Tri-Force Magnets - Finally shown to be OU?

[sm0ky2]

Pre-Emptive Post::::

If we examine this using classical magnetic analysis::

i.e. total field observation::
M(a) is 13 Joules , just as is M(b)

However - @ A_1 - the energy imparted onto the ball from the magnetic field is 1/13 M(a)
@A_2 - it is 2/13 M(a), ect.

This is important for you to understand this increase of energy as the ball is lifted.
Regardless of the point of reference when examining the field.

Don't continue with this. Deal with your confusion first. It's a waste of time otherwise.

You're the only one that appears to be confused here. The rest of the scientific community agrees that there is no excess energy in the SMOT device.

[With the exception of Steorn, whos tests Prove a total energy LOSS, yet they still claim a 'gain'.]

[sm0ky2]

@ OMNIBUS

TRY THIS::::

Place the Ball on a Horizontal Track. Parallel to the SMOT.

AT Point A.

Now, lift this Track, so the Ball moves Towards Point B. (without holding the ball)
and WATCH what happens to the BALL

THEN come back here and argue with me. then we take the next baby-step......

[Omnibus]

Pre-Emptive Post::::

If we examine this using classical magnetic analysis::

i.e. total field observation::
M(a) is 13 Joules , just as is M(b)

However - @ A_1 - the energy imparted onto the ball from the magnetic field is 1/13 M(a)
@A_2 - it is 2/13 M(a), ect.

This is important for you to understand this increase of energy as the ball is lifted.
Regardless of the point of reference when examining the field.

Don't continue with this. Deal with your confusion first. It's a waste of time otherwise.

You're the only one that appears to be confused here. The rest of the scientific community agrees that there is no excess energy in the SMOT device.

[With the exception of Steorn, whos tests Prove a total energy LOSS, yet they still claim a 'gain'.]

No, you're confused. Consult with someone in the physics department at the university near you whether or not the magnetic potential energy at A is zero. Continuing this exchange without understanding such basic things is just a waste of time.

[sm0ky2]

Pre-Emptive Post::::

If we examine this using classical magnetic analysis::

i.e. total field observation::
M(a) is 13 Joules , just as is M(b)

However - @ A_1 - the energy imparted onto the ball from the magnetic field is 1/13 M(a)
@A_2 - it is 2/13 M(a), ect.

This is important for you to understand this increase of energy as the ball is lifted.
Regardless of the point of reference when examining the field.

Don't continue with this. Deal with your confusion first. It's a waste of time otherwise.

You're the only one that appears to be confused here. The rest of the scientific community agrees that there is no excess energy in the SMOT device.

[With the exception of Steorn, whos tests Prove a total energy LOSS, yet they still claim a 'gain'.]

No, you're confused. Consult with someone in the physics department at the university near you whether or not the magnetic potential energy at A is zero. Continuing this exchange without understanding such basic things is just a waste of time.

i understand the Basics.  High-School children understand the Basiscs. i didnt know i had to speak in terms of Basics with a "scientist". im sorry. i will try not to confuse you in the future.

[Omnibus]

No, you don't. You think magnetic potential energy at A is zero because the ball is away from the magnet and the force of attraction is less than at closer distances. That's incorrect, you've been confused about that from the onset and have been told that numerous times but somehow you don't get it. That's elementary physics but you don't get it. By the way, everyone can get confused but not everyone would be so impudent to push his confusion so intensely.