Roll on the 20th June

[purepower]

Oh boy, this just keeps gettng better...

So, you say you can mentally break down a system to it's thermo, quantum, and magnetic components.

But wait! These are all evil "Newtonian" sciences! OILMAN!!!!

Oh, And I strongly doubt you could differentiate a system's components, considerring you can't differentiate the appropriate UNITS! (using kilo for mass, force, momentum, and energy)


One thing I don't get is all the Archurians demand a video when someone says "I did that too," yet they are willing to believe AQ accomplished the impossible with no pic or vid....

Interesting to see what people will believe when they simply want to believe it...


-PurePower

[sky]

Okay AQ...

Since you want so badly to be porven a liar and fraud by QUOTING you, here it goes...

First you say (pay attention to text in red)

Yet on your website, you said on the "Newtonian View" page (surphzup.com/gpage3.html)

So speed never equals torque, but it must be part of the equation? Huh?

Well, there it is AQ. Your own words, clearly contradictory. This proves you will and have said anything, true or false, just to appear to have the upperhand and portray yourself as knowledgable.

Clearly, YOU ARE A LIAR.

-PurePower

Jeez this guy just wont stop will he? He's like the inverse of the energizer bunny. A real downer with almost every post. 
Up until PP said there should be renewable energy threads on this forum I thought he might have something to say worth hearing. (there are threads on this forum dedicated to every type of renewable energy, click forums at the top or use the search engine after selecting overunity.com)
I even gave PP the benefit of the doubt when he argued that Bicycles dont make my ride to the store any easier than walking.

PP this last post is the biggest stretch of reasoning that I've seen from you yet.

Let me break down your post in terms of logic:

we'll start with a legend:
Archer Quin= AQ
PurePower = PP
Power = P     
Torque = T
RPM = R
Speed = S

Now the logic statements from your post:

AQ says P x T does not equal R

AQ says S x R does not equal T

Based on the above statements from AQ, PP says AQ is a Liar.


Now for the logic question:

Based on the above Logic statements who is the liar AQ or PP?

Hint: Google power torque equation and anyone with eyes to see will know the answer

[Fred Flintstone]

@Archer and PurePower

I was going to say "Quit arguing about nothing" but actually the arguing provides entertainment for me. So, let's talk about the Egyptian Fulcrum. I still think Archer has discovered something no one else has...what do you think PurePower?

Freddy

[purepower]

To Purepower

As I said a few pages earlier, speed does not equal torque, and you have found the original statement, So if a childs whirly windmill on a stick is doing 100 rpm, in your mind that must "equal" huge torque,

yet an industrial cold saw that only turns at 40rpm must he less torque, so we should use your math to have a childs windmill toy on a stick cut I beams for commercial buildings.

Well i have to stand by what i said, RPM and speed do not "equal" (nor are even a slight indication for math purposes) torque.

And if you were to show the entire thread from the site page you would note i was reffering to the fact you had quoted the math for torque for tension not torque as it applies to movement as you have left out speed  or distance over time as part of you math.

So again yes i stand by that also, that torque when relation to a moving object (and you were talking about the rod transition from side to side) requires speed as part of the calculation or time over distance.

The two hardly contradict each other, the fist say chidrens windmills at high RPM or anything at high rpm does not constitue torque, Don't think I'll get an argumant there.

and the second says that when calculating the math for torque for a moving object, one must have time over distance as part of the math "which you did not" again, don't think i'll get an argument there.

This is the first post i can honestly say without doubt, you are not an engineer nor even a trainee out of university. I am not being nasty, but every engineer who just read your comments and mine would agree.

If that still makes me a liar, then so be it, (but can i have one of those childrens fans that cut steel )

Have a nice day

Ooo, almost dodged the bullet. Not quite tho...

Torque is never dependent on speed/rpm. Never, even if it is static or on a moving object. Never.

When you do have torque on a moving object, like a wheel, and you multiple torque times speed (rad/sec), you get power.

But if you were capable of reading an understanding my posts, you would have already known that...

And I am way more of an engineer than you could ever hope to be. My public speaking skills also outweigh yours. Guess they don't teach "the less you say, the more you know" in Auz...

@sky

You are misunderstanding...

First, aq says "f(speed) =/= torque"

Then he says "f(speed) == torque"

And I never said bikes don't save energy. I said bikes don't save energy due to banked energy. They do make it easier, but not for the reasons exx and shaky described (please, don't see this as an invitation to start the debate again, we were on good terms).

And I was somehow unable to find all the renewable threads, guess I didn't look hard enough or in the right places. I really haven't spent much time on this site outside this thread. Probably will now though, thanks all for the links!

-PurePower

[The Eskimo Quinn]

@ purepower,

"So, you say you can mentally break down a system to it's thermo, quantum, and magnetic components."

yes i know you don't read.

Afraid i was quoting OU812, if you read it properly and had been following even just one page you would know he said that, and i quoted him, in fact i said right before it, (wait, i would'nt want to misquote you) "

If you read what people actually wrote, rather than what you quickly interpret what they said, you would appear a little less foolish