Tri-Force Magnets - Finally shown to be OU?

[Omnibus]

...
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

As I said, the device in this video is prone to criticism when claiming that the resultant field due to the overlay of the magnetic and gravitational field is non-conservative. Such criticism is unavoidable, provided the fact that a repulsion barrier exists at the input of the device. Iron clad argument that there can be a proper overlay of magnetic and gravitational field that can result in a non-conservative field is only the argument based on Taisnierius' device (SMOT) and even easier, the magnetic propulsor. Not only that these are the devices that must be used for the purposes of definitive proving that the overlaid fields are non-conservative but they must be used in a closed A-B-C-A loop, as I've shown many, many times. For a field to be conservative the energy imparted must not be less than the energy lost when the closing the loop. In other words, for a field to be conservative there must be no gain or loss of energy when closing the loop in that field. That isn't the case in Taisnierius' device or in the magnetic propulsor. In these devices, where the magnetic and gravitational potential energies are clearly defined, unlike the case in the discussed video, the energy imparted to the ball is always less than the energy the ball loses when completing the loop.

If one wants to do the experiment in the video one must use the setup used by Naudin which is also based on the well-understood gravitational and magnetic potential energies of Taisnierius' device, avioning the uncertainties in this respect in the device shown here.  Although not as definitive as the above proof, Naudin's experiment shows that despite that fact that

certain amount of work  (positive or negative) is always involved

the opposite of what is expected:

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?

is observed, namely, adding less energy than in the control experiment, leads to greater length of the traveling path. This fact is clear cut in Naudin's experiment while here it can be disputed mainly based on the unknown value of the initial barrier.

[tinu]

@ Omnibus,

Naudin?s experiment was shown to have at least two systematic errors that were not accounted for. Total error may or may not be significant but until it is properly estimated, one can invoke methodological reasons to let Naudin out of current discussion. That person would be me. No offense; replace my name with anyone?s.

Also, I would be interested in hearing mpavenir?s interpretation. He came here with something and I?d like to kindly ask you let his voice be heard. We already know each other?s views maybe more than we wish. Moreover, mpavenir does obviously need some time to write in English, so please give him a slow pace, at least for a while.

Many thanks,
Tinu

[Omnibus]

@ Omnibus,

Naudin?s experiment was shown to have at least two systematic errors that were not accounted for. Total error may or may not be significant but until it is properly estimated, one can invoke methodological reasons to let Naudin out of current discussion. That person would be me. No offense; replace my name with anyone?s.

Also, I would be interested in hearing mpavenir?s interpretation. He came here with something and I?d like to kindly ask you let his voice be heard. We already know each other?s views maybe more than we wish. Moreover, mpavenir does obviously need some time to write in English, so please give him a slow pace, at least for a while.

Many thanks,
Tinu

No, Naudin's video hasn't been shown to contain systematic errors. You're wrong.

Second, because we're searching for the truth and not just to listen to this or that presentation what I said above must be considered seriously and attempts to replace it with other vulnerable experiments will not pass. Simple as that.

[sm0ky2]

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.

it goes higher than its starting position.
just as it did in the pendulum experiment.

@ OMNI - the ramp accounts for the entrance repulsion - noones ignoring this field, we're simply going around it, by neccessity.

[Omnibus]

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.

it goes higher than its starting position.
just as it did in the pendulum experiment.

@ OMNI - the ramp accounts for the entrance repulsion - noones ignoring this field, we're simply going around it, by neccessity.

Doesn't matter. As I've told you many times you're not taking into account the energy to overcome the initial repulsion barrier. That barrier is an unknown and every critic will hold on to it as the last straw.You think you're not ignoring it but you are.

There are two possible solutions to demonstrate that the initial repulsion barrier doesn't count--to shile the entrance as @klicUK did or have some kind of sideways additions as in @CLaNZeR's 14th video. Something along that line. I'm not saying it isn't doable, all I'm saying is that in its current design production of excess energy is prone to obvious, seemingly deserved attacks..