CLaNZeR can achieve overunity!

[FatChance!!!]

If it really is OU as you stubbornly claim then please explain why the ball decreases in speed??
In order to show energy gain, aka OU, then it must increase in speed to show positive forces.
Even if it could be kept in imbalance without energy input it would still decrease due to losses.
But the base line is that you cannot keep the imbalance going without using external energy.
This is not OU. End of discussion. If you keep implying otherwise you're a nutcase.

[sm0ky2]

If it really is OU as you stubbornly claim then please explain why the ball decreases in speed??
In order to show energy gain, aka OU, then it must increase in speed to show positive forces.
Even if it could be kept in imbalance without energy input it would still decrease due to losses.
But the base line is that you cannot keep the imbalance going without using external energy.
This is not OU. End of discussion. If you keep implying otherwise you're a nutcase.

there is nothing implied here.
i thoroughly explained how it was "overunity". I gave you the mathematical forumlae, so that you can verify this for yourself. You neglected to do so.

Your assumptions about this subject are incorrect, which i also explained. i.e. the difference between "overunity" and "free energy". 

The energy dissapated by this system is far greater than the energy that is put into it. That by very definition is "overunity".

I ask you this::   Where do the losses come from?
If that much energy can be "lost" without ever putting it into the system to begin with....
How can you honestly make the argument that is it NOT an "overunity" system ??

It is not a "free energy" system. i explained that. If this thread were called "Clanzer can achieve free energy" i would be on the other side of the argument, because he has not demonstrated this. As he himself would surely agree.

You can pout, throw your hands up, call me a nutjob.
But until you are willing to perform the calculations for yourself
or at the very least, present a logical argument to support your
statements......    all you are doing is pulling strings off the cheese.

[Hugo Chavez]

lol... can you say delusional.

[giantkiller]

Group clamor, sole pontification or lone crazed gunman.

[FatChance!!!]

I thoroughly explained how it was "overunity". I gave you the mathematical formulae, so that you can verify this for yourself. You neglected to do so.

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.

The energy dissipated by this system is far greater than the energy that is put into it. That by very definition is "overunity".

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".