Roll on the 20th June

[purepower]

@infringer

"But I will say I have a reccomendation for you're fortune 500 company do not advertise that something you produce is chinese quality made... " Im sorry, but I do not recall stating anything in regards to the products my company produces. Would you mind quoting me? At my previous job, I dealt with products from China, and I will agree with you, its rubbish!

Oh, and Hartiberlin was in the group when I was kicked out. Just for the record, he was agreeing with my critiques of Archer's device! Please note my first post on page 36, where Archer says "to harty..." Harty is Hariberlin...

@Bubba1

"momentum from fall has always been the true source of free energy."  What does that mean?  What does he think he understands about levers that has escaped the rest of humanity for 12,000 years?"

Energy tapped from falling objects is nothing new. A dam uses "falling" water run through a turbine to turn a generator. What Archer seems to be missing is it takes energy to get the water behind the dam, to stick with the same example.

@Newtonian God
Yes, he is gone. Though I have a feeling he will be back with "something he didnt see before that is so simple he must be the smartest man that ever lived to have realized it and it will crush our understanding of everything."

TO ALL

It is pretty well understood no one will ever know who they are talking to and what motives they have for posting. Sure, I could work for an oil company and have multiple accounts to back myself up. But ask yourself this: would a couple of "newbie" postings saying "oh ya, he's right" give my statements any more or less truth or credibility? No, and it seems like a hell of a lot more work than it is worth. For all you know, I could be Archer and posted all the rebuttals for a more epic ending. Sounds like something he might do; after all, he is a failed playwright...

And now for Archer's "maths:"

1)    1 kilo of falling weight on the end of a standard fulcrum or wheel arm or pulley is equal to 1 kilo of lift minus friction or external resistance of wind etc.

(TRUE, as confirmed by conservation of energy)

2)    If this 1 kilo of falling weight falls one meter, then the lift will also equate to 1 metre of the same weight less accepted variables.

(TRUE, as confirmed by conservation of energy)

3) Therefore we accept that 3 kilos falling 3 metres will lift 3 kilos 3 meters less variables.

(TRUE, as confirmed by conservation of energy)

4) We additionally accept that 3 x 1 kilo weights falling any distance will lift 3 kilos the same distance of the fall less variables.

(TRUE, as confirmed by conservation of energy)

4)    We additionally understand that 1 kilo per metre falling is an equation or a statement of acceleration from gravity

(TRUE, as confirmed by conservation of energy)

6) We additionally accept that such an equation can be a divisible equation of unequal proportions, eg: 1 kilo falling 1 metre is equal to 500mm lift of 2 kgs less variables

(TRUE, as confirmed by conservation of energy)

7) We therefore accept that 10 kilos falling 1 meter will lift 2 kilos 5 meters less variables.

(TRUE, as confirmed by conservation of energy)


So back to basics again and the math we agree is correct. 10 kilos falling 2 meters is equal to 1 kilos lifted ummmm?? 20 metres !!!!!! less variables

(TRUE, as confirmed by conservation of energy)

9) Do we agree that 20 kilos x 1 meters of lift will cover 12 kilos x  1 meters of lift??

(TRUE, as confirmed by conservation of energy)

if you answered yes at this point you have agreed that we have overunity and that it does exist.

What!?! No, with that last one, I have agreed not all of the potential from the 20 kgs has not been used entirely. No overunity because guess what? Overunity lies in more than just one half of the cycle. If after the return of the 20 kgs you have extra energy, then we have free energy. We can always draw energy from a half cycle, the trick is on the return. You have not mastered free energy. You have no working overunity device. You are a freud. Shut me up, show me a video of it lasting two cycles. Oh wait, you cant...

In reference to the "you," this was one of the last correspondences I had with Archer. His response: "funny 3 engineer just contacted me to say that it was correct and even rueters has it now, watch the oil price buddy." I told him to send my analysis to the engineers and I would guarantee they would confirm my conclusion.

Archer had no reply, but I can only guess that with Archer's recent withdraw from overunity, things must not have gone well...

