Overunity.com Archives is Temporarily on Read Mode Only!



Free Energy will change the World - Free Energy will stop Climate Change - Free Energy will give us hope
and we will not surrender until free energy will be enabled all over the world, to power planes, cars, ships and trains.
Free energy will help the poor to become independent of needing expensive fuels.
So all in all Free energy will bring far more peace to the world than any other invention has already brought to the world.
Those beautiful words were written by Stefan Hartmann/Owner/Admin at overunity.com
Unfortunately now, Stefan Hartmann is very ill and He needs our help
Stefan wanted that I have all these massive data to get it back online
even being as ill as Stefan is, he transferred all databases and folders
that without his help, this Forum Archives would have never been published here
so, please, as the Webmaster and Creator of these Archives, I am asking that you help him
by making a donation on the Paypal Button above.
You can visit us or register at my main site at:
Overunity Machines Forum



Sjack Abeling Gravity Wheel and the Worlds first Weight Power Plant

Started by AquariuZ, April 03, 2009, 01:17:07 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 30 Guests are viewing this topic.

fletcher

The truth seems something you are not well acquainted with omnibus - not in a practical mechanical sense anyway - there is no extra Ke from balls following different tracks starting & finishing at the same heights - you have simply manipulated a slope, time & speed differential into a hypothesis about greater average Ke [which no one has disagreed with btw as it's obvious] & promoted that premiss of greater average Ke as being somehow meaningful & called it a clear demonstration of violation of CoE derived from Pe - since you can't use Ke, except in a physical contact & exchange of energy sense i.e. to do work, then it cannot be accumulated to give more work which is what your bogus claims are somehow promoting by quoting averages, if you could but think of a way to use it.

You'd have more success making a wheel turn by unlocking the energy trapped in the math than looking for a real energy source.

Cloxxki

I tried, but cannot see how Ombibus would NOT be a misinformation agent. No-one is that well-spoken, yet so misinformed, and then stubborn about it without burdened by havig to found his claims with substance.

At first he seemed like a knowledgeable FE advocate, ut along the way I found him calling OU on pretty much everything. I started out seing OU in ever proposition also, but am learning to not put my hopes up, and ask myself and investors questions that, if well answered, would convince me.

I don't think I've ever had to ignore a poster online before, although I know I've been the subject of a block more than once. I am not a fan of censorship, but as misinformation agents can just claim general ignorance, what should a site like this do?

In the mean time, Abeling hasn't stepped forward yet. We don't know whether he's really managed OU or not. Let alone how he's done it. So far, this thread is a failure, then.

Omnibus

@Cloxxki,

You're looking for a practical answer and what we're discussing right now is a purely theoretical stuff. Please, ignore it. I asked you something on the practical side but you didn't notice it perhaps. Ignore this theoretical discussion and let's get to the practical side of it.

Omnibus

Quote from: fletcher on March 05, 2010, 05:45:12 PM
The truth seems something you are not well acquainted with omnibus - not in a practical mechanical sense anyway - there is no extra Ke from balls following different tracks starting & finishing at the same heights - you have simply manipulated a slope, time & speed differential into a hypothesis about greater average Ke [which no one has disagreed with btw as it's obvious] & promoted that premiss of greater average Ke as being somehow meaningful & called it a clear demonstration of violation of CoE derived from Pe - since you can't use Ke, except in a physical contact & exchange of energy sense i.e. to do work, then it cannot be accumulated to give more work which is what your bogus claims are somehow promoting by quoting averages, if you could but think of a way to use it.

You'd have more success making a wheel turn by unlocking the energy trapped in the math than looking for a real energy source.

Like I said to @Cloxxki, this is a purely theoretical discussion and can hardly be used for practical purposes to build a working device. That lack of immediate practicality, as I said many times, doesn't at all invalidate it or make it unimportant in scientific terms. On the contrary, this and especially the other proof for the violation of CoE, has profound, far-reaching consequences for science far beyond any concrete utilitarianism. This has to be understood well so that the important pursuits are not mixed up making the confusion even greater than it is.

fletcher

I guess we'll have to wait & see if your epiphany sinks in omnibus, to anyone else but you, & catches hold in the physics world as other than a passing abstract thought - then someone might take up the batton & run on with it & sell it as something actually of fundamental & far-reaching importance as you claim - somehow I doubt it's going to set anyone alight because averages are meaningless in this context & is a misappropriation of math.