Tri-Force Magnets - Finally shown to be OU?

[Omnibus]

@tinu,

Now, take the position of a devil's advocate and explain why your experiment is not in violation of CoE.

The Devil will surely like to question your understanding of CoE principle, since you agreed that both SMOT and SGOT violate CoE.

Other than that, there is not much left to discuss but maybe engineering challenges. Like sm0ky2 correctly anticipated, there is quite a large class of such devices, including SEOT (Electrical) and maybe CNOT (complex nuclear, either weak or strong). Nonetheless, I?m quite confident that engineers will be able to solve the dispute.
To the free energy we go!

Cheers,
Tinu

Don't be too funny.

You think you're funny and that will conceal the lack of argument in your post. This isn't funny, however, that's stupid.

[Omnibus]

This is for everyone to notice--I am giving arguments while @tinu thinks he can get away with bafoonery instead.

[Omnibus]

And I will reiterate, any device in which an object happens to have at a certain point an amount of energy (available to transform spontaneously into other energies) greater than the energy imparted to it, violates CoE Such a device violates the most important "conservation" part of the CoE leaving the "transformation" part intact. This I have explained numerous times already here and in other places. "Transformation" part of CoE, that is, the part stating that energy transforms into other kinds of energy in equivalent amounts is as valid as ever in every known device.

[tinu]

All arguments were already posted.

Now onto the engineering issues, as not everyone is trained in magnetic hence GOT is a much viable alternative, I?d like to stress that although theory will say it?s irrelevant, the shape of the B-C-A curve is of utmost importance.
You see, it?s like a U-letter shape. Not entirely accurate because ball free falling is to be avoided. However, U accurately describes the curvature around point C of the B-C-A. As for the walls, letter V is much appropriate. Obviously, ?V? is inaccurate for C area. Anyway, a proper combination of the two V&U would be ideal in GOT. Therefore, I strongly imply something like V-GOT-U. How does it sound, omnibus?

Cheers,
Tinu

[Omnibus]

All arguments were already posted.

Now onto the engineering issues, as not everyone is trained in magnetic hence GOT is a much viable alternative, I?d like to stress that although theory will say it?s irrelevant, the shape of the B-C-A curve is of utmost importance.
You see, it?s like a U-letter shape. Not entirely accurate because ball free falling is to be avoided. However, U accurately describes the curvature around point C of the B-C-A. As for the walls, letter V is much appropriate. Obviously, ?V? is inaccurate for C area. Anyway, a proper combination of the two V&U would be ideal in GOT. Therefore, I strongly imply something like V-GOT-U. How does it sound, omnibus?

Cheers,
Tinu

Hey, untalented mean little twerp, you will stop making fun of these serious matters and either will discuss the issue seriously or will go away. I will not tolerate this and will be as harsh as you know me to be towards morons such as you. This is a warning.