Tri-Force Magnets - Finally shown to be OU?

[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.

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..

Omnibus, apparently you have some conceptual problem understanding the physics of gravity.

allow me to explain::

When you lift an object against gravity you are putting  potential energy into that object.
This energy is a function of :  the gravitational constant, the mass of the object, and the height the object is lifted.
For example: if you have a 2gr roller lifted 1cm the potential energy would be .000196 Joules.



The energy consumed by the initial repulsion into the gate - is input into the system by lifting the roller to the starting point::  E = mhg

By allowing the roller to roll down the ramp, we are using this "input energy" to enter the gate.

the roller travels through the gate, gains energy during the transition phase, and momentum is maintained, minus the entrance repulsion.
It then travels out of the gate, recieves a 'push out' - (which is equivallent and opposite to the entrance repulsion in a balanced gate)

The roller then rolls up the ramp on the other side to its maximum height,
At this point the roller is at a new height, resulting from the height dropped from + the energy gained during the transition phase.
And has a new energy value:  E = mhg

All energy is accounted for, including that to enter the gate, and that which is used to 'push out'.
the difference in height between the entrance and exit (E= mhg) is the Potential Energy gained by the gate during the transition pase.

Any Questions?

[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..

Omnibus, apparently you have some conceptual problem understanding the physics of gravity.

allow me to explain::

When you lift an object against gravity you are putting  potential energy into that object.
This energy is a function of :  the gravitational constant, the mass of the object, and the height the object is lifted.
For example: if you have a 2gr roller lifted 1cm the potential energy would be .000196 Joules.



The energy consumed by the initial repulsion into the gate - is input into the system by lifting the roller to the starting point::  E = mhg

By allowing the roller to roll down the ramp, we are using this "input energy" to enter the gate.

the roller travels through the gate, gains energy during the transition phase, and momentum is maintained, minus the entrance repulsion.
It then travels out of the gate, recieves a 'push out' - (which is equivallent and opposite to the entrance repulsion in a balanced gate)

The roller then rolls up the ramp on the other side to its maximum height,
At this point the roller is at a new height, resulting from the height dropped from + the energy gained during the transition phase.
And has a new energy value:  E = mhg

All energy is accounted for, including that to enter the gate, and that which is used to 'push out'.
the difference in height between the entrance and exit (E= mhg) is the Potential Energy gained by the gate during the transition pase.

Any Questions?

This is as clear cut as you present it only with regard to Taisnierius' device (SMOT) and the magnetic propulsor, as I've explained many, many times already. In this case, the critic will grasp at that initial barrier as the last straw claiming that the magnetic potential energy at the input isn't as much as you claim and no matter what you say he'll insist otherwise and you won't be able to tell him one thing.. Such argument is immediately killed in the SMOT and magnetic propulsion case because there both the gravitational and the magnetic potential energies are very well defined at every point of the trajectory. I'm saying that for the umptieth time and I think it's time for it to sink in.

Understand, in the present case the only way to prove excess energy is by constructing a device spontaneously making full turns. Not so with SMOT and the magnetic propulsor. There the production of excess energy is proved beyond any doubt even in the discontinuous case.

[Omnibus]

Letr me add, you're confused by accounting for only the gravitational potential energy. The ball (the dumbbell), however travels in two overlaid fields and when you carry out the energy balance you must account both for the gravitational and for the magnetic potential energy at every point of the trajectory.

Accounting for the gravitational potential energy is the easier part. The problems kick in in this device (while in SMOT and the magnetic propagator there are no such problems) when trying to account for the magnetic potential energy,

[sm0ky2]

thus far you haven't "explained" anything, all i hear from you is ranting about someone elses device that frankly has nothing to do with the Tri-Force Gate.

and this random "critic" you keep refering to has YET to present himself to tell me why/how the repulsion field effects anything beyond its reach.

regardless of the transitional energy values for each point along the trajectory, the plain simple matter is the potential energy of the roller - at point B outside the gate's influence after leaving  point A outside the gate's influence is greater than when it started. 
MUCH unlike a SMOT ramp - whos potential energy is decreased by the attracting force holding the ball at the end of the ramp.

gravitational potential energy has nothing to do with the magnetic field in the double-ramp set-up
- as both points are outside of the magnetic field. This energy value is constant, because gravity is constant.

