Roll on the 20th June

[onesnzeros]

dhirschfelder  THANKS  is this guy amazing or what !!!    step by step   takes us by the hand to replicate" HIS!!"  baby [device] its like a dream come true   Chet

Chet: I don't mean to be rude but you still cling to Archer like he is you friggen saviour. This tells me that you are'nt in a position to challenge him on a scientific level. Be diligent and listen to the members of this group that have spent many years learning the sciences an have made a living applying their knowledge.

Science has created a dream within a dream. We are living in an age where we can communicate with people all over the world in real time in the comfort of our own home. We can watche a craft dig up the Martian landscape from our computers. We live in the most privilaged time in the history of man thanks to science. This is not to say that the cost of this privilage is not owing, because it is, and the debt will be paid by future generations. However, I believe that science can and will pull us from the fire without the need for magic or some sort of miracle. I am convinced of this.

So to watch Archer struggle with a basic mechanical lever and for hime to be able to set up a web page and communicate his ideas to the rest of the world, reminds me of just what a fantastic enabling technology the internet is. It allows all of society to participate in a global conversation.

Archer believes, to be fair, that HIS understanding of the truth does not align with the truth that others hold around him. He needs to resolve this conflict. And we can see that he is working this out. He needs to work this out for himself and we are the audience. By the 20th of June, the truth will be known. It won't be magic and it won't be a miracle it will be very ordinary.

That is the truth the way I see it.

onesnzeros

[greendoor]

Archer is simply a bad scientist.  He has decieved himself, and seems to have plenty of equally ignorant followers that are happy to be decieved.  This has all the hallmarks of a bad religion.  Emotionally, we all want free energy, and to be able to "stick it to the oil men".  Faith in misguided leaders seems to appeal to some people.  That's an interesting topic for a completely different forum.

I want to see some real over unity.

Archer's contempt for Newton is really his own channeled frustration with himself.  He's a desperate man, desperately looking for a solution - but with limited resources and eduction.  Beware the cult of Archer.  Or at least realise that your desire to follow him is an emotional need rather than a desire for the truth about alternative energy.

Any combination of levers, fulcrums, pullys, gears, pendulums, springs etc cannot fool gravity into releasing more energy than it takes to restore balance.  The maths gets very complicated, but basically it all adds up to unity - minus losses.  The more complicated the system, the more losses.  You will go mad or delude yourself trying to cheat the system - but it's all been proven before, many times over.

And yet I still believe it is possible to extract free energy from a gravity-wheel-like machine!  I'm open to the possibility of some new basic priniciples that will harmonise with Newtons proven/observable methods.  Gravity is the weakest force.  There are plenty of other forces to consider.  There are plenty of vibrational frequencies to consider.  I personally believe in an aether, and mass is created by standing waves in this aether.  In other words - mass is like voids in a much denser substance that is literally everywhere.  Like bubbles in water - mass is real, and yet actually less real than the water in which they are created.  So if you want to attack me, attack me for this - not for being an oil man.

BTW - Michelson Morley did not disprove the aether.  All they disproved is that IF the aether exists, there is no relative rotational speed difference between aether and earth at sea level.  Other tests taken higher up actually suggest a small difference, but this was ignored.  If you consider that mass is made from aether, and is therefore completely embedded in the aether, then there should be zero rotational difference between earth and aether.  (I also believe in the Aspden effect which 100% supports this view).   So Michelson Morley debunked the idea that the earth is moving through a stationary aether.  Somehow this is used to blind us to the existence of aether, when it should be used to support the view that aether is the super-dense fluid out of which all mass is created, and the fluid dynamics of aether are amazing ...

[sm0ky2]

Chet:  it can be done, anyone can do it and it doesn't break and known physical laws. If archer takes the weights off the lever what in your opinion will the lever do? Will it balance or will the long end come crashing down to the ground? The answer is the long end will come crashing to the ground because that is where the hidden weight is, making it only seem like 1kg can lift 20kg with a 5to1 mechanical lever. It is an absolute idiodic stunt.

onesnzeros

Run that through your head again. i think you are a little backwards on this.

also, dont forget the "tensioner" springs. they pull the long end upwards. 

look at all those pipes on the back end. then look at how they are distributed along the length of the long end.
also - the rope had SLACK remember??

its not as difficult to see as you guys are making it.  the lever favors the "up" position. a tiny added weight sends that balance WAY in the other direction, lifting the heavy end + WHATEVER the hell you tie onto it, up to a given physical limit of the device.

I'm not claiming that this thing is "OU" or not, because there are too many unknowns. like how much mass in on both ends. or more importantly mass/m^2 along each meter of the entire lever would be great to know...
and the spring coefficient perhaps??  and ok maybe im stretching on this one.... but i would ALSO like to have an "accurate" length measurement of the entire lever both sides of the fulcrum-center.

