Roll on the 20th June

[Rusty_Springs]

Let me try this again for people interested in replicating this wheel:

What difference do you think it makes to use magnets instead of fixed ramps guiding the rods?
What do magnets offer that makes the design with them better?
Go back a couple of pages (Reply #2273) to the drawing I made for reference on the trajectory of the weights and tell me where you think the system shows an advantage.
I now clearly see what mistake Archer continuously makes and anyone now building the wheel should really look into these things. I think they already are running into the problems I described earlier.
As much as I want this thing to work I find myself now thinking of what excuses Archer's going to come up with to explain that it doesn't.
So which do you think it'll be?

I have no idea why magnets would be better except to say you would loose alot of energy from the friction of the ramps guiding the rods.
Take Care Morgenster
Graham

[MrKai]

I find it hard to believe that a world that can go from the lightbulb to the PC technology wise in a little over 100 years has not understood the magnet enough to have done the same thing, instead of relegating its major uses to junkyard cranes, door closures, and 'fridge magnets.

It is well enough understood that magnets are in almost every complex mechanical device. They have their *proven uses*

The particle accelerator uses magnetic effect. The MRI does too.
But I'm talking real world benefit of the everyday variety.

THOSE ARE Real World Benefits of the Everyday variety...are you kidding?

Why does something have to be mundane to be valid?

We not only use electricity, but manipulate it into other forms of energy like heat and light.

We're still using the magnet to generate electricity the same way we were when we started.
It just don't seem right if we truly understand it.

Fallacy. How about this for any explanation: We truly understand what they are capable of, which is why we use them and exploit them to assist in the generation of electricity.

You really think that people 100+ years ago knew...more...about magnetism than we do now?!?!

Dude in 1908 people still were drinking water with dirt in it in major cities.

Just since wide spread media have all the "new advances in science" always been accomplished by brilliant scientists working countless hours in company laboratories.

Let's say just over 100 years too.

Usually it was just one guy, doing work on the side for his passion.
Sometimes not with that well rounded an education.

The Fallacy of the Tinkerer. It just isn't true, man.

*Usually* breakthru's are made by JUST the people you are disparaging...hardworking EDUCATED techs and scientists that spend countless hours pushing the envelope of what is known.

Somewhere tho in fringeland, people started floating this notion that scientists do NOT CHALLENGE what is known.

That is one of the core principles of science! Why people into "alternative" anything seem to think that researchers DON'T try to discover new things is a mystery to me. It is what they DO.

Some dude puttering about discovering something mindblowing is the *RARE exception* and not the rule; it is a romantic notion, but the facts don't back that up.

Look it up for yourself, virtually every major modern advancement in the last 100 years was made by HIGHLY SKILLED AND HIGHLY TRAINED PROFESSIONAL Doctors/Scientists/Educators in their field.

Anything that wasn't was certainly made scalable and usable by such people.

And believe me, a LOT of folks in the sciences and engineering that have made these breakthru's have taken a much greater beating than Quinn. Much.

Of course some, sadly, have been lost, as they made great discoveries (look at Tesla or Pauling) that were proven and repeatable, only to end up in the "lose" column...and not because they tried and failed, but because they tried and failed *repeatedly* and would not see the folly of their *pointless* tenacity in clinging to notions *proven false* again and again.

The Backyard Brainiac is *of course* possible; in fact, it is a scientific and mathematical certainty that some IDIOT will discover something amazing at some point.

This does NOT mean we shut down universities and make MORE IDIOTS to raise the odds...and it certainly does not mean that THIS idiot AQ is the idiot in question...if you get what I mean.

[Rusty_Springs]

Hi all
Again to point out most only see half of the picture, the gavity wheel in europe that Archer guided us to uses Archer system of moving rods up and down( and I'm sure the guy thought of it before Archer) and the other system of something moving the rods up and down other then magnets.

From what I have seen the wheel works but its just something to look at because the other half of the picture is its so perfectly balanced that once a load goes on it will stop, the friction would be to much to move the levers to push the rods up and down.

Biulding something that can not give you energy out is just as bad amost biulding OU, sure it shows half of what is needed can be done and that helps but it also shows you can have something spin with no extra input but its only something to look at and serves no usefull purpose.
Take Care All
Graham

[MrKai]

Biulding something that can not give you energy out is just as bad amost biulding OU, sure it shows half of what is needed can be done and that helps but it also shows you can have something spin with no extra input but its only something to look at and serves no usefull purpose.
Take Care All
Graham

This is a WHOLE OTHER can of worms

Ok, so we have a spinning wheel. It appears now that we need to get some power out of the thing; Archer seems to like the idea of making a baby alternator yourself, or rigging up one if you have it.

