Roll on the 20th June

[Rusty_Springs]

i dont see that as an issue. you charge extra batteries while you are using one set.
as far as size, you can have several smaller units, or a set of large ones servicing a neighborhood.
if it makes power without cost, who cares how big it is...

Hi Sm0ky2
I would care if something was the size of a house and only powered a car alternator and don't they charge a extra set of batteries now for electric cars so whats different with Archers machine charging them and the way they do it now, like I said no different nothing well change are the oil cpmpanies worried about electric cars now no, so why would they be worried after Archers machine doing no different to whats happening today, maybe power companies will be worried because of the free power but not oil companies, maybe Archer should change from saying people are working for the oil companies to working for the power companies that would be more to the point.
Take Care Sm0ky2
Graham

[Evg]

Has anything changed? Now I have to login just to see the forums, before you only had to login to post to forum.
Archer, why not delay your Last video of the full working fulcrum until one month after your birthday (it only serves us right). Just make sure there are enough copies on dvd/cd send out to people you trust, with full explanations. I don?t want to be included in the trusted people as I still can?t comprehend everything, but getting closer.

[The Eskimo Quinn]

actually it was not until after i built the bloody thing i saw that with the power it has, the size is best reduced, flex kill huge amounts of power, and short beams can carry vast weights and are very light themselves, i think it could be fit 500 wide as you see the rest does nothing, and 2 metre lengths at 20 to 1 ariel of course but side by side each alternating a 400 kg drop with a 20 kg weight would be perfect, and remmeber the weight of the beam never changes so the cost of return is the same as if it were using 1 kilo small weights. it is clearly the momentum from the underswing of the half pipe instead of the hill.

well off until tuesday when i'll reshoot the 3 video, you can see the velocity over time even though it cuts out that it easly makes it, i just did not know i was loosing the last 5 second of every clip. but its locked away now so it can wait until after the long weekened.

Have a good one.

remember all its just a lever its just a lever its just a lever

wright brother plane wing design, it's just a piece of wood its just a piece of wood

design is everything, a block of ice is just a glass of water too, so if you see any oil men in the street be sure to throw a glass of water in their face for me will ya. its just a glass of water.

[The Eskimo Quinn]

all videos now up

[purepower]

Seriously, I cant even imagine why people are even debating this lever anymore. Before I begin, I would like to apologize for suggesting there was someone lifting the heavy end. It was unwarranted and unjustified and this is not my nature. I hereby redact that statement.

It has become obvious we were deceived by the control rod issue. Archer, you say:

"let me see if the lever is balanced, it cost more to lift it, making my job harder, if i leave on rod in it still makes my job harder."

"gee didnt i show the rods on the ground clown, ooh i videod them out, what a dickhead, balance the lever?"

You dont specify which "job" is harder. With a balanced beam, lifting the heavy mass does become harder. This is the point. With a balanced beam, the true lift ratio may be calculated. Without, lifting the heavy mass becomes easier, altering your 5:1 ratio. Im beginning to think you arent out to deceive, but just have absolutely no clue as to what you are doing.

You say:

"a modern wheel generator can take 40 kilos a fall energy and produce no less tha 39 kilos of energy correct? (ask any engineer)

a modern motor required to do 12 kilos of work will cost no more than 13 kilos correct? (ask any engineer)

if the entire beam weighs even 15 kilos (as it did originally before it snapped) and i use a fucking crane to lift the entire weight of the beam costing 15 kilos of energy, do i still have more power
...

40 down to 39

less 13 to lift the light weight

less 15 to lift the whole fucking beam back through the fucking air

that is still only a 28 unit cost with a 39 output, wow your math really sucks"

You pulled these numbers out of the sky and they mean nothing. Where does this 40 come from again? If it takes "13" to lift the weight, then we have "13" with the weight lifted. If it takes "15" to lift the lever, then we have "15" with the lever lifted. So if we have "13"+"15"="28" with the mass and lever lifted, but we had our magic "40" to start, then how is this overunity? If we restart the cycle with our new "28," haven't we lost energy since the first cycle? If we could pull out that 12 and restart with 40, we would have overunity, but this is not the case even in your most simple example. "they can see you struggling now," but good diversion tactics...

You have absolutely no rhyme or reason to any of your postings or analysis. You seem to be missing one major component of what "overunity" means: we have more energy at the end than we did at the start of a cycle. I have never argued with you that we can take energy from a falling mass (remember the dam example?). What I have been arguing is that in order to restore the system back to its original state, we will need to put back in the energy we took out. There is no overunity in the lever.

The mass lift ratios at this point mean nothing. You have no concept of what energy is and have only been relating it to masses. You can devise a lever or pulley system that can lift a million kilos with one gram, but this has no bearing on overunity. "your math really sucks"

Prove me wrong. Show a video that returns the lever back to its original state after five cycles with no intervention. At this point, like you said, the weight distribution of the lever doesnt ever matter, nor does the lift ratios. Show me five complete cycles of the lever in action and I will believe you. No human intervention, and the heights of the weights at the beginning and end of the two cycles must be measured. If it can produce enough free energy to overcome its own friction after five complete cycles, then you have your proof. Measurements must be exact, even a centimeter difference would mean there was losses in the system. Leave a tape measurer set up through the cycles and clearly mark where the mass starts. You must also define what a cycle is, and a simple oscillation from rebound after the release does not count as a cycle.

I want to see one mass lift another mass five times and return to its exact position in a controlled fashion. If this can be done, you have done it. If not, then there is no free energy, end of discussion. I dont want to hear anymore rants, cursing, Archurian logic or anything of the sort. Just five cycles of the lever overcoming its own friction.

I am giving you such leeway to prove your device because at this point I have become disgusted with the debate. The Newtonians have provided factual, conceptual data and analysis for their argument. The Archurians return with insults and broken logic. If you read the general trend of the posts since the rod scandal was uncovered, your side has lost a lot of momentum and has been appealing to emotion rather than logic. There is nothing you can say that will ever regain your credibility at this point, so dont bother. Five cycles, no intervention, returns precisely to its original state. Done.

@Fred Flintstone

While the energy is "free" from your example, it is not overunity. It is exactly what a dam does on a much smaller scale. On the news in the last few months there was a sixth grade science fair winner who had done the same thing, but hers was placed in the sink drain. If you ask me, her idea is better due to the cleanliness and clogging issues. Glad to hear your thinking is almost up to par with a sixth grader.