Tri-Force Magnets - Finally shown to be OU?

[sm0ky2]

Attention omnibus and others. I have created a thread for the CoE talk. Please redirect CoE arguments and comments to this thread. They still must relate to smot and magnet motor stuff. This can also include mathematics relating to CoE.

http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,4235.msg80979.html#new

Have a happy day! 

the CoE represented in the context of this thread applies only to the Tri-Force Gate, and Tri-Force Gate-arrays.

Look, be mature and take your big argument to this thread. You can talk about anything related to magnet acceleration devices, including the tri force gate. Surley you understand BIG argument. You know that arguments are dry with omnibus. Your argument hasn't helped out this thread at all; it's already taken up multiple pages. Please, I beg of you. When the fishermen yell and fight over the good spot on the boat, they scare the fish, and nobody gets any.

EDIT: And to clarify, the argument has morphed into a battle over whether eachothers ou math is right. Come on, it's just not right...(the battle itself not your ideas)

I understand what you are saying, However - given the topic of this thread ^^^ points to top of page, i feel that this conversation is perfectly relevant.

the "argument" over wether or not the math is right is pointless, i agree - but alas that is Omni's only defense at this point because i have proven this to be "OU" through mathematics as well as experimentation, and he's up against a brick wall. - so he wants to attack the physics that explain the observed phenomena..  something i'll never understand... 

That being said, i think in my previous posts i have thoroughly covered the basis of evidence for OverUnity, with respect to this device. I appologize for the obnoxiously-long posts , but it was necessary in order to demonstrate the working principal beyond any reasonable doubt.
--- though i admit, most of it was in response to unreasonable statements...

[Omnibus]

No, admit your error. We can't proceed with this kind of misunderstanding.

i have made no error everything i have said can be verified by your own eyes in the experiments you have elready seen.

the increasing magnetic potential in a repulsion field is in the indward direction, not the outward direction.

So, is the potential energy decreasing with distance when the force is decreasing with distance?

This question you won't be able to elude.

Admit your error because with it we cannot continue the discussion properly.

i dont understand what "error" you are trying to say that i have made.
The potential energy (between 2 points within the field) decreases with distance.
It is a function of the Force, they are not equivallent. Force deals with the acceleration.
the energy deals with the potential for the roller to be accelerated across the measured distance.

The further away from the source you get, the less potential energy there is between the two points. i cannot make it any clearer than this if you dont understand that then you are truly lost and should just go seek another device, because you are not helping here.

Don't try to finagle. I hate this to no end and will not allow you to get away with this. The magnetic potential energy we're talking about is measured with respect to the magnet itself. Now, hearing this correct yourself or the conversation will continue stalling.

You're now showing another misunderstanding of how potential energy is defined. In a given problem the aebitrary reference point with respect to which it is measured is always kept the same, in this case the surface of the magnet.

Don't continue along this line because you'll sink even deeper.

[Omnibus]

Understand, I'd love to see you proving OU in this device. However, with these gaps you're demonstrating you'll be shot down by any legitimate critic immediately. Notice, not all critics are idiots and morons or dishonest lackeys, there are many who do understand what they're talking about.

[sm0ky2]

Understand, I'd love to see you proving OU in this device. However, with these gaps you're demonstrating you'll be shot down by any legitimate critic immediately. Notice, not all critics are idiots and morons or dishonest lackeys, there are many who do understand what they're talking about.

im not going to indulge in your idiocracies. im done with you, its obvious that you dont know what you are talking about, and/or arent even reading what i wrote. either way, When you are willing to perform the experiments yourself, then come back here and we can pick up where we left off, until then, g'day.

[Omnibus]

Understand, I'd love to see you proving OU in this device. However, with these gaps you're demonstrating you'll be shot down by any legitimate critic immediately. Notice, not all critics are idiots and morons or dishonest lackeys, there are many who do understand what they're talking about.

im not going to indulge in your idiocracies. im done with you, its obvious that you dont know what you are talking about, and/or arent even reading what i wrote. either way, When you are willing to perform the experiments yourself, then come back here and we can pick up where we left off, until then, g'day.

Performing the experiment is one thing. I'll do that in the coming days. The problem is that you don't understand fundamental things and that makes you vulnerable. I'm the last one who would want to see someone trying to prove violation of CoE being such an easy target to critics.