Tri-Force Magnets - Finally shown to be OU?

[Omnibus]

I repeat, the energy to screw the screws of the machine, to cut its parts, to raise the hills, to ...

Don?t you have some screws that needed to be tightened on your own machine?!
Better use your energy into that.

Good bye, poor omnibus. Busted and fired!

Cheers,
Tinu

Learn basic physics first and then come back to discuss more involved matters.

[Lakes]

No point in reading this thread anymore, its degenerated into the usual Omnibus noise...

[Omnibus]

No point in reading this thread anymore, its degenerated into the usual Omnibus noise...

Well, that's what someone has to say for lack of arguments. That's typical.

[utilitarian]

@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.

OK, here is how I see it then.  You have a very tortured definition of violation of CoE.  If you are granting that the GOT (or "SGOT") equally violates the principle of CoE (the conservation part, not the transformation part, as you would have it), well, I do not know what to tell you.  You are just dancing on heads of pins now, playing with semantics.

The energy you speak of does not come from nothing.  We know exactly where it comes from.  Putting a ball at the top of the hill and having it roll down is not energy from nothing, anymore than letting a ball go from the base of a SMOT ramp, and watching it roll "downhill" down the magnetic field.  But if you want to call that energy from nothing, go ahead, just be aware that the ball will only roll once, so it's a short free energy joyride, paid in advance by your hand.

The bottom line is this.  You are granting overunity status to devices that cannot possibly work, and by work, I mean sustain themselves, like a proper overunity device should.  You can stand here and give a million excuses and reasons why they don't work, but in theory can work, but the bottom line is they don't work.

[Omnibus]

Reply #773 on: Today at 03:31:22 PM ?
   Reply with quoteQuote
Quote from: Omnibus on March 27, 2008, 10:08:45 PM
@utilitarian,

Again, don?t forget that this

Quote
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.

OK, here is how I see it then.  You have a very tortured definition of violation of CoE.  If you are granting that the GOT (or "SGOT") equally violates the principle of CoE (the conservation part, not the transformation part, as you would have it), well, I do not know what to tell you.  You are just dancing on heads of pins now, playing with semantics.

On the contrary, you know what to tell me but you don?t want to tell it. And that is, that I am right. It isn?t just semantics to have a real physical quantity mgh2 greater than another real physical quantity mg(h1 + h2) and honestly admit that the one is greater than the other which CoE forbids. According to CoE the ball can never have more energy (that?s the energy mg(h1 + h2)) available to inevitably transform into other energies than the energy imparted to it (which is energy mgh2).

The energy you speak of does not come from nothing.  We know exactly where it comes from.  Putting a ball at the top of the hill and having it roll down is not energy from nothing, anymore than letting a ball go from the base of a SMOT ramp, and watching it roll "downhill" down the magnetic field.

Not so. Putting a ball at the top of the hill B by lifting it from A and having it roll down is not energy from nothing only down to point level with A. Any energy from that point on, down to C, is energy from nothing (meaning from no energy source). The ball was not endowed with such energy when putting it at the top of the hill B form point A.

But if you want to call that energy from nothing, go ahead, just be aware that the ball will only roll once, so it's a short free energy joyride, paid in advance by your hand.

Not at all. Putting the ball at the top of the hill B while lifting it from A and letting it go will inevitably bring the ball back at A. Otherwise it won?t be an analog of SMOT, as was the intention. Having the ball back at A, you may repeat the experiment and therefore it will not be a short free energy joyride and not all of it is paid in advance by my hand. Like I said, in advance by my hand will be paid only the ride from B down to a point level with A. Anything further down from that point level with point A to C is not paid in advance by my hand.

The bottom line is this.  You are granting overunity status to devices that cannot possibly work, and by work, I mean sustain themselves, like a proper overunity device should.  You can stand here and give a million excuses and reasons why they don't work, but in theory can work, but the bottom line is they don't work.

On the contrary, as explained, these devices I?m granting overunity status do work. Every cycle ends up the ball at its initial state, point A, producing in the meantime energy from nothing (from no energy source). This is what a proper overunity device should do. If you don?t trust me, recall the link @Yadaraf gave in support of that, explaining what a perpetual motion machine is. That explanation didn?t include the requirement that the device should sustain itself: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_motion:

However, perpetual motion usually refers to a device or system that delivers more energy than was put into it.