Tri-Force Magnets - Finally shown to be OU?

[Omnibus]

@All,

Now, how is to deal with this? For lack of arguments several people are trying to destroy the discussion. @tinu demonstrates such an obvious weakness that it's not even worth dirtying one's hand with such slime. He was warned, however, and should he continue his bafoonery he knows what to expect.

[Omnibus]

It's really curious to see how @tinu's intention is turning against him. That's really interesting. @tinu obviously really thought he has found the solution to this and now facing obvious failure is trying to escape through clownery. That's really weak. I'm sorry for the guy.

[Omnibus]

@utilitarian,

Let me reinforce once again that point so that I'm sure it gets across. The sum you're writing equal to zero

mgh(AB) + mgh(BC) - mgh(AB+BC) = 0
CoE obeyed

is an expression of obeying the "transformation" part of CoE. Therefore, instead of "CoE obeyed" you must write "transformation part of CoE obeyed" which isn't disputed anyway and the validity of which is the basis of all of my analysis.

Violation of CoE I'm talking about consists in the discrepancy between mg(h1 + h2) and mgh2 which is invalidation of the more important, "conservation" part of CoE.

[tinu]

...you will stop making fun of these serious matters and either will discuss the issue seriously...

Which matters, to be more specifically ? SMOT, SGOT, SEOT, CNOT or V-GOT-U?

I?m asking because the other matter, that of conservation of energy, is already well discussed elsewhere, like in http://physics.about.com/od/glossary/g/energy.htm

Cheers,
Tinu

[Omnibus]

...you will stop making fun of these serious matters and either will discuss the issue seriously...

Which matters, to be more specifically ? SMOT, SGOT, SEOT, CNOT or V-GOT-U?

I?m asking because the other matter, that of conservation of energy, is already well discussed elsewhere, like in http://physics.about.com/od/glossary/g/energy.htm

Cheers,
Tinu

There are better texts to cite in connection with CoE than that link. Nevertheless, my analysis proves that even this rudimentary definition given in the link is violated. The link requires that the total energy in the system remain constant but in the example at hand it does not remain constant.

In the initial state (when ball initially at A) the system has zero energy. The energy for making the system from its parts is never taken into account in the energy balance.

The system acquires energy only due the external intervention whereby the total amount imparted is mgh2.

However, at C the system has total energy in various forms, equivalent to mg(h1 + h2)

The amount of total energy mgh2 is by no means equal to the amount mg(h1 + h2) of the total energy.

Therefore, it is not true that in the discussed case the requirement that the total energy of the system remains constant is obeyed. On the contrary, in the discussed example, the total energy of the system does not remain constant which is in violation of the definition of CoE given in the link.