Tri-Force Magnets - Finally shown to be OU?

[Omnibus]

@ClaNZeR,

The first video ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SP46aoVkOUQ ) seems very promising because there is this necessary assisting field of gravity available. Just as in Johannees Taisnierius? device (SMOT). It really is a variation of Taisnierius? device actually.

I have the inclination to disagree with this point. Much unlike the "smot" device, the gravitational field is not necessary with the Tri-Force Gates. you can exit the roller onto a level plane.
It does not have to "drop" to escape.

in fact, dropping it like this - subjects the roller to the attraction field, which is just under the repulsion zone, when the roller is exiting - that will actually pull the roller back towards the gates.

I would suggest gradually reducing the angle of slope at the top of the ramp,
and eject the roller on the same plane as the last gate. then wrap it back around on a  curved "slide" type ramp, then down a steep incline, onto a curve to re-enter the gate at the bottom.

Yes, there's this difference indeed. Recall I recognized the fact that here in this case the piece will probably exit the stations smoothly (without the need to drop from a height as in SMOT) and will proceed immediately along a trail of a reverse slope. If that's the case the likelihood of closing the loop seems around the corner. We'll see. Notice, however, that gravity still has to play a role in this.

I should say one can detect also another difference from SMOT providing an additional argument for the violation of CoE. In SMOT when placing the ball at C (exit of ramp) would never allow it to go back at B.(entrance of ramp). In this case placing it at B brings it spontaneously at C while placing it at C brings it spontaneously back at B. In other words, when placed at B the dumbbell sees C as the foot of the hill. Conversely, placing it at C the dumbbell see now B as the foot of the hill. This is what appears to be the case from @CLaNZeR's video. This is a clear indication that when placed at B excess energy is produced at C. Of course, this has to be studied better but even at this point one sees dramatic confirmations and furthering of the conclusions from the Johannes Taisnierius device.

As for closing the loop in the level plain variant, like I said, I'm skeptical but @CLaNZeR very well may prove me wrong. Let's see what happens. I'll try to get these days a set of geomag pieces to conduct my own experiments.

[Omnibus]

omni,

i've been playing poker in my spare time.  want to go all in with your "absolute proof" on this one?  i'm all in!  doesn't work.  want to take the bet to just shuit up about it anywhere but a smot site?

lol
sam

The best thing you can do is go away and not clutter the thread with you nonsense.

[sm0ky2]

i still dont see how gravity plays a role in this.

there is no need for a reverse slope. the roller will immediately proceed along a horizontal plane.
Omni, hit it with a bigger hammer, you may be able to bash some Smot out of this after all...

[Omnibus]

i still dont see how gravity plays a role in this.

there is no need for a reverse slope. the roller will immediately proceed along a horizontal plane.
Omni, hit it with a bigger hammer, you may be able to bash some Smot out of this after all...

Like I said, that part I doubt but @CLaNZeR may very well prove me wrong. We'll see. As for the part with the incline, that's a variant of Johannes Taisnierius' device (SMOT) exactly because of the superposition of gravity. If indeed, the piece can exit smoothly following a path with a reverse slope then the likelihood for successful closing of the loop is substantial.

[Omnibus]

@sm0ky2,

Take a look at these videos: http://www.theverylastpageoftheinternet.com/menu/adsitt.htm and maybe it'll become clear why just proceeding along a horizontal plane isn't a very likely solution. There mus be an additional field superimposed as in Taisnierius' device and its variant here with the wooden piece at an incline.