Tri-Force Magnets - Finally shown to be OU?

[Rusty_Springs]

Hi All
I can't send the video I wanted to here so I am posting it in the file section of the Minato Wheel Group at Yahoo its called CrossingAirGap.wmv.
Take Care All
Graham

[sm0ky2]

@ Graham

If you take another gate - like the one you're launching it from in the video, and place it where the Tri-Force Gate is,the roller wont make it into the gate.

sending it through a weaker gate will not get you back through the original repulsion field.

There are some variations that seem just as strong the 'launching' gate, but dont have that enormous "V" field to pas through. -

[Omnibus]

@Rusty_Springs,

I'm having trouble accessing the Yahoo! Minato Group file section. Is it possible to upload it to another server? Thanks.

[Omnibus]

@smOky2,

It has to be understood once an for all that one stationary field, no matter how elaborate its form, cannot create conditions for overunity. There must be another independent field, superimposed properly, to assist for that purpose. These are basic things that have to be understood first before we proceed. That lack of understanding is the underlying problem in every one of the devices we're discussing and trying to reproduce. I see what confusion @Harvey is getting himself into with his shuttle example and others such as @pcstru4 are in no better position trying to replace one confusion with another. That's not an unusual situation, however. Confusion regarding even such elementary concepts as energy, work and force is stunning and exists even at the highest levels of academia.

In order for these efforts to build self-sustaining devices to be fruitful not only clarity regarding the elementary notions has to be established but some more subtle issues have to sorted out.  It must be understood very well what is that mechanical construction that can provide, through proper superposition of two independent fields, conditions such that a full turn of the rotor (that is, traveling along a closed loop in this combination of fields) will result in non-zero energy gain. Producing such gain discontinuously is already well understood. How is this to be done continuously, what is that concrete construction that will result in continuous production of excess energy, that is to be understood. All these devices by alsetalokins, torbays and xpenzifs are just different renditions of the same principle for continuous production of excess energy which isn't understood at all at this point. The most one can do today is to hit accidentally onto something, as the likes of @alsetalokin have done, not being able either to explain what he's done or to reproduce it.

[Omnibus]

It will be very interesting if it turns out that producing excess energy continuously is principally impossible and we?re only left with producing energy out of no source only discontinuously, the possibility for which has already been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. Are we going to snub that possibility and not develop it for practical purposes? That?ll be pretty foolish I think.