Roll on the 20th June

[helmut]

donation link for those who asked for it

https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_donations&business=archer%40surphzup%2ecom&item_name=Sword%20of%20God%20Magnetic%20Drive%20Generator%20Build&no_shipping=0&no_note=1&tax=0&currency_code=USD&lc=AU&bn=PP%2dDonationsBF&charset=UTF%2d8

@Archer
There is a payment problem:

:Some required information is missing or incomplete. Please correct your entries and try again.

    * State/Territory: Please enter a valid State/Territory.

They offer Australian territory only
Please contact paypal and ask for the reason,that they do not offer a payment from forein country

Thanx

helmut

[gwhy!]

Maybe AQ is right.  All you monkeys just don't get it.  He has not gone on tangents after not being successful, he is just building the next 'part' in the master plan.

One by one he is showing us the pieces to save humanity and all everyone does it bicker.  but ah ha!  I've solved it and here it is:

The roller goes around the track, drops onto one end of the fulcrum, it lowers and the load drops back to the track and goes around again

The consequence of the fulcrum lowering causes a repulsive mag array on the other side to move closer to the gravity wheel, pushing the rod to the other side.  Because the mag array starts away from the wheel until the fulcrum pushes it closer, there is no 'wall'. 

The wheel spins and we have OU/FE!!!


(He should have called it the Sword of Rube Golberg)

If his loop loops Then why over engineer it as you have done, why have moving rods? why have levers ? just a rotor with 2 or more arms with fixed mags on the end working the exact same way as in his last vid.

[ramset]

delete

[purepower]

Alright, you will be tempted to skim this, but I urge you to read it as I will pose a question at the end that you can only answer correctly by doing so.

What Exx is saying, a point that I agree with, is that some work went in to making the bike. The bike can now be used over and over until the wheels come off. In terms of conservation of energy in physics, it's not a fair argument so I won't go there. The point is that the energy and time put in to making the bike is far less than the energy it will save the user of that bike should it be used regularly.

So a device was built using x total energy. y total energy is used to operate the device but it saves z total energy over other alternatives and at the same time allows more "work" to be done. Initially x+y will far outweigh z, but over time this will inverse, and over a long time z will be many multiples of x+y.

So the banked energy argument goes: a device was built as a method to conserve energy over the long term an, in some cases, even the short-to-immediate term. It would not be fair to use this argument in the context you continually wish to use it, but you are taking it out of context to serve your own argument. But please answer this question with a Yes/No before using rhetoric - is the paragraph previous to this (xyz) wrong in any way?

shakman

I did you the favor of reading all of your post, would you mind doing the same as I have a question as well?

Yes, it is wrong.
Think back to my pulley. You build a system that introduces a new variable, friction, that increases the work load every time you use it. If you are loosing additional energy z, you will never make back construction energy x.

And if I do recall, this arguement started between me and AQ. You two jumped into it and started taking it out of context to serve your own arguements.

The original arguement was: A MACHINE DOES NOT CHANGE THE POTENTIAL ENERGY COMPONENT OF WORK. Same height, same weight, same POTENTIAL ENERGY COMPONENT, regardless of whatever else happens.

A machine has the ability to add components and introduce new variables to a system. Sometimes they increase the total energy (pulley), sometimes they lower the total energy (bike/beer). In either case, they may only influence TOTAL system energy, as there are some components of the system that can never be changed (like potential energy).

Now, is there anything wrong with my last two paragraphs ["The original..." to "...potential energy)."]? Yes/No, explain...

-PurePower

[ramset]

M I believe this is your new 7/10/08Gravity motor patent  Chet      http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,5141.0.html