Steorns PM-Orbo Asymmetric Non-linear MH setup ...

[teslaalset]

Nice to see the craftmanship of ClanZer once more I must say.

The only problem I have with the topic is that Steorn once more comes up with another monkey out of their sleeve.
Pitty, they are not able to convince and let the earlier claims grow mature.

[spinn_MP]

According to one of the most important result of mainstream physics, the work done to move from a potential A to a potential B doesn't depend on the path. This has been verified by thousands of sensitive experiments in all domains (electric, magnetic, gravitational). It follows that if we go from A to B, and then from B o A, the energy is balanced: we can't expect for a gain from a cyclic motion through potentials.
In the paper from Steorn given above (http://www.overunity.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=10253.0;attach=50453), an asymmetry is built in order a permanent magnet to move through a magnetic path different from A to B than from B to A. Measurements are given which indicate that the energy balance is broken. All the physics laws collapse! 
But what are the facts? The unbalance is very very weak: less than 1 mJ. We must reckon that 1 mJ is the work done on earth to lift a weight of about 0.1 g to an height of 1 mtr. When we know that here magnetic forces are several orders of magnitude stronger and that an asymmetry path can drastically change the strength of the forces between the outward and return paths (but not their work), inducing different mechanical losses in the 2 sections due to different frictions not taken into account by their evaluation of the measurement uncertainty, we understand that this measurement of an almost imperceptible unbalance of the work of strong forces is far under the measurement accuracy. A real joke.
In such a goal, only a self-sustaining device would be convincing.

Yep.

One of my forum pals from another board once said , that a "working prototype of an OU machine is to an OU claimant the same as is a sunshine to a vampire..." Or, something similar..

Maybe that's why Steorn so carefully avoids showing something that works in reality?

Asymmetrical paths for magnetic interactions are quite tricky.
One can easily get a feeling (or even a "convincing" result) that there's something extraordinary happening...

Usually, a simple rundown tests show all there is to show... In practice.

Cheers!

[Omnibus]

As I have already shown, there are other instances of asymmetry which lead to OU, inherent in the existing theory. See, for example, the following experiment: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KnqXJbwpNRo . OU in this case is due to the fact that force as a function of distance has a different form along two paths of bringing the test body from maximum to zero force. Because work is the integral of force over distance, the work done along these two paths will be the maximum work that can be done in each case and it will be different in each case. Therefore, the work W1 to pull out the spherical magnet from point A of maximum force to point B1 of zero force will differ from the work W2 to pull that same magnet from point A of maximum force to another point of zero force, point B2. Therefore, the integral of force over distance along the closed lAB1B2A loop will not be zero (noticing that the work to move the magnet from point B1 to point B2 is zero along a path of equal gravitational potential) and if W1<W2 it will result in OU.

Notice that the difference between W1 and W2 is a matter of principle and science isn't interested at all as to whether that difference is infinitely small or enormous. As long as these two works are different, as they are in this case, the violation of CoE is undeniable.

The making of a device exhibiting continuois rotation (which isn't the necessary condition to claim violation of CoE but is only a technical application of the above phenomenon of violation of CoE) is difficult in this case because of the need to utilize the excess energy produced along one direction of translational motion for inducing translational motion in another direction.

Steorn's way of violationg CoE seems more technically feasible for the purposes of producing continuous rotation since the excess energy obtained due to internal reasons is always along the direction of' motion. As in the other cases of producing excess energy due to so far unnoticed (or suppressed) asymmetries inherent in the standard theory, there are technical difficulties here as well, which can hardly be overcome by enthusiasts working at substandard conditions, all the proper infrastructure being deliberately cut off from such studies.