Tri-Force Magnets - Finally shown to be OU?

[konduct]

Edited for sanity.  Anybody else want to start a website on ou so we don't have to listen to Omnibus any more? Stefan doesn't seem to want to ban him fast enough.

[Lakes]

Edited for sanity.  Anybody else want to start a website on ou so we don't have to listen to Omnibus any more? Stefan doesn't seem to want to ban him fast enough.

No need to, plenty of other websites/forums where the omnipresent noise is limited... 

[Omnibus]

@smOky2,

You have gaps in understanding potential energy which compromises any arguments you may have about violation of CoE. Therefore it's counterproductive to continue the theoretical argument. Let's see what you can do in terms of producing a device which can make full turns on its own, without external energy. That will be the real proof for violation of CoE in this case. I will see what I can do experimentally too. Although, except for @klicUK's shielding idea so far the things don't seem very promising.

Speaking of credibility, where is your whipmag replication?

Hey, liar where have you ?rigorously proven? how @alsetalokin?s device can be faked: http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,3871.msg80659.html#msg80659

[Omnibus]

One way to know someone is onto something is when you see mediocrities gathering against him, asking the moderator to ban him. Of course, that?s not the only criterion but speaks a lot. No one will care to notice someone whose ideas will make no difference and has no impact.

[sm0ky2]

This means that the work to move a test object from point A to a point at the surface (that is moving it in one direction) will differ from the work to move the same body from the surface to point A (that is, in the opposite direction) because in one of the cases the potential energy will be zero, according to your understanding of the role of direction. .

Yes - this is actually true - because you are missing part of the equation. To move from point A to the surface -you a region with no magnetic potential, approaching the boundary - then a region of full magnetic potential from the boundary to the 'surface'. meanwhile there is a constant gravitational force throughout the entire distance.

In the inward direction you have positive potential (the difference bewteen the magnetic and gravitational).  in the outward direction you have a negative potential - because you are  field working against partial-gravity while moving outwards from the 'surface' to the boundary, and working against gravity outside of the repulsion to get to point A.

If you start the roller at the surface (as you keep trying to insist) you have the full potential of the repulsion field - this tries to push the roller to the outer field boundary. Now - we CAN look at the entire distance - from the 'surface' to point A, and the value of magnetic potential will be constant -regardless of where point A is past the boundary. -This is out of context for use in what we are measuring here, becase the energy values are outside of the influence field.

The input energy is the gravitational potential at point A - which is completely independent of the magnetic potential of the field.  Point B is under the same conditions, but has slightly more gravitational potential. This arbitary point A' you make reference to, only suits the purpose of your diversion from the facts. point A1 - that i was referencing for measurements of magnetic potential is just outside the boundary of the influence field - and is under the same conditions as points A & B - having no net magnetic potential between the roller and the prepositioned horizontal plane. - Thus meaning the potential energy values of the roller at these points IS the gravitational potential.

E-mhg    The ENTIRE point of starting and ending the roller under these specific conditions is to measure the input / output energy - independent of the energy values going on inside the device. Energy in, Energy out.

No misconcieved ideas about the magnetic potential are going to help you disprove this.
Case Closed.