Tri-Force Magnets - Finally shown to be OU?

[Omnibus]

Another thing that isn't obvious is your implication that if you extend that several meters the input repulsion will be overcome. Overcoming that repulsion (that's the sticky spot per se) is the gist of the matter in these experiments in trying to achieve self-sustaining run. Not solved until now in a continuous variant--the only solution so far is the overcoming of the sticky spot in SMOT thus causing it to produce excess energy discontinuously (violating CoE).

no the "gist" of the experiment is verifying that energy IN, is greater than energy OUT.

while looping the system would verify this, this is not the only way it can be done. nor the only way it should be done, to understand where the excess energy is comming from.

now - to move a mass, across a horizontal distance requires some ammount of energy.
mass-gravity-surfacearea....
so i would say that the length of the gates matters a good deal. there is a distance at which the work done by the array of gates has performed more work than was required to overcome the initial repulsion field. If the gates can possibly reach this distance - then "OU" would be established.

Wether or not the repulsion force at the END of the gate can overcome the force at the BEGINING is frankly irrelevant from this perspective.

I can't agree more. To prove violation of CoE it isn't necessarily needed to construct a self-sustaining device. The only thing needed is to prove that the energy in is less than the energy out. Like I said, so far that's clear cut only in the Taisnierius' device (SMOT) and in the magnetic propulsor which I gave a link to several postings back. In this case what you're saying is only qualitative and cannot be proven rigorously because the values of the magnetic potential energy can be easily disputed. Therefore, the energy balance isn't as clear cut as you present it.

[Omnibus]

@SMOT-ientists

The SMOT requires energy "input" at both ends.

1) to lift the ball and place it into position for SMOTing
and
2) to remove the ball FROM the other end of the SMOT

This Energy is NOT overcome after applying a gravitational field to remove the ball.
You must STILL input MORE energy into the system to LIFT the ball back up against that same gravitational field, to get the ball to where it started.

SMOT = not CoE.

Of course, this is ridiculous. It's not worth even commenting on. You haven't understood what SMOT is.

[sm0ky2]

@SMOT-ientists

The SMOT requires energy "input" at both ends.

1) to lift the ball and place it into position for SMOTing
and
2) to remove the ball FROM the other end of the SMOT

This Energy is NOT overcome after applying a gravitational field to remove the ball.
You must STILL input MORE energy into the system to LIFT the ball back up against that same gravitational field, to get the ball to where it started.

SMOT = not CoE.

Of course, this is ridiculous. It's not worth even commenting on. You haven't understood what SMOT is.

so where is your working, closed-loop smot video?? post it in the SMOT thread, so we can all see this "proven CoE"

or is YOUR smot, not "built properly"..? perhaps your superimposed field isn't quite "adjusted" correctly, to raise the ball back up to the original height?

[Lakes]

Can we keep any SMOT discussion out of this thread please?

[klicUK]

Hi everyone, I thought it was about time I introduced myself to this thread.

I first saw the Triforce gate when Clanzer posted on YouTube, and it
caught my interest because I'd just started playing with the "Wave
Gate". It seemed logical to join the Wave Gate base and make the
Triforce and carry out the same tests. I was pleasantly surprised to
find the Triforce seems to be stronger.

Obviously the stuff that I posted in my videos is scratching the
surface of the tests that I've carried out, I hope you found them useful.

Any how, I'm uploading another video  regarding shielding at the start of the gate.

I'd also like to say thanks to Graham for sharing your discovery.

Cheers,

KLiCuk