Tri-Force Magnets - Finally shown to be OU?

[Omnibus]

@utilitarian,

Again, don?t forget that this

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

is only an expression of the ?transformation? side of the ?principle of conservation of transformation of energy?. That side of CoE holds true The ?conservation? aspect of that principle, however, requires to account for the origin of each term in the above equality, that is, in this case, to account for the energy source responsible for the appearance of the term and this is where CoE fails.

The only term (in my notation, I posted earlier) having an energy source associated with it is mgh2 imparted and lost (through transforming into other energies) by the ball. All other terms in the above equality arise from no energy source. They are real, they exist, a balance (obeying the ?transformation? part of CoE) with them as terms can be written, as you have done, but their origin is out of no energy source.

This is a clear violation of the very essence of CoE and the very possibility for such violation is the main justification for the efforts in the area this forum is devoted to.

[Omnibus]

Goodbye Omnibus!
Answer the questions when prepared.

On the contrary, you are the unprepared, as anyone interested in this can see from the above exchange.

[tinu]

The link requires that the total energy in the system remain constant but in the example at hand it does not remain constant.

This is unprepared.
Lab assistant?

[Omnibus]

The link requires that the total energy in the system remain constant but in the example at hand it does not remain constant.

This is unprepared.
Lab assistant?

No, it is the one who makes unsubstantiated statements as the above who is the unprepared. I won't hire you even as a lab assistant.

[tinu]

In the initial state (when ball initially at A) the system has zero energy.

This is unsubstantiated. And plainly wrong.
Of course you won't hire me. You can't. It would need a much higher position.