Tri-Force Magnets - Finally shown to be OU?

[Omnibus]

Hi all,
I'm from Conspirovniscience.com.
Quartz has posted few pages ago my video, demonstrating tri-force overunity.
However this video was ambiguous, since the magnet appeared to be trapped by the gate.
So I made another more explicit video :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZEwgZutFlGc

I can say now that this system works. I repeated this test (with different configurations, and ~thirty measures for each case) many times to be sure. The gain is small, but it exists. I tested with two consecutive gates : the gain is better. But I think that each gate MUST be isolated from others. When you connect them you kill the effect..

The rotor I built is not running because friction easily offset the gain (there is only one gate on the stator). But with several gates I hope it works.

Sorry for my bad English !

More informations, look at : "conspirovniscience.com > forum > Energie libre > rassemblement autour du MP"

That this kind of devices produce excess energy and violate CoE is already well understood. I have made an analysis of Taisnierus' device (SMOT) and of a magnetic propagator and have proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that excess energy can be produced discontinuously. I'd like to point out also that the device you're using provides critics with arguments against it violating CoE mainly because of the barrier which exists prior to the starting neutral point. Therefore, in order to prove violation of CoE with iron clad arguments you must use the Taisnierius' device (SMOT) or, even easier, the magnetic propagator I have already analyzed. Thus, violation of CoE is a done deal by now.

The current efforts are directed towards constructing a device producing excess energy continuously and that isn't an easy engineering task.

[sm0ky2]

Hi all,
I'm from Conspirovniscience.com.
Quartz has posted few pages ago my video, demonstrating tri-force overunity.
However this video was ambiguous, since the magnet appeared to be trapped by the gate.
So I made another more explicit video :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZEwgZutFlGc

I can say now that this system works. I repeated this test (with different configurations, and ~thirty measures for each case) many times to be sure. The gain is small, but it exists. I tested with two consecutive gates : the gain is better. But I think that each gate MUST be isolated from others. When you connect them you kill the effect..

The rotor I built is not running because friction easily offset the gain (there is only one gate on the stator). But with several gates I hope it works.

Sorry for my bad English !

More informations, look at : "conspirovniscience.com > forum > Energie libre > rassemblement autour du MP"

That this kind of devices produce excess energy and violate CoE is already well understood. I have made an analysis of Taisnierus' device (SMOT) and of a magnetic propagator and have proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that excess energy can be produced discontinuously. I'd like to point out also that the device you're using provides critics with arguments against it violating CoE mainly because of the barrier which exists prior to the starting neutral point. Therefore, in order to prove violation of CoE with iron clad arguments you must use the Taisnierius' device (SMOT) or, even easier, the magnetic propagator I have already analyzed. Thus, violation of CoE is a done deal by now.

The current efforts are directed towards constructing a device producing excess energy continuously and that isn't an easy engineering task.

That is the purpose of the ramps at both the entrance and exit - this eliminates the repulsion at the entrance of the gate and allows us to compare input and output directly within the gravitational constant.

E=mhg applied in both directions proves more out than in.  a simple down/up-ramp staircase could give you a considerable increase in altitude, from which looping would no longer be an issue.

[eavogels]

That is the purpose of the ramps at both the entrance and exit

So he has to check if the roller can reach the same height on the exit ramp as it receives as starting point from the entry ramp.
Eric.

[tinu]

...
So I made another more explicit video :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZEwgZutFlGc
...

Interesting movie!
And one bold statement you make in its title: ?syst?me non conservatif?!
Why do you consider it is not conservative?
I?m asking about the shift in magnetic potential energy of the system when you rotate the mobile, shift that is done either at the expense of your own energy or spontaneously  (at the expense of potential energy stored into the configuration) but a certain amount of work  (positive or negative) is always involved. Isn?t it then naturally to see this amount of added or extracted energy reflected into the length of the traveling path, as the movie clearly shows?

Welcome here,
Tinu

[Omnibus]

Hi all,
I'm from Conspirovniscience.com.
Quartz has posted few pages ago my video, demonstrating tri-force overunity.
However this video was ambiguous, since the magnet appeared to be trapped by the gate.
So I made another more explicit video :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZEwgZutFlGc

I can say now that this system works. I repeated this test (with different configurations, and ~thirty measures for each case) many times to be sure. The gain is small, but it exists. I tested with two consecutive gates : the gain is better. But I think that each gate MUST be isolated from others. When you connect them you kill the effect..

The rotor I built is not running because friction easily offset the gain (there is only one gate on the stator). But with several gates I hope it works.

Sorry for my bad English !

More informations, look at : "conspirovniscience.com > forum > Energie libre > rassemblement autour du MP"

That this kind of devices produce excess energy and violate CoE is already well understood. I have made an analysis of Taisnierus' device (SMOT) and of a magnetic propagator and have proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that excess energy can be produced discontinuously. I'd like to point out also that the device you're using provides critics with arguments against it violating CoE mainly because of the barrier which exists prior to the starting neutral point. Therefore, in order to prove violation of CoE with iron clad arguments you must use the Taisnierius' device (SMOT) or, even easier, the magnetic propagator I have already analyzed. Thus, violation of CoE is a done deal by now.

The current efforts are directed towards constructing a device producing excess energy continuously and that isn't an easy engineering task.

That is the purpose of the ramps at both the entrance and exit - this eliminates the repulsion at the entrance of the gate and allows us to compare input and output directly within the gravitational constant.

E=mhg applied in both directions proves more out than in.  a simple down/up-ramp staircase could give you a considerable increase in altitude, from which looping would no longer be an issue.

This isn't at all obvious specifically because you're ignoring the barrier prior to the starting point. You tend to ignore that barrier but it is hte gist of the problem. @CLaNZeR has already demonstrated that in his last videos. You said you know of a video that shows otherwise but you never gave a link to it.