Here is the video

Return To Gravity Assisted Power
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-1n-C5o8fZ0

Yeah, that's the usual speculation but it can't explain away the production of excess energy in gravity wheels such as this one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FQ02MjqBk7s&feature=youtube_gdata_player , self-sustaining or not.

No .. in that video the guy is hand positioning the imbalance [as Vidar said] & in doing so has lifted the Pe of the pendulum so that it sits high at rim level - IOW's he added Potential Energy of Position into the system to prime it.

Did you see at anytime the single or dual pendulums etc ever achieve the same starting height ? - the answer is NO - what you saw was a system that acted like a chain weighted pendulum clock - it's center of mass [CoM] was lowered one time & that Pe wass converted into Ke & momentum - it is not self sustaining nor achieved a restoration of Pe to be self sustaining, therefore not OU.

Omnibus wrote > Thermodynamics never takes into account the energy put in to build a machine. The energy balance in thermodynamics is always done from the moment there is a machine available on. In this case the work of the machine starts from standstill. At that standstill the machine has certain gravitational potential energy, as a, say, ball has when sitting on a table with respect to the floor. In the case of a ball on a table, once it's let go towards the floor it can never recover the initial potential energy due to losses and never reaches the height of the table on its own. In this case the construction more than recovers the initially put in energy thus prodicing excess energy ("energy out of nothing", as it were).

Non-sense ! - see above.

To be OU a machine [already constructed] must restore its Potential Energy - if that is an oscillating device that means achieving the same or better starting height for CoM.

If that is a rotating system then the device must restore full Pe of Position & if excess Energy is available it will also manifest as excess momentum & Ke seen as excess velocity as it completes a cycle - so the conditions to be OU is that Pe is restored & to do Work there must also be excess momentum after one cycle.

Non of your examples did this, therefore NOT OU !

Then, explain it. Start here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ENrMwPNt9Cc&feature=player_embedded#

See above post - I doubt you'll learn it though !

Notice the height of the black weight at the start (0:00) and compare that height to the height of the weight as it comes around to the top again (at 0:07).  At 0:07, the black weight is slightly lower than it was at 0:00, meaning the arm has lost some potential energy and gained some kinetic energy.  I do not see OU here.

No .. in that video the guy is hand positioning the imbalance [as Vidar said] & in doing so has lifted the Pe of the pendulum so that it sits high at rim level - IOW's he added Potential Energy of Position into the system to prime it.

Did you see at anytime the single or dual pendulums etc ever achieve the same starting height ? - the answer is NO - what you saw was a system that acted like a chain weighted pendulum clock - it's center of mass [CoM] was lowered one time & that Pe wass converted into Ke & momentum - it is not self sustaining nor achieved a restoration of Pe to be self sustaining, therefore not OU.

Omnibus wrote > Thermodynamics never takes into account the energy put in to build a machine. The energy balance in thermodynamics is always done from the moment there is a machine available on. In this case the work of the machine starts from standstill. At that standstill the machine has certain gravitational potential energy, as a, say, ball has when sitting on a table with respect to the floor. In the case of a ball on a table, once it's let go towards the floor it can never recover the initial potential energy due to losses and never reaches the height of the table on its own. In this case the construction more than recovers the initially put in energy thus prodicing excess energy ("energy out of nothing", as it were).

Non-sense ! - see above.

To be OU a machine [already constructed] must restore its Potential Energy - if that is an oscillating device that means achieving the same or better starting height for CoM.

If that is a rotating system then the device must restore full Pe of Position & if excess Energy is available it will also manifest as excess momentum & Ke seen as excess velocity as it completes a cycle - so the conditions to be OU is that Pe is restored & to do Work there must also be excess momentum after one cycle.

Non of your examples did this, therefore NOT OU !

On the contrary, what you're saying is nonsense. My explanation is valid even if someone is holding a ball at rest above ground and lets it go. The ball will not return to the same height because of losses -- therefor there's no CoE violation. In the video at hand, however, the weight obviously restores its initial height during the second turn. Therefore excess energy is produced. Unfortunately the excess energy produced is in a form which doesn't allow direct looping (restoring the inital position on the fly). That's a purely technical problem and has nothing to do with the obvious violation of CoE in this case.

No, it's you who needs to learn. Where's the proof that there's no OU in http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ENrMwPNt9Cc&feature=player_embedded# ?

omnibus .. your talent to ego ratio is out of kilter.

Take another look at the vids - study them instead of what you're going to say next.

But, on the brighter side, your level of incompetence comes shining thru yet again in your posts !

omnibus .. your talent to ego ratio is out of kilter.

Take another look at the vids - study them instead of what you're going to say next.

But, on the brighter side, your level of incompetence comes shining thru yet again in your posts !

Quite the contrary, it's your level of incompetence that shines through your posts. Your narrow definitions and limited understanding of the matter proves it.