Overunity.com Archives

Quote from: hartiberlin on April 21, 2008, 12:53:40 PM

How can he get the blade with the coin back from 7 o clock to 1 o?clock ?

Did somebody understand this ?

Has this anything to do with a airplane going into a parabel for free fall speed tests ?

Quote from: ramset on April 26, 2008, 07:23:51 PM
dhirschfelder can you ask Archer if a car alternator will work   and will the special parts be cast  or machine steel   if machine how big a piece   Thanks Chet

QuoteMental B   sorry you thought I was serious about generator salesmen [it was a joke]   I wouldn't  be building his frame as I stated above if I didn't  have some confidence in his ability to come thru     Chet

Quote from: ramset on April 26, 2008, 07:23:51 PM
dhirschfelder can you ask Archer if a car alternator will work   and will the special parts be cast  or machine steel   if machine how big a piece   Thanks Chet

Quote from: ramset on April 27, 2008, 12:46:44 PM
dhirschfelder  THANKS  is this guy amazing or what !!!    step by step   takes us by the hand to replicate" HIS!!"  baby [device] its like a dream come true   Chet

Quote from: ramset on April 28, 2008, 11:09:44 AM
DH  just a thought because of the already existing  infrastructure      churches  synagoge any place of worship [though I don't belong to one] senior centers [assisted living like sunrise]not invalids   craigs list  any community help center  civic association etc etc I would stay away from political orgs will set up a mobil demo unit for what ever course  we think  makes the most sense     Chet

QuoteOk I will give you a little tip on why the machine works so easily, everyone go and get your pedestal fans again, and tape your coin to the blade again and put it at one o?clock again and let it go, it does not stop at six o'clock does it? and if taken to the one o?clock point will always have the momentum to take it well past the base, so equal lift requirement for equal fall is a myth, of course more Newtonian bullshit, in fact physics say it should return to the start point energy in equaling energy out, of course the friction on the axel from the weight and the torque created by the centrifugal force prevent this, but still it does not stop at the base due to momentum, thus you do not need the same amount of lift over distance as the fall provided, why??? the 5 pounds going down surely means you need an equal 5 pounds lift of an equal distance? well you can see with the rotation when you let the blade go that this is completely untrue, because of.......??? gravity!! and like a car uses less power at speed than it does to get there, it requires less to continue the motion. The base principal is very simple, the power used is the power coming from the generator at the point the arm passes a switch that provides the boost to get it that short distance back over the top, the creative point was to design the machine so that that was the total use. Get it???? OK only at the point of the switch does it use the power, hence the power produced through the rest of the rotation is unused, like a strobe light only uses power at the point of switching.

Quote from: The Eskimo Quinn on April 29, 2008, 06:53:20 AM
Thanx for all the great input, unfortunately, is difficult to understand that this is simply a new interaction of physics. In patent law it would be termed observing a new interaction or reaction. As i noted on the site, relying on Newton and the equations is false physics, if the laws for every action there is an equal or opposite reaction are false as proven by simple magnets. this is where i explained as missed by science for 200 years and under their nose, that a magnet has less repelling power than it has attracting power over the same weight. This is true and yet untrue at the same time. It is true that the reaction is not equal, but the field is equal, that is the anomaly, a magnetic field is like a soft rubber ball when glued to a weight of 200 kilos it will pull it provided the glue breaking strain is greater than 201 kilos, but when you go to push the weight something strange happens, the ball squashes, now the ball with the same push as it had pull will move the weight because the field or air is caught within a skin, but with a magnet it is not, and the field folds around the magnet and does not have the same push or repulsion as it does when pulling, as the field acts like the ball and stretches out like a string. 

Quote

The point is Newton was wrong, in fact wrong in one of the most basic devices known to man, for every action the is not an equal or opposite reaction. So the device in question simply applies a similar anomaly, and one everyone keeps missing, .

I will post this here first before the site tomorrow night so you can be the first to fully understand the part of the discovery that proves standard calcs wrong.

Try this get a plank of wood and set it at 45 degrees and have it go around ten feet above ground level(you will need sides) get a light rubber ball full of air around 6 inches across, now get a compressor and an air gun of some sort. now use this to get the ball to the top, preferable something that fires a rivet or soft point device, the air wont do,you need impact or a known pounds per square inch piston action. it does not matter what this is.

now shoot it at the ball from varying distances, until it just makes it to the top, a spring loaded device will also work.

Now elevate the plank as close to vertical as possible and make sure it is still ten feet to the top from the ground (you will have to start the ball higher or cut the plank shorter (or have 2 ). it wont make it, it can't and here is the real kicker even without the friction of the roll in open air, it still cant make it.

now do you see what you are missing??? (god i hope so) Newton?s calcs were never designed for the Wright brothers or this device :)

I like the idea of the young minds, toys or puzzles that build the machine, once you know it works, you can't unknow it, like being told planes can't fly according to Newton and his gravity calculations.

Quote from: The Eskimo Quinn on April 29, 2008, 08:35:21 AM

So again this is the main principle, you have missed the basic, the 45 is actually longer as well yet still makes it, as for the distance for your firing mechanism, the first is to ensure the ball only just makes it, then you must use the same distance, this gives you identical impact PPSI.

Quote from: Goat on April 28, 2008, 07:30:08 PM

Q: What is the world's biggest flea market? 
A: Ebay

Setup an account and give it away (the building plan or http link to) by advertising it as a carbon emission reduction device, it seems like it's the buzzword du jour these days...LOL

Maybe describe it as a handy man only type project or build to suit for people that are able to offer the service of building the machine.

Quote from: mental breakdown on April 28, 2008, 10:29:21 PM
@ Goat

E-bay probably would be a great idea, though I would bet the day it is released someone will start trying to make money off the plans.  It will be posted as "free" on e-bay +$15.00 shipping and handling or a pdf file with a password that can only be had by signing up for something. 

Quote from: The Eskimo Quinn on April 29, 2008, 06:53:20 AM

now do you see what you are missing??? (god i hope so) Newton?s calcs were never designed for the Wright brothers or this device :)

I like the idea of the young minds, toys or puzzles that build the machine, once you know it works, you can't unknow it, like being told planes can't fly according to Newton and his gravity calculations.

Quote from: mental breakdown on April 28, 2008, 10:29:21 PM
@ Goat

<snip>  Trust the larger media and it will become the joke of the hour and not heard of again.  </snip>

<snip>  My gut still says whomever has a working prototype will open a flood gate of publicity every time it is announced in the local media (I don't think the small time local papers are terribly corrupt, brainwashed somewhat, but not totally corrupt).  Anyone that creates a prototype and wants to help their community could easily do one of the business opportunity like seminars that seem to get people out and motivated.  A short downloadable video on youutube or a torrent etc may go a long way if someone takes the time to video tape the entire process.  Getting the information out will not be as difficult as deflecting the naysayers with the big textbook brains that have squashed so many interesting ideas with a just a few words in the press.  </snip>

Quote from: sm0ky2 on April 30, 2008, 04:32:49 AM
...........
If you have some secret to make this wheel work, why wait until the 20th?
..........

