Over Unity is No Longer Disputable

JoeEllison said:
Nope. Never did. Why don't you try actually reading my posts? I knew exactly what I was posting... and I knew exactly what you were posting too. I even tried to hint to everyone else that you were trying to trap them.

So, will you answer some questions now, or not?
Click to expand...

I read your posts. You were the one setting the trap. My question was what is the energy source? What was your answer again?
 
g4macdad said:
Basically you are being a coward and trying to hide the fact that you cannot name an energy source. Correct?:cool:
Click to expand...

g4macdad said:
There is no pendulum in the video that could run the device for 40 mins.

Are you really this ignorant, or are you just being fesicious?
Click to expand...

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2781353#post2781353
g4macdad, I explained I thought very carefully that you don't need energy to stay in motion. That machine has some minute friction. Therefore it will eventually stop. If it did stop very quickly with such minimal friction it would be a mystery. Running 40 minutes without stopping is not. A bullet shot in space without gravity will never stop. That doesn't make it a perpetual motion machine.
 
my_wan said:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2781353#post2781353
g4macdad, I explained I thought very carefully that you don't need energy to stay in motion. That machine has some minute friction. Therefore it will eventually stop. If it did stop very quickly with such minimal friction it would be a mystery. Running 40 minutes without stopping is not. A bullet shot in space without gravity will never stop. That doesn't make it a perpetual motion machine.
Click to expand...

The machine did not stop after 40 minutes. In fact there was no sign of slowing after well over 40 minutes.

Your "careful" reply is very "careful", but it really doesn't offer a good explanation of the energy source IMO. You are implying that there are many such low friction machines in existence. Please post a video link of at least one, so we can lay this to rest. There are many claims of such machines. The real difference here is the evidence.
 
g4macdad said:
Your "careful" reply is very "careful", but it really doesn't offer a good explanation of the energy source IMO. You are implying that there are many such low friction machines in existence. Please post a video link of at least one, so we can lay this to rest. There are many claims of such machines. The real difference here is the evidence.
Click to expand...
Yeah, evidence. How about that.

So what you are saying now is that other, well-documented, long-running low-friction toys don't exist because they're not on Youtube? And that this implies that Finsrud's device, which he has explicitly stated runs down and stops over time, is therefor magical?
 
Last edited:
There is a lot to wade through, here. I got lost for a while, but I think it distills down to the following.

Adam, would you agree with me that:

  1. The Steorn demonstration was a bust. It did peek your interest and reinforce your hope that perpetual motion might finally be a reality, but nothing materialized.
  2. The Perpetuum Mobile is a curious piece of kinetic art, but the artist makes no claims of having a perpetual motion machine. In fact, the artist specifically claims it isn't. Nonetheless, it is a fascinating construction and raises speculation as to how it can run for as long as it does.

Is that a fair summary of where we are?
 
g4macdad said:
Damn you are right! The overwhelming majority of "scientists" have never been shown to be wrong!:boggled:
Click to expand...

Yes, they have been. Of course, every single one of those instances has involved observable, repeatable evidence. As of yet, there has been no independent observation of anything approaching overunity. The claims of folks on an OU website are as worthless as the claims of the folks on a homeopathy website or an astrology website.

Until reliable evidence is presented, I will remain in the scoffers' camp and will consider your thread title to be a gross exaggeration.
 
Well at least it seems I got some people here thinking a little more seriously on the subject.

Whew! Not an easy task here.:eye-poppi
 
g4macdad said:
Well at least it seems I got some people here thinking a little more seriously on the subject.

Whew! Not an easy task here.:eye-poppi
Click to expand...

No. The people here who know their stuff technically were piqued. (not 'peeked' or 'peaked'.)

These people already are serious.

The people like me who rely on the experts and the conventional wisdom were amused.

I was surprised at the fuss you made, even judged by the standards of the crazy contrarians of this forum.

'Cmon, at least post a picture of yourself eating something fowl.

That's your only recourse besides a large donation to a charity, or an admission that you were wrong.
 
g4macdad said:
So, Finsrud's achievement is trivial? How about Milkovic?

Trivial too, next to your great achievements? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

A device that uses energy stored in a pendulum to run a toy for some period of time is, in terms of the physics involved, trivial.

The physics involved in putting a satellite into orbit is also trivial.

The engineering and craftsmanship involved in either of those endeavors may worthy of some note, but the physics remains trivial.
 
Why is it that whenever a person makes an extraordinary claim about a subject he's ignorant of, it's the skeptics who are lazy for "not doing the research?"

G4macdad, you're approaching this subject bassackwards.
 
Because, as g4macdad himself alluded to, it is more important to him that he likes an idea (over-unity in this case - he's already said he wants to remain 'hopeful' about it and those nasty skeptics are stopping it from happening :rolleyes:) than it is that the idea is actually possible or true.
 
jsfisher said:
So, that big, old pendulum at the Smithsonian Museum of Natural History can't be used to tell time? .
Click to expand...

The energy source is a little piston tapping the pendulum string. A clock that uses a pendulum has to have a power source keeping the pendulum swinging.

I saw a pendulum powered ball going around a track, enclosed in a glass case. It will run for months with only the multiple pendulums inertia. Pretty cool invention. It eventually stops however.
 
cyborg said:
Because, as g4macdad himself alluded to, it is more important to him that he likes an idea (over-unity in this case - he's already said he wants to remain 'hopeful' about it and those nasty skeptics are stopping it from happening :rolleyes:) than it is that the idea is actually possible or true.
Click to expand...

I must admit I do lack the ability to know exactly what is possible and true without actually experiencing it.

I guess I am just inferior to you.:D
 
g4macdad said:
Well at least it seems I got some people here thinking a little more seriously on the subject.

Whew! Not an easy task here.:eye-poppi
Click to expand...

Wow, yet one more in an ever growing list of unsupported assertions. No, G4macdad, you have not made people think more seriously about the subject. This subject is as silly as a belief in fairies living at the bottom of the garden. Everyone here seems to appreciate that this is not a serious topic of discussion.

You made some bold claims in the first several pages and many posters pointed out the errors in your claims. I suspect that you were so upset over the way you treated that you posted some nonsense in the last few pages with the sole intention of trying to annoy various posters. Of course, I could be wrong. Feel free to explain your behavior.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom