Over Unity is No Longer Disputable

[g4macdad]

Youtube != evidence.

Sorry.

Randi Forums =evidence LOL

Sorry.

 

[PixyMisa]

Look you are digging deeper and deeper.

Have you seen a Foucault pendulum? It is not an ordinary pendulum! It swings huge distances.

Which is different from an ordinary pendulum how?

Oh yeah you got me, I thought the machine started itself.

I wouldn't be surprised.

If you think starting a machine is all thats required as energy, you obviously have no concept of the first law of thermodynamics.

Why? Why do you think anything else is required?

If you cannot give a reasonable energy source please stop responding. It is embarrassing for me to witness.

Why is it embarrassing for you? Is it because you can't answer the simplest of questions, like:

Sixth time:

What claim has the inventor made, and what evidence has he provided to support this claim?

 

[Taffer]

Randi Forums =evidence LOL

Sorry.

Nope. Peer-review journal articles with repeatable experimental emperical data = evidence.

 

[BillyJoe]

If you cannot give a reasonable energy source please stop responding. It is embarrassing for me to witness.

What they are saying is that somone pushes the thing to get it going. That is the energy input into the system. This energy input is transformed into kinetic energy + heat.

What you need to demonstrate is that: energy input < energy output (kinetic energy + heat).

 

[Metullus]

Are you serious?! LOL You don't know the energy source of a grand father clock?

Of course I do. Do you?

 

[g4macdad]

Which is different from an ordinary pendulum how?


I wouldn't be surprised.


Why? Why do you think anything else is required?


Why is it embarrassing for you? Is it because you can't answer the simplest of questions, like:

Sixth time:

What claim has the inventor made, and what evidence has he provided to support this claim?

Why? Why do you think anything else is required?

Let me get this straight. You don't know the answer to this question?

So you think OU is possible or not?

Do you have a clue as to what you are talking about, at all?

 

[Slimething]

g4,

I'm a scientist and everything PixyMisa has written is correct. Every claim you have made is incorrect. So there.

BTW, genius, there's a clock in your pc. I challenge you to find a friggin' spring in there. Also, the pendula (three, no less) are plainly visible at 1:12 in your linked video.

Folks, this guy fell for steorm and continues falling. Move on. Nothing to see here.

 

[g4macdad]

g4,

I'm a scientist and everything PixyMisa has written is correct. Every claim you have made is incorrect. So there.

BTW, genius, there's a clock in your pc. I challenge you to find a friggin' spring in there. Also, the pendula (three, no less) are plainly visible at 1:12 in your linked video.

Folks, this guy fell for steorm and continues falling. Move on. Nothing to see here.

So pendula are the energy source?

And you claim to be a scientist?

In who's eyes, your own?

 

[PixyMisa]

Let me get this straight. You don't know the answer to this question?

I'm trying to find out why you think an energy source is required to keep this machine running as shown.

So you think OU is possible or not?

Absolutely not.

Do you have a clue as to what you are talking about, at all?

Yes, I do.

Now, stop avoiding the question.

Seventh time:

What claim has the inventor made, and what evidence has he provided to support this claim?

 

[Hokulele]

So pendula are the energy source?

I weep for the youth of today.

 

[Slimething]

So pendula are the energy source?

No. Open a physics book and look up how pendula work. Conservation of angular momentum. (Did you know that there's even an upside-down one at NIH?) That moves the pendula. The pendula move the levers and the levers move the ring and that one ring moves the ball. Simple, like you.

And you claim to be a scientist?

Yup. Been one since '77. How long have you been an idiot?

In who's eyes, your own?

Mine and the accredited university that gave me a diploma that says so. Deal with it.

 

[g4macdad]

I'm trying to find out why you think an energy source is required to keep this machine running as shown.

Absolutely not.

Yes, I do.

Now, stop avoiding the question.

Seventh time:

What claim has the inventor made, and what evidence has he provided to support this claim?

This thing displays extraordinary properties. You act like it is an ordinary everyday thing.

You explain that the energy source is a Foucault pendulum, then you say it needs no energy source but the action of starting it.

If you claim it is a fake then OK, but you will need to prove it somehow.

To say that nothing unusual is happening clearly shows ignorance.

 

[g4macdad]

No. Open a physics book and look up how pendula work. Conservation of angular momentum. (Did you know that there's even an upside-down one at NIH?) That moves the pendula. The pendula move the levers and the levers move the ring and that one ring moves the ball. Simple, like you.



Yup. Been one since '77. How long have you been an idiot?



Mine and the accredited university that gave me a diploma that says so. Deal with it.

Well, GWB is a politician ,and the top one too! So stranger things have happened.

 

[PixyMisa]

This thing displays extraordinary properties.

Really? What properties are these?

You act like it is an ordinary everyday thing.

Yes, indeed.

You explain that the energy source is a Foucault pendulum

I take it you can show the post where I said that?

then you say it needs no energy source but the action of starting it.

