Roll on the 20th June

[gwhy!]

@Archer

To be honest, I don't think any of the skeptics are "oilmen" - just sad people looking for attention.

It is my opinion that they are getting a kick out of distracting you and fanning your firey personality. I defend your right to defend yourself (even against me) but you are making great progress so ignore these guys and keep up the great vids, that's the best way for you to respond in my opinion.

Thats a laugh  WERE looking for attention (you are jokeing... right).  ( roll on the 20th June  )
 

[bullsnbears1]

I thought if i used a diamond it would be sure to work, Neil Diamond was the best i could do that was an original copy of the jazz singer

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U_UHmNjl6Uk

nite

Alright, someone bring me up to speed here please.

The "gate key" does activate the ferrite block. (or does it just make a ferrite mag stronger?)

In order to make this useful in breaking a wall on an array, wouldn't it also have to DE-activate it.

X000013's video did a good job of showing the attraction start & stop.

Both videos showed proximity.

AQ's vid needs to show the difference in strength once the key is no longer in proximity.

[Mr. M]

Thats a laugh  WERE looking for attention

Picture a family day out where the parents tell the kids that they will arrive at the fairground at a specific time but the car gets stuck in traffic...  The kids then continually ask the parents "Are we there yet?" when it's blatently obvious that they aren't as they can't actually see the fairground.

Think about it...    ...This thread is a lot like that car journey except the kids aren't kids, most of them just act like they are.

[exxcomm0n]

A prominent/world.renowned scientist/physicist  wrote to me personally in regards to the Youtube videos i produced about AQ's wheel and what he is attempting to achieve.

@ Queue

Maybe "world renown", but with a rather tiny dick if he can't comment for the world to see his support of you and your findings.

Since he's so ensconced in achievement, why can't he comment publicly, as any other on the Tube? He could even do it under the veil of anonymity that any Tube user has in the choice of username or handle.

Right now your qualification of him amounts to "My sisters boyfriend's dog's manicurist said......."?

Although i cannot reveal his name i wanted to share a portion of what he wrote to me in this forum. Judge for yourself the degree of relevancy. 

<see above>

Here is an excerpt of what he wrote to me..
=================================
Thanks, "Queue," this is an exceptionally clear demo and discussion.
I think it is summed up in the conservation of energy law that KE + PE = constant, and to the degree that both gravity and magnetism are both considered conservative forces and can therefore be represented as gradients of potentials, we can't get from A to B with losses taken into account. (When Archer discusses PE, he only considers gravitational PE, apparently not realizing that that there is magnetic PE as well.)
=================================

I'm as confused about this post as I am about Archer's "followers" stance (which I still haven't gotten an answer about).

It's about as clear and insightful as my last video comment here:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=ItsbTlj04b8

loop5
drop it in the "middle of the ride" and you'll notice it doesnt move, because all the energy came from the start. take that in consideration and make your track with multiple starts
got it?

At least that commenter had enough personal integrity to post their comment publicly, no matter if it exemplifies their inability to consider the wall the effect has.

Why for would a world renown physicist even be watching this thread, or the Tube videos in regards to these types of experiments if they are conversant with the knowledge that we're trying to discover with testing and satisfied that it is the "true" understanding?

It don't play in Peoria, dude.



@ gwhy

.....And yet you don't see your comment as exemplifying that particular attribute you are decrying in others?

@ bullsnbears

Why don't you beat him to it?
That'd show you as a proactive, rather than a reactive thinker.

@ MrM

About as pleasant and welcome as "You want fries with that?", eh?


".....and the hits just keep on coming!"

[mscoffman]

Or, even if we do, will we get the 'magnets are fuel' argument. Which brings me to a point: if the people with the money to meet the challenge (of PM) are challenged they can say "Oh, it's meant to be perpetual motion, like forever". So, I'll never get the money then, will I? Will  I have to wait, 'in perpuity' , for the prize money? Easy to make empty promises, isn't it?

Really though, If I showed you a video of it running around the track for three days, would that be enough to get the prize? Would it have to be three months? Where do you draw the line, anyone?

@kitefreak

You are being an idiot.  A PM machine is a machine and they wear out and break down, that's part of being a machine.
The question you are asking has to do with energy density. Amount of energy per unit volume. There are several
key points along the way, but pretend one had the runner's weight in a hydrocarbon fuel like gasoline. If your PM
roller can produce more energy then it's weight equivalent of gasoline and it's still around, something is up, right?
Maybe one gets snooty and says that the runner is going through a 'nuclear' process running around the track
- well if the runner can produce more energy then it's equivalent weight in U 235 then something must be up again.
Of course, it would take much running time to prove that, and the person requesting it would be being an idiot, IMHO.

:S:MarkCoffman

PS. Good luck on your experiments. Hoping you attain your goal!