Tri-Force Magnets - Finally shown to be OU?

[Omnibus]

Re: Tri-Force Magnets - Finally shown to be OU?
? Reply #763 on: Today at 09:01:47 AM ?
   Reply with quoteQuote
Quote from: Omnibus on Today at 12:46:16 AM
Quote

mgh(AB) + mgh(BC) - mgh(AB+BC) = 0
CoE obeyed
and see if there is any non-zero energy term accounting for the energy of the system in the initial state (when ball is initially at A). There?s none, correct?  The energy of the system in its initial state is accepted as zero...
Wrong, as usual! (Why I?m not surprised?)
The ball placed in either A or B will move to C, hence it has an ability to perform useful work. This is plain fact. Therefore, initial potential energy of the ball is not zero. In other words: there is a non-zero energy term accounting for the energy of the system in the initial state. (And just forget about thermodynamics to avoid heating yourself up; nobody but you brought it into discussion) Can you wrote this initial non-zero potential energy term down or the simple definition of energy is already above your level?

No, you?re wrong. The ball placed at A will not move to C when the ball is left at its initial state at A on its own. The same way the hills A and B that you?ve drawn will not collapse on their own.

If that were the case, as you ridiculously insist, then we will not have the system described by you available, all would have collapsed before we even think of raising the ball from A to B, and there will be nothing to discuss.

The system left on it own in its initial state will have the hills intact and the ball resting at A indefinitely unless an external intervention (imparting energy mgh2 to the ball to move it from A to B) is induced when the hills will still remain intact but the ball will have changed its state.

I repeat, the energy to screw the screws of the machine, to cut its parts, to raise the hills, to place the ball at A, the energy of the intermolecular forces, thermal motion, molecular bonds etc. is not taken into account when carrying out this type of energy balance.

Learn physics first. Don?t push your confusion here.

Quote from: Omnibus on Today at 12:46:16 AM
Like I said, go learn elementary physics first and then come here to discuss subtleties.

Well, issue is you unmistakably need to talk to the mirror. You really don?t have much in common with physics, despite your doggedness and ability to make some people believe you do. See you again when you can prove that you know what you?re trying to talk about.

Don?t continue with this discussion before learning the basics of physics because all you do is further exposing your confusion for everyone to see.

[Omnibus]

I'm just going to say that the generally excepted "I.Q" test is ...

I partially agree about IQ remarks. But still wanna hear Omnibus? credentials and/or something placing him back to his real place. He has shown nothing, really, except a very large number of elementary mistakes and a huge fixation about SMOT and magnetic motors that, unfortunately, can not possibly work. How do you really know he?s not a magnet salesman or a humble technician? I wouldn?t mind him to be as I respect anyone as long as respect is reciprocal. But I?m telling that his physics really sucks and he pretends to teach and to command people around when he?s actually a mediocrity in physics. Let?s see some of the real omnibus (I doubt it will ever happen).

Cheers,
Tinu

As I've already said, you are underqualified, as seen from this exchange, and therefore you must not utter pronouncements about the competence of other people. You have still a lot to learn and even then it isn't certain that you will be able to do science because your cognitive abilities seem to be lacking.

[tinu]

The ball placed at A will not move to C when the ball is left at its initial state at A on its own. The same way the hills A and B that you?ve drawn will not collapse on their own.

If that were the case, as you ridiculously insist, then we will not have the system described by you available, all would have collapsed before we even think of raising the ball from A to B, and there will be nothing to discuss.

The system left on it own in its initial state will have the hills intact and the ball resting at A indefinitely unless an external intervention (imparting energy mgh2 to the ball to move it from A to B) is induced when the hills will still remain intact but the ball will have changed its state.

Work done by gravity on a horizontal path is null.
Ability of the ball to perform work has noting to do with the ball actually performing it or not. In other words, it doesn?t matter if the ball is fixed in A or not or if it?s in motion toward C or not. Regardless, its ability to perform work will remain the same. This comes within the simple definition of potential energy you couldn?t grasp either.

Now, if you don?t mind, I?ll have to perform some useful work by myself. Like it results from all posts above, you?re hopeless. Get back to your ordinary business, whatever they might be; they?re surely not in physics. Desperate blabber doesn?t make you trained.

Cheers,
Tinu

[Omnibus]

The ball placed at A will not move to C when the ball is left at its initial state at A on its own. The same way the hills A and B that you?ve drawn will not collapse on their own.

If that were the case, as you ridiculously insist, then we will not have the system described by you available, all would have collapsed before we even think of raising the ball from A to B, and there will be nothing to discuss.

The system left on it own in its initial state will have the hills intact and the ball resting at A indefinitely unless an external intervention (imparting energy mgh2 to the ball to move it from A to B) is induced when the hills will still remain intact but the ball will have changed its state.

Work done by gravity on a horizontal path is null.
Ability of the ball to perform work has noting to do with the ball actually performing it or not. In other words, it doesn?t matter if the ball is fixed in A or not or if it?s in motion toward C or not. Regardless, its ability to perform work will remain the same. This comes within the simple definition of potential energy you couldn?t grasp either.

Now, if you don?t mind, I?ll have to perform some useful work by myself. Like it results from all posts above, you?re hopeless. Get back to your ordinary business, whatever they might be; they?re surely not in physics. Desperate blabber doesn?t make you trained.

Cheers,
Tinu

That's incompetent. When at the initial state not only the ball at A but also the hills and other parts of your proposed experimental setup have potential energy. There's thermal energy as well, there are other kinds of energies at the initial state too. All these energies are not taken into account when this type of energy balance is carried out. I'm repeating this over and over again but you dont get it. @utilitarian gave you a balance but you don't get it. You're a hopeless case of an incompetent but persistent in his desire to push his incompetence individual. This should stop.

[tinu]

I repeat, the energy to screw the screws of the machine, to cut its parts, to raise the hills, to ...

Don?t you have some screws that needed to be tightened on your own machine?!
Better use your energy into that.

Good bye, poor omnibus. Busted and fired!

Cheers,
Tinu