Tri-Force Magnets - Finally shown to be OU?

[Omnibus]

the problem is very simple:

How much energy is required to lift a mass to a given height.

Well, to lift a mass to a given height h1 in absence of magnetic field, the energy is ngh1. However, if at point A the mass has magnetic potential energy Ma while at point B the mass has magnetic potential energy Mb, where Ma > Mb then the energy to lift this same mass to the same height h1 is (mfg1 - (Ma - Mb)). Thus, you see in absence of magnetic field you have to spend more energy that in the presence of such field, correct? The above cannot be defended easily in the present case because immediate speculations begin as to whether Ma > Mb or Ma < Mb and there's no way for you to sustain a theoretical argument one way or the other

--- First::  (Ma-Mb) is essentially 0. These two fields are equal and opposite in the triangle gate.
By using 3x 60-degree angles, joining spherical nodes-  we create a perpendicular flux-meridian.
In case you havent been paying attention.


Second h1 and h2 are outside of the field influence, and therefore Ma AND Mb at both those locations ARE in fact 0.

and 3rd you are completely ignoring field M[a<->b] which is the source of linear gain, and as such the focus of our investigation.

This you may state qualitatively and i will agree with that. The critic, who is also dishonest, won't. Unfortunately, you cannot sustain that firmly quantitatively unless you carry out measurements. In SMOT and the magnetic propulsor no additional measurements are needed to definitively claim the magnetic and, of course, the gravitational potential values. Like I said, the only tactic the dishonest critic may resort in such a case is to spew nonsense. Not all people are fools, however, which is what the dishonest critic relies upon, and many see through it. In the present case these things are not so clear cut and this provides a wonderful leeway for the dishonest critic I don't think we should enable the dishonest critics in this way. I'm trying to tell you this in various ways already in a number of posts but somehow it doesn't get across.

[Omnibus]

I have a lot of experience in discussing this and you shouldn't wonder why I am so adamant that certain approaches work while others not quite.

Draw a picture and indicate on it what's A and what's B and this may help you understand my point. Notice that statements such as  Ma - Mb is essentially zero are just qualitative statements and, in addition, they may not be true, depending on where A and B are.

[konduct]

Yup...verbal diarrhea always comes from some asshole. Jesus H fucking Christ contribute something or shut up...like a broken record...

[mpavenir]

Hi,
I approximately understood the ideas you develop. I agree rather with Smoky2's theory, but I realized that my video is questionable. I think the contact between the roller and its runway, which engenders its rotation, is important and could distort the interpretation. This week-end I'm going to work on my rotor and if it doesn't turn with several gates, I will try it in vertical position (pendulum-like), to introduce gravitationnal field.
I keep you aware of my work.

[mpavenir]

...
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

Hi,
I consider It's not conservative because if it was, the roller would reach the same point whatever the side he crosses the gate. Here, you can see that with the first orientation, the roller gains energy, and with the second, it loses energy (compared to the reference given by the point reached without gate).
This fact answers directly your second question (if I understood it well) : the increase of travelled distance with gates is not caused by a drain of the rotating work, otherwise this increase would also be found with second roller polarization.