Tri-Force Magnets - Finally shown to be OU?

[Rusty_Springs]

I no nothing about science in the way you all seem to know but I would think the magnetic field in that experiment is not static and it takes energy to lift the ball from A to B, I could do the same with the Trigate and get the same result, I've shown it drop and kick through another gate all I would have to do it take the other gate away and have it land on something that is angled back towards the first gate and there you have it the same thing.
Oh and I have shown you the way to lift that ball back up to B from A but I don't think it will keep going cause it has to release from the track taking it back up to roll along B again and thats the point I have been making it will not release unless helped by gravity.
@sm0ky2
Do you think my bismuth setup would work better if I seperated the iron and bismuth so only the magnetic field is comming from the permanent magnet and not from iron connected to it.
Take Care All
Graham

[Omnibus]

I agree that this exchange should end here because it is nothing else but an exercise in confusion on your part.

No, the confusion is on your part, like I said. Before coming here to discuss this you must learn that the magnetic fields of permanent magnets are time-independent.

This analysis has unexpectedly turned into a litmus test of human stupidity and confusion. I will be as harsh as can be if anyone continues with such stupidities.

Gosh.  You sure do get yourself worked up about this, don't you?

You say that the magnetic field is static, and I say that it is dynamic.  This is where we differ.  I propose an experiment that should settle this:

Visualize the magnetic field --( One could use a piece of magnetic viewing film).   Observe the motion (or lack thereof) of the pattern when a bearing zooms through.  If the pattern moves, then the field is dynamic.  If it stays put, then I concede the point.  How's that for a "litmus test"?

This motion of the fields is spontaneous and is  due exactly to the violation of CoE.

What my analysis shows is something that cannot be denied, namely, the discrepancy between amounts of energy in and out. These amounts are set in stone. The discrepancy between the amounts of energy, at odds with CoE, is set in stone and cannot be denied. What disturbances they cause is another story, unrelated to the main point in the analysis--the discrepancy between amount of energies not allowed by the CoE. How many times do you want me to repeat this so that it can come across?

[Omnibus]

I no nothing about science in the way you all seem to know but I would think the magnetic field in that experiment is not static and it takes energy to lift the ball from A to B, I could do the same with the Trigate and get the same result, I've shown it drop and kick through another gate all I would have to do it take the other gate away and have it land on something that is angled back towards the first gate and there you have it the same thing.
Oh and I have shown you the way to lift that ball back up to B from A but I don't think it will keep going cause it has to release from the track taking it back up to roll along B again and thats the point I have been making it will not release unless helped by gravity.
@sm0ky2
Do you think my bismuth setup would work better if I seperated the iron and bismuth so only the magnetic field is comming from the permanent magnet and not from iron connected to it.
Take Care All
Graham

Of course, you can do the same with the "tri-gate", because the principle is the same, but that initial barrier gives little leeways to the critics that prevents you from pinning them down dead on. You see what obvious nonsense one @zerotenzor resorts to in his complete inability to find arguments against a clear cut example. Why provide him with seeming ammunition, allowing him to discuss "tri-gate" in terms of violating CoE Don't get me wrong, "tri-gate" also violates CoE but, like I said, it isn't the shining example, which the magnetic propulsor is, that would make a clever critic speechless (leaving the argument only to a stupid person).

As for the bismuth example, that seems interesting and I'd like to see an experimental demonstration of it. If this works this would be one of the brightest proposals in this field.

[Tinker]

I agree that this exchange should end here because it is nothing else but an exercise in confusion on your part.

No, the confusion is on your part, like I said. Before coming here to discuss this you must learn that the magnetic fields of permanent magnets are time-independent.

This analysis has unexpectedly turned into a litmus test of human stupidity and confusion. I will be as harsh as can be if anyone continues with such stupidities.

Gosh.  You sure do get yourself worked up about this, don't you?

You say that the magnetic field is static, and I say that it is dynamic.  This is where we differ.  I propose an experiment that should settle this:

Visualize the magnetic field --( One could use a piece of magnetic viewing film).   Observe the motion (or lack thereof) of the pattern when a bearing zooms through.  If the pattern moves, then the field is dynamic.  If it stays put, then I concede the point.  How's that for a "litmus test"?

This motion of the fields is spontaneous and is  due exactly to the violation of CoE.

What my analysis shows is something that cannot be denied, namely, the discrepancy between amounts of energy in and out. These amounts are set in stone. The discrepancy between the amounts of energy, at odds with CoE, is set in stone and cannot be denied. What disturbances they cause is another story, unrelated to the main point in the analysis--the discrepancy between amount of energies not allowed by the CoE. How many times do you want me to repeat this so that it can come across?

Omnibus Has been there and done that, you would do well to listen to or read his input.

His demeanor sucks but he is most often accurate.

But what do I know.

Accept reject or Ignore.

Be Well
Tinker

[zerotensor]

...
You see what obvious nonsense one @zerotenzor resorts to in his complete inability to find arguments against a clear cut example. Why provide him with seeming ammunition, allowing him to discuss "tri-gate" in terms of violating CoE Don't get me wrong, "tri-gate" also violates CoE but, like I said, it isn't the shining example, which the magnetic propulsor is, that would make a clever critic speechless (leaving the argument only to a stupid person). ...

@Rusty_Springs:
You see what name-calling @Omnibus resorts to when challenged, all the while injecting his own pet device into the thread and claiming its ultimate superiority.  I think your triforce experiments are great.  And I think it would be interesting to see the interaction of the steel ball with the magnetic fields in any of these kinds of setups.

@Omnibus:
<sarc>
Oh heavens!  we wouldn't want to allow @zerotensor to discuss triforce on the triforce thread in the discussion forum!  That would be horrible!
</sarc>

I am here to help figure this stuff out.  We are all in it together.

I suggest that you knock off the "stupidity" attacks.  It makes you look...    stupid.