Roll on the 20th June

[zerotensor]

ramset's and Archer's  comments look more like "piss" to me than anything else in this discussion.  Let the flushing begin.

*whooosh*

@Zero

Why don't you give Archer a break? He said he was going to disclose everything by June 20, didn't he? Why can't you just wait for a few more days and give him the benefit of the doubt?

There's a gentleman in the other thread (Lee-Tseung Theory) who tries to convince others of his magical Lead-Out energy crap based on flawed understanding of Physics and Math. His excuse of not building a simple pendulum system was because he's only good at theory and cannot use a drill!

Unlike Mr. Tseung, Archer even started his built, showed us his setup on his web site. Whether his theory has merits or not, time will tell but please afford him some respect. Is that too difficult? Now, he's pissed off and thanks to people like you!

cheers
chrisC

chrisC:  I think you misinterpreted my remarks.  I wouldn't be here if I didn't keep an open mind on these things.  I was just pointing out that the "pissing contest" analogy was, itself, composed entirely of a particularly odorous variety of urine.

I'm all for the experimentalist approach.  But until someone can show us a working prototype, any discussion here is by definition in the theoretical domain.  There's nothing wrong with that.

If Archer is pissed-off because I have entertained his ideas and chosen to discuss them honestly in the forum, then, IMHO, he is much too easily offended.  I am trying to maintain a spirit of honest inquiry and discussion.

I am looking forward to 20 June like the rest of us, and will keep an open mind even if Mr. Quinn's wheel turns out to be vapor-ware.

Cheers.
-zero

[ramset]

ZERO   having said that [you piss Archer off] If you really do want to see something on June 20 th  go park your unbuilding ass [as it applies to this device ] on another thread were you can perhaps save /discourage other builders  maybe DR Stiffler Or GK    I don't know    with your talents I wouldn't know where to start   Chet [not done]   get busy man!!! your job is done here

[exxcomm0n]

Look kids,

Whether it was us badgering Archer (although he should have known that it would be inevitable), or him being a little off-kilter, or his deciding that this wouldn't work doesn't amount to a hill of beans. It seems we are left to our own devices because he "took his toys and went home".
If you want to prove him wrong, do it in the classically accepted way of building one and showing it NOT working.
As iffy as I feel about this due to the emotional gymnastics of everyone involved with this thread (myself included), I'm still going to take a stab at building one when my magnets get in this coming week.

Why?
Because that is the ONLY definitive way to prove it works, or it does not.

I've noticed 2 things that seem to have been missed by everyone (and perhaps it's my idiotic understanding of basic science principles) but I thought I'd hang my butt out for the flame throwers too.

1.) People can postulate all day long as to why something does, or does not work. But until _I_ build it, until _I_ move it, and until _I_ see it work or not I have no personal basis to say ANYTHING definitively. This is why science classes use experiments, is it not?

Anyone heard of the OPMM magnet motor?
According to legend a man with no scientific background dreamt it and peddled this idea to ANYONE that would listen to him and no one would. Finally, a more learned person with a kind heart decided to make an object lesson for him as to why it wouldn't work and while trying it out, learned that he had been incorrect in being too learned to consider something like this working because according to the youtube video I've seen, it's pretty impressive (I still have to build one to "prove" it works too ).

2.) I see lots of arguments talking about weight and gravity. But I haven't heard very much about MASS!
To lean heavily on Wikipedia again:

In everyday usage, mass is more commonly referred to as weight, but in physics and engineering, weight means the strength of the gravitational pull on the object; that is, how heavy it is, measured in units of force. In everyday situations, the weight of an object is proportional to its mass, which usually makes it unproblematic to use the same word for both concepts. However, the distinction between mass and weight becomes important for measurements with a precision better than a few percent (due to slight differences in the strength of the Earth's gravitational field at different places), and for places far from the surface of the Earth, such as in space or on other planets.

Now to use the object lesson that everyone else is, the WHEEL with equally opposing 900kg weights.

Now we can't have a wheel at rest with 1 arm having weight @ 1 o'clock and 7 o'clock. 1 o'clock will fall and slowly oscillate pendulum-wise to the point of the weights being at rest. That is if the wheel has only 1 arm with an imbalance on one side.

