CLaNZeR can achieve overunity!

[Airstriker]

if you think that works or is an example of overunity, maybe you should sit down and shut up.  That shows exactly what I said.  You will notice it spins good while it is out of balance(not center to the magnetic field above) as it starts to find center you will see the rotation slow down and it does eventually come to a complete stop, just ask clanzer.

I wish no battle, only that people experiment and report honestly so that everyone can advance from our collective experiments.  I know it's easy to get worked up over something that appears to work but we must examine completely and report honestly even on the experiments that seem most exciting.

exactly

[FatChance!!!]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e2kz3DYpZdI

This is as far from overunity as you can get. It's just a low friction contrapment.
Watch and observe the ball spinning slower and slower and it has almost reached standstill at the end of the video.
Any self running device with excess energy should spin faster and faster, not the opposite where it will eventually stop.
I advise you to take a few lessons in the field of energy before shouting overunity whitout proof.

[sm0ky2]

Yes it eventully finds a place where the magnetic forces balance out and it stops. Thats why he doesnt have a spinning ball on his counter even to this day.
but he did not spin the ball to get it started, he simply placed the ring on top so the ball stood upright and began spinning around the bowl.

take the ring and bowl off, and spin the ball like a top, there is a great deal of friction between the glass and the ball.
YES - the magnetic attraction "lifts" the ball slightly,lowering the friction, but this is not greater than the gravitational force. There is still much friction being overcome in this set-up.

how much total frictional loss does the metal ball overcome before it stops spinning? in his videos without music you could hear it grinding loudly, metal against glass.
How much energy was input by placing the ring on top of the bowl?
The reason it stops is because he has a center-spot for it to stop on.  if the lower dish did not have this spot (completely concave), there would be no center for it to balance in.

If you cannot see that the ball overcomes more energy in losses than is input into it from this small example, i advise you to talk to some other people that were fortunate enough to have seen David do something similar with a pair of 50-gallon metal drums. 
you couldn't spin those drums by hand if you tried.
Yet he could balance them carefully and they would spin for much longer than this little video posted above. Unfortunately, the late mr hamel did not understand what he was doing, and could only achieve the effects spuratically, and what appeared to be on accident, or random occasion between failures.
--------------------------------------------------------------
But this isnt about the "possibility" of overunity.
if its "definitive proof" you seek, i can destroy your concept of reality in another place.....
this is about wether or not Clanz can achieve it.

I don't know about the "entry" repulsion of the halbach, because i haven't played with that one myself, but take a look at some of his other gate-arrays, and the tiny push he needs to give a roller to enter into the first gate.
take away the gate, and give it this same push, and see how far you get....

When the roller is pushed with a set ammount of force, without the gate, the coefficient of friction between the roller and the surface it travels on (within the gravitational domain), defines how far it will travel before comming to a stop.
Energy is conserved is this equation and the roller will stop at (about) the same distance every time you push it.

with a gate array in place, and the same ammount of input energy is given to the roller, it overcomes friction along a much greater distance. (even uphill in some examples)
Once the roller surpasses a total frictional/gravitational energy greater than the input energy: this by very definition is "overunity".

But you won't accept that. Because your mind has been institutionalized. You will convince yourself that the gate array somehow "lowers" the frictional coefficient between roller and surface, (as well as the gravitational constant) and allows the roller to travel a greater distance/incline (or some equivalent b.s. excuse). Like i said, pull it apart like string cheese, until the strands of sticky mess fit into your preconcieved notion of reality.

Go talk to an educated professor about the flaws in current physics and see what he/she tells you, as i did many times in college while working towards my dual engineering degrees.

Many of them know very well that our current understanding of physics is incomplete (at best), yet they continue to teach it. WHY?
because that is what the accredidation board tells them they have to teach. and thats the best answer i could ever get out of them, after showing example after example of how and when certain "laws" do not apply accurately, or sometimes, even at all.
"yes, we know that, but we teach THIS! now stop disrupting my class"

You are quick to discredit Clanzers hamel spinner. But you have not presented a valid argument as to why you do not agree.

i challenge you to do the math yourself. and wether you post your results here and put your foot in your mouth or not is irrelevant.

the coefficient of friction between his ball and bowl is ~0.6
ask him for the mass of the ball
you can see the run-down time shown in the video, and it hasn't even come to a complete stop yet. all of the information you need is right in front of you.

String Cheese......

[Hugo Chavez]

LOL, you are so completely wrong smoky.  it only starts spinning by itself because it is out of center to the magnetic field.  It is caused by the uneven drag on the ball bearing as it is pulled toward center.  Nobody is trying to discredit clanzer, these are just the facts.  The truth is not an attack.  If you were able to place the bearing dead center you would see it would never start spinning to start with.  You need to be more critical in your examinations otherwise you just waste other people's time.  It's not overunity or even close.

[sm0ky2]

LOL, you are so completely wrong smoky.  it only starts spinning by itself because it is out of center to the magnetic field.  It is caused by the uneven drag on the ball bearing as it is pulled toward center.  Nobody is trying to discredit clanzer, these are just the facts.  The truth is not an attack.  If you were able to place the bearing dead center you would see it would never start spinning to start with.  You need to be more critical in your examinations otherwise you just waste other people's time.  It's not overunity or even close.

of course its off-center to the field, that is WHY it spins.
if you were NOT able to position it dead-center, it would KEEP spinning, and spinning, and spinning...

what is "non-critical" about that??
do the math
stop pulling apart the string cheese....

show that its not overunity..   
there is more frictional energy consumed by the system than is input to make it start spinning. The fact that it stops long after surpassing a "unity" condition has nothing to do with it.
it is still "overunity".

Look at the extended tri-force arrays, some of them are not only frictionally overunity, but gravitationally overunity as well.
In some of the set-ups, the roller's ending position is HIGHER (E=mgh)
than the input energy would have lifted it, without the array.
this was tested by measuring the force over distance (work) through the entrance of the first gate.

Clanzers work on the Tri-Force, and its various arrangements made these tests possible.

where people gave up on this, was in the fact that they were unable to "close the loop" and make the system repeat its cycle.
This difficulty does not mean the system is not "overunity", just that they were unable to close the loop.