Roll on the 20th June

[exxcomm0n]

Yes, it seems like this is what you think... FYI, there were many attempts at flight before the Wrights...
Check out, for instance, Otto Lilienthal....

Dang, ya caught me before I was in the water! I'll have to look that up about Otto.
But this is a good example too........

Since there has been birds, people have known the flight is possible, just not for an animal not formed specifically for it.

Birds fly, they can walk too, but they can't make tools.
Man walks, but he can fly too............now that he has used his ability for tool use to facilitate that.

Just because it always has been doesn't mean that's the way it is tomorrow.

Poor Wilbur and Orville had their experiment documented and reported, and still it took many a county fair with a visiting pilot later on in time to convince a good segment of humanity.

Seems like age had something to do with it too.
Older persons were much harder to convince than younger because THEY KNEW BETTER!
But both were convinced when they SAW it.

I may be seen as childish, because I try not to let my intellect say anything is absolute, only very probable from my present experience.

Wright bros were the first to make a controllable motorized flight. First men to glide in a 'plane' were at the time when Wrights were still the kids...

.......And that still underscores my point.

How long was it from DaVincis drawings of flight apparatus until the 1st human "glide"?
Why wasn't he seen to be mad as a hatter then?

Perhaps he was, as artistic types are always seen as having eccentric beliefs, yet are still tolerated because of the beauty they create.

Someone can tell me that he believes that sun rises in the west and sets in the east, and I'll let them as they can make the most fantastic omelets, or can build a good door frame without a square, or have proven to me over a span of years and physical examples that a metal roof will far outlast a asphalt shingle one.

I just won't ask them what direction is where.

[purepower]

@exxc0mmon

Okay. I saw your video, it proves nothing. I want you to do something for me. I know youre probably in the pool, so get to it when you can.

Take your same set up, but build a fulcrum a bit higher up, you will see why in a moment. Now place the ruler on the fulcrum at exactly the 10" mark. Put a thin piece of tap across to prevent it from sliding around, but dont let hit hinder the motion.

Now, place some magnets UNDER the ruler on the short end to balance it out. These are your "control rods." Okay, so now we have a balanced, level lever. Place five magnet at the 12" mark. Place one magnet at the 0" mark. Amazing! A balance 5:1 lever (10":2") produces 5:1 lift (5magnets:1magnet). Newtonian logic lives on!

Now, take the same apparatus, but this time place, say, 20 magnets at the 12" mark and 1 magnet at the 0" mark FIRST. Now take your "control rod" magnets and place them under the short end so the lever is just barley favored to the extended end. Now remove the one magnet at the 0" mark. THIS SETUP IS EXACTLY LIKE ARCHER'S IN VIDEO 4/4. Notice how the extended end is raised with the magnet off? Now place the one magnet back on. Notice how it falls back down? Surprised? Still think there's free energy? If you answered yes to either of those last two questions, get back in the pool and give up your "backyard engineering" career.

-PurePower

[exxcomm0n]

This answer pretty much seals it for me.

You are a disingenuous liar, and you use "weasel words" to a degree that is just over the top.

Please excuse me as I'm going to get not very nice.

I'm a liar because I know how to use words properly to convey my meaning?
Please point out the weasel words and to what concepts they were attributed.

If you choose not to, it's of no consequence to me. I obviously don't respect your opinion to the same degree that you don't respect mine.

Respect being the operative word there.
That's what it's all about, isn't it?

Based on all of your previous arguments, YOU MUST ACCEPT THAT I WILL LIVE FOREVER because YOOOOOOOUUUU (not me, the claimant) can't prove otherwise. This is the "gaunlet" you keep throwing down...but yet...hrm.

Nope, I have to accept nothing until I die and you're still living.

That would be a PROOF!

.....and please cite the argument specifically that is applying to.

I weasel?

If you can't debate point by point as I have done, I see your method being as "weasely" as you see mine since you are making a blanket statement, yet not saying where it applies where.

Based on all of your previous arguments, YOU MUST ACCEPT THAT I WILL LIVE FOREVER because YOOOOOOOUU can't prove otherwise.

Period.

Yes, I can.

But it takes a very long time and that means that I would have to have some sort of contact with you throughout that span of time.

Considering this latest post, I might not see it as worth my time, and therefore have to accept that you are correct as it doesn't really concern me and I see the effort needed to prove it as MUCH more invasive and costly than than building a toy see-saw.

This is, of course, patently stupid based on the claim...but SOMEHOW you can't just admit that it is patently stupid because of some nebulous "possibility"...but mostly because it renders your position as untenable.

I know that I DON'T KNOW.
Is that a hard concept to conquer?

I base this on Socrates teachings, and we all know what a loser he was. In fact, he taught Plato, who taught Aristotle, who is credited for the birth of scientific method.

Yea gods! A philosopher, one of the most weasely of "scientists" birthed the basis of most modern scientific method!

Ain't it strange how time can change things?

Check out http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl201/modules/Philosophers/Socrates/socrates02.html for an example as to why.

This tells me that at minimum, you have a malformed ego, and at the other end, utterly ignorant (but pretending not to be by redefining ignorance...more disingenuous acts), a liar...or possibly both.

High praise from Caesar!
(meaning, since many are still debating if this is a quote or just popular saying, to look in a mirror as what you accuse me of, you exemplify yourself.)

As such, we are in fact done. A dreamer is one thing, but an ignorant liar is something else entirely and does not merit my time. As we now have reasonable evidence to support at least 2 of the 3 claims made above, I think we are done.

Enjoy your cheese.

You have proved fuck-all.

Care to try again?

And why doesn't my video response to PureP get any discourse here? It seemed about as simple as it could be.

Since that's what bore this debate, wouldn't it be nice to get back to it?

Have a nice day.

[purepower]

@MrKai & exxc0mmon

Seriously, please end this spat. It really has nothing to do with the build and anyone new to the site would have a real bad flavor in their mouth. Please guys, its gone on long enough.

@exxc0mmon

I have posted a rebuttal to your video. Have you done it yet? One thing I forgot to mention that I would like you to pay close attention to. In the second run, please note that you will not need to use as many "control rod" magnets or place them as far out to balance the lever as you would to balance just the lever. This is what Ive been trying to show all along and uncover in Archer's video. He has control rods out to balance the lever by itself in the pics. Then in the video demo, they are not there at all, or have just been shifted in. Either way, this is giving an advantage to the extended end, allowing his magic "20:1" lift.

-PurePower


If you or anyone can show me a BALANCED 5:1 lever lift more than 5:1 in weight, then I will accept Archer's lever as an overunity device. Until this happens, nothing has changed in a lever from as it was a couple millennia ago.

[ramset]

this is hurting my head one thing [total a side] I agree with pure power on mk and EXX
so PurePower  20-1 at 5-1 on a balanced lever would be overunity  thank you    if I could ask where would the threshold for OU be on a  balanced  lever  at 5-1 Chet