Quote from: sm0ky2 on April 30, 2008, 05:23:41 AM
you JUST quoted a scientific explanation that shows the sattellite must maintain a forward motion of 8000m/s.
gravity does not propel the sattellite this fast,. ROCKETS DO!!!  as soon as the sattellite slows down to LESS THEN 8000 m/s it starts falling towards the earth, htat's why they have massive power sources onboard to keep boosting them forward and back on orbital path.

if the rockets DIDN'T, the sattellite would FALL. as they sometimes do.

attempting to belittle me doesnt change this. Keep researching, its good for you.

perhaps a little ballistics would be in order next. then you may come to grasp with what you are actually trying to say.

Quote from: ramset on April 30, 2008, 03:59:36 PM
Archer didn't start this thread  why not just let this evolve   don't like it change the channel   whats the hyper ventilating all about?   some imaginary reputation ? this is a public forum !! I think its great no censorship fresh ideas  take it or leave it    don't try and reverse imagine it[not engineer] then pee on it because you think you figured it out and its not what he said     so what I and others want to build it   no gun to your head  watch us make idiots of our selves    whats new  [maybe you'll have a nice laugh brother][maybe not]   Chet

Quote from: The Eskimo Quinn on April 30, 2008, 04:20:58 PM
As we get nearer the date, i will ask each of those who are contributing good and bad to email me<snip>

Quote from: The Eskimo Quinn on April 30, 2008, 04:20:58 PM
Ok to further illustrate why i need understanding not reverse engineering, 90 percent of everything you think you know you are programmed to believe, not by some evil plot, but by the pure nature of evolution, we can not all have done everything, so we take the word of the people who have, this is programming. to say man landed on the moon is programming, they may have they may not have, i was not there so i do not know this to be fact, and therein lies our greatest downfall, trying to unlearn what we have been taught using skills we have learnt from trial and some that we have simply been told, and trying to work out what is genuine fact.

<snip>

so for the guys who have put in so much work to date, you are thinking tooo electrical, go back to the magnets, pulling over great distance is not optional, magnetic fields are quite small, and where a field is huge enough to reach the bottom of an arm, you missed a basic in your theory, it would spread in all directions including the generator itself and the axel.

also where a device uses total electricity, equality of power production usually follows as you keep pointing out to each other, but any invention where one half of the power is self provided with no use of electricity there is a gain. and electromagnet pulling an object will use all the power the object can generate quite true, there can be no over unity there. but where one half of the field is not provided by the electricity then things are different, if one is a permanent magnet it requires no power for half of the effect, and all your calculations of required energy go out the door. Slow down a little you are doing great.

QuoteMove it again, stick it with the other electric motors for now, until we find out its actually telepathic energy then move it to half baked ideas. Show it or kill it. Get this thread outa here so the rest of us can get back to working on improving the basic building block that all OU will be based on.

Quote

Sitting on top of the giant Chas Campbell Wheel replica, theres a much better view from up here

Quote from: dhirschfelder on May 01, 2008, 03:23:25 PM
@ All,

Archer kindly sent a better resolution of the photo - I have uploaded to a temporary directory for the time being

http://www.nannerb.com/overunity/DSCF0768.jpg

thanks Archer

DH

Quote from: The Eskimo Quinn on May 01, 2008, 03:58:29 PM

the first person to write how and why will get the first copy of the machine when complete.

Quote from: The Eskimo Quinn on May 01, 2008, 03:58:29 PM

the first person to write how and why will get the first copy of the machine when complete.

Quote from: The Eskimo Quinn on May 01, 2008, 07:38:09 AM
tried, attached as photo as large as the sire would allow

Quote from: CLaNZeR on May 02, 2008, 01:31:48 PM
Are these simply sliding weights?

(https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.overunity.org.uk%2Fdriveh2.jpg&hash=c55afb801afaecbaf00ce3b1ae32d96a98ca1712)

Cheers

Sean.

Quote from: helmut on May 02, 2008, 02:30:05 PM
What we have learnd the last days is,that a heavy Wheel can be brought in motion
with just a fracture of the Wheel Weight.
So it might be possible,that the Stack of big Discs can be shiftet together ore streched,so they
are on the Pic with gaps between eachother.This funktion might result the overbalanced situation.

Quote from: oak on May 02, 2008, 02:57:53 PM
Sean, are you suggesting maybe the disks (weights) slide on the rod?

In any case, as you say, we need to know more how he shifts weight with low energy.

Still the wee hours of tomorrow morning in Oz . . .

Quote from: CLaNZeR on May 02, 2008, 04:14:54 PM

At 1 O'Clock displace the balance by moving the weight out and it will drop the rotor down to 6-7 O'Clock. Then at 6-7 O'Clock bring the balance back to normal and then displace the balance back at 1 O'Clock.

Quote from: SolidCore on May 02, 2008, 04:19:24 PM
I have been sitting here with the fan and weight for a few minutes and decided to give that a try previous to my 1st post.. do you mean at the point it reaches 6-7o'clock gently rotate the device so that in theory it gives it an easier ride to fly over the top?

Well I tried and it succedes going back to the start ... however it would need to be on some kind of track system so that it flys back to the beginning once the weight reaches the top... and there is probably extra momentom in my arms trying to achieve this... so it doesnt really prove anything for me... so i too think thats one possibility if im right in saying thats what you mean sean.

Has anyone suggested using WATER? as a weight... and what it could achieve in this kind of system?

Quote from: Rusty_Springs on May 02, 2008, 04:53:26 PM
Hi All
I was wondering if his changing the plan of the rotation to keep the rotor moving, for instance if you let a rotorarm with a weight on it drop from 1 and as its dropping you change the plan of your system to horizontal the rotorarm will spin around two time but if you bring it back to vertical at the right time then your wieghted rotorarm will be at 1 again ready to start the process again.
In other words going from vertical to horizontal and back againn keeps the rotation going, I maybe wrong but this is how I can see you would follow the curve.
Take Care All
Graham

Quote from: CLaNZeR on May 02, 2008, 04:57:41 PM

Quote from: Rusty_Springs on May 02, 2008, 04:53:26 PM
Hi All
I was wondering if his changing the plan of the rotation to keep the rotor moving, for instance if you let a rotorarm with a weight on it drop from 1 and as its dropping you change the plan of your system to horizontal the rotorarm will spin around two time but if you bring it back to vertical at the right time then your wieghted rotorarm will be at 1 again ready to start the process again.
In other words going from vertical to horizontal and back againn keeps the rotation going, I maybe wrong but this is how I can see you would follow the curve.
Take Care All
Graham

Hi Graham

Good thought mate, but it would take friction and energy to make these adjustments. Unless we are using gravity to create that energy?.

umm you got me thinking now

Cheers

Sean.

Quote from: CLaNZeR on May 02, 2008, 01:31:48 PM
Are these simply sliding weights?

(https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.overunity.org.uk%2Fdriveh2.jpg&hash=c55afb801afaecbaf00ce3b1ae32d96a98ca1712)

Cheers

Sean.

Quote from: oak on May 02, 2008, 05:13:34 PM
I can't imagine how this could work.  It would seem to require much more energy to change the plane of rotation of the device than to move a small weight (relative to the entire mass of the flywheel) from one location to the opposite location.

Archer did suggest, or at least strongly hint, that the weight being moved from one location to another is small compared to the overall weight of the total rotating mass.  It is the relatively large momentum of the rotating mass that supposedly allows you to do that (however it is you do it!).

