Tri-Force Magnets - Finally shown to be OU?

[HopeForHumanity]

Shall we award omnibus a prize for his useless smot? Whether it violates CoE is out of the question. CAN YOU USE IT TO PRODUCE ENERGY? Thats the way. I have never seen one post that actualy talked about, or tried, to construct a closed loop. IMO all your research was a waste. IT suffers the same problem as virtual particles. Only CoE in another space and time. But that argument some how didn't make sense to you... They will not recognize your smot because it cannot be used for anything, thus in their minds, it doesn't violate CoE because the energy cannot be harvested. You have proven without a doubt that your SMOT was a waste of research... It might not have been if you actualy continued and made it useful, but now, it's nothing but a proof. You have proven the square has four sides not three. Congrats on your wasted invention...

[sm0ky2]

@ Omni - steorn did an extensive study on the SMOT device, and have proven it to operate at less than 75% effeciency.

my question was for a replicatable design of YOUR SMOT, that you  claim is "UO"

i have read several discussions in this forum, and cannot find the one(s) you keep making reference to,
all i have found is hundreds of posts of you arguing with people about the SMOT...

and understand me on this point - if something TRULY violates CoE then it IS by default - loopable.
the physical technicality of forming that loop may become extremely complicated, rendering the engineer incapable of constructing it, but if theres more energy out than in, it can be looped.

[Yadaraf]

@Yadaraf,

I only agree partially with what you say about these findings. Most of them aren't fundamental discoveries to begin with. I'm not inclined at this moment to discuss it further though. Maybe sometime later. What I'm really interested is to discuss whether or not there is a possibility in principle for a self-sustaining device. What would prevent, as a matter of principle, the obviously obtained discontinuous excess energy to be harnessed in a self-sustaining device? If that's the case there must be some theoretical reason preventing this. What is it?

Omni,


Q:  Because this thread is related to TriForce technology can you -- OR ANYONE -- think of a lucky accident related to the TriForce experiments?


The "lucky accidents" below are well documented, and you can find many of them in the four volume set on "A History of Science."

... Vol I:  http://www.worldwideschool.org/library/books/sci/history/AHistoryofScienceVolumeI/toc.html
... Vol II:  http://www.worldwideschool.org/library/books/sci/history/AHistoryofScienceVolumeII/toc.html
... Vol III:  http://www.worldwideschool.org/library/books/sci/history/AHistoryofScienceVolumeIII/toc.html
... Vol IV:  http://www.worldwideschool.org/library/books/sci/history/AHistoryofScienceVolumeIV/toc.html


A few "lucky accidents" led to these scientific discoveries
==========================================
Penicillin,
Microwave,
Insulin,
Polypropylene,
Quinine,
X-rays,
Pap Smears,
Interferon,
Bioelectricty,
Asparatame,
Rayon,
Vaccination for Disease Prevention,
Cosmetic Botox,
V-iagra,
The Telephone,
Superglue,
Post-It Notes,
Vulcanization,
Velcro,
Corn Flakes,
Electromagnetics,
Cellophane,
Bose-Einstein Statistics,
WhipMag AGW (?)     Yada thinks "maybe."

Cheers

Yada..
.

[Omnibus]

Shall we award omnibus a prize for his useless smot? Whether it violates CoE is out of the question. CAN YOU USE IT TO PRODUCE ENERGY? Thats the way. I have never seen one post that actualy talked about, or tried, to construct a closed loop. IMO all your research was a waste. IT suffers the same problem as virtual particles. Only CoE in another space and time. But that argument some how didn't make sense to you... They will not recognize your smot because it cannot be used for anything, thus in their minds, it doesn't violate CoE because the energy cannot be harvested. You have proven without a doubt that your SMOT was a waste of research... It might not have been if you actualy continued and made it useful, but now, it's nothing but a proof. You have proven the square has four sides not three. Congrats on your wasted invention...

See, the thing is that the quantity of excess energy produced is too small a quantity.

Let's observe the magnetic propulsor http://omnibus.fortunecity.com/magnetic_propulsor.gif which is the closes to what we're discussing here. There's no question that the energy which the ball has at C  which is (mgh1 + Kc + L) where Kc is the kinetic energy at C and L are the losses along B-C is greater than the energy (mgh1 - (Ma - Mb)) which was imparted to the ball, where Ma and Mb are the magnetic potential energies at A and B.

In other words at C the ball has energy in excess to what was imparted to it. That's a clear violation of CoE.

First thing to note is that the entire amount of energy at C, except for the losses stands to be turned into other energies when the ball will inevitably go back at A.

Notice carefully, except for the losses L along B-C.

Therefore, no matter what energies the ball converts its available energy at C upon its return at C, there will always be an excess energy equal to L which will already be lost for that purpose. This energy L is parto of the free lunch. Very small amount, however.

As far as science goes, no matter how small, proving that there is any amount produced over the amount of energy spent is a violation of the unthinkable and has far-reaching theoretical consequence. Unfortunately, of no immediate practical application.

So far I observed one quantity of energy, namely L, which is in excess to the imparted energy and that?s enough for scientific purposes to obliterate CoE as a general principle in science. You can find other quantities of excess energy if you continue this analysis. However, again, despite its immense significance as a theoretical conclusion in science, the smallness of the effect doesn?t make it directly practical at the present time. This isn?t the first time in science when a substantial theoretical effect has little or no foreseeable practical application. I?m sure @smOkey2 can give you ample examples of such cases.

[Omnibus]

@Yadaraf,

Believe it or not, despite my initial rejection, I hooked myself up with the @alsetalokin scam led by the feeling that it might be an example of a lucky coincidence. This was an irrational, purely intuitive feeling on a second thought. Turns out my initial intuition, the one that usually leads me in research, was the right one. Probably you know from before that I'm very skeptical towards all magnet contraptions. Well, people make mistakes. I must admit, though, that it was a carefully crafted hoax.

This one we're discussing here held some promise especially after @klicUK's experiment with the shielding. Unfortunately, as expected, it suffers trivially from the same problems every single desogn that was tried has.