Now, if you can show me how a static-magnetic field can intefere with the gravitational constant -
AT ALL!!  much less at a distance outside its influence,
then that line of reasoning may have substance, otherwise, this 'critic' is just blowing wind up his own tailpipe.

We dont care about the magnetic potential energy - its proportional at the entrance and exit.
and in the case of most gate designs, the roller kicks itself out of the field influence.
if you start before the field influence - its a black box system. energy in energy out.
it doesnt get any simpler than that.

i have YET to see a SMOT demonstrate that kind of black-box OU demonstration.
as at the end of the SMOT cycle - you still have negative energy stored in the ball, which you must account for when removing the ball from the ramp. - gravity does this, but you cant get that energy back, thus your ball ends up lower than it started. - if YOUR smot works differently, than by all means post the video and blab on about the "overlaid fields". 

For some reason yo uhave it stuck in your head that EVERYTHING must be constructed using SMOT-Theory, because this is the ONLY "ou" you have ever percieved. you are gravely misled, and are propegating this absurdness in a foul manner.

Perhaps a more constructive effort on your be-half would be more beneficial to this thread.
Didnt you say you were ordering the constructor-set?  where are your Tri-Force videos??
or better yet, where is the video of your SMOT-Like Tri-Force with a properly superimposed gravitational field ??

[Omnibus]

thus far you haven't "explained" anything, all i hear from you is ranting about someone elses device that frankly has nothing to do with the Tri-Force Gate.

and this random "critic" you keep refering to has YET to present himself to tell me why/how the repulsion field effects anything beyond its reach.

regardless of the transitional energy values for each point along the trajectory, the plain simple matter is the potential energy of the roller - at point B outside the gate's influence after leaving  point A outside the gate's influence is greater than when it started. 
MUCH unlike a SMOT ramp - whos potential energy is decreased by the attracting force holding the ball at the end of the ramp.

gravitational potential energy has nothing to do with the magnetic field in the double-ramp set-up
- as both points are outside of the magnetic field. This energy value is constant, because gravity is constant.

Now, if you can show me how a static-magnetic field can intefere with the gravitational constant -
AT ALL!!  much less at a distance outside its influence,
then that line of reasoning may have substance, otherwise, this 'critic' is just blowing wind up his own tailpipe.

We dont care about the magnetic potential energy - its proportional at the entrance and exit.
and in the case of most gate designs, the roller kicks itself out of the field influence.
if you start before the field influence - its a black box system. energy in energy out.
it doesnt get any simpler than that.

i have YET to see a SMOT demonstrate that kind of black-box OU demonstration.
as at the end of the SMOT cycle - you still have negative energy stored in the ball, which you must account for when removing the ball from the ramp. - gravity does this, but you cant get that energy back, thus your ball ends up lower than it started. - if YOUR smot works differently, than by all means post the video and blab on about the "overlaid fields". 

For some reason yo uhave it stuck in your head that EVERYTHING must be constructed using SMOT-Theory, because this is the ONLY "ou" you have ever percieved. you are gravely misled, and are propegating this absurdness in a foul manner.

Perhaps a more constructive effort on your be-half would be more beneficial to this thread.
Didnt you say you were ordering the constructor-set?  where are your Tri-Force videos??
or better yet, where is the video of your SMOT-Like Tri-Force with a properly superimposed gravitational field ??

No, this has to stop. I don't have the time for this. These questions have been discussed at length in thousands of postings and I don't want to repeat it. Read what I write and try to understand it. If you can't, leave it at that for better times when I'll have the time to discuss it with you.