Roll on the 20th June

[TryToBelieve]

From Archer's site:

"The beam at the short end is 1.2 metres and the extended end is 6 metres a 5 to 1 distance ratio with a 20 to one lift."


If someone can show how this is possible, I'll be a believer... but (and not just calculating with math), I've tried building, and it doesn't fly.


Quinn,  I don't even need to see the entire machine function - just show me this bit (video perhaps instead of more text), and I'll buy into your ideas.

[exxcomm0n]

@exxcomm0n

Care to share your rod design?

@ House

To be fair, it is not a concept I have not proposed before in this thread.
But also to be fair to the ONLY person to consider it to be more than the other "noise" going on has ran with it (I hope he is conserving his energy and time for building and proving instead of debate), and I'll not state it again, but look forward to his or my proof or failure.

It's floating back there, somewhere in this thread, and it was posted by me. That should be clue enough.

@OU-812

Great observation. It has only been the skeptics (like myself) that have put forth any real contribution to the project. All the Archurias fall into two categories: 1) Archer is so much smarter than everyone that we just couldn't understand what he was saying or 2) the name callers and the spite bloggers.

All?

While I'm not the "cut and dried" cheerleader, I was Archurian enough to lobby that the man be allowed to make as much noise and blather as he wants, and be left alone until his self appointed deadline of the concept.

I tried to reverse engineer the device with only scant clues. I built and posted "toys" on the Tube. I discussed ideas with others here and used their suggestions.
I also got a bit emotional when someone tried to combat the concept with pure mathematics.
Even though everything can supposedly be expressed in an equation, the amount of people that understand that equation is rather small.
I prefer "lowest common denominator" communication methods and tests as everyone should have the materials (or an analog of them) to preform the experiment themselves.

This is why Mr. Wizard, Beekman, Mr. Peabody and his boy Sherman, and Bill Nye have my great respect.

TO ALL

I will address a few details on "proving claims." In the scientific community, anyone making a claim to results or facts outside the current paradigm carries the burden of proof. It is not, nor has it ever been or will be, up to others to prove them wrong. If you claim to have free energy, to restore a mass's potential energy with less energy than it takes to get the mass there regardless of how it gets there (sm0ky2), to have an overunity lever, THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON YOU. Everything I state is analytically, numerically correct and proven in lab with zero occurrences of anomaly (to date). If you want proof for what I say, ask and I will provide as much analysis as the keyboard will let me. If you want verification for what I state, open a damn textbook.

If you wish to provide proof for a claim, quantitative data (not qualitative) is required. Show numbers, calculations, measurements. Stating "well, it felt lighter" or "it moved easier" is not sufficient.

Ummmmm...then why did the people and cartoon characters mentioned above do it?
Perhaps to teach those not quite hip to algebraic equations the concept.

People believing it might have some merit have been said to be fools.
How many fools you know that reason algebraically?

I'll say it again............slowly.

Show...........................me.

I'm not capable of your equation based proofs.

All I have been asking is for anyone, whether for or against, to build something.
Archer is not exempt. He just gets the benefit of me not bugging him until his announced release date.

Seems simple.
I bought my right to postulate any way I please because I tried.
It's kind of like voting is supposed to be.

I like debate as much as the next person (obviously), but at the end of the day, I listen harder to the person that tried something and showed me than someone talking about an idea only, even if it's to show me failure.

@ all

Build something. Anything.
Prove to yourself you can and it won't matter if people say you can or can't.

[CLaNZeR]

@ all

Build something. Anything.
Prove to yourself you can and it won't matter if people say you can or can't.

Got to agree with that statement as that is what it is all about. Taking alternative ideas and trying them, no more, no less.

There is some right drama queens on here that these days want to dress it up and turn it into either a slating match to take their frustrations out on, or to try and place people in little cult boxes and a sliher of religion to get it boiling!.

This is not the first idea that people have tried to build and will not be the last. I am confused to why this thread attracted so many opinions and why so many people got wound up about it.

Searching for FE/OU is not new and has been going on for years and has been tried by what history books claim as some of the greatest minds out their?

