T.B.: Hmmm. But, it is the magnetic field which imparts the balls momentum and the ball exits the field retaining that momentum.
To make this perpmo short-story longer... and extend it to the limits of credulity (and beyond the 2nd Law), it takes only two letters, and...as is always the situation when you throw quantum mechanics into the ring, fisticuffs may be required to eventually settle things (or else a robust replication).
To continue ... PM (perpetual motion in the form of macro-spin) from QM is possible in theory, but probably not yet reduced to practice in a repeatable way, but also one can say that neither a static gravity field nor a static magnetic field could ever be overunity, but yet the 2nd Law has probably seen some repeat violators... and yes, those devious perpmos were no doubt tinkering with 'static' ... (really).
....both fields probably intersect with matter through at least one common pathway - the physical property of "spin" which is also conserved (whether it be angular momentum, or classical spin, but NOT that little devil known as QM spin). You can't explain QM spin easily using existing classical concepts. How does one use classical idea of a "spin" to explain a spin 1/2 particle in which one only regains the identical symmetry upon two complete revolutions? (if you guessed 'two axis spin', you are probably closer to the a decent understanding than is most of mainstream physics). We simply have to accept that we use the same word, but to mean an "end-result" rather than an ongoing "activity" - in that spin will produce a 'real' magnetic moment in either case. Nuclear spin has a resonance all its own, called NMR, which is different from electron spin and also different from domain spin (magnetism). QM 'Spin' has nothing (and everything) to do with anything that's spinning classically, but nevertheless QM spin can be modified with zero real energy input (probaability waves), while the other kinds of spin cannot... but how can the effects of QM spin bleed over into classical spin, if that kind of spin is conserved?
Answer: time and gravity. Spin is conserved, on a longer time scale than NMR effects, and it is balanced-out by give-and-take with gravity. The results, when measureable, are known as gravity 'shielding'....consequently, if a system could be engineered where both these fields (gravity and electromagnetism) are active on the same total spin alignmnet of a ball in periodic motion, OU could derive IF a similar periodic situation emerges where the QM spin of nuclei flipped alignment in a regular fashion long enough and with a periodicy adequate to partial affect the classical spin interaction... so that the shielded field was not really static through part of the spin cycle. Claro?
OK. To further rationalize this possibility, but with slightly less verbiage :
It is easy to show that any reduction (or increase) in gravity can be converted into OU. There is controversial research (Podkletnov-Li-Giovanni-Modanese) demonstrating that gravity can be modified by a spinning superconductor. I am almost positive that will be proven true for superconductors. Many observers have suggested that magnetic domains are a local superconductor. I am almost positive that this is true for magnetic domains. ERGO, the next 'leap of faith' is that there could possibly exist a narrow resonant regime where perpetual motion "appears" in the form of a continuing "macro spin," technically defying the 2nd Law and at the expense of slight gravity reduction on part of that cyclical spin.
It is possible that Mssrs. Watson, et al, have hit on this narrow regime at times, and have reported honestly but over-optimistically what they saw, thinking that it would be easy to replicate, but failing to realize how narrow the operating regime is. After all, NMR effects can derive from any number of hidden environmental factors. Perhaps at the exact time frame an experimenter got the ball to roll around miraculously for three or four minutes, the local FM station was broadcasting something in the range of NMR frequencies that flipped the QM spin with just the right periodicy. Uri Geller might be able to do it, quien sabe?
Not to mention the experimenters own expectations might 'translate' into real QM effects and then 'real' macro effects. There is a large and growing body of evidence, much of it cited by Prof Tiller of Stanford, which shows that the 'experimenter effect' or 'confirmation bias', measurably influences supposedly 'impartial' experiments.
Maybe the vector for this effect is QM spin...
Jones