[Thaelin]

   You darn right I understand, I can see and that is why my rickety old one tube wheel ran on its own for a while. Tight bearings, crappy contacts, drag and all. That was only one tube. The next one is going to total 8.  Thats only the front platter, more on the back. This is just for fun.

thaelin

BTW,  I doubt he will bother to come back here. Think he caught enough shit to last a life time and beyond. But the word is out and people are building, thats what matters. I hope 100000 people post on the 20th and then send it to 10000 more.

Thaelin:

It wasn't meant to be venomous, it was simply a question.  I still don't understand.  Does anyone?

Waiting for the 20th June.

[purepower]

@badassdjbynight

Very well said, all of it...

And you all want me to be constructive, here it goes...

I was thinking on the wheel again (and as I have stated many times before, I see potential in the wheel but the lever is rubbish), and I feel I may have a possible solution. Instead of having the magnets at 1 and 7, has anyone tried 3 and 9? Now this would eliminate a good portion of the "fall" on the right side, but less work would be done against gravity by the magnets in the recycle process. By minimizing the influence of the magnets, the "sticky wall effect" would also be minimized. Running it down numerically, I think you would need a very large amount of rods so that just as one shifts and falls, there is another right behind it to run through...

Again, just a thought.

[b0rg13]

@badassdjbynight

Very well said, all of it...

And you all want me to be constructive, here it goes...

I was thinking on the wheel again (and as I have stated many times before, I see potential in the wheel but the lever is rubbish), and I feel I may have a possible solution. Instead of having the magnets at 1 and 7, has anyone tried 3 and 9? Now this would eliminate a good portion of the "fall" on the right side, but less work would be done against gravity by the magnets in the recycle process. By minimizing the influence of the magnets, the "sticky wall effect" would also be minimized. Running it down numerically, I think you would need a very large amount of rods so that just as one shifts and falls, there is another right behind it to run through...

Again, just a thought.

not to bad at all /clap !!! 

[exxcomm0n]

I was thinking on the wheel again (and as I have stated many times before, I see potential in the wheel but the lever is rubbish), and I feel I may have a possible solution. Instead of having the magnets at 1 and 7, has anyone tried 3 and 9? Now this would eliminate a good portion of the "fall" on the right side, but less work would be done against gravity by the magnets in the recycle process. By minimizing the influence of the magnets, the "sticky wall effect" would also be minimized. Running it down numerically, I think you would need a very large amount of rods so that just as one shifts and falls, there is another right behind it to run through...

Again, just a thought.

I don't think the 3-9 idea will work quite that well.

To exploit a gravity wheel there has to be a heavy weight wanting to fall to it's lowest point, correct?
Now if you take away 20-30% of that fall the generated energy will not be able to get the next rod to 9 to be "fired" over to 3.
When this started Archer asked us to try an experiment which was taping a coin to a bicycle tire, setting it @ 1:00, and letting go.
I did this a few times with different wheels and weights and even dropping from 1:00 the weight didn't have enough hutzpah to make it to 9:00.

8:30 was about the best I can remember.

You may not like who said that, but it still remains a valid benchmark for this exercise.

Do the coin/bicycle thing at 1:00 and at 3:00 and mark the highest point after it passes 6:00.

I may be full of spurious excrement, but the thing you do with your own hands and see with your own eyes is the one of the truest things you'll ever know.

You need that lift energy at the 7-1 place, IMHO.

In fact, I've had good success with starting @ 6:30 (but far and with faint effect) to try to make the "wall" into more of a slope.
The theory being that I cannot jump a high wall without mechanical aid, but if there is a series of walls graduating to the highest height I might be able to jump from shorter wall to higher wall until I get to the highest.

Each small jump is the same, but the cumulative effect of them realizes the once not possible height.
I'm not sure the energy for the series of little jumps would equal the energy necessary for the one big jump.

But give it a shot and prove me wrong please.

Do and show, and help bridge the gap be it technical, conceptual, political, philosophical,  or mathematical.

Even showing failure is important. VERY important!

No one should ever be afraid of being wrong, only of not learning from it.

The only way not to be wrong is to not try, which seems like the "wrongest" thing to me.