SMOT! - (previously about the OC MPMM)

Omnibus · January 10, 2008, 10:57:51 AM

@shruggedatlas,

Just to clarify although you may already know it. I have still some questions regarding Finsrud's device especially the fact that it can just be a very efficient re-distributor of the initially imparted energy. I offered to go back to Oslo and do some additional non-destructive experiments to have this possibility ruled out but Finsrud wasn't forthcoming. He's too burnt out after all these years. He's done this for over 30 years and I'm new to this. My interest was caught two years ago when I accidentally saw a fierce debate about SMOT. Before that I wouldn't even dream of questioning CoE. I'm a professional scientist, after all. Anyway, @Lister, @Demosthenes and several other good thinkers from the Steorn forum among the "vast majority" of lurkers with little or no competence are discussing Finsrud's device along these lines of a very efficient re-distributor of the initially imparted energy (aside from suggestion of fraud due to secretly strained springs which I still think unjustified). When @alsetalonkin's came about I was calling on @Lister to discuss it in these terms and explain the acceleration. He didn't show up, unfortunately. Observed acceleration in Finsrud's machine @Lister explains by offering the example of a spinning coin, accelerating at the end. That's not plausible here (in Finsrud's too) because while with the coin the moment of inertia changes causing the acceleration to conserve angular momentum, there's no change here (especially before stopping by hand of the two stators) and yet the device accelerates.

Omnibus · January 10, 2008, 10:59:34 AM

@tinu,

That's ridiculous. Consult with someone knowledgeable you trust and see if you're right about Ma and Mb.

Low-Q · January 10, 2008, 04:26:06 PM

Omnibus:

You have shit in your pants. I can smell it

LOL!!
Maybe you shoud go cleaning yourself up by giving a detailed and educational correct explanation to your statement, so all of us stupid, super-blonde and multi-retarded chicken-bimbo heads can learn something from a multi-science-knowhow-super-intelligent and perfectly flawless person - as written between your lines. So far we have all learned that someone simply don't give up, even if they shit in their pants. And you are the person who smells here!! No offence, by the way

Vidar

Omnibus · January 10, 2008, 04:48:57 PM

Quote from: Low-Q on January 10, 2008, 04:26:06 PM
Omnibus:

You have shit in your pants. I can smell it LOL!!
Maybe you shoud go cleaning yourself up by giving a detailed and educational correct explanation to your statement, so all of us stupid, super-blonde and multi-retarded chicken-bimbo heads can learn something from a multi-science-knowhow-super-intelligent and perfectly flawless person - as written between your lines. So far we have all learned that someone simply don't give up, even if they shit in their pants. And you are the person who smells here!! No offence, by the way

Vidar

I'm quoting this for all to see what nonsense persons having no arguments are ready to post as a substitute. Now, that's for a moderator to take care of, isn't it?

tinu · January 10, 2008, 05:01:15 PM

@ omnibus

No, it isn?t!
The moderator should have kicked you out a long time ago, Omnibus.
You are contributing only BS all along and it?s YOU that don?t have arguments.
A lot of posts but all are NONSENSE OF ZERO VALUE.
And the mere fact that you always write something more in response (irrelevant, nonetheless) does not change your null value. Now, back to the issue: do you have a REAL PROOF? Do you have more arguments besides the flawed Ma>Mb? Because if you don?t have, I?ll keep my request: go play with SMOTs, with potential energy definition and its meaning and when you?re ready to say something RELEVANT, come back. Meanwhile, shut the f*** up!

Cheers,
Tinu