Hope is one thing Wilby, delusion is another.

Omnibus will find his waterloo soon enough when he does the experiments.

indeed. i was just saying don't hold your breath on being able to persuade omni... it is hopeless.

indeed. i was just saying don't hold your breath on being able to persuade omni... it is hopeless.

Thanks, I got the gist of it & quite agree - quite some grand delusion I think.

The onus is on him to back up his grand theories with cold hard facts that others can analyse - I won't hold my breath for that either as Mr Mag said.

Seems to be self educated [as perhaps most of us are] but obviously spent a lot of time cutting class.

Really ! - that reads like the introduction to chapter one of your autobiography.

In this endeavour to find mechanical gravity OU most are trying to find a loop hole in known physics, or to rewrite the physics books entirely with a spectacular indisputable demonstration.

Seldom does one rewrite the theory without having the experimental evidence to back it up - that's self preservation strategy, especially if the theory skills are wanting - hard to argue with empirical evidence even if you can't explain it particularly well, your case is made & you have the slam dunk in your back pocket that the forensic physicists can pour over at your leisure.

What I find disturbing is the strategy of reinterpreting the Laws using empirical evidence that is an obvious abject failure at OU.

If that strategy gets traction then it means the field can't even agree on what constitutes OU before it can hope to solve the mechanical problem of producing it.

There's ample empirical evidence even at this point proving that CoE can be violated.


It cannot be emphasized stronger that to prove violation of CoE it is not mandatory to demonstrate continuous production of excess energy, that is, it is not mandatory to demonstrate a self-sustaning device.


Demonstrating discontinuous production of excess energy is as conclusive a way to prove CoE violation as the scientific method requires. This is extremely important to understand if you don't want to get discouraged at every step of the way towards building a perpetuum mobile. Now we know perpetuum mobile is possible and that's the most important stalwart basis of our pursuit.


The rest, the physical building it, is only a matter of engineering skills and infrastructure.

Not so omnibus !

Case in point :

We all know how to create Ke [Energy of movement] with magnets - just have a linear array like a Smot, Gauss gun etc & as long as you place the ball in the field the ball will accelerate & gain a final velocity, Ke & momentum.

That result did not violate CoE or Thermodynamics - we did Joules of Work [F x D] to place the ball inside the attractive filed - thereafter the field potential accelerated the ball giving it a velocity & Ke.

So, exactly like a gravity field you must do Work to give a mass Potential which then provided it is free to move will acquire velocity & Ke [Joules of capacity to do Work] - the Force is the mass x acceleration the field provides - the Work able to be done capacity is the Force x Distance the ball moves etc etc etc.

It is hugely important to show OU via continuous production of excess Energy, that can either cover system losses &/or do external Work i.e. Output is greater than Input.

Showing a gain in velocity & Ke using linear magnets shows a discontinuous process, BUT it cannot restore the Potential & show excess Energy available to do external Work etc.

So, exactly as not accounting for the Work Done in raising a masses Potential in a gravity field, so is the partial budgeting approach of not accounting for the Energy Input into ANY system [including magnets] that hopes to be OU, completely erroneous logic.

The Smots & Gauss guns, Milkovich pendulums etc of this world are fascinating but not a single one AFAIK has managed to close the loop - in each & every case we are always told it is just a technical hitch, much as you keep propounding - well, it's not a technical problem that can be solved by mechanical aptitude, only a matter of applying of competent engineering skills & infrastructure as you've repeatedly said - it is a matter of understanding Thermodynamics & the Laws that filter down thru them to see the fallacy of the argument about "only a matter of a mechanical engineering solution".

The brand of soap box selling of partial truths you promote re:

Demonstrating discontinuous production of excess energy is as conclusive a way to prove CoE violation as the scientific method requires.

is disingenuous & deceiving to the researcher who should be armed with accurate information - it will be his epiphany that breaks the shackles of physics & lets him produce the first closed loop OU mechanical system, but that won't come from continuous disinformation & false direction.

The simple & only answer omnibus, is then close the loop with this excess Energy, to validate & prove your point !

No other discussion is required !

The simple & only answer omnibus, is then close the loop with this excess Energy, to validate & prove your point !

No other discussion is required !

Agreed. If it can't give us continious and infinite work without input energy, it is not OU. OU isnt a temporary working device which is depending on input energy all the time.
By not being able to explain the fact with quantum mathematics, doesnt prove it is OU. A practical experiment, which automaticly includes all necessary practical mathematics available, is all we need to confirm what is facts.

Vidar

This guy is using the eccentric rotor idea in this simulation, and it looks like he may be onto something
 
 http://www.youtube.com/user/purelyprimitives
 
 Mechanical resonance pt 1 & 2
 
 Looks like an easy build also.

The above is incorrect.

Jeeez, Omni, still kicking?