Roll on the 20th June

[Morgenster]

If he produces a working wheel on the 20th, it will be because Archer has figured out a way to get more energy from the lift of the magnet than the wall consumes.

Im not saying its impossible, but it will be extremely difficult to find the solution. It will not be because the addition of weights; it will not be because Newton is wrong. It will be because he found just the right positioning of the magnets to allow this ocurance.

Purepower, I'm hoping you will somehow understand me here:
I don't think the magnetic wall is the problem with this device. It's the trajectory of the weights. When you look at how it will move it's obvious right? If you have a wheel with one rod and two weights at each end shifting some distance gravitational pull cannot start doing useful work until the upper weight is at least at the 1h30' position. What I'm saying is that the upper weight has a fairly horizontal trajectory going from 1 o clock to 2 o clock depending on how you configured your wheel. During this shift however the wheel needs to lift the lower weight considerably for the upper weight to reach the 1h30' position (it moves from all the way down to almost halfway up), regardless of magnetic walls and other such things. If you spin the wheel by hand it will get the momentum to do this but afterwards the whole thing is just going to come to a dead stop.

As for the magnets: OK so there's an off chance (though extremely small) that magnets change the equation here, but I have yet to see how he explains this. AFAIK it wouldn't matter if you use magnets or rails to guide the weights in the proper position (except for a little increased friction with the rails). If I'm right he simply created an alternative version of this:

http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/museum/overbal.htm

Besides, I strongly urge everyone here to take a look at this website before moving into investing money, time and energy into an idea that they or someone else has:

http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/museum/unwork.htm


So I'm thinking that, yes indeed, it's best to debate magnetism instead of newtonian motion physics. It's just very disheartening to see AQ doesn't even go there and already displays flawed logic in applying mechanics.

[dirt diggler]

Hi Chet
Is that right we told him the magnetic wall will stop it and was a problem now he has tryed to change that effect by putting the magnets onto the hub and making it like someone pointed out a flywheel, I can't see how this changes the wall you still have the attract out and repel in but like someone said it will spin enough to make it look like it works.
The lever was shown to be an illusion and its looking like the wheel will have the same fate. I really think when people start biulding and testing they will see and people in 6 months will be saying what happened to the Archer wheel, like most it will be shown not to work.
Thats just what I think but you go with what you think, I will carry on with my design and we will see where we both stand in 6 months.
Take Care Chet
Graham

Hi Graham,
The test that Archer has planned should be very difficult to fake.  as you say, a wheel can be spun by hand, and it will spin long enough to trick many people into thinking it will run forever.  Archer understands this, and has said numerous times that the whel will start from a stopped position.  it is as he says, a wheel that starts by spinning, means that it needs extra input to make it work. by starting with a stopped wheel, and just letting it go, there can be no tricks. if the wheel can break the wall by itself, and shift the weights by itself, with no added momentum, the wheel will run.

ciao, Dirt

[spinner]

PP .. a conservative force working with or against another conservative force still sums to conservative forces - as has been mentioned by numerous people you could probably get a wheel to rotate using a electromagnetic solenoid etc but the gravitational potential is insufficient IMO to produce enough energy to come anywhere close to replacing that which you used in the solenoid [after rather large losses] to shift the weights, thus NO OU possible - relax & wait it out - if quinn can can do what he says [& says he has already done] & get OU you will soon be busy enough explaining it & calling for independent replications & accurate energy in & out measurements to verify any claims

That was my point since the 1st of my posts here...
The conservative nature of both gravity and magnetism is the thing that prevents successful gravito-magnetic wheel. At least in the form as was presented by AQ.

It's surprising that so many people here are unaware of previous work (history). Many inventors in the past tried to solve this particular problem. "Archer's G/M wheel concept" is traceable at least a hundred years back... Needless to say, not even one G/M wheel was OU so far...

The problem of a working OU mag/grav wheel is simply reduced to an energy efficiency - energy gathered from an overbalance (displaced weight torque) against cost of lifting weight/magnet spokes at 1/7 o'clock region (both observed in a correct time frame).

If we leave CoE principle aside (which defies possibility for a working wheel in general), there are still some factors to consider.

1. Electromagnet's efficiency (electricity input vs. mechanical output) is ALWAYS below unity. (in practice, carefully designed EMs for a specifical task can be over 80 or even 90% efficient).
That is if the pull/push is happening in the region of a highest effect (densest mag. flux) - check out mag. path, air coils vs. mag. materials cores/ permeability, air-gaps, etc, etc...

As soon as EM is reconfigured in a way where it should act at some distance (pushing PM/weight rods (on spokes) - (say, from 0,1cm to 10 cm) in a limited time period (rotating wheel), than it behaves very very poor... ). The mechanical force diminishes with an inverse cube of a distance... In fact, try to lift your PM/weight rod on a wheel spoke (combined weight 1kg) with an EM all the way (e.g. 10cm) at 1/7 o'clock... Would several hundreed watts supplied to a decent electro-magnet be sufficient?

2. Next, a permanent magnet "Free Energy". As some people here understand, a permanent magnet capable of pulling and holding the weighted rod, will in fact make the same rod kind of "weightless", so there will be no overbalance effect. And I'm not even mentioning a STICKY SPOT....

Ah, never mind...

Oh, btw, I saw a post (from a newbie) a few pages back when he says if you combine two 60% efficient devices, you get 120% overall efficiency. LOL. It doesn't work that way (if it would, we would not need OU.).
Combined efficiency is calculated: u= u1*u2*...uN.
So, 60%=0,6  >>  0,6*0,6=0,36 (36%) >>   0,6*0,6*0,6= 0,216 (three 60% efficient devices in a combined system acts as a single, 21% efficient device).... etc...

I'm sorry I've decide to engage in this thread at all... It's pointless... A few people here are real "Archer's religion fanatics"... It's pathetic.. Every person with at least a shred of common sense (no need for physics education) would understand it... An OU lever.... Sad...Sad...

Archer's latest videos shows his (many times changed concept) wheel, mounted on an electro-motor/generator shaft. Just to show us an electricity production after the 20th.
How convenient... Needless to say, a simple way to fake a working wheel. Hidden supply, two concealed wires, and the "grav/mag wheel apparently working". (it happened in the past, too)

A 5min YT video, showing a workable wheel. On 20th, as promised. 
Success. Promise fulfilled. A day or two later, the MiBs will come....
Bravo, Archer!

On a second thought, looking at the Egyptian fulcrum fiasco, it will be a mess most probably...

[JuJu]

now the newtonias are seeing the stuff working r' all getting jelows!!   


GO ARCHER, GO!!! YOU 'R THE MEN!

[MrKai]

now the newtonias are seeing the stuff working r' all getting jelows!!   


GO ARCHER, GO!!! YOU 'R THE MEN!

I can assure you that there isn't a single "newtonias" alive that has seen archer's work that is concerned about losing their day job.

-K