Tri-Force Magnets - Finally shown to be OU?

[sm0ky2]

i accept your surrender. Until you have the time to actually experiment with the Tri-Force, then perhaps you should postpone judgement on your misconcieved idea of how it functions.

[Omnibus]

i accept your surrender. Until you have the time to actually experiment with the Tri-Force, then perhaps you should postpone judgement on your misconcieved idea of how it functions.

No, this is your surrender, not mine. You don't understand the problem.

[sm0ky2]

i accept your surrender. Until you have the time to actually experiment with the Tri-Force, then perhaps you should postpone judgement on your misconcieved idea of how it functions.

No, this is your surrender, not mine. You don't understand the problem.

the problem is very simple:

How much energy is required to lift a mass to a given height.

[Omnibus]

i accept your surrender. Until you have the time to actually experiment with the Tri-Force, then perhaps you should postpone judgement on your misconcieved idea of how it functions.

No, this is your surrender, not mine. You don't understand the problem.

the problem is very simple:

How much energy is required to lift a mass to a given height.

Well, to lift a mass to a given height h1 in absence of magnetic field, the energy is ngh1. However, if at point A the mass has magnetic potential energy Ma while at point B the mass has magnetic potential energy Mb, where Ma > Mb then the energy to lift this same mass to the same height h1 is (mfg1 - (Ma - Mb)). Thus, you see in absence of magnetic field you have to spend more energy that in the presence of such field, correct? This can be defended easily in the case of SMOT and in the case of the magnetic propulsor..

The above cannot be defended easily in the present case because immediate speculations begin as to whether Ma > Mb or Ma < Mb and there's no way for you to sustain a theoretical argument one way or the other (of course, measurements can be made but why not resolve the question at once with the SMOT and the magnetic propulsor). This possibility for dishonest speculations also applies to other points from the trajectory.

Therefore, in order to pin the completely dishonest critics (and they are dishonest, believe me--one blatant example is the politely arrogant @modervador, probably also a lackey of some of these puppeteers I was mentioning above) down you must use SMOT or magnetic propulsor because everything is so clear cut that the only resort these critics have is to blabber incoherent nonsense. And that's no resort at all, correct?

Understand, the principle these devices are based on is the same but the difference in design makes SMOT and the magnetic propulsor real killers in theoretical discussion.

[sm0ky2]

the problem is very simple:

How much energy is required to lift a mass to a given height.

Well, to lift a mass to a given height h1 in absence of magnetic field, the energy is ngh1. However, if at point A the mass has magnetic potential energy Ma while at point B the mass has magnetic potential energy Mb, where Ma > Mb then the energy to lift this same mass to the same height h1 is (mfg1 - (Ma - Mb)). Thus, you see in absence of magnetic field you have to spend more energy that in the presence of such field, correct? The above cannot be defended easily in the present case because immediate speculations begin as to whether Ma > Mb or Ma < Mb and there's no way for you to sustain a theoretical argument one way or the other

--- First::  (Ma-Mb) is essentially 0. These two fields are equal and opposite in the triangle gate.
By using 3x 60-degree angles, joining spherical nodes-  we create a perpendicular flux-meridian.
In case you havent been paying attention.


Second h1 and h2 are outside of the field influence, and therefore Ma AND Mb at both those locations ARE in fact 0.

and 3rd you are completely ignoring field M[a<->b] which is the source of linear gain, and as such the focus of our investigation.