Quote from: xbww on May 02, 2008, 05:22:14 PM
After following this topic and reading Archers website, I am faily confident of the following:

a. There are 3 tubes mounted to the front of the wheel, like an asterisk.
b. There are weights in the tubes that shift the weight up at the 1 or 2 position and the 6 or 7 position at the same time.
c. The machine takes electricity to run but puts out more than it uses.
d. It is very simple, nothing fancy. I would doubt any use of air pressure or anything exotic.
e. It is highly likely that it uses electromagents that are timed by a switch to pulse and shift the weight.

Does anyone know how fast the wheel would need to spin in order to generate enough electricity to power one (or maybe two) electromagnets and still have 90% extra energy? He claims the system uses 10% of the power it generates. My guess is that the weights are attached to a pole that runs thru the tube. This way, you could use one pulse of a magnet on the outer edge above the 1:00 position to pull up the weight at both the 1 and 6 positions at the same time. So, how much power does it take to pulse an electromagnet? Can anyone do the calculations and see if this is feasible?

Quote from: The Eskimo Quinn on May 02, 2008, 05:41:31 PM
but here is todays tip that you will really love, why doe the machine keeping spinning even before the weight is fired???????????????? because ther are more than 1 rod and at least tow ends are always over the balance point hence the reason for three set of power rods not 1 or 4.

whilst you are struggling with slight friction variations you forget an entire falling load is already past 12 oclcock when the next is waiting for firing, or is there even more than that?

Quote
The rear of the floor plate will be heavily weighted to counter the weight of the arms which ride over each other protruding forward, it is "NOT" a spoke wheel where arms join in the centre.

Quote
make no mistake, people are writing that i am claiminmg to be some saviour, i come to destory what is, not fucking save this pile of shit you call civilization.
this planet is fucked, i simply want a new one.

Quote from: ramset on May 02, 2008, 10:19:24 PM
ARCHER what time is it now[where you are] do you ever sleep? its 10 17pm where I am USA just curious   Chet PS i've seen you at 5am my time on this thread

Quote from: The Eskimo Quinn on May 03, 2008, 05:31:30 AM
main site updated now

Quote from: spinner on May 03, 2008, 06:18:38 AM


Mr. Quiinn, i've seen many of similar claims so far, so,,,,,,,,,,,,,

R o T  F l M a O!

Sorry!

Cheers!
Spinner

Quote from: spinner on May 03, 2008, 06:18:38 AM
Hello!

I just want to say, everithyng it was said about the Mr. Quinn and June 20th revelation is JUST A SWEET DREAM. Seeing the development so far, it will most probably not come into fruition.

Please, prove me wrong.? I would like to be wrong on that....

Just in case someone is interested, i would like to see you all look at the "Museum of unworkable devices" by Donald Simanek, and as an addition, maybe Hans-Peter Gramatke's site? It would be helpfull if FE begginners would read that first... Skeptics views (the fairest you can find).... Basic physics against perpetual motionists in the most tolerant FE fashion you can find... No kidding.?!

This way we could be spared of "false Newtonian physics", etc.

It's really annoying to listen to the accusations about how Newton was wrong all the way... Mind you, his 'laws' are still the basics descriptions of the nature of our world we're living in.

Regarding the sattelites (natural or artificial), they're there, and  they all operates mostly in the Newtonian manner... And there's a few hundreed years of development... And the alleged 'gravity wheel' has not much in common with the sattelites...

Mr. Quiinn, i've seen many of similar claims so far, so,,,,,,,,,,,,,

R o T  F l M a O!

Sorry!

Cheers!
Spinner

Quote from: helmut on May 03, 2008, 07:03:56 AM

Quote from: spinner on May 03, 2008, 06:18:38 AM


Mr. Quiinn, i've seen many of similar claims so far, so,,,,,,,,,,,,,

R o T  F l M a O!

Sorry!

Cheers!
Spinner

@Spinner
The difference between the group that you are belong to,and us  is:

We might read in a book that are not written yet.

but you have the old ones only.

helmut

Quote from: maw2432 on May 03, 2008, 01:46:30 PM
Thus if you unbalance a wheel -  only the weight that is applied to make it unbalanced would be measurable output. The analogy of the water turbine/generator at a local waterfall and getting enough torque by adding 900Kg to each side and simply using only 100Kg to get a total of one ton of torque does not compute   Bill 

Quote from: The Eskimo Quinn on May 03, 2008, 07:31:05 PM
just a quick note. we really need to stop saying laws of physics...

being pulled down at 30,000 miles an hour...

Quote from: The Eskimo Quinn on May 03, 2008, 08:42:19 PM
this is my last post until then. You don't need luck so i won't wish it.

Quote from: capthook on May 03, 2008, 07:42:34 PM

Quote from: The Eskimo Quinn on May 03, 2008, 07:31:05 PM
just a quick note. we really need to stop saying laws of physics...

being pulled down at 30,000 miles an hour...

Hi Archer:

I'm not trying to rain on your parade - and I give you massive credit for what you are attempting to do.

The 'laws' of physics have been broken in the past and will be broken in the future.  The 'law' is really just a 'best guess' as we understand the process at this time.

And as I stated: The only way acceleration is imparted is as the orbit decays.

You seem to believe that a satellite will stay in orbit forever without additional energy being provided. (ie. the rockets).  This is incorrect.  As are some of your other theories.

I won't clutter up this thread with additional points as I have said my piece.

For sure, I wish you the best of success and your work is to be applauded.

CH

Quote from: The Eskimo Quinn on May 04, 2008, 03:53:10 PM
Hi all, i did day that that would be my last post until i released the machine details, and although not built, i feel i should do this now (just in case) in any event if it is built by someone else first it does not matter, so long as it is built, this way the will be no 20th of june let down if i don't get it completed on the exact day, and if something happens to me or the sites then it is too late for the MIB, so give a about 15 mins and i will type out the instructions.

at this point though i would ask you to ignore any of the newtonians, remeber this is not theory, this already worked, and this is the machine from before not the one being built (refer to chad) so concentrate on helping each other follow the instructions, not listen to someone quoting you math. (although once you read it you will know anyway.)

a little surprise attack if you will for any authorities waiting for june :)

Quote from: The Eskimo Quinn on May 03, 2008, 07:59:23 PM
....
magnets are stored energy of the most vast power output even from a small one you fail to see they are no more than a battery that has a massive lifespan.

of course there is stored energy, it is in the permanent magnets, and no work required or energy in to produce those fields.

Quote from: NerzhDishual on May 04, 2008, 06:06:39 PM

@Yadaraf

The questions could also be:
1) How much energy does it require to build a magnet?
A Tremendous amount. OK,  but can it be accurately calculated?

According to mainstream/official Science permanent magnets can't do work.
For example:
http://www.advancedphysics.org/forum/showthread.php?t=4394  (http://www.advancedphysics.org/forum/showthread.php?t=4394) (LOL!)

So question n?2 :
Why the heck are we spending tremendous amount of NRG to build such useless bl'
gizmos?

I am always amused by this Orwellian "doublethink" which is commonly used by some
scientists and well analysed by J. Cater.

Magnets permanent magnets can't do work. Period. Move on.
Anyway, should they apparently can, they are just giving back the NRG that was used
to build them....

Best

Quote from: sm0ky2 on May 04, 2008, 07:03:48 PM
@ Archer, i know you dont like newtonian physics, but perhaps this example will change your views...

If you have a balanced wheel with a total mass of 1000Kg. its radius being 9.8 m.

