Roll on the 20th June

[Hhx]

Hi all

I follow this interesting thread from the beginning.

This design reminds me to Bessler MT72:


@Archer or anyone
The old prototype (two years ago) was ONLY perpetual motion or also electric generator?

Regards, Hhx

[Dgraphic911]

"I have come to the true understanding there is more bad than good on this monkey covered rock. you can have the wheel that's it. Nothing else.

Those who sit and watch evil are as bad as those who do it.

I am only giving you this becuase you already know how to build it. but don't ever speak to me."
Quinn



Does this mean its over, i was just getting ready for the days festivities?

[legendre]

Dgraphic,

"I have come to the true understanding there is more bad than good on this monkey covered rock. you can have the wheel that's it. Nothing else.

Those who sit and watch evil are as bad as those who do it.

I am only giving you this becuase you already know how to build it. but don't ever speak to me."
Quinn

And so died Free Energy - not with a bang, but with a "What the fuck was all that about?!"

Does this mean its over, i was just getting ready for the days festivities?

Keep your eyes open for "Egyptian fulcrum and Sword of God - new, unused!" on eBay.

-L

[ramset]

To the fellow with the wheel question  self powered plus ran a car stereo   from a gen in the middle
@ all this is not the first time the public has done this here [to people with completely dif ideas]
DR Stiffler also left for a time till he was given power of moderator at his site and much good has/is coming of that   
@ALL to feel proud here  of this result  is not good IMO    Experimenters change the world    always have and always will  Chet

[purepower]

@Gustav22

By placing the fan at entrance, the flow rate across the exit and entrance would be, say 11 L/s, but across the heating element would be (11+x) L/s, and the overall difference between air heated and air exiting is the key. So in essence, you may see slightly different results that what I discovered, but still no overunity.

@sm0ky2

"Leverage only applies periodically, and for only the duration that the rod is in a constant radial-position. when the rod moves the leverage changes."

True, leverage changes (advantage from one side to the other with equivalent ratios), and the mag-grav wheel is more than just a lever problem. If you read through my posts you will find I do see potential in this device. It is his new lever device I have been discrediting.

"We are in fact altering the gravitational constant during portions of the wheel's rotation."

Not true. Gravitational force remains constant (unless we travel to great altitudes). What is changing is the sum of the forces acting on the bodies by introducing an opposing (or attracting) magnetic field.

And no, sm0ky2, the energy is not calculated by the square of the arc length. It is calculated by multiplying the force applied (mg) and the distance the force applied along its action line (h), or PotentialEnergy = mgh.

In regards to your grouping system, I am group D for his lever device, group C for the wheel. I agree with badassdjbynight on a few things. First, your understanding of the syphon is dead on. Second, why would Archer just drop the device if he wasn't just out for credit? He saw many people were working on gravity wheels, and others on mag wheels, so he figured if he could get his name on both any functioning product would carry on his name.

Analysis of the mag-grav wheel:

Okay, to begin with, in analyzing the rods on the wheel what must be considered for calculations  of torque and energy is the locations of their mass centers (or the center of the rod if symmetry exists). In regards to the whole extension arm bit, there is no additional benefit to having additional weight five feet out or at the ends or located at the mass center.

L=length of arms from mass center
x=distance from mass center to fulcrum
m=mass
y=extension from end of rods

T= m*(L+x) - m*(L-x) = 2mx
T= m*(L+x+y) - m*(L-x+y) = 2mx

As you can see, adding the extension gives no benefit to total torque. All that does matter is total mass (2m) and distance from mass center to fulcrum (x). Now understand having additional magnets on the extension would provide more magnetic force, but as soon as you see the analysis it is up to you to decide if that would be beneficial.

In regards to the analysis of the magnets, the force and energy must be treated with care. For starters, the force of the magnets vary with the distance^2. Few manufacturers provide values so it would probably be beneficial to take some measurements on your own and do a curve-fit analysis. With magnets (and other field forces, like gravity), it requires the same amount of energy for one magnet to enter another's magnetic field as it gains (or loses, depending on orientation) from exiting the field. Simply put, you can not gain "extra energy" from a magnet by moving it into another's field from one direction coming out another. This is why Steron has failed. Similarly, this is what most people encounter with the "sticky wall effect." They are able to move into a magnetic field, but trying to get back out will require the same energy it received by moving in.

Now what Archer has done is used an imbalanced wheel to try to overcome this sticky point. By placing all the mass centers of the rods on one side of the wheel, the magnets will be moved past their sticky point at the expense of energy from the "falling" mass centers. Once the sticky point energy is overcome, the rod is allowed to free fall and contribute it potential energy to the device.

Sounds great in a vacuum, but there is a hitch, and it is this that has prevented people from successfully achieving overunity (including myself). The issue is simple: the device must be constructed so that the potential energy of any one  rod is always greater than the sum of the "sticky point energy" and the energy needed to reset the potential energy for a complete cycle. To overcome this will most certainly result in overunity.

Now the reset energy is simple. Thats where the magnets come in. By moving the magnets on the rod into the stator magnets' fields, the bar is lifted to reset its potential energy. However, as stated before, the gain the magnet received to move out of the field (E=mgh) is the same energy it took to move into the field. The energy it took to move it into the field (E=mgh) came from equal contributions of each of the other two rods (E=.5mgh). Now if each of the rods exerts .5mgh joules to lift one rod, and mgh joules to lift both rods through the whole cycle, and its only energy was its original potential energy (E=mgh), then where is the free energy supposed to come from?