CLaNZeR can achieve overunity!

[sm0ky2]

sm0ky2, how is it possible for your to think in physics in such an erroneous and ignorant way?
Your so called "formulae" is worth null and nothing. You have made up your own formula based
on a faulty world perception, not what really happens, and that is so very wrong.
No, you are extremely super wrong here. The input energy to make this thing spin is the energy
spent by placing the two elements together with the imperfection as result. You can't exclude this.
If you don't spend any energy what so ever you can't bring them together and there will be no spin.
That by very definition is "underunity".

Even you must see this and understand that there is no free lunch involved here.
Only if the ball accelerated faster by itself while maintaining its imbalance could we talk about OU.
I hope there's someone else at OU forum that can help me explain it for you somewhat "simpler".

First of all, that was not "my formula",. that is the textbook formula. which , WHEN you go to college, you will LEARN about.

Second, we discussed the input energy. The movement of the ball-mass, and the placement of the upper ring.
These combined are far less than the losses we discussed.
Do the math, stop pulling apart the cheese.

The ball is motionless, when the cycle starts. the ball accellerates, travels its' path of motion, then decellerates once it nears the point of magnetic-balance.
Do your calculations. Add up the input energy on one side of the equation. And on the other side add up the energy involved in the acceleration of the ball, Frictional losses, Wind resistance, Moment of Inertia, and gravitational resistance.

Then sit there and stare at the numbers on each side of the "="

then go pull a piece of string cheese out of the fridge, and lie to yourself once more.

Its obvious you have no clue what you are talking about. You are spouting nonsensical thermodynamic bull*&%*, and doing so incorrectly i might add..

You will think back on this day, when you get to college......

i dont need your acceptance, wether or not you agree with me changes nothing. I'm trying to help you here. But you just want to pull apart the cheese instead of looking at the reality of the situation.

[infringer]

No I just simply think that some of these people sitting around on there tuffs should start proving without a doubt that there is not a possible way something is overunity before making the claim just like everyone thinks that the vice versa should happen... Naudin, Clanzer, Dusty, Tinsel Kola, Stephen, excommon, smoky2, and a couple others out there are proving stuff and many others are trying stuff you have this guy fat chance I haven't seen no work no pictures of his projects just a bunch of pointless blubbering that is it and hugo chavez someone elses alter ego probably just like fat chance well he is next in line!

Muahahaha !

Thats going to be the slogan the old rold gold slogan for those who like to do nothing but spout off and sit on there tuffs...

Prove it pretzel boy!

Enjoy don't take me too personal as I don't know myself but I tell you looking at something and actually experiencing something are 2 way different things trust me life lesson number 122 hehe.

Good instance the people that experience UFO rather then just seeing them on youtube are more likely to believe that there might be something more to the whole UFO thing... Now this is just an example do not blow it out of context

[Hugo Chavez]

   Infringer, the only things I've said here is that we should report honestly on experiments and that the hamel spinner is not an example of overunity.  You're going to bust my balls and say I'm next for that?  Really?  Oh dear, such a crime I've committed   Clanzer's own videos prove it's not overunity.  If that's overunity, spinning a top would be an example of overunity.  a top can spin a long time with little innitial input.  Just one little twist of the fingers.  In this case you're just replacing a magnetic field for the quick twist of fingers.  neither is overunity.  Putting the onus on us to prove what is plainly already proven is stupid. 

[FatChance!!!]

@sm0ky2

I rest my case.
Your are completely right mr Almighty.
I suggest you bring your formulae and calculations to a well established
physics university and declare you have found the holy grail beyond doubt.
Within ten years time you will get your Nobel prize.

Good luck.... you'll need it. 

[sm0ky2]

...  If that's overunity, spinning a top would be an example of overunity.  a top can spin a long time with little innitial input.  Just one little twist of the fingers.  In this case you're just replacing a magnetic field for the quick twist of fingers.  neither is overunity.   

Here's something you should try. set up the clanzer experiment. weigh the mass of the upper ring of magnets, and calculate the energy required to position it on top of the bowl. ( if you are really feeling giddy, you can even add in the small ammount of magnetic force from the ball thats pushing against it!!)

Now spin the ball with that same ammount of energy., WITHOUT the magnetic ring on top.  and simply observe what happens.
use a winding spring of known value, so you have consistent results.