Tri-Force Magnets - Finally shown to be OU?

[Omnibus]

@ 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.

Never mind Steorn. Their opinion counts for nothing at present, as is well known.

Take a look at Naudin's video. There's a clear proof for OU.

A conclusive proof, however, is the one with the closed A-B-C-A loop--see my reply to @HopeForHumanity.

[sm0ky2]

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.

yes this is true. however, if you link enough of these things to reach an energy value of substantial quantity - hten the implications cannot be so easily overlooked.

couple that with the fact that we can compact incredible ammounts of magnetic energy into a small space - (neos)creating something usefull out of tiny ammounts of energy can be easily realized.

this is evident in the Neo Tri-Force which can climb a considerably steeper incline,  thus suggesting that the transitional-phase energy is even greater in a "stronger" gate.

have you noticed similar results with a SMOT made from neos?

[sm0ky2]

A conclusive proof, however, is the one with the closed A-B-C-A loop--see my reply to @HopeForHumanity.

are you and i looking at the same diagram? there is LESS energy at point A, than there is at point B.
the energy leaving point C is not enough to return from A to B.

the energy you must put into the system is equal to (B -A)mg, to start the next cycle.

sure there is some energy value from B<->C, but this is countered by the attraction force (or more rather caused by) sticking the ball at the end of the ramp. That energy is put BACK into the system, by gravity, which pulls the ball free and returns it to point A. Thus the entire energy LOST in the system is (A-B) mg.

[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.

yes this is true. however, if you link enough of these things to reach an energy value of substantial quantity - hten the implications cannot be so easily overlooked.

couple that with the fact that we can compact incredible ammounts of magnetic energy into a small space - (neos)creating something usefull out of tiny ammounts of energy can be easily realized.

this is evident in the Neo Tri-Force which can climb a considerably steeper incline,  thus suggesting that the transitional-phase energy is even greater in a "stronger" gate.

have you noticed similar results with a SMOT made from neos?

Yes, that's what attracted my attention here but it turned out experimentally it's not the case. The quantity of energy out is again only slightly more than the input, insufficient to surmount the initial barrier (in this case there's an initial barrier--conditions differ slightly from SMOT). Unless you or someone else can show otherwise. Like I said, @klicUK's screening results gave some hope but, again, that doesn't appear to be enough. The excess energy is too small a portion to be useful in these configuration (by useful I mean to make these configuration self-sustaining). This is what the experiments seem to show so far.

[Omnibus]

A conclusive proof, however, is the one with the closed A-B-C-A loop--see my reply to @HopeForHumanity.

are you and i looking at the same diagram? there is LESS energy at point A, than there is at point B.
the energy leaving point C is not enough to return from A to B.

the energy you must put into the system is equal to (B -A)mg, to start the next cycle.

sure there is some energy value from B<->C, but this is countered by the attraction force (or more rather caused by) sticking the ball at the end of the ramp. That energy is put BACK into the system, by gravity, which pulls the ball free and returns it to point A. Thus the entire energy LOST in the system is (A-B) mg.

Indeed, there's less energy at B (and that's the imparted energy) than at C which the ball stands to transform into other energies. That's exactly the violation of CoE.