Roll on the 20th June

[chap]

for the poll,

Yes

Yes

@exx,
That link didn't work, but the link in the next post did, I didn't know they tore it down in 2000 till now.

Chap

[Mr. M]

He shut down his site by himself BTW ...( call it inside info if you want )

Google's cache of http://www.surphzup.com/ as retrieved on 6 Jul 2008 12:45:34 GMT.

"Powered by JKAhosting.com."

I'm not saying you're wrong and I'm not saying it's anything "MiB", I'm just going to say that when someone takes their website down their provider and their DNS servers usually don't drop out at the same time. What usually happens is everything remains up but the site has no content until the current rolling contract with the host expires.

When JKAhosting.com and their DNS servers come back and Archers URI still isn't resolving I'll be satisfied he shut his site down... Right now it still looks like to be, somewhat protracted, technical difficulties.

____

For the Poll  :   

1 ) Yes.
2 ) I'm not qualified to give an answer for that one.

[tekylife]

Thanks for the quick response to my question!

Now that I'm fully up to date on the situation, I'd like to take a 2 question poll in this forum (optional, of course).

If you feel like voicing a response to this question, great!  If not, I totally understand.


THE SIMPLE YES/NO QUESTION TO EVERYONE WHO HAS BEEN FOLLOWING THIS FORUM POST:

Question 1: (Yes or No)
"Would you personally like to see Archer succeed in his quest?"

Question 2: (Yes or No)
"After viewing all of the information on Archers site, as well as all of the postings here, in your personal opinion, do you think that Archer will ultimately succeed in creating a useful power generating device that can easily be replicated?"

I understand that this is a post that is to be used to discuss the actual invention/creation, and not a debate forum to discuss personal feelings.  However, that being said, I have seen plenty of people get into heated debates over this discussion, and I'd like to know where everyone's faith currently lies.

Feel free to follow your short YES/NO answer with any statement you like.

Thanks,

PwrDream

Yes

No

People often say : put up or shut up . It looks like Archer just went the shut up way. But maybe it is just to FOCUS before he puts up!

[dirt diggler]

Listen people...

POTENTIAL ENERGY, POTENTIAL ENERGY, POTENTIAL ENERGY!!!

To move a mass M up a height H requires M*g*H energy! Done, no ifs, ands, or buts. You move through a gravity field, that's the energy it takes to move.

You can sit in your chair and bullshit all day about adding different mechanism to the system that all contribute other energy variables thus changing the entire system (because the system changes!), but what remains perfectly unchanged is, wait for it...

POTENTIAL ENERGY!!!

Get over it. Its real life, proven time and time again, used to send man to the moon and satelites in orbit, cold hard physics. No touchy feely Archurian bullshit.

Machines are not "energy banks." if they were, then they could do work with that banked energy. They can not. We can use them to do work, but we are still supplying the energy for that job. You can get your construction energy back out by destroying the structure and tapping the energy out as it falls, the same energy you used to lift. That is it.

I am done with this arguement. It has become so fucking rediculous I can't tell if you are serious or just toying with me. Either way, it is over.

Do not reply with more BS. The only reply I will respond to is (and quote):

"PurePower, I do not fully understand the concept of potential energy. I feel like it should be path dependent and/or change by use of mechanics. Can you please provide me with calculations and video proof for your statements? I know you are busy, so the formulas will help until you are able to do a video in a week or so (assuming we still need the video proof)."

Done.

-PurePower

PurePower,

No man, you don't get it.   Of coarse the potential energy is the same once the objects get to where they are going.  thats the whole point.  No matter how an object gets on top of the 6 foot wall, it now has that potential energy.  I am pretty sure everyone understands that.
The point we are making is that there are countless ways to get the object to the top. Not all of them using the same amount of energy.  Yes the energy to actually do the 6 foot lift is the same, however because of system efficiancies, there is vast differences in TOTAL energy used. 
The rolling of the wheelbarrow is likely around 60-70% efficient
moving the sand by hand, probably 10%
ciao,  Dirt

[CLaNZeR]

Little did I know that the day I started this thread that there would be over
4000 replies and over
78000 views of this thread in a matter of approx
2.5 months

Proud of you all 

I liked Archers last few videos and the strength/weight of the magnets make it look well impressive.
It still got the horrible attraction back into the array at the end, but can see where Archer is coming from if the weight of the arms is heavy enough to break past this.

The difference with this and again I can see where Archer is coming from, is that there is not a barrier on the entry of the track. With the Trigate you have got that barrier, then you have a dead spot and then you have an attraction spot where the Roller goes and does it stuff.
If I have seen the videos correctly Archer does not have this repulsion barrier when entering his array/track. So now he just has the Exit barrier of attraction pulling the Roller back in. With enough weight this could be over come.

I have seen flat V-tracks do the same, but do not clear the exit, but adding the gravity aspect could indeed work ummmmm

Need my life to calm down, so I can find some spare time to experiment more.

Cheers

Sean.

Good stuff and interesting.