So what is the big deal if people still want to try? Some people just seem to miss the fun aspect of all this and the enjoyment that some sad people like me get from trying to replicate others ideas.

It takes all sorts in the world, I do not understand how someone has the patience to build replica toy models with such great detail and skill, yet they do and they get their buzz out of it, so good on them, I will not judge them, not my place and they are not hurting anyone, just doing their thing.

I think it is great everyone has their opinions and they should be allowed to be vented and it is peoples freewill and right to do this, only time it makes me cringe is when it gets so agressive and could cause hurt. Learn how to debate your argument without stirring a pot, it can be done with practice. This goes for Archer as well 

Still a couple of weeks to go and lets see if Archer does deliver. Meanwhile I will try add my extra weights this weekend to my wheel, improve the bearing and try Archers theory out for myself, just like any other idea gets tried in my book.
You are taught from an early age in school to do practical as well as theory while experimenting. That seems to get lost as people grow older, which is a shame.

Have fun guys and if Archer is not the one, simply wait for the next!

And stop taking life and it's small known science so seriously, ya get old before you know hehe 

Cheers

Sean.

[purepower]

@ramset

I dont know, but I think Archer feels pretty well crushed. If he is still standing strong, then why doesnt he come out to play? And I know its all about letting people try the unconventional. Am I at Archer's house tearing down everything he has done and threatening him if he continues to build? No, not at all. If he is so convinced in his own head that what he is doing is right, my few posts would have no impact on him. Since this is not the case, it shows even he has doubt. I have not hindered him in any way. He made it very clear he knew he was going against convention and was proud of it. But as soon as someone from that convention speaks up, he flees. He was/is putting on a show. When someone breaks script, all is lost. And if you want to hear about Archer's wheel only from Archer, get off the public forum and join "Soapz." Oh wait, you are a member. Then what the hell are you complaining about?

@dirt digger

First of all, the periodic table has nothing to do with mechanical engineering (unless you get into materials, but thats more chemical/materials engineering), so I think you might be looking in the wrong book. Second, you wont find anything about superconductors even in a new periodic table for one simple reason: the periodic table lists elements, not compounds. Compounds are molecules composed of multiple elements. You wont find water (H20) on it either, but you will find hydrogen (H) and oxygen (O). Simply put, your looking at a box of legos and wondering why you cant find the car you want to build...

Crack open...

http://www.amazon.com/Vector-Mechanics-Engineers-Statics-Dynamics/dp/0073212229

It will have all information needed to analyze the lever, and most of the wheel (with the exception of the magnets). Its a good place to start.

@TryToBelieve

You wont find an explanation because it has never and will never happen.

@exxcomm0n

You said:

"Ummmmm...then why did the people and cartoon characters mentioned above do it?
Perhaps to teach those not quite hip to algebraic equations the concept.

People believing it might have some merit have been said to be fools.
How many fools you know that reason algebraically?

I'll say it again............slowly.

Show...........................me."

I am the one in the cartoon (and the one you are quoting) and I carry no burden of proof because I speak from the convention, and you are correct.  I do still provide proof to my statements "to teach those not quite hip to algebraic equations the concept."

As this (educating) is my goal for the site, what exactly would you like me to explain or show you?

[onesnzeros]

From Archer's site:

"The beam at the short end is 1.2 metres and the extended end is 6 metres a 5 to 1 distance ratio with a 20 to one lift."


If someone can show how this is possible, I'll be a believer... but (and not just calculating with math), I've tried building, and it doesn't fly.


Quinn,  I don't even need to see the entire machine function - just show me this bit (video perhaps instead of more text), and I'll buy into your ideas.

TTB

Umm I think you are a bit late. The long arm of Newton's law has bitch slapped Archer in the side of the head. Archer is all washed up. He has little understanding of math and physics and needs to rely on brute force provided by testosterone and ego to make his point.  "inventor" will be Archer's 154th job and now its time for hime to move on. Good luck Archer.

Come all without
Come all within
You'll not see nothing
like the Mighty Quinn

onesnzeros