Then place a weight at approx. 12:01 - this weight's mass being 1Kg.
Then it stands that the weight will fall for a distance of 9.8 meters, incuring a fall of 1 sec. adding a total of

96.04 J of energy to the wheel. - this is subsequently the energy required to move this 1kg mass back up 9.8 meters to the top of the wheel.

Now lets look at what happens to the wheel::::

when the counterweight reaches 6'oclock - this wheel is now rotating at 9.8 m/s
having a total combined mass of 1001Kg.

This gives the kenetic energy of the wheel:

500.5Kg * [(9.8m/s)^2]  = roughly 48KJ of kenetic energy.

96.04J input energy
40,068.02J output energy
any questions?

Quote from: sm0ky2 on May 04, 2008, 07:03:48 PM
If you have a balanced wheel with a total mass of 1000Kg. its radius being 9.8 m.

Then place a weight at approx. 12:01 - this weight's mass being 1Kg.
Then it stands that the weight will fall for a distance of 9.8 meters, incuring a fall of 1 sec. adding a total of

96.04 J of energy to the wheel. - this is subsequently the energy required to move this 1kg mass back up 9.8 meters to the top of the wheel.

Now lets look at what happens to the wheel::::

when the counterweight reaches 6'oclock - this wheel is now rotating at 9.8 m/s
having a total combined mass of 1001Kg.

This gives the kenetic energy of the wheel:

500.5Kg * [(9.8m/s)^2]  = roughly 48KJ of kenetic energy.

96.04J input energy
40,068.02J output energy
any questions?

Quote from: ramset on May 04, 2008, 08:58:15 PM
Helmut  sounds very good LOTS of power   MY head is spinning can't sit still    Grandma's not going to freeze this winter elec heat      Chet

Quote from: sm0ky2 on May 04, 2008, 08:08:25 PM
for instance, if you were to take a wheel, and mount a radial-plate on its outer edge, with a weight on it.
and the proportion of this weight were very small compared to the total mass of the wheel.
[but large enough to move the wheel freely]
and arranged  such that the plate when it reaches 6-o'clock were to strike a rod- that activates a Dynamo

a small fraction of the energy produced by this Dynamo, could then fire a solenoid or electromagnet to lift the weight back to the top.

leaving an enormous ammount of excess energy
i think this is what archer is trying to show us.

Quote from: sm0ky2 on May 04, 2008, 10:04:51 PM
@ Zero,

i was using 9.8m as my Diameter.

the radius thus would have been 4.9,  in either case, the imbalance of the vertically mounted wheel, does not have the same inertial resistance as a flat wheel, with a weighted string tied to a pulley. One set-up utilizes leverage,  whereas the other utilizes only gravitational force.

you can actually see this exact set-up in a few pendulum-impact-hammers, that use a massive fly-wheel for momentum gain.

Quote from: Abrillo on May 04, 2008, 10:51:11 PM
In this configuration, the pulse electromagnet repels the disk magnets, and only has to move the weight halfway up the tube to create an imbalance.

Quote from: zerotensor on May 04, 2008, 10:53:28 PM

The "inertial resistance" of a balanced wheel is constant regardless of its orientation in a uniform gravitational field.  There will be gyroscopic precession if the wheel is not rigidly mounted, and there will be additional stress on the bearings, but in our case we assume perfect bearings and a rigid mount.

There is just as much mass "falling" on one side of the wheel as is being "lifted" on the other.  Net sum gain = null.

Quote from: Feynman on April 22, 2008, 05:31:45 PM
Watch him get murdered on June 19th.

Quote from: sm0ky2 on May 05, 2008, 12:14:49 AM
...
These are two entirely different scenerios.  a kid trying to lift a car with a pulley,
vs.a kid sitting on the end of a long teeter-totter lifting the car with ease.
...

Quote from: sm0ky2 on May 05, 2008, 12:14:49 AM
Example::  support a bicycle on its side, and wrap the weighted string  around the axle. and let it spin the wheel
now turn the bicycle upright and attach the weight to the top of the wheel and let it go.

Quote from: zerotensor on May 05, 2008, 03:08:20 AM

Quote from: sm0ky2 on May 05, 2008, 12:14:49 AM
Example::  support a bicycle on its side, and wrap the weighted string  around the axle. and let it spin the wheel
now turn the bicycle upright and attach the weight to the top of the wheel and let it go.

"wrap the string and let it spin the wheel":  The string plays out, but the wheel keeps turning.  The weight is lifted back to its starting position, and the wheel stops.  The weight once again begins to rotate the wheel (this time in the opposite direction), and the cycle continues.  In the absence of friction it will oscillate like this perpetually.

"attach the weight to the top (12:01) of the wheel and let it go":  The wheel gains speed until the mass is at the bottom, then it slows as the weight is carried back up to the top (11:59), where the wheel stops.  The mass now causes the wheel to rotate in the opposite direction, and the cycle continues.

Same overall behavior.

Quote from: JohnGalt_USA on May 05, 2008, 02:08:46 AM

Quote from: Feynman on April 22, 2008, 05:31:45 PM
Watch him get murdered on June 19th.

He seems like the crazy type that would commit suicide on June 19th just to spite us all.

Quote from: badassdjbynight on May 05, 2008, 03:17:14 AM
I fear no one will be helping me with this problem (see picture) any time soon.
...

Quote from: badassdjbynight on May 05, 2008, 03:28:36 AM
...
Unfortunately we live in a world full of friction and decay.  True story: today I saw my grandmother's hands and they looked old and frail, the skin was thin and wrinkled.  Then I looked at my 2 yr olds hands which are young and pink and healthy.  I thought, why can't the aging process just take longer?   But even longer would be too fast.  The problem is that we live in a world that is dying and decaying.  No one and no thing lives forever.  A good pendulum with a heavy weight will go for a very long time, but as soon as you try to harness that energy you introduce friction which will slow it in opposite proportion to the amount of energy you are harnessing.

Quote from: The Eskimo Quinn on May 05, 2008, 03:53:26 AM
very dissapointed :( straight back to the same old rubbish, way too many people on this thread trying to disprove theories. so i will do this in crayon for the new folk, and those who have not lsitened to a word. this is the blonde house wife version.
...

Quote from: The Eskimo Quinn on May 05, 2008, 03:53:26 AM
show me a ring magnet due on a pole with 5 times the weight of one sitting on the top and still not working.

Quote from: The Eskimo Quinn on May 05, 2008, 03:53:26 AM
there is no creation of energy, simply manipulation of stored energy and gravity, if you are looking for your losses on rise, don't bother, the machine does not even need general momentum from the fall with double the losses as soon as it hit 7.

so you can take your equations and double your calculated losses and i still win.

very unimpressed.

Quote from: ramset on May 05, 2008, 05:38:41 PM
SO i  guess this is more like a sporting event for some    a bunch of paper tigers     how about a contribution  an idea along the lines of what Archer's device is  like  @Bourne  @ Abrillo  @ Helmut  maybe Caphook etc etc   trying to get there minds around it with out stupid non productive babble  Be part of the solution not the problem    Chet

Quote from: ramset on May 05, 2008, 04:12:12 PM
B ASS sorry I have lost confidence in modern math as it applies to my check book    calculations have there place but seem to have an agenda   sometimes      how come the 1937 dodge [ 4 door tank]got 22-25 mpg in popular mechanics add 71 FREEKING YEARS AGO  your math /ideas keep um      unless you have a contribution keep your mental farts to your self    this man does not need your[sideways] help  he knows how to do this and is teaching  not learning  [as far as this rendition]  I need his help !!!!    Chet   PS and I like to play with toys

Quote from: b0rg13 on May 05, 2008, 10:05:22 PM
@Chad, nice pic Chad, pics work better for me than endless explanations.

