Randi offers $1 Million Dollar for Perpetual Motion Machine

Actually Randi has admitted that he can’t make a ‘‘test’’ to see if god(s) exist. which is very sensible.
I have made contact with Tim Mendham of the Australian Skeptics based in Sydney indicating it’s my intent to try for the preliminary test in Perth, Western Australia so I could then qualify for the final test which would attract the Eastern Staters to probably come over here to Perth…
Now here’s a very interesting question to CFI members, if I actually win the Australian Skeptics price of $100,000 would the JREF acknowledge ‘‘over-unity’’ is scientifically verified and thereby only allow their MDC for paranormal claims only?

Actually Randi has admitted that he can't make a ''test'' to see if god(s) exist. which is very sensible. I have made contact with Tim Mendham of the Australian Skeptics based in Sydney indicating it's my intent to try for the preliminary test in Perth, Western Australia so I could then qualify for the final test which would attract the Eastern Staters to probably come over here to Perth..... Now here's a very interesting question to CFI members, if I actually win the Australian Skeptics price of $100,000 would the JREF acknowledge ''over-unity'' is scientifically verified and thereby only allow their MDC for paranormal claims only?
You'll have to explain what "over-unity" is before I could attempt to answer that question. I have never heard of over-unity. Please be specific. Lois
Actually Randi has admitted that he can't make a ''test'' to see if god(s) exist. which is very sensible. I have made contact with Tim Mendham of the Australian Skeptics based in Sydney indicating it's my intent to try for the preliminary test in Perth, Western Australia so I could then qualify for the final test which would attract the Eastern Staters to probably come over here to Perth..... Now here's a very interesting question to CFI members, if I actually win the Australian Skeptics price of $100,000 would the JREF acknowledge ''over-unity'' is scientifically verified and thereby only allow their MDC for paranormal claims only?
You'll have to explain what "over-unity" is before I could attempt to amswer that question. I have never heard of over-unity. Please be specific. Lois over-unity is more than one hundred percent where as perpetual motion is 100%.... hey but don't quote me ;-) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_motion
Actually Randi has admitted that he can't make a ''test'' to see if god(s) exist. which is very sensible. I have made contact with Tim Mendham of the Australian Skeptics based in Sydney indicating it's my intent to try for the preliminary test in Perth, Western Australia so I could then qualify for the final test which would attract the Eastern Staters to probably come over here to Perth..... Now here's a very interesting question to CFI members, if I actually win the Australian Skeptics price of $100,000 would the JREF acknowledge ''over-unity'' is scientifically verified and thereby only allow their MDC for paranormal claims only?
You'll have to explain what "over-unity" is before I could attempt to answer that question. I have never heard of over-unity. Please be specific. Lois over-unity is more than one hundred percent where as perpetual motion is 100%.... hey but don't quote me ;-) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_motion That is not how over-unity is defined. A perpetual motion machine is a device that produces more energy than it consumes. Over unity IS perpetual motion. They are not two different things. I was unable to find the term over-unity in the Wikipedia article you cited. I could have overlooked it. Can you please cite the passage where it appears? Also The James Randi Foundation, on its website, states "The intial guidelines for submitting a Perpetual Motion Machine to the Challenge are very simple. The applicant must fulfill all guidelines stated in the Challenge Application, and must, additionally, have the machine built and ready to test prior to applying." According to a Wikipedia article, "Perpetual_motion a Perpetual Motion would violate the Law of Conservation of Energy thus should be regarded as supernatural. "Perpetual motion usually refers to a device or system that delivers more energy than was put into it. Such a device or system would be in violation of the law of Conservation of Energy, which states that energy can never be created or destroyed, and is therefore deemed impossible by the laws of physics." So your device cannot be rejected as not being a supernatural claim. JREF states that a claim to have created a perpetual motion machine is a supernatural claim. Lois
Actually Randi has admitted that he can't make a ''test'' to see if god(s) exist. which is very sensible. I have made contact with Tim Mendham of the Australian Skeptics based in Sydney indicating it's my intent to try for the preliminary test in Perth, Western Australia so I could then qualify for the final test which would attract the Eastern Staters to probably come over here to Perth..... Now here's a very interesting question to CFI members, if I actually win the Australian Skeptics price of $100,000 would the JREF acknowledge ''over-unity'' is scientifically verified and thereby only allow their MDC for paranormal claims only?
You'll have to explain what "over-unity" is before I could attempt to answer that question. I have never heard of over-unity. Please be specific. Lois over-unity is more than one hundred percent where as perpetual motion is 100%.... hey but don't quote me ;-) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_motion That is not how over-unity is defined. A perpetual motion machine is a device that produces more energy than it consumes. Over unity IS perpetual motion. They are not two different things. I was unable to find the term over-unity in the Wikipedia article you cited. I could have overlooked it. Can you please cite the passage where it appears? Also The James Randi Foundation, on its website, states "The intial guidelines for submitting a Perpetual Motion Machine to the Challenge are very simple. The applicant must fulfill all guidelines stated in the Challenge Application, and must, additionally, have the machine built and ready to test prior to applying." According to a Wikipedia article, "Perpetual_motion a Perpetual Motion would violate the Law of Conservation of Energy thus should be regarded as supernatural. "Perpetual motion usually refers to a device or system that delivers more energy than was put into it. Such a device or system would be in violation of the law of Conservation of Energy, which states that energy can never be created or destroyed, and is therefore deemed impossible by the laws of physics." So your device cannot be rejected as not being a supernatural claim. JREF states that a claim to have created a perpetual motion machine is a supernatural claim. Lois Then my claim is my toy can generate more power than what is required to start it and keep it running... So it's not perpetual motion and neither will it be called over-unity by me and neither shall it be supernatural.

