Roll on the 20th June

[ramset]

Thanks Archer  Folks maybe we can use this time to kick around ideas about the Flea steering the elephant   no matter what   this Forum has several world changing devices in the oven   almost ready for the table   and discussing what should be done is inevitable  Chet

[sm0ky2]

Sattellites do require forward thrusters, though this may not be apparent, because there is little to no 'friction' in space slowing them down. They do slow down over time from inertial changes while the rockets are maintaining their elliptical path, and thus are given precise 'boosts' to maintain their constant velocity.

If you took the time to speak to a NASA engineer, you will get the same answer.  I dont expect you to be capable of engineering a rocket, but you should at least gain SOME understanding of a concept before you try to use your 'knowledge' to overthrow several decades of research and experimentation. trial/error, do you have ANY idea how many sattellites have been launched since our achievement of space flight?

Absolutely NONE of them, have kept themselves up there for any ammount of time, without energy input.
If sattellites were "perpetual", then each one of them has millions of dollars wasted in intricate propulsion/navigation systems for no reason?? 

As for obtaining one of these systems yourself:
you can buy one directly from ARC,TRW, Daimler-Chrystler-Benz or a few others, they are extremely expensive, and im not sure what you would "do" with a sattellite propulsion system, on the earth's surface if you actually HAD one,..   Their output is very small compared to their size (and most are not as big as a car).
They are not designed to operate in a fictional environment - thus loses inccured by their use planetside,  would probably outweight most of the useable "output" these engines can provide.  They dont accellerate the sattellite to their velocity, they simply maintain it.  When the shuttle leaves the atmosphere - its already moving faster than the required orbital velocity.
----------------------------------------------------


Anyhow, this thread is directed towards your "gravity wheel",  so for me to teach you rocket-science here would be a waste of thread-space and probably annoy the readers of this thread. Not to mention it would be a complete waste of my time, as you wouldn't understand what you are reading and probably just ignore it and continue spouting off the non-truths as you have done in your comments above.


I think its in poor taste, and disrespectful to the readers of this forum to attempt to mislead them by misrepresenting information to further your cause. you know good and well that the function of a sattellite has nothing to do with your gravity wheel. - wether you understand a sattellites function or not, its absolutely rediculous to USE this misinformation to propegate an entirely unrelated device.

Unless the weights on your wheel are moving in excess of 8km/s around the arc to offset the downward force of imparted onto the weights, then the gravify-defying effect you are promoting has NOTHING to do with orbital navigation.

Seems to me that each time you are asked about this gravity-defying effect, your response has been::

Hey look over there!! - there is something completely different go look at that for a while.

I believe the question that is asked of you, is how you intend to move this weight, vertically through the gravitational field - with LESS energy, than you obtain from letting it fall through that field in the downwards direction.

This in and of itself is a very simple question and though its answer may be somewhat complicated, steering us all off in other directions by misrepresenting well-known areas of science is immoral, irresponsible, and completely dodges the questions we are asking you.

Why then, keep up this charade??  Why not just show us the working principal of the device you are talking about?  You claim to have already built smaller 'working models', and it seems by your posts here and other places, that you are well versed in its construction and functionality. 

Why not simply pass that onto us, and we will all gain a better understanding of the device.  If you can do that, i garuntee you more people will begin construction of your larger device, so when the 20th comes around, there will be even more of these devices in operation to help realize your world-changing dreams.

[exxcomm0n]

Hmmm.......

Now that I read the construction notes again and with the cross reference of Archers latest posts I think I have a basic idea.

I should have caught on sooner when he said spokes were made out of non-magnetic material and that they're tubes.

Here's stab # 2. The bottom representation is more like what's being described.

[hartiberlin]

@exxcomm0n
yes, must be something simular than this.

You can also use the electromagnets directly at the end inside the tubes
and inside the tubes near the axis.
This way, if they are wound around iron cores, the magnet weights inside
the pipes would stick near at the electromagnet core
from 7 to 1 o?clock and can then be pushed away by applying a reversed field
to the electromagnet.

But then it all comes down to be able to push or pull
weights with less electrical energy than the wheel would output
from the displacement of the weights.
So it is basically more a magnetic motor which converts it
output to mechanical motion via the help of the gravity field.
So it is no real gravity wheel as Archer wanted to make us believe
in the first place.
Just alone with gravity you will never get the weights up from 7 to 1 o?clock.

Regards, Stefan.

[Dgraphic911]

Move it again, stick it with the other electric motors for now, until we find out its actually telepathic energy then move it to half baked ideas. Show it or kill it. Get this thread outa here so the rest of us can get back to working on improving the basic building block that all OU will be based on.


Manipulacion o da graviteeeeee