@all...soooooo the mags at 1 pull right ?.....and the ELECTO mag pushes at 7.......keeping the weight on the right side so the wheel wants to turn Clock Wise,........im wondering if there needs to be an electromag to push at 7, OR, can we simply use strong neo mags to do the pushing ?..what do ya think folks?.

Quote from: zerotensor on May 05, 2008, 02:10:30 AM

Quote from: sm0ky2 on May 05, 2008, 12:14:49 AM
...
These are two entirely different scenerios.  a kid trying to lift a car with a pulley,
vs.a kid sitting on the end of a long teeter-totter lifting the car with ease.
...

ahem...

If your kid gets a LONG (and rigid) teeter-totter, then my kid gets a block and tackle. <edit: and lead boots>

The lever only allows one to trade force for distance, same with the pulley.  The amount of work is the same regardless.  The "effort" is reduced, but the work (energy) stays the same, with or without the help of these simple machines.

Quote from: NerzhDishual on May 06, 2008, 05:46:48 AM
About the European wheel (The Aldo Costa's wheel), please consult:

Quote from: Rusty_Springs on May 06, 2008, 02:54:33 AM
Hi All
Lets stop a myth right now and thats the attraction and repultion of one magnet is different, heres a experiment that will show you that there the same, I made a video if anyone doesn't want to do it there selves anyway here goes first: draw a line on a piece of paper, place a magnet on the line with ever the north or south pole facing you now get another magnet the same shape and strength on the first and slowly move that magnet towards the on you have on the line so they attract to each other at the place they attract put another line, this tells you where the two magnets start attracting to each other, now place your first magnet back on the line and get your other magnet turn it around so it will repel the first magnet and start moving it towards it slowly.
If you move it straight towards the first magnet it should repel it at the line you made for the start of the attraction, keep doing it changing from attract to repel you will find hardly any difference if any between the two starting point, if you see a difference it will be the repel pushing before the line the reason you get this is because you have your magnets comming together  from the side and not straight on, for some strange reason the repel is stronger if you come from the side of two magnets and not straight on if you try the same position with attracting magnet it will do two things first it does something I called in other groups the corner effect where it repels the two attracting magnet when it hits the corner of the flux, once past that corner effect it will not attract until the attracting line.
Do the experiment as much as you like you will never see it attract in before it repels away, like I said straight on and everytime the attract and repel will happen at the same place.
Take Care All
Graham

Quote from: The Eskimo Quinn on May 04, 2008, 04:41:44 PM
.................................
Firstly you would do well to examine and understand the large European wheel that uses the springs in the bottles to shift the weights, the error was simple, not enough weight being shifted pro rate to the wheel size and too much friction for the amount of weight being shifted. (I could probably work if modified.)
.......................................................;
Archer Quinn

Quote from: Chad on May 04, 2008, 05:06:43 PM
has anybody got a link or picture of this european wheel?.
............................................

Quote from: neptune on May 06, 2008, 03:56:51 PM
assuming that this design works in its original form, there is an obvious simple modification, that will easily improve its efficiency. Generators have losses, and so do electromagnets. Imagine that each cylindrical weight has a pin, sticking out at right angles to its longitudinal axis at its mid point.. This pin protrudes through a slot in the tube  and is parallel to the axle. At the 7 0clock point, this pin engages a stationary cam to move the weighted rod assembly. This eliminates the need for the Emag and its power source. The pin has a roller bearing on it to reduce friction. Actually 3 cams would be needed due to the different paths followed by the 3 tubes, The principle remains the same. Somebody prove me wrong...

Quote
For Newtonians say the increased weight on the centre axel (and these scales also have no bearings) would prevent small weights from making the left side go down due to fiction, as the load increases so does the increase weight to break balance to one side.

HUH????

Quote from: xbww on May 06, 2008, 04:42:38 PM
@am1ll3r

I agree with your animation except the magnets at the top and bottom are on an arc that follows the path of the outer edge of the circle.

Quote from: Rusty_Springs on May 06, 2008, 04:28:29 PM
Hi Craigy
I don't know where there comming from Craigy attracting magnets get stronger the closer they come to each other but the same it said for repelling magnet they also get stronger the closer they come to each other but what they say don't matter much when a simple experiment shows you the truth, in my way of thinking if attraction was stronger wouldn't it start attracting in before repeling can repel, wouldn't there be a difference in the distance marks of the two options but theres not do the experiment and show me where I'm wrong.
I think these are the same types of people that say you can't biuld a magnetic gate yet I have made 2 or say magnets don't do work yet I have moves a toy car over a distance just using permanent magnets.
I beleave what I see before I beleave what someone writes or says.
Take Care Craigy
Graham

Quote from: am1ll3r on May 06, 2008, 04:11:20 PM
Hello All,

Here is a quick animation (a crappy one but one none the less) of what I think is going on. I have included only one tube, rod, & magnet for ease of a quick animation. The bottom magnet is the electro magnet. Its like a hamster running in one of those round hamster cages. The main wheel being the cage and the rods, tubes and magnets the hamster running up the one side spinning the wheel. :D
... I think I'll make a better animation if time permits.

Quote from: am1ll3r on May 06, 2008, 04:11:20 PM
Hello All,

Here is a quick animation (a crappy one but one none the less) of what I think is going on. I have included only one tube, rod, & magnet for ease of a quick animation. The bottom magnet is the electro magnet. Its like a hamster running in one of those round hamster cages. The main wheel being the cage and the rods, tubes and magnets the hamster running up the one side spinning the wheel. :D
... I think I'll make a better animation if time permits.

Quote from: The Eskimo Quinn on May 07, 2008, 03:20:36 PM
oh that sucks i got up at 3am and posted here and it must not have worked.

Quote from: AB Hammer on May 07, 2008, 06:41:07 PM

I have solved the problem, and I will not argue how here. You will have to wait until it is properly protected. It is also a waste of time without being able to show it, for it would be premature for safety sakes. I also can't say that the man from Australia has or has not done, for I don't use magnets or motors in mine. So I will just wait and see.

Quote from: AB Hammer on May 07, 2008, 10:40:34 PM
@Sprocket

It takes time to cover all aspects of patent work. A mistake can be costly.

Quote from: sigmaX on May 07, 2008, 09:52:32 PM
....It still stands that the text Mr. Quinn wrote, and I quoted about four posts earlier, is a very obvious fallacy, and as such places Mr Quinn in rather poorly grounds as far as seriousness go... I wonder, WHY did he, anyway, wrote such an obviously flawed story,

Regards,

sigmaX

Quote from: AB Hammer on May 07, 2008, 06:41:07 PM
I have solved the problem, and I will not argue how here. You will have to wait until it is properly protected. It is also a waste of time without being able to show it, for it would be premature for safety sakes. I also can't say that the man from Australia has or has not done, for I don't use magnets or motors in mine. So I will just wait and see.

Quote from:  Archer Quinni must bring several point to your attention, there is no donate button, there is no payments or cost of any kind, and this is the second machine, the first built 2 years ago, and was destroyed after contemplation that without oil millions will die in arab countires with no income or work, simply because those with the money would keep what they had knowing there was no more to come. Then after seeing the pictures of Dubai, i saw that this was a result of trillions of oil money being spent on a city whilst the country and surrounding nations remained poor. Hence i decided to rebuild the machine.