highflertoo- You are acting like a total goof ! You seem to think that you are some ancient wise guru with the secret to perpetual motion…now you are going to spoon feed us little snippets of THE TRUTH…because we would simply go mad with all that great knowledge at once. Oh I know, you don’t want someone to steal your great idea and become fabulously wealthy before you can…or are you the kind gentle genius who shall share this earth shattering discovery…Get off of your soapbox…You are not the messiah… sorry…you most likely are just wrong…mistaken…ignorant of proper experimental design which would help to eliminate the errors that can make you look like a fool…Pons and Fleishman come to mind…but they were REAL scientists…they were wrong…they ignored experimental protocols because they got greedy and power hungry. What do you do for a living ? If you do not possess a PhD from an accredited University then I doubt that you have any chance of uncovering something in the field of energy that has not already been accounted for.

highflertoo- You are acting like a total goof ! You seem to think that you are some ancient wise guru with the secret to perpetual motion.....now you are going to spoon feed us little snippets of THE TRUTH....because we would simply go mad with all that great knowledge at once. Oh I know, you don't want someone to steal your great idea and become fabulously wealthy before you can.....or are you the kind gentle genius who shall share this earth shattering discovery.....Get off of your soapbox....You are not the messiah... sorry....you most likely are just wrong...mistaken.....ignorant of proper experimental design which would help to eliminate the errors that can make you look like a fool.....Pons and Fleishman come to mind....but they were REAL scientists....they were wrong....they ignored experimental protocols because they got greedy and power hungry. What do you do for a living ? If you do not possess a PhD from an accredited University then I doubt that you have any chance of uncovering something in the field of energy that has not already been accounted for.
You seem to be a believer that Science has already been discovered in all areas of energy.

Trust me on this one highflertoo…im not much of a believer in anything. Pragmatic- yes.

Actually Randi has admitted that he can't make a ''test'' to see if god(s) exist. which is very sensible. I have made contact with Tim Mendham of the Australian Skeptics based in Sydney indicating it's my intent to try for the preliminary test in Perth, Western Australia so I could then qualify for the final test which would attract the Eastern Staters to probably come over here to Perth..... Now here's a very interesting question to CFI members, if I actually win the Australian Skeptics price of $100,000 would the JREF acknowledge ''over-unity'' is scientifically verified and thereby only allow their MDC for paranormal claims only?
Well... I don't know whether or not the Australian Skeptics are affilitated in any way with James Randi's organiization, but I would venture to guess that IF... IF your "over-unity" device were actually scientifically verified, you probably wouldn't have to worry about his million dollar prize because you'd be in the running for a certain prize given in Stockholm Sweden... :)
Actually Randi has admitted that he can't make a ''test'' to see if god(s) exist. which is very sensible. I have made contact with Tim Mendham of the Australian Skeptics based in Sydney indicating it's my intent to try for the preliminary test in Perth, Western Australia so I could then qualify for the final test which would attract the Eastern Staters to probably come over here to Perth..... Now here's a very interesting question to CFI members, if I actually win the Australian Skeptics price of $100,000 would the JREF acknowledge ''over-unity'' is scientifically verified and thereby only allow their MDC for paranormal claims only?
You'll have to explain what "over-unity" is before I could attempt to answer that question. I have never heard of over-unity. Please be specific. Lois over-unity is more than one hundred percent where as perpetual motion is 100%.... hey but don't quote me ;-) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_motion That is not how over-unity is defined. A perpetual motion machine is a device that produces more energy than it consumes. Over unity IS perpetual motion. They are not two different things. I was unable to find the term over-unity in the Wikipedia article you cited. I could have overlooked it. Can you please cite the passage where it appears? Also The James Randi Foundation, on its website, states "The intial guidelines for submitting a Perpetual Motion Machine to the Challenge are very simple. The applicant must fulfill all guidelines stated in the Challenge Application, and must, additionally, have the machine built and ready to test prior to applying." According to a Wikipedia article, "Perpetual_motion a Perpetual Motion would violate the Law of Conservation of Energy thus should be regarded as supernatural. "Perpetual motion usually refers to a device or system that delivers more energy than was put into it. Such a device or system would be in violation of the law of Conservation of Energy, which states that energy can never be created or destroyed, and is therefore deemed impossible by the laws of physics." So your device cannot be rejected as not being a supernatural claim. JREF states that a claim to have created a perpetual motion machine is a supernatural claim. Lois Then my claim is my toy can generate more power than what is required to start it and keep it running... So it's not perpetual motion and neither will it be called over-unity by me and neither shall it be supernatural. Oh, well, whatever you call it, it isn't likely to get beyond the Australian Skeptics. I'll be glad to make a wager on it with anyone who will bet against me. Lois

