Roll on the 20th June

[kremlin01]

Hi shackman, have a great break.
Is it ok to ignor PP, and the others on the list untill you get back? 

"still they watched, and still their wonder grew"

regards, Bren.

[ChrisBLong]

PurePower, was it "Messiah Complex"?  Seems to fit pretty well:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messiah_complex_%28self-concept%29

I can suggest some possible reasons why "one of [Archer's] better inventions", the collapsible drinks bottles, didn't take off - his analysis ignores the weight of the bottles.  If you put 33% more bottles on each truck, then you will need fewer trucks, but they will each be carrying 33% more weight.  Does Archer allow for that in his analysis of the CO2 savings?  His comment "this is... an actual percentage amount of CO2" suggests not.  He also doesn't indicate how much heavier, and more expensive, each bottle will need to be due to the "rigid handle top to bottom in the centre", or what the energy requirements (which are directly convertible to CO2 requirements) for collapsing and re-inflating the bottles are.

It rather looks as though Archer didn't do much analysis of this idea at all.  It looks as if he simply had the idea, thought "yup, that's brilliant", and carried on with his day.

As for the "packaged light" idea, there are a few issues there as well.  Here's a representative quote: "in space a smoke ring can be propelled at any speed without disintegrating from the ring hitting the atmosphere".  Unfortunately, simply stating something with confidence does not make it true.

I know this is a bit off-topic, but seriously, some people here need to think about who they're placing their faith in, and why.

[Morgenster]

PurePower, was it "Messiah Complex"?  Seems to fit pretty well:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messiah_complex_%28self-concept%29

I can suggest some possible reasons why "one of [Archer's] better inventions", the collapsible drinks bottles, didn't take off - his analysis ignores the weight of the bottles.  If you put 33% more bottles on each truck, then you will need fewer trucks, but they will each be carrying 33% more weight.  Does Archer allow for that in his analysis of the CO2 savings?  His comment "this is... an actual percentage amount of CO2" suggests not.  He also doesn't indicate how much heavier, and more expensive, each bottle will need to be due to the "rigid handle top to bottom in the centre", or what the energy requirements (which are directly convertible to CO2 requirements) for collapsing and re-inflating the bottles are.

It rather looks as though Archer didn't do much analysis of this idea at all.  It looks as if he simply had the idea, thought "yup, that's brilliant", and carried on with his day.

As for the "packaged light" idea, there are a few issues there as well.  Here's a representative quote: "in space a smoke ring can be propelled at any speed without disintegrating from the ring hitting the atmosphere".  Unfortunately, simply stating something with confidence does not make it true.

I know this is a bit off-topic, but seriously, some people here need to think about who they're placing their faith in, and why.

I hadn't thought of the messiah complex yet. Could very well be.

As for the waterbottle idea: If he's so smart why hasn't he figured out that it would be even more environmentally sane to invest in water purification for tapwater and stop drinking bottled water?

Most of the ideas on his webpage look like spur of the moment 'epiphanies' that aren't that well thought through.
The NASA thing is just plain bollocks and shows how very little he understands physics and nuclear physics. Sure, his formulae for the effects of those different materials will be correct, but does he even think about what would be needed to get those reactions? You'd need to pile the whole shebang together to get even close to what he's saying and that's not how a space shuttle is built is it? I don't see any reports of astronauts getting radiation sickness or shuttles spontaneously blowing up in a mushroom cloud, either.
The whole DNA memory thing is just extremely BAD science and that's where he really falls overboard, going on about 'protein cells', hypnosis (did he mention that you can get people to talk about their 'future lives' memories as well?) and how memory is stored in DNA. Great SF, but no, not even close to reality. The whole chickens vs humans thing makes matters even worse because he seems to assume our nervous system is the same as that of a bird. Way to go on that one. I happen to know how memory IS stored and the stuff he comes up with is so stupid that I am now entirely convinced he's talking out of his ass on all the FE stuff.

This guy is full of it and keeps stringing people along with ever increasingly complicated 'optimisations' to his design, simply hiding the fact that the original just couldn't work and probably never will.

[ChrisBLong]

To be fair to Archer, I carried on reading his "my brilliant inventions" page, and I think the "cordless drill mains adaptor" idea is actually pretty cool.  It is also mentioned in Nov 2007 here:

http://www.cambrianhouse.com/idea/idea-promoter/ideas-id/7HlNKrU/

and two years earlier here:

http://www.crazyontap.com/topic.php?TopicId=32017&Posts=19

but is basically a sound idea.  The biggest downside would be the fact that a complete corded backup drill might be cheaper and give more flexibility than buying the cordless adaptor gadget.

The most important quote in this case is "There is no new technology required"... as JohnGalt_US has been saying, it's better to apply this sort of creativity to things that will actually work, rather than chasing the impossible.

Edited to add:  This idea is has already been done, if anyone's keen to have a corded backup:  http://www.amazon.com/Skil-144VXT-Source-Driver-Drill/dp/B0000302R5

[bullsnbears1]

Speak for yourself dude.

You might not make a working wheel, but someone might.

I still think there is a dampening effect from the array placement over time, but I have to rebuild the dirt devil w/. new mags and STRONGER TAPE (anyone know of really strong tape, or clear scotch type stuff like you use Queue?) to test as you have.

This is a TOY, and I see it as providing amusement and amazement long past now.

So please do not blanket statement like that unless you are truly tuned into the future and can furnish me with a winning lottery ticket number.

I'm using my hot glue gun. It's fast & strong. When you want to change something you just pop them off, cut off the glue & start over.

I've only burned 3 fingers in 2 days of hot gluing. And I've pinched 3 fingers also. So if my calculations are correct the hot glue gun increases the chances of injury by 100%.