Quote from: sigmaX on May 07, 2008, 05:20:50 PM
if you place an arm with 900kg at each side, place each side one at 1 ocloclock, the other at 7 oclock, then the guy that adds the 100 kg extra steps in the 1 oclock arm ..... NOTHING HAPPENS!!!   the torque needed is 1 ton. If the arm had only one side, with 900kg already in it, placed at 1 oclock, then YES, it would go down, and stop about 7 oclock... but THIS WONT HAPPEN if there is another side of such arm with also 900 kg doing the opposite work: the 900kg cancels themselves, and the real torke is just 100kg.

Did I get everything wrong ?

Quote from: Thaelin on May 08, 2008, 02:01:43 AM
Mr. Galt:
   Have you by any chance done any of the afore mentioned small experiments to see what would happen? Really you should before you stick the knife in and turn it.

Quote from: rlortie on May 07, 2008, 11:44:39 PM
Alan,

I hope you realize what you are letting yourself in for here.

As for this Archer-Quinn or what ever, IMO you are wasting your time. The design is not new by any means and is simply another example of trading hight for width. With the electro magnets (solenoids)  its more of a motor that will use more power than it can produce connected to a generator.  If the permanent magnets are strong enough to move the lever upward then why should they let go of it?     

Rlortie

Quote from: The Eskimo Quinn on May 07, 2008, 03:56:08 PM
@moganster

as to centrifuge, boy that is very poor science, get a string and tie a weight to the end and swing it around, does someone have a weight not making a circle??????????????? wow that would be better science than this machine, centrifugal force is equal at all points so it is equally pulling toward the other side of the rod.

as to the other point a series of bar magnets in an arch would suffice even if the following wer not true, an arch magnet does hae a slight compression of fields due to the arch, but it is more common in small motor magnets(no doubt where you saw this) but a wide curve has almost none, in any event the argument is silly, if you start to get early drop off then move the arc around to maintain the perfect drop point.

Quote from: sigmaX on May 08, 2008, 02:04:10 PM
.....Anyone can comment on this ? is this archer's concept ?

Quote from: maw2432 on May 08, 2008, 05:00:44 PM
OK  3 seperate electro-magnets ... at 7 O'clock to about 9 O'clock

One for each weighted rod.  This is logical because as one rod is pushed by the electro-magnetic .. you would not want the next one to be pushed the wrong way too soon.

I wonder how they are triggered... timing wise.

Did I miss this in one of the posts?

Bill

Quote from: oak on May 08, 2008, 05:50:38 PM
@maw2432:

On Archer's "build" page, in the entry of "7pm 5/05/08 oz time," he said:

"you can use a mica switch for the arms as they are over the base magnet to pulse the electromagnetic or a light beam sensor like a shop door entry. The light beam would only suit a larger wheel. And the power is only used during that pulse. I use the arc system so you don?t need exact positioning over the end of the arm, you need stops at the end of the arm for the rods that are not obtrusive as the arms must almost graze the arcs."

-------------------------------------------

So, the movement of a tube end from 7 o'clock to 9 o'clock can itself be used as a mechanism to switch on the electromagnet for the period while the tube is moving from 7 to 9.

But you could also use another location for the switch.  As the tube we want to "zap" is moving from 7 to 9, another tube's end will be moving from 3 to 5 (and another will be moving from 5 to 7).  You could use one of those tube ends (at those locations) to place a switch of some kind to trigger the electromagnet for the tube moving from 7 to 9.

@ rlortie:  Thanks for the comment.  I'm sure some of us will accept your recommendation concerning "the best way to get educated."

Quote from: The Eskimo Quinn on May 08, 2008, 05:41:01 AM
ok had enough of this shit, 9pm Australian eastern standard time on the website i will bury every Newtonian for ever and for all time, it will be uncontested. I told you six ways from Sunday, six machine that all do the same thing in different ways.

Quote from: Rolo on May 08, 2008, 09:33:54 PM
Can someone explain to me how gravity works?  I understand the observable principals and the measurable mathematics, but I don't seem to be able to find a scientific description of the nuts and bolts of it.
This still fits the science credo of "propose a theory, perform a test, observe the results" and as such gravity is proven.
But how does it work?  And why?

Quote from How Stuff Works "The question of why atoms attract one another is still not understood. The goal is to combine gravity, electromagnetism and strong and weak nuclear forces into a single unified theory. (Check out this page on quantum gravity string theory.)"


Paraphrase from Scott Adams: "Every previous generation throughout history though that they were the ones who answered all the unknown questions, but they didn't.  What are the odds that this generation is the one that answers all the unknowns?"

Quote from: zerotensor on May 09, 2008, 12:48:28 AM
The phenomenon we call "gravity" is the result of the curvature of spacetime.  Matter and energy curve spacetime. 

Quote from: Rolo on May 09, 2008, 01:13:38 AM

Quote from: zerotensor on May 09, 2008, 12:48:28 AM
The phenomenon we call "gravity" is the result of the curvature of spacetime.  Matter and energy curve spacetime. 

Thanks, that really clears it up.
So next question, what is spacetime and how is it curved by matter and energy?

Everything you just explained to me like I was a physics major sounds like a lot of theory and not much application.

My point again is that we have created an elaborate structure to explain the way we perceive the universe without any actual understanding of it.  This is how science works, theorise, test, observe.  One day someone will propose an alternate theory based on further understandings and observations and this will become the next explanation and so on until the Grand Unified Theory of Everything occurs so somebody.

It seems to me that gravity is one of the most basic and fundamental phenomena?s we know of and yet, while we understand its observable qualities we are still only theorising why or how it works.

Until we have this basic understanding, I believe there is far more for us to yet know than is already known about the universe.
Unless you can fill me in over a few paragraphs.

Quote from: Rolo on May 09, 2008, 01:13:38 AM

Quote from: zerotensor on May 09, 2008, 12:48:28 AM
The phenomenon we call "gravity" is the result of the curvature of spacetime.  Matter and energy curve spacetime. 

Thanks, that really clears it up.
So next question, what is spacetime and how is it curved by matter and energy?

Everything you just explained to me like I was a physics major sounds like a lot of theory and not much application.

My point again is that we have created an elaborate structure to explain the way we perceive the universe without any actual understanding of it.  This is how science works, theorise, test, observe.  One day someone will propose an alternate theory based on further understandings and observations and this will become the next explanation and so on until the Grand Unified Theory of Everything occurs so somebody.

It seems to me that gravity is one of the most basic and fundamental phenomena?s we know of and yet, while we understand its observable qualities we are still only theorising why or how it works.

Until we have this basic understanding, I believe there is far more for us to yet know than is already known about the universe.
Unless you can fill me in over a few paragraphs.

Quote from: libra_spirit on May 09, 2008, 08:25:48 AM
Intresting thing about gravity is that all objects fall at about the same velocity of acceleration, 32 feet per second squared.
Since the wheel is balanced does it matter how much weight you add to one side? Because inertial momentum and gravity are suposedly the same force functionally, will the balanced weight oppose the resulting pull of gravity by a squared function also? If true this means that altering the offset weight ratio will effect the acceleration of the fall, and we no longer are observing gravity, but a combination of inertial momentum opposing gravity. What is the best ratio?

