Tri-Force Magnets - Finally shown to be OU?

[Omnibus]

@smOky2,

The misunderstanding isn't regarding the magnetic field only. The misunderstanding I'm referring to concerns conservative fields in general and what I'm saying is exactly right. You'd better learn it before going further. You are the one lacking understanding as numerous others. I already gave an example with @Harvey ans @pcstru4 and they are some of the brightest around here. Since such bright people are confused about elementary things what can we expect from the @overconfidents, the @alsetalokins and the Grahams. One thing which is absolutely essential to understand once and for all is that a magnetic field in itself cannot lead to OU. That's out of the question and that's not because of some subtleties of the magnetism but because of the mere fact that it is a conservative field. So, don't get confused on that and restrain from labeling as spam something which is absolutely essential to be understood.

[Omnibus]

Oh, and by the way, that pendulum experiment in no way proves OU. I already explained that over there.

[sm0ky2]

Hi guys.

My latest experiment:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCW6T7oKq2c

Quite successful I think.

Frenky

This experiment proves nothing of importance. The conditions with and without the stations are different and therefore, obviously, the behavior of the pendulum differs. That's trivial.

@ OMNI
This hardly explains anytihng. Gravity   IS a convservative field.  The pendulum starts above the gates, at a set level - travels INTO the repulsion zone, THROUGH the gates, OUT the repulsion on the end and swings to a higher position. - if you remeove the gates while the pendulum is outside of its influence the pendulum will then swing to that new height.

"The conditions are different"..  yes i would say they are....

But why? is it because of the gravitational field? which is constant on both ends?
if so, How.? 

Have you performed this experiment yourself?

My interest is not in the "conservative" field on the outsides of the gates. that was a given at the begining of the discussion.  My interest lies in the non-uniform linear field that is created in the middle. I'm not going to even get into wether or not that non-uniform field is conservative , but being non-uniform presents somewhat of an interesting aspect of this device - which is what makes it "do" what it does. 
Generalizing this with some grandiose theory, and blurring the details with vagueness does not resolves the issue, what concerms me is Energy in, vs. Energy out.  When we resolve this from that standpoint - then we are getting somewhere. Without that there is nothing to tie this theory to "overunity".

do you know how much magnetic energy  ( in Teslas) is consumed when 2 standard Geomags connect to a Sphere and conform the molecules of the stainsteel-alloy to the cummulative magnetic field-influence? at 60-degree angles, what is the vector direction of the field meridian, with a N/S on that sphere?

[Omnibus]

Hi guys.

My latest experiment:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCW6T7oKq2c

Quite successful I think.

Frenky

This experiment proves nothing of importance. The conditions with and without the stations are different and therefore, obviously, the behavior of the pendulum differs. That's trivial.

This hardly explains anytihng. Gravity   IS a convservative field.  The pendulum starts above the gates, at a set level - travels INTO the repulsion zone, THROUGH the gates, OUT the repulsion on the end and swings to a higher position. - if you remeove the gates while the pendulum is outside of its influence the pendulum will then swing to that new height.

"The conditions are different"..  yes i would say they are....

But why? is it because of the gravitational field? which is constant on both ends?
if so, How.? 

Have you performed this experiment yourself?

The point I'm strongly emphasizing is that the pendulum experiment in no way can be used to demonstrate OU. Even the most mediocre critic with basic high school knowledge will knock it down as a trivial demonstration, not OU. Yes, indeed, there is gravitational field involved, superimposed over the magnetic field. However, the concept is such that it can be easily shot down. To make it bullet proof you must demonstrate a closed A-B-C-A loop as I have demonstrated in SMOT and in the magnetic propulsor. Otherwise, still Naudin's experiment proves OU. Not convincingly enough, though.

So far, the only experiments categorically proving OU are the Taisnierius device (contemporary SMOT) and the magnetic propulsor (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5163427245750490858&q=magnetic_propulsor), a variant of which is that device with the triangular stations. Sadly, nothing else. The triangular-station device has one basic shortcoming--the input barrier--and it still remains to be seen whether or not it can be used as a convincing experiment proving OU.

[Omnibus]

That?s the whole point. Energy in vs. energy out can never be OU when only one stationary conservative field is involved, homogeneous or not. That?s one of those laws of Nature which will never be shaken. To try to fight that is a sheer waste of time. That has to be understood well to make the efforts more efficient and not bump into dead ends continuously.

Energy out can be more than energy in only if there are additional fields properly superimposed to assist, as SMOT and the magnetic propagator prove conclusively. These fields may be of different types as in SMOT (gravitational and magnetic) or probably of the same type, as in these devices we?re discussing.

So far, however, it is unclear how the same type of fields (say, magnetic) can be constructively superimposed to assist each so that continuous production of excess energy can be achieved. Of all I?ve seen, the only possibility to explain such a self-sustaining run due to production of energy out of no source is to use @Grimers idea for the non-conventional H-B loop and to imagine that the mutually induced H-B loops of the rotor and stator have different surface areas which means need different energy to be produced. That energy difference is an inherent property of the two magnets (notice, we?re again talking about two superimposed fields) because the way it is obtained comes from the inherent properties of the magnets. Now, all that seems to remain is to find the proper conditions to achieve that difference. This view, however, is so speculative that before measurements are carried out to prove that these non-conventional H-B loops do indeed differ one cannot vow that the explanation for the self-sustaining run has been found.

Other than that, I haven?t seen one single proposal, even most speculative, which is worth paying attention to as to what might be the nature of the purported excess energy in devices such as that of @alsetalokin.