Roll on the 20th June

[Rusty_Springs]

@rusty, the principal was on the net way before i used it.

come on liar stop mouthing off an show everyone where it is, see you are still claiming your mag pics showing the poles face up with a donut mag as the same thing, wow you really do live in la la land champ.

Show everyone this pre existing principal, if it is old even show it in written form in some old post.

as for knowing it would not work, didnt you know it would not go over the loop when you said it went over a couple of mags at 80 degrees but said it kept stopping, but then did not stop and wnet over the loop?

did you not say that it would not work when it hung at the end of the first loop vid as i could not break the wall

did you not agrre with purepower that it could not work because it looses energy at the  first wall break vids

now you say when it done all that and simply need to roll along a flat ramp to the base to the start it wont work??

didnt think of that did you moron? yeah i can flatten the base without using more magnets tyo get to the other side, once out how it gets back to the start is moot. remember it being pulled accross the flat wood without coming off a hill?

yeah your a real genius at seeing what is going on.

Your own mag setup is nothing like this, and no one else in the world would put their name to that claim once they see the poles are face up and your roller is an extnernal pole magnet because it is a ring.

leave whilst you still have some dignity, when they see the next video, what will you say then?

Not i was wrong, you have had 3 chances to do that, yet you simply gloss over your cliams that get destroyed.

You know i never play nice, so be careful what you say about it not making the loop,

Don't bring knives to gunfights champ.

Haven't read everything yet but first Yes its the same principle and thats all I have to say on that others can make up there on minds.
And no I didn't say it wont go past the last magnet in the aray what I said was it would take a lot of energy to get past the attract back.
Learn to read I will get to the rest when I get back for my short holiday. oh and give the people back the hard earned money and close the loop.

[mondrasek]

Will you all please download the Gravity Motor.zip under the subject "Gravity Motor Patent"?

It's like pulling teeth around here!

M.

[ramset]

RUSTY sounding more jealous than helpful  Archer did you fix the link to paypal? Chet

[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

@PP Thanks for reading and for the good reply.

An no, I didn't jump in on your argument with Archer. To be honest, I skipped that argument altogether as I was not getting any useful info from it either way. I jumped in to support Exx's "banked energy" argument.

Yes, you are right. You see the problem here is that we're both right (well, except for the part where you say I am wrong) but in very different ways.

You are looking at the micro level, this component does this work and this compoent does this work which then equals this amount of total work. I can't argue that point. But it's not the point we're trying to argue.

Exx is much sharper than myself when it comes to these things and I might not even be thinking on exactly the same level as he is but this is the way I see it:

I am looking at the macro level - the user of the bike (let's call this variable "u"), do not personally need to use the same amount of energy to perform this amount of work x because the bike is designed to assist you with this task. u is not concerned about how much energy the bike is using, or how much work went into building it, all that matter to u is the fact that u requires less energy to do x work as a result. u is taking mechanical advantage of the banked energy in the bike.

So let's bring this full circle (pardon the pun). If you design a component "b" within a system designed to take mechanical advantage of another component "q" which was in turn designed to take advantage of the "banked energy" principle outlined above, a does not care what q is up to, all b cares about is the fact that it is using y energy to do x work. As far a b is concerned, there is no need to factor in what q is up to.

Sure, it's not that simple. If it were there would be perpetual motion devices everywhere. But you can't deny the fact that as a person supplying energy to a device such as a bike you are actually saving your own energy and you are not concerned about how or why. You are using a tool for mechanical advantage. If this was not the case, if you lost out to friction and other factors all the time, why would people bother building or riding bikes? Try entering the Tour de France without a bike and see how far you get.

So the bike survives the "banked energy" test. It was build using x energy. u uses y energy and by the end of the Tour de France the value if x and u is far less than it could have otherwise been (and u visits i in the hospital because i tried to do it on foot).

It's not a great example as far as building an OU device but it proves the concept of banked energy. My point is flawed in that the bike still needs some sort of energy input, but it is far better designed for the task then a biped and therefore the energy used to create it is payed back tenfold. If I had a perfect exampled I wouldn't be paying the electricity bills 

Finally I will agree to disagree. This could go on forever. As this point is not proven nor disproven, and as your planned test is not designed properly to prove or disprove my point, we will just have to move on to something more constructive.

Anyway to skirt away from the point but make an important point nonetheless:

You said it yourself - "keep an open mind" - you won't find an OU machine in a physics text book so please stop referencing it constantly. Yes physics has it's place here but it should not be a blindfold. Exx is far from stupid so I'd recommend not taking his ideas with a grain of salt. I'm not exactly dumb either, even if I didn't choose a career path in physics I have always been mechanically minded and broken appliances, gadgets etc from my friends and family always get sent to me to get fixed (and 99% of the time do get fixed) - but I've never taken an electronics course either. Whenever someone needs a logo/invitation/technical CAD design/wedding booklet made they see me because I can use CAD tools. Heck, I was even chief designer for a mate's fashion label for a year, working on designs after hours for him until he found a permanent designer. But I never went to a design college... how can it be?!?! I don't even do either of these things as a permanent job.

The above paragraph was not to big note myself (well, maybe a little) but the point is that it's the real world, dude. Some people (Archer included) just have a knack for things. Do you think I earn good cash because of a degree? Sure, my colleagues all have them, after a year of boredom in the first of a five year course I dropped out to spent my time doing better (more fun) things and started working my way up the ladder and showing what I was made of on the way up. I still got here before my uni mates - and I've stood by and watched them get stood down for incompetence while I got promoted (and I'm not a brown-nose/ass licker/crawler - whatever the phrase is that you might use in the US for this term). So, please, "keep an open mind" as you said you would.

I'm glad we've been able to remain civil even if we can't agree.

shakman

[purepower]

@Mondrasek

Couldn't find it, and no one posted a link that worked for me...

@Archer

You've really gotten mean lately.

Your cursing and ranting was tollerated before as it was not directed at anyone in particular (except Newton).

But now your fabricating total lies and stories to attack me on multiple threads, stating I am two people with different and opposing contributions. And for what? Did that really accomplish anything other than another great diversion?

Now you are in a knife/gun fight with rusty?

This behavior would not be tollerated if it were coming from anyone else, I dont see why you are any different.

Since you can seem to teach us any physics, would you mine teaching us how to interact with each other in a civil manner?

Oh wait, what am I saying? You are completly incapable of either of those! Silly me...

@Shake

Did you miss my response? I asked you a question I would like answered, por favor..

-PurePower