Tri-Force Magnets - Finally shown to be OU?

[supersam]

@omni,

what the f@#$$, does that have to do with the tri-force?  what part of that question are you having so much trouble with?  quit cluttering this thread with your smot bull!!!

lol
sam

[Omnibus]

@ OMNI -   


            The doctor told you to take those meds for a reason.


YOU keep bringing up the alleged "CoE violation"  with the SMOT, in THIS THREAD.  Yet when anyone questions you about it, you reply "this is not the proper thread for SMOT discussion"

WHY keep bringing it up then??  WHY just just shut up about the SMOT?
do you WANT us to disprove SMOT "CoE violation" if we disprove it, will you thne shut up about it?
or at least post an accredited journal for peer review by the scientific community.  think they might be interested in your findings. (or amused by your folly)

Specifically you should not try to be an arbiter of this because, as was established, you're confusing force with energy. You have basic gaps in understanding and therefore should restrain form pushing yourself as a judge for this.

you keep trying to imply that, when i was quite clear on the dinstinction between the two, it was YOU who was confused about the context in which the force (and resultant energy over distance) was being observed.

And if you are not satisfied with ME personally peer-reviewing your results, thats fine there are plenty of esteemed members in your field of research that will be chosen at random and usually confidential,  for this purpose when/if you sumbit your work for peer review. But - you already know this....

and your claim "all possible energies are accounted for" ----

Does YOUR SMOT ball end up HIGHER than it started, and FREE from the magnetic field??

This last sentence shows your basic misunderstanding of the problem. It isn't necessary for the ball to end up higher for CoE to be violated. As for the esteemed members, there's no one here whose credentials and affiliation is known, as would be required for a perr-reviewer, so calling anyone esteemed member is stretching it. The only way one can judges about credentials is by reading the arguments and that isn't at all favorable regarding your understanding of the matter. That's why I'm directing this to you--don't try to be an arbiter in this since you're showing continuously a basic misunderstanding of the problem. There are several other active participants who allow themselves to fill in the forum with their confusion, sometimes very aggressively at that. What is observed is that the less competent one is the more aggressive he or she tries to push himself or herself into providing unneeded opinions.

Also, there are several people, however, who understand already very well the proof but the dishonesty they are used to, typical for the state of affairs in science nowadays, is preventing them from openly admitting their mistakes during the discussion and conceding that CoE is indeed violated. That's the unfortunate truth and I'm sure there are bright people out there who really see that nasty situation and the day will come when they will speak out.

[Omnibus]

@omni,

what the f@#$$, does that have to do with the tri-force?  what part of that question are you having so much trouble with?  quit cluttering this thread with your smot bull!!!

lol
sam

This has everything to do with any claim for overunity. The fact that you don't get it is your problem.

As for that "tri-force" it was shown to be a miserable failure when attempts were made to create a self-sustaining device based on it. There's nothing in it in this respect and has to be abandoned for the purposes of constructing a pmm as anyone of the numerous similar ideas. Some new approach has to be sought and that new approach has to include somehow assistance form uncoupled additional conservative field. How? That has to be discussed, I don't have the answer right now. All I know is that that's the way excess energy can be produced discontinuously and that is the only scientifically sound road known so far to follow for achieving continuous production of excess energy.

[Omnibus]

@smOky2,

The problem with you is that once you were told where your mistake is regarding force and energy and you understood it you started to finagle and instead of admitting it openly you tried to find crazy ways of getting out of the situation and began sinking even deeper. This is a very unseemly behavior for a scientist. Anybody can make mistakes but not admitting it and trying to make it look as if you didn't make them is one great offense in science. I'm telling you this because, despite your confusion on certain matters, I still see you have qualities. You're not as some of these other people here who are somehow fundamentally entangled in their misunderstandings that I see no hope in any exchange with them. It would be very bad for you if you behave like that, trying to make it appear you didn't make a certain mistake, instead of openly admitting it. A day will come such behavior will inevitably hurt you. This is a forum which won't have life consequences for you but there may be situations where your career as a scientist may be damaged because of such behavior.

[ramset]

What can you say ?[probably alot] everybody back to work   you have a world to save   Chet