Tri-Force Magnets - Finally shown to be OU?

[Omnibus]

@smOky2,

Did you see my question to @tinu or you'll continue with your superficial attitude?

To try to be an advocate against the SGOT's overunity is an effort not even the Devil would partake.  It's proof is irrefutable.  Just like the SMOT's overunity.  Please, you have your SMOT.  Let the unwashed masses who cannot afford magnets have their SGOT!  Its CoE violation is equally valid.  The math supports it perfectly.

To talk like this is easy. You may think it's funny but it's only mildly so, at your expense, at that.

This is the example @shruggedatlas was looking for. There may be others too. Like I said, according to my analysis, any situation whereby the imparted energy is less than the energy which the object stands to inevitably transform into other energies is in violation of CoE.

[utilitarian]

To talk like this is easy. You may think it's funny but it's only mildly so, at your expense, at that.

It is obviously satire, maybe funny, maybe not.  But go ahead, try to disprove the SGOT's overunity.  You will soon realize that your own prior logic is not so easy to dodge.

Remember, the issue is not whether the SGOT is the same as the SMOT.  Obviously, it isn't, as there is only one force in effect.  Yet, by your logic, it violates CoE in the same manner the SMOT does - i.e. the ball loses more energy that what was imparted to it by the hand.

[Omnibus]

To talk like this is easy. You may think it's funny but it's only mildly so, at your expense, at that.

It is obviously satire, maybe funny, maybe not.  But go ahead, try to disprove the SGOT's overunity.  You will soon realize that your own prior logic is not so easy to dodge.

Remember, the issue is not whether the SGOT is the same as the SMOT.  Obviously, it isn't, as there is only one force in effect.  Yet, by your logic, it violates CoE in the same manner the SMOT does - i.e. the ball loses more energy that what was imparted to it by the hand.

Yes, it does. It does violate CoE in the same way SMOT does. I've already said that on several occasions (cf. when @shruggedatlas was trying to find a matching example; unsuccessfully, unfortunately) that any device in which an object has energy to be inevitably transformed in other energies greater than the energy imparted to it, violates CoE. She thought, for instance, we know her example with the bungee rope and the ramp intrinsically doesn't violate CoE. I told her clearly then, if that device does what she thinks it does (it doesn't unfortunately) then we will know that it does violate CoE. You may go back to that exchange, I think it's in this same thread.

[Omnibus]

As a matter of fact this principle is at the bottom of the gravity OU machines such as the Bessler wheel. It remains to be understood, however, how the produced excess energy is harnessed to make it self-sustaining. That's a purely engineering problem. The excess energy in the current setup, as in SMOT, is quite small and produced in an inappropriate form to allow rendering a self-sustaining contraption. That should be the gist of the discussions now that we know violation of CoE can happen for sure.

[utilitarian]

If the SGOT violates CoE, then we have no further disagreement.  Your views are completely consistent.  We shall consider the issue put to rest now.