Roll on the 20th June

[Yadaraf]

@Yadaraf

The questions could also be:
1) How much energy does it require to build a magnet?
A Tremendous amount. OK,  but can it be accurately calculated?

According to mainstream/official Science permanent magnets can't do work.
For example:
http://www.advancedphysics.org/forum/showthread.php?t=4394 (LOL!)

So question n?2 :
Why the heck are we spending tremendous amount of NRG to build such useless bl'
gizmos?

I am always amused by this Orwellian "doublethink" which is commonly used by some
scientists and well analysed by J. Cater.

Magnets permanent magnets can't do work. Period. Move on.
Anyway, should they apparently can, they are just giving back the NRG that was used
to build them....

Best

@NerzhDishual,

IMHO "stored energy" is just one aspect of permanent magnets.  Magnets might also act like condensors or lenses for naturally occuring EM energy.  In that repsect, consider how much energy goes into fabricating an optical grade lens that is subsequently used to magnify sunlight -- for heating.  We never extract the fabrication energy (we don't need to), but we do make use of the lens itself.  As well, the lens degrades over time.  Aren't magnets similar?

It's very telling that "renowned physicist Steven Weinberg, who won a Nobel for unifying electromagnetism with the so-called weak force, [couldn't] admit that he can?t explain how a magnet holds a dry-cleaning ticket to the door of a refrigerator."

.. Ref: http://discovermagazine.com/2008/may/02-three-words-that-could-overthrow-physics

The bottomline -- for me anyway -- is that there is much we do not know about magnetism and gravity, but we shouldn't stop exploring these phenomona.  That's why peer review is so necessary: to keep the scientific process in check.  Archer is using peer review, so kudos to him for that.  What will come of it all, only time will tell -- and with respect to Archer's wheel it looks like we'll know sooner than later.

Cheers
Yada..

[sm0ky2]

If you have a balanced wheel with a total mass of 1000Kg. its radius being 9.8 m.

Then place a weight at approx. 12:01 - this weight's mass being 1Kg.
Then it stands that the weight will fall for a distance of 9.8 meters, incuring a fall of 1 sec. adding a total of

96.04 J of energy to the wheel. - this is subsequently the energy required to move this 1kg mass back up 9.8 meters to the top of the wheel.

Now lets look at what happens to the wheel::::

when the counterweight reaches 6'oclock - this wheel is now rotating at 9.8 m/s
having a total combined mass of 1001Kg.

This gives the kenetic energy of the wheel:

500.5Kg * [(9.8m/s)^2]  = roughly 48KJ of kenetic energy.

96.04J input energy
40,068.02J output energy
any questions?

[ramset]

seems like where cooking with gas     Smokinnnnnn!!!!!     Chet

[sm0ky2]

archer expressed a direct intent to disrupt the global-social infastructure.

he has my FULL attention now... 

[zerotensor]

@ Archer, i know you dont like newtonian physics, but perhaps this example will change your views...

If you have a balanced wheel with a total mass of 1000Kg. its radius being 9.8 m.

Then place a weight at approx. 12:01 - this weight's mass being 1Kg.
Then it stands that the weight will fall for a distance of 9.8 meters, incuring a fall of 1 sec. adding a total of

96.04 J of energy to the wheel. - this is subsequently the energy required to move this 1kg mass back up 9.8 meters to the top of the wheel.

Now lets look at what happens to the wheel::::

when the counterweight reaches 6'oclock - this wheel is now rotating at 9.8 m/s
having a total combined mass of 1001Kg.

This gives the kenetic energy of the wheel:

500.5Kg * [(9.8m/s)^2]  = roughly 48KJ of kenetic energy.

96.04J input energy
40,068.02J output energy
any questions?

Smoky, your calculation is incorrect.  The mass does not fall at free-fall speed.  Its potential energy is converted into rotational kinetic energy.  If you want to do an energy balance equation, you must know the moment of inertia of the flywheel.  I suggest you review rotating systems in an introductory physics textbook.  In the case of the machine we are considering, the moment of inertia is dynamic, owing to the time-varying distribution of mass on the moving wheel.  Hence, it would be quite difficult to properly model without resorting to a computer simulation.

Your arguments regarding satellite motion demonstrate a common set of misconceptions people often have when talking about rotating systems.  The acceleration due to gravity for a satellite in a circular orbit is at all times perpendicular to its instantaneous velocity.  The acceleration acts on the velocity vector, whose magnitude remains constant in the absence of friction.  Of course, small earth-orbiting satellites will experience a number of drag forces such as radiative pressure from the sun, solar wind, electric and magnetic fields, and even (for very low orbits) a small amount of air drag.

Regarding Mr. Quinn's device, my gut feeling is that if it can be made to self-run for a time, it will be doing so by degaussing the permanent magnets, and hence would have a limited lifetime.  I'll keep my fingers crossed and hope that my gut is telling a fib, as the news of Archer's success on June 20 would make a wonderful birthday present (jeesh, I'm getting old)

Best of luck, Eskimo!