Tri-Force Magnets - Finally shown to be OU?

[supersam]

@omni,

and exactly what does any of that have to do with the tri-force magnet array, any more than the smot?

lol
sam

ps:  we still havn't seen how a horizonaly mounted tri-force array can affect the octohedron!

[Omnibus]

@Yadaraf,

I strongly disagree. As you probably know I have proven conclusively that there is OU (violation of CoE) exactly according to the definition you gave above. Therefore, my thinking regarding a somewhat more practical device than the SMOT which is the pmm is entirely along these lines.

I don't see the concrete mechanism as to how this continuous spin might happen due to the interaction with the geophysical factors other than expressing certain intuition, as you do. It may be also interesting and it may also be OU but it seems more far fetched than the already established possibility for violating CoE and applying it to build a pmm. So far there isn't any inkling whatsoever for a possibility geophysical factors to participate in driving a device such as that of @alsetalokin. As of this moment @alsetalokin's device should be considered as nothing else but a hoax.

[Omnibus]

@omni,

and exactly what does any of that have to do with the tri-force magnet array, any more than the smot?

lol
sam

ps:  we still havn't seen how a horizonaly mounted tri-force array can affect the octohedron!

So called "tri-force" array suffers from the same problems as SMOT or any other device when trying to build a pmm based on it. It adds nothing new to the problem. Like I said, the solution should be sought along the lines of proper superimposing an assisting conservative field. Such solution once found will be applicable to anyone of the numerous seemingly differing designs based on the same underlying principle and having the same problems.

As for the SMOT, the advantage is that with it proving violation of CoE undeniable while anything else, including the tri-force, applied for this purpose supplies the potential critics with ample room for finagling.

[supersam]

@omni,

and how do you propose that expermenters get to this conclusion?  with the smot?  well it seems to me that things are progressing, except for the blabber that you are throwing abut without any experimentation!  so why don't you just shut the f UP AND LET PEOPLE DO THERE EXPERIMENTS THAT YOU HAVE NO INTINTIONS OF DOING?

lol
sam

[sm0ky2]

@Yadaraf,

I strongly disagree. As you probably know I have proven conclusively that there is OU (violation of CoE) exactly according to the definition you gave above. Therefore, my thinking regarding a somewhat more practical device than the SMOT which is the pmm is entirely along these lines.

I don't see the concrete mechanism as to how this continuous spin might happen due to the interaction with the geophysical factors other than expressing certain intuition, as you do. It may be also interesting and it may also be OU but it seems more far fetched than the already established possibility for violating CoE and applying it to build a pmm. So far there isn't any inkling whatsoever for a possibility geophysical factors to participate in driving a device such as that of @alsetalokin. As of this moment @alsetalokin's device should be considered as nothing else but a hoax.

First i shall start by stating the obvious fact that ANY system, in which multiple moving components cooridinate with one another to produce a desired effect (spinning around?) - would REQUIRE initial input energy. regardless of wether or not those interactions resulted in OU/PM .  if the objects are at rest, there is no way for those interactions to occur, much less cooridinate with one another to set the system into motion.

The exception to this would be a magnetic or gravitational imablance - in which the system would move to its point of rest - then the above would still apply.   

wether or not AL's device was real does not change this. - because that too would fall into this category if it were genuine.

The Tri-Force has already been shown to exhibit excess energy in several configurations- so LOWERING the losses in these systems is not only "usefull", but i think it could very well be ESSENTIAL to maintaining momentum and overcomming the entrance repulsion barrier.   

Keep up the good work guys.   

@ OMNI - if your SMOT replication is truly " violating CoE" (most everyone else's are clearly NOT)  - then please post the information of how you demonstrated this in the SMOT thread - If you think we're "wasting our time", then perhaps your SMOT device is what we should be trying to 'loop'.