Tri-Force Magnets - Finally shown to be OU?

[sm0ky2]

@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.

you have yet to verify this, i have proven that i am correct here. and more than myself have verified this by experiment. You are changing the context in which the energy values are being represented.
This was about the effects of the magnetic potential on the gravitational constant OUTSIDE of the field of influence. IN THIS scenerio you MUST examine the magnetic potential BETWEEN TWO POINTS OUTSIDE OF THE FIELD!! Period!. - this is where the roller starts , and this is where you must verify your INPUT ENERGY. examining whats inside the black box from outside does nothing for us in this context.

you cannot turn around in the other direction and measure the inverse of the the INSIDE of the repulsion field. This does not apply here. the inside of the repulsion field does not affect the gravitational constant at a point outside of the field.

Meaning that the Input Energy and Output Energy are independent of the magnetic potential AT THOSE POINTS OUTSIDE OF THE FIELD. - This verifies that the system is OverUnity.

[sm0ky2]

@ GWhy

                   The repulsion field is still along the circumferance of the circle in that design.
it would appear slightly above where the roller-mag is.
To completely avoid this spot the gates must be longer or the rotor smaller. Which decreases from your rotational-force. i've tried this set-up in several ways, the best i could do was push the repulsion further out (like in graham's corner gate), but it still crosses the circumferance, and thus works against the wheel.

[gwhy!]

@ GWhy

                   The repulsion field is still along the circumferance of the circle in that design.
it would appear slightly above where the roller-mag is.
To completely avoid this spot the gates must be longer or the rotor smaller. Which decreases from your rotational-force. i've tried this set-up in several ways, the best i could do was push the repulsion further out (like in graham's corner gate), but it still crosses the circumferance, and thus works against the wheel.

Thats a shame,,, what about some sort of shielding at both ends ?

[Omnibus]

@smOky2,

You have gaps in understanding potential energy which compromises any arguments you may have about violation of CoE. Therefore it's counterproductive to continue the theoretical argument. Let's see what you can do in terms of producing a device which can make full turns on its own, without external energy. That will be the real proof for violation of CoE in this case. I will see what I can do experimentally too. Although, except for @klicUK's shielding idea so far the things don't seem very promising.

[RunningBare]

@smOky2,

You have gaps in understanding potential energy which compromises any arguments you may have about violation of CoE. Therefore it's counterproductive to continue the theoretical argument. Let's see what you can do in terms of producing a device which can make full turns on its own, without external energy. That will be the real proof for violation of CoE in this case. I will see what I can do experimentally too. Although, except for @klicUK's shielding idea so far the things don't seem very promising.

Speaking of credibility, where is your whipmag replication?