Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Custom Search

[Omnibus]

@Funkyjive,

Your speculation based on Lorentz transformations (not on special relativity?special relativity cannot derive the Lorentz transformations your speculation is based on) is untenable. In this experiment the observation is carried out in the stationary system where both lengths and time are proper. I won?t go here in further explanations as to why also the speculations for time-dilation you are inferring, resulting from the Lorentz transformations, are also non-physical.

[DA]

@Omnibus response to Funkyjive

"Your speculation based on Lorentz transformations (not on special relativity?special relativity cannot derive the Lorentz transformations your speculation is based on) is untenable. In this experiment the observation is carried out in the stationary system where both lengths and time are proper. I won?t go here in further explanations as to why also the speculations for time-dilation you are inferring, resulting from the Lorentz transformations, are also non-physical. "

God, you are indeed briliant, Omnibus!  I never would have thought of that!

[FunkyJive]

Hi Omnibus.

Thanks for your interest, though I was only looking at the Lorentz effect in realtime - given that any damping effect appears to be merely lossy in this application.

In my previous post I was separately speculating upon whether shifts in the time domain could potentially explain OU - if indeed such were proven possible.

Nevertheless, I guess that we all have to open ourselves up to criticism in speculating on the possible cause and effects that we currently know little about. As long as it remains contributory however then I'm all for that 

Funkyjive.

[Omnibus]

@Funkyjive,

I don't mean to stop you from speculating and thinking about these matters the way @alsetalonkin is trying to stop everybody else but himself from thinking on the theoretical issues concerning this (as I said before, on top of that I've found out he's not quite versed in the subtleties of science, unfortunately). When there are flaws, however, in these speculations (no one's thinking is perfect, including mine, of course) these flaws should be pointed out sooner to avoid spending additional time on futile pursuits. As for the principle of conservation of energy (CoE), it has already been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, through a rigorous analysis of an experiment, that CoE can be violated and energy can be produced out of nothing (the term for that in this forum is 'overunity'--thus, 'overunity' is already a scientifically proven phenomenon).

[rotorhead]

@Funkyjive,

I don't mean to stop you from speculating and thinking about these matters the way @alsetalonkin is trying to stop everybody else but himself from thinking on the theoretical issues concerning this
Yes Omnibus. That's why he provided information about all the materials and dimensions and testing techniques so everyone could reproduce and test it themselves.
 (as I said before, on top of that I've found out he's not quite versed in the subtleties of science, unfortunately).
And that's why he was the only engineer that saw any promise in an original idea that nobody else would even look at for over 2 months.
 When there are flaws, however, in these speculations (no one's thinking is perfect, including mine, of course)
No shit!
 these flaws should be pointed out sooner to avoid spending additional time on futile pursuits. As for the principle of conservation of energy (CoE), it has already been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, through a rigorous analysis of an experiment, that CoE can be violated and energy can be produced out of nothing (the term for that in this forum is 'overunity'--thus, 'overunity' is already a scientifically proven phenomenon).
And, as always, every forum topic always degenerates into SMOT.

[Jdo300]

Hi Everybody,

I can see that there is quite a buzz going on here concerning Al's device! I have finished the 3D CAD model and am currently making some dimensioned drawings for those of us who don't have AutoCAD or a CNC machine laying around. For those of us who do, I will be posting the CAD files as I said before.

I am still waiting to get confirmation about the diameter of the rotor disk. I saw the other 3D renderings that were posted and they look nice but if you take a look at the slots in the rotor disk, they look the same as the drawing that I labeled incorrect. I'm just about ready to post the drawings but I need to know which image is correct. (for those of you wondering what I'm referring to, here's a link to my post earlier in this thread):

http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,3871.msg68313.html#msg68313

The sooner I can get this straightened out, the sooner I can post the information.

God Bless,
Jason O

[Omnibus]

@rotorhead,

This is not a deterioration of the discussion.On the contrary. The analysis I'm referring to is the first scientifically sound analysis proving violation of CoE.It has to be reminded every time when the word is about machines such as this one because the understanding which is vigorously pushed, including by someone who isn't so versed scientifically, such as @alsetalonkin, is that CoE absolutely cannot be violated. It can. That's the basic premise from which every further discussion should follow.

[rotorhead]

@rotorhead,

This is not a deterioration of the discussion.On the contrary. The analysis I'm referring to is the first scientifically sound analysis proving violation of CoE.It has to be reminded every time when the word is about machines such as this one because the understanding which is vigorously pushed, including by someone who isn't so versed scientifically, such as @alsetalonkin, is that CoE absolutely cannot be violated. It can. That's the basic premise from which every further discussion should follow.

And that's the same premise that every scientist you have ever known goes by as well?

[Omnibus]

@rotorhead,

That must be the same premise every true scientist must go by.

[rotorhead]

@rotorhead,

That must be the same premise every true scientist must go by.

So how many true scientists are there? Name some.

[Omnibus]

@rotorhead,

I cannot engage in offering any names. As is usual in science every scientist is personally responsible for his own stance. What I said above is enough.

[sterlinga]

http://www.freeenergynews.com/Directory/MagneticMotors/OC_MPMM/BW - "Contains most of the information relating to the magnetic motor designed by OC and constructed by [Nikolabackwards]. In the text doc 'Judson' you will find the dimensions of the rotor and base plate, ect. I believe you have some of this information already, but some is missing. I am also going to work up a set of AutoCad Drawings based on this file so my replication will be as close to the original as possible." (Paraphrase; Jan. 6, 2008)

[kevin]

I don't know what Al's logic is with releasing information and then deleting it, but here are some of the photos he deleted from the ning group. I recovered them from my browser cache. Maybe someone has a complete set.

[vipond50]

Group
Take note that the Rotor mags are Round Cylindrical not Square. See "sense jpg" that Kevin put up
B.

[RunningBare]

Group
Take note that the Rotor mags are Round Cylindrical not Square. See "sense jpg" that Kevin put up
B.

Yes, replicate replicate

But I do not believe it will make much difference wether the magnets are cylindrical or square bar, its the pole orientation that matters.