Even with 3 arms there is "work" that it needs to get the arm to 1/7 o'clock. Otherwise, at rest, the arms are @ 1 - 12/6 o'clock, 2 - 2/8 o'clock, and 3 - 4/10 o'clock at rest (well if all weights are equal the arms can be anywhere really in both examples, but this illustrates arm placement).
That this can be @ rest proves the concept of equal mass having equal attraction to gravity to create its weight.

Now if we spin the wheel to a predefined RPM with all equal weights and a good bearing in the center the wheel will spin for a good deal of time before gravity finally grabs it well enough to stop it's movement. If all weights are equal it will not pendulum, it will just cease moving when it reaches the point when inertia of the mass can no longer overcome its weight.

The inertia of the mass has been overcome by gravity turning its mass into weight (I know it sounds wrong, but see the definition above and it then makes more sense.)

If we add 100kg weight to one side of one arm and spin it to the same RPM as above, the wheel will still spin in a circle (even if it's like an unbalanced clothes washer in the spin cycle) and will keep doing so until gravitational attraction turns the inertial mass into weight. At that point it will pendulum and oscillate from side to side until the 1000kg weight rests @ 6 o'clock and all motion has ceased since one side will always have more attraction until the imbalance is at its lowest point.

Now if we compare the distance traveled by the reference weight around the circumference (one that had been marked in some way to make sure the extra weight is added to the same reference point), is it the same?

I don't know. I haven't measured it yet.

From what I've experienced before, the circular in combination with the  back and forth oscillation might cover more distance than the equal weights circular only movement.
MIGHT is the key word. I don't know, I haven't tested it yet, and until I do I really can't say someone is wrong or right.

If it does cover more distance it might lend credence to Archers claims. If it doesn't then it will go just as far to disprove as the former occurrence would to prove them.

Inertia and weight are not the same thing.

They both use mass to achieve anything, but one is due to energy (motion) imparted to mass, and the other is due to an omnipresent force (gravity, or energy) creating inertia out of the attraction of mass in a gravitational environment to create weight.
Without gravity (in space), inertial mass will keep moving until opposed by an equal mass with the same inertia being applied in the exact opposite motion, correct?

So don't tell me I'm right or wrong. SHOW ME!
That way we both know that an argument has basis.

Either way I'm going to make a cardboard circle on a pin axle, use drinking straws for my tubes, and magnet wire wrapped nails for the electromagnets to try both the proposed concept, and the idea that scale doesn't matter.
2 birds, 1 stone.


P.S. Oh gawd, I'm in trouble now as that was Newtonian!  :S

"An object at rest tends to stay at rest and an object in motion tends to stay in motion with the same speed and in the same direction unless acted upon by an unbalanced force."

My favorite experiment that "proves" this is shooting a coin at a stack of 2 or more of the same coin with varying force until the coin I shoot @ the stack replaces the bottom-most coin. The mass of the shot coin does not equal the weight in the mass of the stack of coins, but the shot coin can replace the bottom-most coin.
This experiment "proves" that on the earth inertia can overcome weight given enough energy. Is that amount of energy equal to the energy from the mass in the weight of the stacked coins due to gravity?

I don't know. I haven't measured it yet.

P.P.S.
If you made sequential electromagnets and were able to make a mechanical switch (brush contact most likely) to apply current to them +/+/- to the + end of a rod in sequential motion (moving from 6 to 12) wouldn't that act like a motor to ensure the forward movement of the arm and that forward motion not being repelled by opposing magnetic force? Especially if the electromagnet started @ 6:30 to make sure the repelling force was directly in line AND behind/under it so there's never an opposing magnetic force in front of it to kill forward momentum?

Could you wind the electromagnets so if you applied AC current to them the cycle of the current fluctuation between +/- would create that? Like a brush-less AC motor?

Chit. I gots me some busy days ahead.

[ramset]

@Helmut any news? Chet

[b0rg13]

with all the ideas from everyone about the Q Wheel , i get the impression it could/might or should work, or are there some problems with it ?, what if a couple car batteries are used/pulsed to keep the mass moving and some other effective means are used to charge the batteries.

..surly there are still ideas we can kick around?....seems like a good excuse for a begining to me not an end , a quest wheel, not a quiters wheel.