Pauls Device; a damn shame he regrets revealing it.

[berferd]

The SMOT ball gains potential energy, m x g x h. It is as
simple as that, Berferd.

But it gains gravitational potential energy at the expense of magnetic potential energy.  This is completely ignored by the believers, and is why the operator must pick up the ball and place it at the input to make it go again.

Yes, the ball is at a higher gravitational potential at the top of the ramp, and it goes back to the initial gravitational potential after it falls.  But it's at a lower magnetic potential than when it started.  That is why it only runs once.  The ball "goes downhill" in the combined gravitational/potential well regardless of whether it's going up the ramp or falling off the end.  And the operator, by picking up the ball and placing it at the input, provides the energy to "lift up" the ball to the higher starting potential so it can go again.

You can't ignore the magnetic potential energy.  The universe doesn't, and that's why the device only runs once before it stops.

[FredWalter]

Rust DE10103188? ? ?:? ? ? www.sigmaautomotive.com ;Electrocharger
Rust DE3713965? ? ? ?:? ? ? www.Trinitymotors.net
de Buyst BE438189? ? ? ? ? www.geminielectricmotor.com
Eustachio EP0051711?: ? ? ?www.e-traction.com

You have a habit of posting interesting stuff, that has nothing to do with the topic under discussion.

While the above are examples of cool new technology, none of them involve overunity.

[lancaIV]

Hey OMNIBUS,
when did I defined that friction shall have impact of excess energy?
Friction is resistance ergo ever a lost !

The Greg Watson SMOT variation based by Emil Hartmann "ramp" work(US4215330) and also to recommend Daniel Baker(US4074153)
will give through the combination of the different force kinds/vectors and the
"free"permanent magnetic force an calculated and physical measure-able
gain/positive difference result between output-input .

But there are also "excess gain"-machines like heatpump,hydraulik ram pump,
compressed air motors(Robert Neal),
but the efficiency maths will ever be (1-X)/1=ever under 1 !!!

You can construct a plane with a fuelless motor,
you can construct a fuel-free car-engine,
you can construct a fuel-free city-energy-infastructure,
but,excuse me, (1-X)/1=ever under 1,
"Fiat lux !"=Impuls(=X)  and not an italian car !!!

Sincerely
             de Lanca
                                                                                     

[Omnibus]

The SMOT ball gains potential energy, m x g x h. It is as
simple as that, Berferd.

But it gains gravitational potential energy at the expense of magnetic potential energy.  This is completely ignored by the believers, and is why the operator must pick up the ball and place it at the input to make it go again.

You never understood that the energy the operator spends to pick up the ball and place it at the input is fully compensated when the ball returns to the initial position. In addition to this energy (which I said is compensated) the operator gets an additional portion due to the spontaneous lifting of the ball up the ramp.

Yes, the ball is at a higher gravitational potential at the top of the ramp, and it goes back to the initial gravitational potential after it falls.  But it's at a lower magnetic potential than when it started.

You never understood that the ball is not at a lower magnetic potential at the initial position after it falls than the magnetic potential it was at when it started from the initial position. At the initial position the ball is always at one and the same magnetic potential be it at the beginning or at the end of a cycle.

One and the same spatial position can only have one value of the magnetic potential at all times, not two.

That is why it only runs once.

No, that is not why it only runs once. It runs once because of the constructional characteristics of the device. The device is made for the ball to run once.

The ball "goes downhill" in the combined gravitational/potential well regardless of whether it's going up the ramp or falling off the end.  And the operator, by picking up the ball and placing it at the input, provides the energy to "lift up" the ball to the higher starting potential so it can go again.

You can't ignore the magnetic potential energy.  The universe doesn't, and that's why the device only runs once before it stops.

No, the magnetic potential energy is not ignored in the analysis.

Think it this way. The closed loop which the ball goes along consists of two parts:

First part ? the ball is lifted from its initial position (somewhere under the SMOT) to the top of the ramp.

Second part ? the ball falls off the top of the ramp to its initial position.

At that, the net work due to the magnetic field is zero. The net work due to the gravity, however, is not zero ? in the above-mentioned first part there is a section (from the input of the device to the top of the ramp) where the experimenter doesn?t spend work and yet a gravitational potential energy of the ball, corresponding to the level at the top of the ramp, is achieved. Now comes the interesting part ? the above-mentioned second part, however. recovers the gravitational entire potential energy (from the top of the ramp to the initial position). Obviously, part of that recovered energy is free. This is the energy that doesn?t compensate any energy spent by the experimenter.

[Omnibus]

de Lanca, your explanation doesn?t apply to the SMOT. Please, see why in my reply to berferd.