ATM. I have gotten a ?present? of $20. Do you understand it or you need more explanation?

Going back to the SMOT: where does the excess energy (the equivalent of your bank's $20 deposit) come from?

Don?t try to confuse yourself again with irrelevant ?close-looping? or trying to find green cheese on the moon. Do as I do and you?ll get free $20 from the bank. You snooze, you lose.

Close-looping is anything *but* irrelevant.  As with all supposed free energy devices, tt would be irrefutable proof that the device produces free energy.  Until somebody succeeds in close-looping the device (*any* free energy device), all we have to go on is faith that the device produces free energy.  While free energy believers accept these claims as articles of their faith, skeptics don't usually take things on faith.  We like proof.

It's funny how free energy believers never do the "trivial engineering task" that would shut the skeptics up.  Why is that?

Oh, that's right.  You already know the device produces free energy, so that step isn't necessary.  My bad.

That this whole business is way over your head is more than obvious. What can you do, not everyone is a winner.

ROTFL!

[Omnibus]

Your example is the silly one.

Unlike what you have understood, SMOT works like this. I deposit $80 into my account, then the bank deposits into my account another $20 because the bank likes me. Then I withdraw $100 from the ATM. I have gotten a ?present? of $20. Do you understand it or you need more explanation?

Going back to the SMOT: where does the excess energy (the equivalent of your bank's $20 deposit) come from?

The excess energy comes from the potential energy which the ball acquired spontaneously when it was pulled up the ramp by the magnetic field ? the ball at the top of the ramp has higher potential energy than its potential energy at the input of the device. I have paid nothing for that energy.

Don?t try to confuse yourself again with irrelevant ?close-looping? or trying to find green cheese on the moon. Do as I do and you?ll get free $20 from the bank. You snooze, you lose.

Close-looping is anything *but* irrelevant.  As with all supposed free energy devices, tt would be irrefutable proof that the device produces free energy.

That?s ridiculous. If you sneeze at free $20 I don?t. This is a one time deal. One time, not continuous.

Until somebody succeeds in close-looping the device (*any* free energy device), all we have to go on is faith that the device produces free energy.  While free energy believers accept these claims as articles of their faith, skeptics don't usually take things on faith.  We like proof.

Not so. I got my free $20 and I?m happy. It?s free. You?d like to pass that  opportunity ? your choice.

It's funny how free energy believers never do the "trivial engineering task" that would shut the skeptics up.  Why is that?

Trivial engineering task has already been done for the periodic production of excess energy. It is called the SMOT. Greg Watson has done it first.

Oh, that's right.  You already know the device produces free energy, so that step isn't necessary.  My bad.

You really don?t get it. Don?t torture yourself, give it up. Not everyone is a winner.