Tri-Force Magnets - Finally shown to be OU?

[Rusty_Springs]

Hi All
I just wanted to show what someone did with the SMOT of Eric's site, this shows what I think will always happen with a SMOT setup.
The address is http://www.schmalenbach.de/patent/
Take Care All
Graham

[Omnibus]

Hi All
I just wanted to show what someone did with the SMOT of Eric's site, this shows what I think will always happen with a SMOT setup.
The address is http://www.schmalenbach.de/patent/
Take Care All
Graham

This is a well known experiment. SMOT undoubtedly produces energy out of no source (excess energy) discontinuously as has already been proven conclusively. Continuous production of excess energy is a difficult engineering problem, not solved yet, because of the inconvenient form of the produced excess energy. I've emphasized this many times. Therefore, it can hardly be expected that solution of the continuous excess energy production will come about as straightforward as the attempt shown in the link let alone by constructions such as whatever one calls "tri-force". Continuous production of excess energy with the latter is impossible (unlike with SMOT where it is possible in principle and the problem is only engineering) because it utilizes only a time-independent magnetic field. I've said that many times and I will repeat it until it gets across to some here.

[sm0ky2]

@zerotensor,

Very briefly. At that using a simpler contraption than SMOT. As you can see in this diagram http://omnibus.fortunecity.com/magnetic_propulsor.gif, the energy (mgh1 - (Ma -Mb)) imparted to the ball, where Ma and Mb are the magnetic potential energies at A and B, respectively, m is the mass of the ball and g is the gravitational constant, is less than the energy (mgh1 + Kc + L) where Kc is the kinetic energy at C and L are the losses incurred from B to C, the ball has at C which stands to be inevitably transformed into other energies when the ball inevitably gets back at A. According to CoE at no point can the ball have more energy to be transformed into other energies than the energy imparted to it, which is obviously contrary to what is observed here.

The above is a conclusive rigorous proof for violation of CoE.

Qualitatively violation of CoE can be observed still in Naudin?s experiment. Indeed, despite the fact that less energy is imparted to the ball to lift it at height h compared to the energy imparted in the control experiment to lift it at the same height (where the magnets are pushed away) the distance the ball reaches using SMOT is greater than the distance the ball reaches in the control experiment.

@ OMNI - you have failed to address the energy losses from C to A  = [(h(C) - h(A)] mg


at point C, there is a negative magnetic potential holding the ball to the end of the ramp.
THAT IS WHY THE BALL MUST DROP FROM C TO A - you CANNOT ignore this, i will NOT let you.

[sm0ky2]

Hi All
Heres a drawing of the iron and bismuth setup I would like to test once I get some bismuth.
Take Care All
Graham

@ Graham - as the magnet approaches the iron on the right side, heading to the left <--
   
           N-pole,   
the right side of the iron magnetizes N, which makes the bismuth junction S(Bi)/S(Fe)

this will pull the magnet in towards the junction - now as the magnet nears the junction, the iron magnetizes N on the junction end - which gives the bismuth a diamagnetic "n" pole at the junction.
              N(Bi)/N(Fe)
like applying a large brake to the magnet trying to cross the junction.

[Omnibus]

@zerotensor,

Very briefly. At that using a simpler contraption than SMOT. As you can see in this diagram http://omnibus.fortunecity.com/magnetic_propulsor.gif, the energy (mgh1 - (Ma -Mb)) imparted to the ball, where Ma and Mb are the magnetic potential energies at A and B, respectively, m is the mass of the ball and g is the gravitational constant, is less than the energy (mgh1 + Kc + L) where Kc is the kinetic energy at C and L are the losses incurred from B to C, the ball has at C which stands to be inevitably transformed into other energies when the ball inevitably gets back at A. According to CoE at no point can the ball have more energy to be transformed into other energies than the energy imparted to it, which is obviously contrary to what is observed here.

The above is a conclusive rigorous proof for violation of CoE.

Qualitatively violation of CoE can be observed still in Naudin?s experiment. Indeed, despite the fact that less energy is imparted to the ball to lift it at height h compared to the energy imparted in the control experiment to lift it at the same height (where the magnets are pushed away) the distance the ball reaches using SMOT is greater than the distance the ball reaches in the control experiment.

@ OMNI - you have failed to address the energy losses from C to A  = [(h(C) - h(A)] mg


at point C, there is a negative magnetic potential holding the ball to the end of the ramp.
THAT IS WHY THE BALL MUST DROP FROM C TO A - you CANNOT ignore this, i will NOT let you.

What are you not gonna let me? Read and think. I can only explain this to you but cannot understand it for you.