Tri-Force Magnets - Finally shown to be OU?

[Omnibus]

@ omni, again you are diverting from the context. you cannot compare apples and oranges.

taking the absolute value of the potential energy dismisses the direction. however when examining a repulsion field, with respect to an attraction field - they are exactly opposite.

the points of maximum potential are on opposite sides of the field.
in this case we are dealing with a repulsion field, the point of maximum potential is at the 'surface'.

No at all. I'm not diverting from the context. because we're discussing violation of CoE and that comes about at once in your text but that is only due to your misunderstanding what potential energy really is.

You are trying, instead of acknowledging your error, to finagle in various ways. First you tried to compare increments of potential energy between two points first closer then away from the surface of the magnet, telling me that the values become smaller away from the magnet. Then, after being told that potential energy we talk about always has a single reference point you're trying to escape through proposing that away from the magnet where the force is negligible the potential energy is also close to zero because of the direction of the measurement of that force. That's blatantly incorrect. This means that the work to move a test object from point A to a point at the surface (that is moving it in one direction) will differ from the work to move the same body from the surface to point A (that is, in the opposite direction) because in one of the cases the potential energy will be zero, according to your understanding of the role of direction. This discrepancy between these two works isn't a violation of CoE but is only a demonstration of your confusion. No qualified person with half-sense will accept this as any proof whatsoever.

So, you'd better straighten out your understanding of these elementary things before proceeding with your proof and try not to finagle further because that's one of the worst things a person willing to deal with science can do. We don't need people who claim violation of CoE to fail at that elementary level and be given as justified examples that only nuts can have such claims.

[Omnibus]

@CLaNZeR,

This isn't a contest. This is clarification of some elementary notions which, surprisingly, @smOkey2 was incorrect about. I repeat, @smOky2 is wrong on this one. Instead of acknowledging his error, though, he started finagling which made it even more disgusting. We must not allow ourselves, those who are interested in these kinds of studies, to provide the numerous enemies we have with such  elementary reasons to be laughed at.

[CLaNZeR]

@CLaNZeR,

This isn't a contest.

Who said anything about any of this being a contest?

I do this for fun, nothing else.

[Omnibus]

@CLaNZeR,

My bad. Sorry, mate, that was for @Tinker.

[gwhy!]

I often do not agree with you but you have shown some common sense and reality

If you use a Wheel to enter the magnetic field based on what I have experienced there will not be an issue with the entry gate as the moving magnet will enter the array under attraction as the repulsion is encountered only at the front end of the array. IE enter the array before the end.

I offer no truths or data

Hi Tinker

I was thinking along these lines as well of entering the gate beyond the Entry Repulsion.

What if took the Rotor and made it perfectly balanced but hinged on the Axle. So it still spins around but the arms get tilted up and down.

Then some mechanism that will not cause too much friction too lift it past the Entrance and drop it into the Transition area.

Excuse he bad picture not too scale but a general idea.



Cheers

Sean.

or maybe like this..