Tri-Force Magnets - Finally shown to be OU?

[Omnibus]

Some people have really gone off the deep end.

[tinu]

The very same proof used for SMOT can also be employed to "prove beyond any doubt" that the CoE is ?violated? in the following gravitational only (and non-magnetic) setup:

B *  *
            *                               *   * A
               *                      *
                  *           *
                  C *   *

Ein=EpotA-EpotB
But Ec>Ein, thus ? violation of CoE!
I wish.

Cheers,
Tinu

What the hell is this?

It?s a solid proof of CoE violation for a ball gravitationally moving on a B-C-A curve.

You see, the energy I put in is Ein=EpotA-EpotB, which can also be written as Ein=m*g*h(AB) where m is mass of the ball and h(AB)is vertical distance between A and B. And the energy of the ball in C (which is kinetic but it doesn?t matter) is EC=m*g*h(BC). So, because always h(BC)> h(AB) due to the particular setup under study, it indubitably results that Ein<Ec.

Therefore, having proved that EC>Ein, it is clear that the ball in C is having more energy that I put in!!! Eureka!!!
Thanks to your proof for SMOT that greatly inspired me, I definitely proved without any doubt that GOT is also overunity and that CoE is violated. GOT (SGOT also accepted between friends) will stand for (Simple) Gravitational Overunity Toy and I hereby release it to the public domain. I release it with one exception: X-(S)GOT, which is foreseen to be the improved pulsed version of (S)GOT (see Tseung et all); that would be way too OU, hence a real public danger.

Cheers,
Tinu

[Rusty_Springs]

Hi Omnibus
On a level surface ofcause it wont move but as far as I know the test was not on a level surface but a slightly downhill surface, if I'm wrong and its a level surface the I take back the statment and you can't do the same thing if you take the magnets away but if its the slightest bit downhill from B to C then it can be done with out magnets and gives the same result.
Oh and I also have no idea what the gravity thing is.
Take Care Omnibus
Graham

[utilitarian]

The very same proof used for SMOT can also be employed to "prove beyond any doubt" that the CoE is ?violated? in the following gravitational only (and non-magnetic) setup:

B *  *
            *                               *   * A
               *                      *
                  *           *
                  C *   *

Ein=EpotA-EpotB
But Ec>Ein, thus ? violation of CoE!
I wish.

Cheers,
Tinu

What the hell is this?

It?s a solid proof of CoE violation for a ball gravitationally moving on a B-C-A curve.

You see, the energy I put in is Ein=EpotA-EpotB, which can also be written as Ein=m*g*h(AB) where m is mass of the ball and h(AB)is vertical distance between A and B. And the energy of the ball in C (which is kinetic but it doesn?t matter) is EC=m*g*h(BC). So, because always h(BC)> h(AB) due to the particular setup under study, it indubitably results that Ein<Ec.

Therefore, having proved that EC>Ein, it is clear that the ball in C is having more energy that I put in!!! Eureka!!!
Thanks to your proof for SMOT that greatly inspired me, I definitely proved without any doubt that GOT is also overunity and that CoE is violated. GOT (SGOT also accepted between friends) will stand for (Simple) Gravitational Overunity Toy and I hereby release it to the public domain. I release it with one exception: X-(S)GOT, which is foreseen to be the improved pulsed version of (S)GOT (see Tseung et all); that would be way too OU, hence a real public danger.

Cheers,
Tinu

I think tinu is really on to something!  This is truly brilliant.  Clearly, the ball loses more energy along B->C->A than is imparted by the hand from A->B.  Plainly, this is overunity, as this energy comes from nothing (not even a magnet).  The fact that the ball does not return to B on its own is irrelevant. The fact that there is discontinuous production of excess energy is enough to show a violation of CoE.

I propose that from now on, all discussions regarding free energy start at this very point.  CoE has been proven in a simple gravity setup, now it is up to all the inventors to close the SGOT loop and make a self-sustaining device.  Now, admittedly, this is a difficult engineering problem, but surely a surmountable one.  We have a violation of CoE plainly in sight, so it just a matter of making use of it.

This is not to take anything away from the SMOT, which is also overunity for the exact same reason.  There is no reason inventors cannot work in parallel to develop both the SGOT and SMOT into something that produces useful energy.

[Omnibus]

Hi Omnibus
On a level surface ofcause it wont move but as far as I know the test was not on a level surface but a slightly downhill surface, if I'm wrong and its a level surface the I take back the statment and you can't do the same thing if you take the magnets away but if its the slightest bit downhill from B to C then it can be done with out magnets and gives the same result.
Oh and I also have no idea what the gravity thing is.
Take Care Omnibus
Graham

No, the surface is level, not downhill, so your suggestion is incorrect.