Are you saying I can’t pass the AS preliminary test?

Are you saying I can't pass the AS preliminary test?
That's exactly what I'm saying. Prove me wrong! I'll be glad to eat humble pie if I am wrong. Lois
Are you saying I can't pass the AS preliminary test?
That's exactly what I'm saying. Prove me wrong! I'll be glad to eat humble pie if I am wrong. Lois Glad? Since when did you become neutral?
Are you saying I can't pass the AS preliminary test?
That's exactly what I'm saying. Prove me wrong! I'll be glad to eat humble pie if I am wrong. Lois Glad? Since when did you become neutral? I've always been neutral. But I am a skeptic. I require hard, objective evidence before I will accept a claim. The way you have explained your claim here makes me very doubtful that you have anything to demonstrate. This leads me to doubt you have a machine, whatever you call it, or that you will submit it to the Australian Skeptics for their assessment. If you should go so far as to submit it, I can't imagine them saying you have created a machine that does what you say it does, which would mean it breaks all the rules of modern physics. But if you are so sure you have created this machine, and it works as you claim, then submit it to the Australian Skeptics or directly to JREF if you can. I would be very interested to know what comes of it. I have never said I can't be wrong. My prediction about your device is based on many years of looking at such claims skeptically. But I am willing to admit that my doubts are misplaced if you can show me objective evidence that they are. The ball is in your court, not mine. Lois
Are you saying I can't pass the AS preliminary test?
That's exactly what I'm saying. Prove me wrong! I'll be glad to eat humble pie if I am wrong. Lois Glad? Since when did you become neutral? I've always been neutral. But I am a skeptic. I require hard, objective evidence before I will accept a claim. The way you have explained your claim here makes me very doubtful that you have anything to demonstrate. This leads me to doubt you have a machine, whatever you call it, or that you will submit it to the Australian Skeptics for their assessment. If you should go so far as to submit it, I can't imagine them saying you have created a machine that does what you say it does, which would mean it breaks all the rules of modern physics. But if you are so sure you have created this machine, and it works as you claim, then submit it to the Australian Skeptics or directly to JREF if you can. I would be very interested to know what comes of it. I have never said I can't be wrong. My prediction about your device is based on many years of looking at such claims skeptically. But I am willing to admit that my doubts are misplaced if you can show me objective evidence that they are. The ball is in your court, not mine. Lois It does n't break the laws of modern or prehistoric physics.

Guys, I think highflyertoo is just having fun with you. Probably enjoys the attention. He consistently just makes simplistic little “I can do it” statements without the slightest discussion to back his claim up. At least that other guy who claimed to have built something in a room explained what he did, his background, etc. Highflyer, if you’re afraid someone here will steal your idea, then at least say as much. And I for one will promise right here that I won’t steal your idea. Let’s have it…some details.

Highflyertoo is wrong both ways. If it doesn’t break the laws of physics it obviously doesn’t work, no matter what he says. If it does break the laws of physics, then it obviously can’t work. He’s wrong no matter what gimmick he tries to offer.
Occam

It doesn't break the laws of modern or prehistoric physics.
There is no such thing as 'modern' or 'prehistoric' physics. There is only physics.
Highflyertoo is wrong both ways. If it doesn't break the laws of physics it obviously doesn't work, no matter what he says. If it does break the laws of physics, then it obviously can't work. He's wrong no matter what gimmick he tries to offer. Occam
It's a new discovery.
It doesn't break the laws of modern or prehistoric physics.
There is no such thing as 'modern' or 'prehistoric' physics. There is only physics. Hey why are you telling me that for? Please check up on what Lois said in post 33 ''rules of modern physics''........