Rod offset weight must exceed 1/32 of the wheels weight for a squared gain in acceleration of the wheel. This is because 1 squared is 1 and will offer only a linear gain.

Some rough and quick Calculations:

Set up a balance beam.
16 pound weights on both ends of a balance beam falls 1 foot to reach a 45 degree position where one side hits the floor.
Add 1 pound weight to one side, this side accelerates at 1 foot per second squared straight down, the other side accelerates upwards at 1 foot per second squared [best case]? This is because the 1 pound weight is about 1/32 of the total weight of the balanced inertial mass it is working against [best guess].

[So gravity is balanced for 16 pounds on each side, leaving 1 pound of acceleration down at 32 feet / sec ^2 and 32 pounds of resistance from inertial momentum. 1 pound moving it into motion now at 1 foot per second squared acceleration. The balance accelerates at ~1 foot per second for 1 foot and hits the floor traveling 1 foot per second. Inertial momentum is about 33 foot pounds per second? If true I will not be placing my finger under this. This assumes the balance is firmly attached to the weights on both ends and the upward moving wieght pushes the downwards moving weight also as it stops.

We now double the length of the balance beam and see that the force is squared because the motion is an acceleration with twice the drop distance, [2 times the acceleration distance]. However 1 foot per second squared is still 1, so we see there is a minimum weight ratio for gains here! The counter weights off set balance, must be heavier then 1/32 of the wheels balanced weight, to create acceleration of a squaring increase above 1 where only a linear gain is present. In the above example the impact should be doubled for a doubling length of the fall, but if we use a 2 pound weight then we get 4 times the impact or about 2 feet per second squared. However we still only have the same resistance from inertial momentum to overcome = the balanced weight so the wheel acelerates faster.

With a 2 pound weight dropping 2 feet we now get a velocity of 4 feet per second hitting the floor with inertial momentum of 132 pounds of force. This is a ratio of 1/16 on offset weight to balanced weight giving a 4X gain of force in 2 feet of motion.

Quotehere is a tip, a water turbine/generator at a local waterfall can generate vast amount of power when tons of water pour over the blades, yes???

the generator is so large (10 ton turbine )that to turn it must have one ton torque to turn it, but there is a drought, the local council puts in steps and a lift connected to the turbine , ten locals at 100 kgs each walk up the steps and step on the lift, the one tone weight of the locals turns the turbine until they reach the bottom of the steps again.

the local council guy sees this working and says hey instead of all the guys walking up the stairs, lets put 900 kg on the lift and one guy can walk up the stairs, they do this and it works once, as the 900 kgs, is now stuck at the bottom, so the local council puts in an arm on the side of the turbine with 900 kgs on one end and 900kgs on the other end, they position the arms at 1oclock and 7 oclock, there are 2 landings also at this point, a man steps on the end of the arm at 10 oclock and it turns round to 7oclock where he steps off and the next guy steps on the other end at one oclock and the wheel turns for as long as this happens. there is no physics in the world that can dispute this, nor any common sense. what science fails to realize is that i am turning a 10 ton turbine with one man weighing only 100 kgs. science always thought of Newton and the equation of pounds falling x gravity etc, and never did any equations exist for environment already existing. need to try this at home?

Quote from: Sprocket on May 09, 2008, 11:24:54 AM
@Libra_Spirit:  Hi.  You seem to have a good understanding of the physics involved here.  Question:  the below quoted paragraph is from Archer site (or was, it's gone now...), which I thought was an honest mistake, but he insisted this is how 'real' physics works - just wondering what your take is on this...

Quotehere is a tip, a water turbine/generator at a local waterfall can generate vast amount of power when tons of water pour over the blades, yes???

the generator is so large (10 ton turbine )that to turn it must have one ton torque to turn it, but there is a drought, the local council puts in steps and a lift connected to the turbine , ten locals at 100 kgs each walk up the steps and step on the lift, the one tone weight of the locals turns the turbine until they reach the bottom of the steps again.

the local council guy sees this working and says hey instead of all the guys walking up the stairs, lets put 900 kg on the lift and one guy can walk up the stairs, they do this and it works once, as the 900 kgs, is now stuck at the bottom, so the local council puts in an arm on the side of the turbine with 900 kgs on one end and 900kgs on the other end, they position the arms at 1oclock and 7 oclock, there are 2 landings also at this point, a man steps on the end of the arm at 10 oclock and it turns round to 7oclock where he steps off and the next guy steps on the other end at one oclock and the wheel turns for as long as this happens. there is no physics in the world that can dispute this, nor any common sense. what science fails to realize is that i am turning a 10 ton turbine with one man weighing only 100 kgs. science always thought of Newton and the equation of pounds falling x gravity etc, and never did any equations exist for environment already existing. need to try this at home?

Quote from: ramset on May 09, 2008, 10:07:22 AM
WELL IT SEEMS A LOT OF FELLOWS HERE GOT JUST WHAT THEY WANTED THANKS  i guess you can all go look for another house to haunt  maybe pull legs off spyders or something    swell bunch    couldn't just let those that are building alone  and watch  NO A FREEKING PISSING CONTEST    NICE WELL I GUESS YOUR THE WINNERS NOW !!!! [feel like winners ?  look like LOOSERS to me]  I get away on a job a couple days and come back to this PUKE   you SUCK period     Chet

Quote from: ramset on May 09, 2008, 10:58:15 AM
SIG  another big winna  step up and take your prize    you saved us      thank you    the world thanks you    so how far was your finale piss       real good I hope   well whatever .  so whats a good pisser like you do now ? seems like your still hanging around //shouldn't you be off training with your buddies ?   Chet

Quote from: ramset on May 09, 2008, 01:14:47 PM
ZERO well now i feel better    hopefully you also     nice to know you put me in with  good company thanx    Chet

Quote from: Morgenster on May 09, 2008, 11:55:54 AM

Quote from: Sprocket on May 09, 2008, 11:24:54 AM
@Libra_Spirit:  Hi.  You seem to have a good understanding of the physics involved here.  Question:  the below quoted paragraph is from Archer site (or was, it's gone now...), which I thought was an honest mistake, but he insisted this is how 'real' physics works - just wondering what your take is on this...

Quotehere is a tip, a water turbine/generator at a local waterfall can generate vast amount of power when tons of water pour over the blades, yes???

the generator is so large (10 ton turbine )that to turn it must have one ton torque to turn it, but there is a drought, the local council puts in steps and a lift connected to the turbine , ten locals at 100 kgs each walk up the steps and step on the lift, the one tone weight of the locals turns the turbine until they reach the bottom of the steps again.

the local council guy sees this working and says hey instead of all the guys walking up the stairs, lets put 900 kg on the lift and one guy can walk up the stairs, they do this and it works once, as the 900 kgs, is now stuck at the bottom, so the local council puts in an arm on the side of the turbine with 900 kgs on one end and 900kgs on the other end, they position the arms at 1oclock and 7 oclock, there are 2 landings also at this point, a man steps on the end of the arm at 10 oclock and it turns round to 7oclock where he steps off and the next guy steps on the other end at one oclock and the wheel turns for as long as this happens. there is no physics in the world that can dispute this, nor any common sense. what science fails to realize is that i am turning a 10 ton turbine with one man weighing only 100 kgs. science always thought of Newton and the equation of pounds falling x gravity etc, and never did any equations exist for environment already existing. need to try this at home?

