On the contrary, it does. The energy produced is more than the energy spent. SMOT violates the principle of conservation of energy and discontinuously produces energy from nothing.

If there had energy violation in a smot, a looped smot could easily be built. No looped smot, no proof of energy violation. I'm an experimenter with an engineer background, I tried myself but failed as others. And from those claiming OU in a smot when they have not looped one, I have even never seen any serious energy measurements, including the potential magnetic energy at the start and end positions.

I'm sorry for this philosophical digression but I think claims without facts put FE research into a religious domain, remove its credibility and are a terrible handicap for all of us involved in FE because they give too many bad tracks. OU in a smot, or Jesus walking on the water, are similar irrationnal claims until strong experimental proofs to be given. I'm a scientist not a bigot; smot is a possible OU device as anything else (may be Steorn will give us the solution). Scientific method must be applied to prove it is. We have not yet a strong evidence it is, and imho not even a little.
Let's keep enthusiasts but lucid too, it's just my point of view.  :-)

Fran?ois

...
Energy_obtained – Energy_spent = +mgh1 + [KE + RE +L] + Mb’ - |–mgh1 +(Ma – Mb)| = [KE + RE +L] +Mb’ +Ma –Mb > 0

Which is in violation of the principe of conservation of energy. The excess energy [KE + RE +L] +Mb’ +Ma –Mb produced has no source and is energy from nothing.

Thanks for the equations, Omnibus. Nevertheless Check Energy_obtained, there is a flaw, Ma should be present.

There is a much simpler calculus.

Imagine there is no magnet. For the ball to go from A to A under the action of a force, it doesn't depend on the path as it is closed. The energy spent is nul: E_spent = int(F.dL)=0 on a closed path (in fact there are the losses).

Thus we have only to account for the magnetic potential energy.
From A to B : Ma-Mb
from B to C : Mb-Mc
from C to A : Mc-Ma
thus the sum is also nul.

But as there are the losses, the ball will stop.

You can't use conventional physics equations to prove smot is OU because physics says work is neither provided nor needed to move between two equipotential points in static fields, a fortiori when the start point is also the end point.

If smot is OU then it defies the laws of physics or involves hidden phenomenon and this can be proved only by clear experiments such as a perpetual motion.

Wow, its a full blown debate!!!!  Lets get the banjo music playing.... aah there we go.

Firstly, Jesus did walk on water, which is nothing related to a SMOT.  Jesus' water walk came after he had risen from the dead, he was no longer human but a spirit.  Spirits can do amazing things - I have seen them (being spirits, not Jesus haha) first hand and watched them manipulate objects.  There is definitely something beyond our life here on earth.... and if you don't believe that, you'll find out sooner or later. 

Secondly, SMOTs will not work, exnihiloest is right.  I will slightly agree with Omnibus, there is an increase in energy, during the ball's acceleration.  Unfortunately, everything that the ball gains is lost when it reaches the "sticky point" as they say.  The only way to get around the "sticky point" is to be able to turn the magnet off - which you can't.  That is the simplest answer, of course you can use the math to prove it too.  Basically, you place the ball at a higher potential.  The magnetic field accelerates it, but then takes back the energy it gave when the ball attempts to leave the field. 

I still do not understand why science calls magnetic fields "potential" energy.  It is stored energy, but NOT in the form of potential.  It is stored as kinetic.  Its the same thing as a quantum fly wheel.  In a circuit a magnetic field is ONLY seen when the charges are moving.  Moving energy is kinetic, not potential.  An electric field is potential, since the charge is static and not moving. 

To further my point, when kinetic energy is changed, what happens?  The energy is transitioned to potential (assuming it is not used) like what happens in the simple case of a pendulum.  This is also seen in circuits, when you change a magnet's field (usually by moving the magnet), an open circuit coil response by creating a potential difference between it's end points - just as a pendulum's kinetic energy is transitioned to potential when the ball reaches its maximum height. 

This led me to a very interesting paradox.  If a permanent magnet is the equivalent of a fly wheel, then why when you alter its field does it not loose flux?  In simplified terms, when you generate electricity in a coil, using a magnet, why doesn't the flux of the magnet reduce?  If you took a spinning fly wheel with ultra low friction bearings and had a clutch system to engage it to a load, the stored energy would decrease when the load was attached.  This does not happen in the electrical analogy.   

I?m also still not sure whether or not Finsrud?s machine is producing excess energy continuously. Some simple additional experiments have to be carried out to exclude the possibility that it?s just a very efficient re-distributor of initially input energy which is trivial.

It is beyond doubt, however, that SMOT produces excess energy discontinuously, that is, SMOT produces discontinuously energy from nothing. Whether or not there would be successful engineering efforts to harness this discontinuous production of energy from nothing to construct a self-sustaining device has nothing to do with the reality of the said excess energy. Again, its reality is proven definitively. That one is unable to construct a car in his garage is not a proof that cars that run on the roads cannot be made. Neither is a proof for whether or not a car can be made, the fact that in the year 1700 there were no internal combustion engines.

As I already said, constructing a self-sustaining SMOT is only a purely enegineering problem and has nothing to do with the undeniable fact that SMOT produces energy from nothing and thus violates the principle of conservation of energy. It's a common misconception that one (violation of the principle) cannot be proven without the other (self-sustaining SMOT). They ar unconnected.

...
I still do not understand why science calls magnetic fields "potential" energy.  It is stored energy, but NOT in the form of potential.  It is stored as kinetic. 
...   

Sorry to quote myself:
"The energy of magnets is just the energy in the magnetic field that you put when you magnetize the magnet. It is very weak (=0.5*B?/mu per unit volume).
What seems big is the "potential energy" due to the relative position of magnets or masses in their respective magnetic or gravity fields. "

The magnetic potential energy let the ball move from the start point of a smot.
When a ferromagnetic object is attracted by a permanent magnet, it acquires kinetic energy and this energy comes from the initial magnetic potential energy of the object. This transformation is reversible.
Magnets permits to transforms magnetic potential energy into mechanical energy and vice versa without change in their internal magnetization.

A ferromagnetic body at a distance from a magnet is as a mass at a distance from a planet: it possesses potential energy that let it to "fall" to the magnet as a mass to the ground.

Omnibus,
the free fortunecity hosting is just "crap",
they have  IP tracking enabled, so you can?t link
directly to pictures hosted therefromoutside,
onlyif you go via their servers...

Better host something like this at
download sides as
www.megaupload.com
or other free picture services like flickr.com
or simular...

or just make a index.htm file there at fortunecity
that points to your GIF picture.

Thanks.

P.S: The energy comes probably from converting
the magnet spin precession or via thermal cooling
via magnetic cycling effect.

Greg Watson and Epitaxy, who got the SMOT to rotate a few
times said, that after a few revolutions the ball sticked
to the track, so the ball changed its own
magnetisation after a few looped cycle rounds...

So you see, we really need an "intelligent ball"
made from an electromagnet with an iron core
that can kick itsself out of the track after having collected
induction energy while being accelerated through the track...

But this SMOT topic should be moved to the SMOT area over here.
so let?s stay ontopic here. Thanks.

 also www.zabim.de  (com)
very usefull
with text !!
with messager !!

Pese