[purepower]

@ramset

Thank you for confirming everything I have said about the function of Archer's lever in my last few posts.

pure power thanks for the vid I cant hear the audio at the library [working out of town no service where im staying]  youve cantalevered the load on the short side way more  it appears than Archer does I see your hand saying 5-1 this does not appear accurate  in the screen shot I will have to go back to the archer vid to see if his pick for the load is back this far from control rods   I seem to remember Archer saying something about removing the final control rod altogether and having his tuning where he wanted it   the empty tubes that held these rods at the end [during tuning] do they still have heavy weights inside ? chet
EVG good request that is supposed to be a unique spot

As I said in the end of the clip, my extension serves the exact same purpose as the control rods. It allows me to balance the lever in any position by sliding it up and down the grey extensions; Archer's control rods allows him to balance the lever in any position by sliding it up and down the inside of the lever. The balance point and location of the counter-weight is ABSOLUTELY CRUCIAL. That is my point of showing it unbalanced first and then balanced. It completely changes the dynamics, but in no case is there free energy.

NO Chets still stuck on the lever [didnt Archer say he was going away till tuesday] PURE POWER  Please help [seriously]
PURE POWER I just looked at ARCHERS vid again there are NO CONTROL RODS the pick is four or so inches in from the end    I want your help to understand why his claim of   1  unit in  20  units out on a 5-1  lever means nothing in doing work ?  are you saying this claim is not true?   or are you saying   so what I can do that better  Chet   oh well library is closing [cant wait to get home]

Understand something. Archer's control rods weigh 3 kilos each, and he used about four or five of them barley sticking out the short end to balance his 12-17 kilogram lever (it seems to change). Without all of them there, it is going to rotate towards the extended end. Now, with some of them there strategically located and the heavy mass attached, the lever may be balanced so it is just barley tipping towards the short end. Once the light weight is attached, this produces enough torque to overcome this slight imbalance tip it in the direction of the extended end, giving the illusion of a light mass lifting a heavy mass by itself.

I seriously cant make it any more clear than this. He shows it favored to the heavy end (just barley by use of the rods). He then shows the small mass overcoming this slight imbalance. This is it. Nothing more, nothing less. No free energy.

Build a small model at home and try it. Build it 5:1 by length, and add some counter-weight system so you can balance it in any position. Now load up both ends with weights greater than 5:1 (say 20:1, or 15:1). Now with it loaded on both ends, slide your counter-weight so it will be just barley favored to the extended. Good, now remove the light weight on the extended end. See how the lever moves the extended end up? Now put the weight back on and watch as it falls back down. This procedure can be done to produce a mass lift ratio of, well, pretty much anything! All we are doing is regulating the impact we allow the mass of the lever to have. Still convinced this is overunity? Didnt think so...

This mechanism is used in many practical applications. Ever wonder how a crane can lift so much weight out at such a far extension and not tip? Counter-weights, or as Archer likes to call them, control rods.

And also understand that a counter weight at the extension I have it would produce the exact same effect as if I had just used a larger mass closer to the fulcrum as Archer did. I think the attached picture and analysis should make that clear.

Moment=(force)*(distance)*[cos(angle)]


For a statically equivalent counter-weight system:

Moment1=Moment2 ==>

(force1)*(distance1)*[cos(angle)]=(force2)*(distance2)*[cos(angle)] ==>
(g*mass1)*(distance1)*[cos(angle)]=(g*mass2)*(distance2)*[cos(angle)]
(cos(angle) and g drop out as they appear on both sides) ==>

(mass1)*(distance1)=(mass2)*(distance2)

So, to be equivalent to having the counter-weight just below the short end, I must decrease the weight the further I extend it out. This is why I can have my counter-weight on an extension and produce the same results. Extended out the end or close to the fulcrum, you can achieve the exact same effect my changing the mass accordingly. The "special location" doesnt mean it must be in the beam, it means in must nearly balance the lever.

Note: If I were to place the heavy mass (the mass of consideration for the ratio) out on the extension, then this would alter the analysis. Since this is not the case and I kept the heavy and light masses at a 5:1 distance ratio, everything I have stated holds true.

[capthook]

You think it won't work, which is fine. But then why spend ALL THIS TIME trying to debunk it when it could be much more easily accomplished by just waiting?
.....what the matter with that time schedule?

As to this...

Forget a time schedule - it's unrealistic as variables always seem to throw a kink into things requiring re-tooling/re-thinking....

And I have pointed out the errors in Archer's "science" when needed to show that if he's wrong about these things - what are the odds he is wrong on his "word" that the wheel works and is OU (especially since that's all he has provided - his "word")
1. Lenz Law (it has nothing to do with OHMS)
2. 900kg wheel and 100 kg man etc...
3. satellites will stay in orbit forever without rockets (the earth doesn't provide free acceleration)
4. Lithium Ion batteries (vs alkaline)
etc... etc...

AND - MOST OF ALL - FOR ARCHER TO PROVIDE EVERY SPECK OF INFO HE CAN on the wheel...
so that others here might take what he has, and improve on it and maybe SOLVE IT

What about the floating ring-magnet idea?
Or a pendulum?
Or a belt attached to the wheel that moves the "stator" magnet in and out of the "rotor" field?
etc..