Roll on the 20th June

[therealrasta]

Now see this is where we are going to disagree again, I was looking at it from a different perspective : The neo was being pulled to the ferrite and had to be held back from smashing into it and when it was connected to the ferrite it had to be forcefully removed. Now I know your gonna say but thats what the wand is for but....   oh never mind I don't know if I can be bothered to open another can of worms. I need to do some more testing for myself first..   

I understand your point.. But look at it this way.. The laswall on mayernick track is at lets say 2 to 2:30 and the ferrite is at 2:45 to 3. Right as the neo on the wheel approaches the wall on the mayernick track. The ferrite is activated by a floating wand that does not make contact with the ferrite.. This attraction from the wheel to the ferrite moves the wand at the sametime which in turn breaks the attraction and the wheel mag falls back into the mayernick array facilitated by gravity and momentum in later rotations.

[The Eskimo Quinn]

ps

i know you cant tell in the video too much, but i genuinely could not tell when the remote switch piece was in the field and it was not in the field. Once other test and find this is also the case, i think we may finally have a change of heart from many on the thread. which means more builders, becasue there is nothing left after this. simply contstruction methods and types based on materials at hand and affordable.

Have a good day testing

[capthook]

so the last and only other valid question is how much work for the contact.? zero, that arm i was moving would be fixed to you wheel in advance of you rotor arm, it sweeps past an array off the side of the wheel activating the ferrite on the track. it pulls the roller forward as with any other set of track magnets yet when over them the arm passes out of the array field off to the side and they turn off.

The questions concerning the gate key become more item specific when discussing specific implementations.  The overall +/- of the gate key energy system needs to be examined in more detail in and of itself.

But - as to your proposal of implementations in the track.... you are trying to eliminate walls?
So each array in the track needs a switch?  Otherwise, the wall would be present in the next non-switched array.  This would make the +/- of the effect even more important.

The arm passes out of the array field:
This is a part of the energy loss in the key system.
The arm is attracted to the array field - to get it to pass out of the array field requires overcoming this attraction.  So there is an exit wall that must be overcome.

So the original wall (a) is smaller (b) - but now you have introduced the arm exit wall (c).

Is:
a>b+c
a<b+c
a=b+c
and what is the net energy +/- requirements?

But the earlier questions of x, y and z are what are important (IMO of course)

See the attached pic for comments on the M array.

[shakman]

I can't believe I'm about to say this but.... 
Without taking sides, I think PP is right in that Newton might be the wrong guy to pick on with regards to magnetics. Although Newton claimed to understand gravity, he never claimed to be a magnet guru. There is evidence however that he played with magnets. Being familiar with gravity and having played with magnets which allowed one to "defy" gravity, you would have thought a man worth his salt would have done copious amounts of research on the subject, but alas, he didn't that I'm aware of.

I can see Archer's point regarding big advances in magnetics not being made sooner given the amount of funding provided by governments around the world for this type of experimentation. The potential applications for this technology appear to me to be extra-ordinary. And it's fairly simple really. I find myself scratching my head wondering why variations of this aren't used everywhere by now if it had been discovered. Ignorance or cover-up? Who knows... I'm not big on conspiracies but I'm convinced there is plenty of tech that is swept under the govt rug in the name of "national security" :insert puke face here:

On a more productive note, I just perforned some tests similar to  those demonstrated by X00013 using a crude setup. I used long wooden dowel stick suspended between two wooden chairs with a pair of neos hanging from an elastic band, a small ferrite mag from the fridge taped to a fancy metal ashtray with ornamental holes cut out, two neo's connected to a long galvanised screw (I really should get a camcorder, my description is almost as crude as my setup). The results were impressive. It performs just as Archer said, and I don't even have all the materials to set it up properly yet.

If this is nothing new, I've been trawling OU/FE/PM forums for a few years now and the first time I'd ever seen it suggested and demonstrated was by Archer. If it is old hat but just hasn't been mentioned, explained or demonstrated before then I would find that very odd as there is clearly great potential here. People have been trying to replicate Bessler wheels for years, you wouldn't expect something like this to dry up. There would be various experiments going on all the time, no?

Keep up the great work Archer! And try to take it easy on Newton, he may be a fraud - I don't know - but as far as I can tell taking Newtonians up on magnetics is a bit like getting Roger Federer to jump in the ring with Kostya Tszyu, and it's only letting you get distract with all sorts of side debates. They'll just want to keep dragging you to the tennis court, and that's only fair, but it will only slow you down.

Take care all.

shakman

[X00013]

@Rasta , post ur stuff man, i need 2 b entertained

@ exx , good vid

@ archer,    i'm going to try to do some "relativity" tests'  to confirm either partry's beliefs. ( hoopy shit house test ofcourse )

@gwhy, its not that easy to test in/out force without special equipment

@Graham, do you have test results (push/pull) with specialized equipement u could post in any config?