That, at least, is correct.

If you claim it is a fake then OK, but you will need to prove it somehow.

Why should I claim it is fake?

To say that nothing unusual is happening clearly shows ignorance.

What do you think is unusual about the device?

And, eighth time:

What claim has the inventor made, and what evidence has he provided to support this claim?

 

[yairhol]

g4macdad, do you still think that it is theoretically possible to produce more energy than is input to a machine?
That is what Steorn is saying but do you still agree with them?

Regards,
Yair

 

[my_wan]

Look you are digging deeper and deeper.

Have you seen a Foucault pendulum? It is not an ordinary pendulum! It swings huge distances.

Oh yeah you got me, I thought the machine started itself.

If you cannot give a reasonable energy source please stop responding. It is embarrassing for me to witness.

Newtons 1st law of motion. "Every object in a state of uniform motion tends to remain in that state of motion unless an external force is applied to it." The mistake here is assuming you need a source of energy to stay in motion in the first place. If that machine did stop before its stored energy was dissipated through friction etc. that would be a violation of the first law of thermodynamics. The first law of thermodynamics is merely an extension of the first laws of motion. If you could remove all dissipative energy losses from friction etc then the laws require that the motion be perpetual. Finsrud's machine will eventually stop not because staying in motion is a violation of the 1st law but because friction exist to stop it. The rule against perpetual motion is predicated on the fact that you can not make a reciprocating machine completely without friction.

On Steorns forum Turtle says;

Finsrud, on the other hand has, and I have the utmost respect for him that he did not claim to achieve PM or overunity (he referred to it as a moving sculpture; art) and DID allow an outside party investigate it and they did find that it is expending a minute amount of energy and would eventually stop on it's own (they actually calculated the exact amount of energy it was expending to several decimal places) and everyone was and still is happy. But if you where to place it in a perfect vaccuum and put the ball on a frictionless track and replaced the bearings with magnetic bearings, it would keep going, but so would a toy top.

Not an entirely true statement concerning the top but basically correct. It has to do with the definition of an enclosed system (think acceleration & gravitational radiation). Even if you could make such a machine it would be worthless as an energy source because using it's energy for your needs would take the very energy it needs to remain in motion, thereby stopping the motion. It would be nothing more than a battery that must be recharged.

g4macdad, it would have been the highlight of my life to get to come here and eat crow. Hell fire I would give my very life if it was required to make such a thing possible. You seem a bit more reticent to concede such a straightforward bet.

 

[bjb]

It looks like a pendulum to me. There are at least two mechanical ways to keep the pendulum swinging. Grandfather clocks will have a weight that falls and supplies energy to keep the pendulum swinging. Later clocks used a wind-up coil spring to store energy for the pendulum.

In the video, a large spring is clearly visible. It is big, about the size of an automobile valve spring but much longer. It would be easy to compress the spring and use it to 'push' the pendulum back and forth. Also, there is a large shiny object in the middle of the contraption. It could be a heavy weight that moves slowly downward, powering the pendulum. Without examining the machine in person, it is difficult to tell how it works, but my guess is that the big spring is performing the same function as the mainspring in a wind-up clock. I don't know what is hidden in the pedestal that supports the machine, but there's plenty of room for some sort of energy storage device.

Oh g4macdad, you never did say if you still believe in Steorn or not. It would be nice if you could respond to this point.

 

[PixyMisa]

Aww. You broke my toy. I hadn't finished playing with him yet.

 

[jsfisher]

What pendulum system is at work? You make a pendulum claim with no evidence. I see a double standard here.

The inventor makes a claim. You refute it. He has given evidence, you have not.

Did you not notice the bar with what appears to be a magnet at each end? Does it not teeter back and forth in a pendulum-like fashion? Is it not fair, then, to use the word, pendulum, as a descriptive of the entire device?

I could have just as easily called it the ball rolling around in a circle thing. Seemed a bit long, though.

 

[Michael C]

We need to differentiate between:

A. Systems that run a long time without any energy being added.
B. Perpetual motion systems, that run for ever without any energy being added.
C. Over-unity systems, that produce more energy than is put into them.

There are many examples of A. Finsrud's "Perpetuum Mobile" is one of them. All these systems continue to move until the initial energy that was put into them has been dissipated as heat.

If we could build an example of A where no energy was dissipated, it would be a B, a perpetual motion system. We can't, because there is always some friction in even the best bearings, there's always some air that gets heated because it gets moved, there's always something imperfect in the system... But in theory, if we had a perfect no-friction machine in a vacuum, and started it moving, it would go on moving for ever (see my_wan's post above).

An over-unity system (C) promises to go even better than a perpetual motion one: not only will the system continue to run with no extra energy, it will actually produce an excess of energy. This is impossible. It's just as impossible as a machine that turns one gallon of water into two gallons.

Steorn pretend that they have C, an over-unity system, but they can't even produce a demo of A, a system that runs a long time without any energy being added.