OK, fine. Now, if you make one that uses magnets, won't the resistance cause the thing to slow down...if you don't have enough momentum?

What is enough?

Further, what about this wheel actually *puts the momentum* or speed or whatever...the "spinneration?" if you will, back into the rotation?

What EXACTLY about this wheel is different, is substantively and demonstrably different from any other ever built or drawn that makes anyone of the para-experts here think it will be able to generate enough "spinneration?" to power a generator, anyway?

Remember in the beginning; the "plan" was to connect this thing to a gutted, repurposed 750W generator.

No one has gotten anything they've made to even spin/turn for like a minute without touching it.

Eh?

[purepower]

Purepower
We all know energy out is always less then energy in, in all systems we know up till now.
But even you, as a well educated person belief in the idea that this will not always be true in the future, otherwise you wouldn?t be on this forum. In your educated guess, where will the breakthrough come from? 1. An educated person, that will follow the teachings/established laws as we know so far, or 2. A person with a vision, that just follows his feelings and build?

All systems up til now? Says who? You? Archer? Just because it is said does not make it truth. No, I dont believe we will ever obtain a system that outputs more energy than is input. Let me clarify my stance with a statement from a previous post:

"Free" energy - energy available that comes at no cost. Solar panels and wind/water turbines are examples as the input energy comes at no cost

"Free energy" - aka "overunity" - output energy from a system that is in excess of the input energy

"perpetual motion" - a system that may run continuously, but with no excess energy available for work outside the system

Now, for what I am about to say, Id like you to read all the way through before jumping to conclusions. As you all know, I am a proponent of "free" energy and the mag-grav wheel. In my personal opinion, I do not think a true "free energy" or overunity device could exist as they break the laws of thermodynamics. I do not think any device can output more energy than input. At the same time, I think a well designed magnetic or gravity device could work because they are "free" energy devices. In those examples, the input energy is the stored energy in the magnets or gravitational potential, similar to the light energy input of a solar panal. But I dont think they would produce more energy than they have stored.

This is my stance. It has never changed.

One note about the "laws" of physics. They are not laws because some scientist came up with an idea one day and said "this is law." They are laws because they have been observed over and over and over with zero anomaly. Very few principals in our current paradigm are laws. For a theory to become a principal it must go through tremendous scrutiny and peer evaluation. For a principal to become law, it must survive even more analysis, critique, and remain undaunted.

Newtons "laws:"

1) an object in motion (or at rest) will remain in motion (or at rest) unless a force acts upon it

Anyone want to argue this? Anyone want to deny momentum, or try to prove your beer sitting on your desk is going to magically move itself with no outside force? Didnt think so, law 1 confirmed...

2) Force = mass*acceleration

Again, any takers to deny this one? No? Law 2 confirmed...

3) For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction

Archie tried to fight this one, proved him wrong and he accepted his misunderstanding inside "Soapz." You are exerting the same force on your chair that the chair is exerting on you. Push any object, the object pushes back equally. Proof: take a scale and put it between you and that object you are pushing on, measuring the force in one direction; now flip that scale to measure the force in the other direction. Think its going to change? If so, maybe you shouldnt have eaten so many lead paint chips as a child. Law 2 confirmed...

Hmm, all three laws confirmed. No objections to these very basic observations that have remained true in every single instance since their conception. Nothing has gone against this, even in Archie's magic devices. Now, why is there so much fuss over Newton?

Because if Archer were to accept them he would have to understand them. Because he is mentally incapable of understanding every engineering concept to date, he simply rejects them, making his life and his ability to dupe everyone much easier. If he actually had to think no one would ever have heard of him.

But your right, the greatest things in life have always come from someone who cant hold a job for three months and has cycled through hundreds of them because he fails at everything. Add one more to the list: steal existing ideas, try to pass them as free energy, let the world watch in awe, bail out day before deadline.

Can someone please name one great thing in my life that I have in my life that came from a high school drop out? A revolutionary, world changing device that came from an illiterate, poorly spoken, uneducated tinkerer that spends his day cursing about the powers that be?

Sure, some things have come from untrained individuals. Nothing of the caliber of a free energy device.

Archer is an attention whore. He has been since his failed acting days. This is just a new stage with a new audience.

-PurePower

@Exx
A magnetic field is created when an electron moves. When you have multiple electrons moving in a uniform, circular motion (as in a perm or electromagnet), a uniform magnetic field is created.

No one can really define why magnetism exists (just like gravity). This doesnt mean that we dont know enough about it to understand its properties are identical in every situation to date and are able to use and manipulate its know properties.