To me it seems like a seriously flawed argument: the arm-lift thingy with 900kgs on each side would still require 10 men to move the generator.
I think he is mistakenly thinking that the momentum of the system will aid in adding force but when you apply one 100kg man you apply 100kgs of force, no more no less.
If this kind of reasoning is what makes him think his machine can work I'm betting that come june 20th his website won't be updated with a working model.
The ideas behind the machine itself are interesting but when I sincerely asked him how he decides on what weights for the arms and what strengths of magnets to use for any given configuration he throws a hissy fit and goes off to insult everyone (not that he doesn't do enough of that on his website).
So not only does he talk nonsense at least half the time, when asked for information that could aid replication he just simply throws up this spew of insults mixed with nonsense.
Red flags to me.

@ ramset: like stated above, all I wanted was decent information to aid replication and the guy just spews nonsense. Who the F are you to go out and criticize me for that. If someone here is giving potential replicators a hard time it's the Quinn himself.

Quote from: MrGrynch on May 09, 2008, 08:50:07 AM
If you would like a different (in my opinion, more plausible) explanation, please see my theory paper:
http://www.wbabin.net/physics/roscoe.pdf
Also an experiment concept to prove or disprove the hypothesis, which will also prove or disprove a key feature of general relativity.
http://www.wbabin.net/physics/roscoe2.pdf
Cheers,
-Dave

Quote from: zerotensor on May 09, 2008, 01:02:07 PM

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

*whooosh*

Quote from: chrisC on May 09, 2008, 02:19:35 PM

Quote from: zerotensor on May 09, 2008, 01:02:07 PM

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

Quote
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.

Quote from: zerotensor on May 09, 2008, 02:17:32 PM

Quote from: MrGrynch on May 09, 2008, 08:50:07 AM
If you would like a different (in my opinion, more plausible) explanation, please see my theory paper:
http://www.wbabin.net/physics/roscoe.pdf
Also an experiment concept to prove or disprove the hypothesis, which will also prove or disprove a key feature of general relativity.
http://www.wbabin.net/physics/roscoe2.pdf
Cheers,
-Dave

Hi Dave.  That is an interesting theory.

A couple of notes:
I'd like to point out that you used the word "principal" in your paper, where you clearly meant "principle".  Of course, this is just minor housekeeping, but I thought it best to alert you anyway.

On the experimental setup, using an air-track or maglev  will introduce all kinds of noise.  I would suggest a Cavendish-style torsion balance instead.  The force could be applied as a small torque on the wire.  You can measure the ocillation of the torsional pendulum (say by bouncing a laser off a mirror attached to the wire), and from this derive the magnitude of the gravitational force.

Quote from: ramset on May 09, 2008, 03:14:18 PM
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

Quote from: sigmaX on May 09, 2008, 05:49:51 PM
Hey !

There is NO WAY a turbine / wheel that needs 1ton torque, can be moved by the way archer proposed. It is like saying that there are trees and dogs in the moon: Total nonsense! I cannot believe that actually there is people that KEEP encouraging Archer?s line of tought using the wheel fallacy (I was the one that originally stated it in here as a complete ridiculous idea).

Also: If one arm is at 1 oclock and the other is at 7 oclock, and in both sides you got 900kg (or 900 TONS), THEY WILL NOT BALANCE OUT AND END BOTH IN AN HORIZONTAL PLANE (like say 3 and 9 oclock) because the actual torque forces is 0 .... and you need 1 ton (IN ONE DIRECTION).

Again, I cannot believe that there is people that actually uses a computer and logs into Internet, and in here, that cannot visualize THIS !!!!

Quote from: kude on May 09, 2008, 05:19:30 PM
@exx

I would love to see a model show Quinn's idea. Without getting into the moving rods thing, it would be revealing to see what the slightest repulsion from 7 am to 1 pm does. I guess you want to cause the slightest deflection to the orbit of the magnet on the end of your straw or stick to cause the slighest imbalance and let gravity do its thing on the other side. Maybe bismuth would work well enough to cause the deflection. Too much repulsion and I fear it would stall. I guess you could use a stop watch to see if the spin time increases. Its a starting point.

Quote from: exxcomm0n on May 10, 2008, 01:02:23 AM
I plan to take it in steps with a time deadline for each. With the amount of info we have we should be able to replicate this in short order. ;)

1.) Make the wheel spin continuously using the proposed magnetic movement.
2.) Minimize the amount of power necessary to keep the wheel moving respectably.
3. ) Attach a load (preferably  the electromag draw +) to the wheel.
4.) Try to make the wheel  support the energy draw of the electromags BY producing movement under load.

Quote from: ramset on May 09, 2008, 04:36:28 PM
@Helmut any news? Chet

Quote from: sigmaX on May 10, 2008, 12:51:39 PM

SO here we have another flawed real life example reasoning from quinn: (...)

QuoteOk so we know how stupid Newtonians and scientists are you should print this out and ask anyone who thinks they are smart the following questions, and I will tell you what they will say (no fun unless they look stupid, only fitting after the names I have been called)

Quote
If a see saw, or fulcrum (that?s a fancy name for a see saw) has 1 kilo on one end and one kilo on the other end it will balance true or false?? They will answer true

Quote
If  the see saw is above the ground like a wheel axel, will this change?? The answer the will give is no,

Quote
If I take the one kilo from the left side of the see saw or fulcrum, will the left side with the I kilo still stay there? Their answer will be no

Quote
If the see saw weighs two ton, and we do the same thing, will the same thing happen? The answer will be yes. Now here is where they insist on protecting their god Newton, they forgot to look at any other physics from that point on and quote his words chapter and verse.

Quote
So this is their favourite question as it for them dismisses perpetual motion from gravity. Ok now if I put the one kilo on right side the two ton see saw (this means each side of the se saw equally weighs 1 ton), what is the weight falling?? Their answer will be 1 kilo.

Quote
And do you know what??? They would be wrong, because even a 10 year old knows math, it would be 1 ton and 1 kilo, you see what a Newtonian is trying to say is the pressure of the weight is 1 kilo falling and they would be right, but the 1 ton also fall doesn?t it??

Quote
Ok let us make it more simple for them, we will put a 1 ton weight on each side as well and the put the 1 kilo on the right side, the Newtonian will say it is still one kilo falling. Gee they must be invisible weights those one ton blocks, because I could swear if you keep your eyes on it you head will follow it down, hang on, its up there and then it is down there??? Are you confused, so why do they say that??

Quote
The answer is that they have spoken in Newtonian math for so long, they have left the real world and real thinking, of course the ton falls, it does not magically float whilst just the 1 kilo falls.

Quote
They will start screaming about now that that is not what they meant, and of course the ton physically moves but the weight transfer effect does not take place as you may think, in other words a set of scales under the see saw would read one kilo.

Quote
Ask them if that is correct, they will say yes that is correct,(how are we doing???)

Quote
What they are trying to ptove is that if a weight falling on one side is equal to a weight on the other there is no gain other than an added weight.

Quote
The problem is they have been shouting and screaming the quirky bit of information for so long like it was only known by the minds of giants, that our giants forgot that there was actually a real ton weight on that fulcrum.

Quote from: libra_spirit on May 11, 2008, 01:02:07 AM

Sattelites:

The question is raised whether sattelites need engines to remain in orbit...

...consider the next larger fractal, the moon, the sun, the planets, where are the engines?

Atoms also show us there is some kind of renewable flow possible to do this on a far smaller scale.