Took me a minute to figure out you sent me to theneb's downvote list. I was so confused at first, until i checked to see if you sent a message to him, and thats what lead me there. Anyways, my stupidity aside, I also checked to see when he got his bronze star. Its either 3 weeks ago, or 6 hours ago. Hes got 11 sifted videos, and only 10 star points. I'm not sure how that breaks down, but whatever. (maybe a dead one?) So there might be more to come. I don't know. I think he just picked up downvote ability. Suffice to say, I'm not impressed one way or the other. I say we see where his next downvote lies then take action.

In reply to this comment by jonny:
I wonder what the four of us have in common.

http://www.videosift.com/video/Mitt-RomneyforPresident - thats ones dead too.

Thie video is * dead. Heres a possible fix.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anU99RuFzbk

In reply to this comment by Fedquip:
I love this video...Finally...Finally the mob is turning on Fox News. Who cares if they are Ron Paul fans or not, replace the Ron Paul signs with torches and Pitchforks.

Because of the 3.1 Gold used to be able to *save but now gold 100 have to *promote. With promote having almost the same function of our old Save, I thought the *promote invocation got pushed down as well. Well, I guess its fine, because I still have way more power than silver did.

In reply to this comment by E_Nygma:
yeah, i made that mistake a couple days ago too. it just got change recently to be a gold-100 thing.

In reply to this comment by arsenault185:
Damn. I thought that was a Gold thing.

Hey, I wanted to let you know that I tried to return your other video, but had no success. You have to re-sift it.

I also hate to be a conspiracy theorist, but I really have a hard time trying to believe the media is not fucking with his results to discourage people, or that the machines are rigged. blahhhh

In reply to this comment by cdominus:
In reply to this comment by arsenault185:
Heres what truly baffles me. Look at the amount of money Ron Paul has raised. None of this came from large businesses or cooperations. Most of his donations came from the people, and at less then $1000 US per donation. Now that means hes got A LOT of supporters. So how the hell is he doing SO bad in the polls?

I've been trying to wrap my brain around this one, too. I hate to seem like a conspiracy theorist, but goddammit, its a conspiracy!

Haha, no I'm tracking with what your saying. I don't plan on investing anytime to soon.

In reply to this comment by rembar:
Herein lies the rub. A system in which energy is not being used will only lose energy through friction or other small imperfections in real-world creation, as in flywheels. Such machines, in fact, can be used to store energy through kinetic motion. In essence, it's the physical-motion brother to the chemical battery. But once you start actually using the machine, the energy is drawn out of the system and you need to start adding in more energy (as in, burning more wood or turning more cranks or spinning the wheel by hand). Magnets alone can't do this, we need to move the magnets or use some other process to move them for us, and the energy from the machine isn't enough to power more than that process's cost in energy (thus the law of conservation). You can't have your cake and eat it too.

This is why this magnet machine isn't a breakthrough. It's been invented before, and used before, many times, and it works, but it's not a crazy power-for-cheap machine. Every now and then some high-school dropout will come up with this idea on his own, then build it, and think he's discovered the answer to humanity's energy problems for all eternity, and then convince some sap of an unsuspecting journalist looking for that big break to cover his "amazing invention". And then engineers and physicists look at the thing, snort, and go back to work. It's such a common occurrence that I'm pretty sure I've read a sociology paper on the effect (and if not, I'm going to write one).

Anyways, hope this all makes sense. My advice: don't invest in any magnet machines you see advertised on Youtube.

In reply to this comment by arsenault185:
The rig itself might run for 5 years, but once you add on the resistance of powering an alternator, will it really work? I don't know.

You sir, just owned my ass. When efficiency is defined as such you are totally correct. But then again we run into a fuel issue. Now as it was pointed out to me, permanent magnets are not permanent. So if we label that device as 100-500% efficient, then yes we are saying it is indeed breaking the laws of physics. But when taking into account that it will eventually stop due to the fact the polarization of the magnets will no longer be sufficient to run it, then it is no longer perpetual, or 100 percent efficient. Keep in mind i never once said that it will run my house as good as they described it to. The rig itself might run for 5 years, but once you add on the resistance of powering an alternator, will it really work? I don't know.

In reply to this comment by rembar:
The first clip I removed from the Science channel because the news story is scientifically inaccurate and flies in the face of basic concepts of physics and engineering, and I downvoted it because it was scientifically inaccurate and also a piss-poor example of journalistic fact-checking. The second I removed because it was not scientifically interesting enough to belong in the Science channel. Magnetic repulsion, as pointed out and briefly explained by Flavio and Fission, is neither new nor renewable. (Check out the renewable energy article on Wikipedia to get a clearer idea of what the term entails.)

Since I don't have time to go point for point, I will instead provide an analysis of two sentences from a comment you made in conjunction with well-accepted concepts from physics and then allow you to view your sift and beliefs through this lens. Please read through it, because I think you might get something from it, as you seem like a reasonable guy. Let's begin:

In physics terms, energy efficiency is defined such that:
Efficiency = Output / Input

Now, let's think about the machine you sifted about. We'll assign the output of this magnet repulsion machine to variable a, and assign the input of the machine to b. From this, we can write:
Efficiency of the machine = Output of the machine / Input of the machine = a / b

You said: "They clearly point out that it [the machine] produces 5 times more energy than it consumes." This means the output of the machine (a) is five times that of the input (b). Using our variables in an equation, this mathematically is:
a = 5b

Thus, we can calculate the efficiency of the machine:
Efficiency of the machine = a / b

and since a = 5b, we can say by substitution:
Efficiency of the machine = a / b = 5b / b = 5

To get this efficiency in percent, we multiply by 100:
Efficiency of the machine = 5 x 100% = 500%

So we have just calculated the efficiency of the machine to be 500%.

Now, remember that you said: "No energy production method is 100 percent efficient." This is correct, and in keeping with the law of conservation of energy. It is impossible for any real-world machine to have an efficiency above 100%.

Thus it follows that the only conclusion we can logically draw is that the machine does not, in fact, create 5 times more energy than it consumes, QED.

You've been taken for a ride, and I sincerely hope the above will help you accept this.