Roll on the 20th June

[ramset]

Clanzner I think its called Delran  very slippery  VERY tuff   anyway just a suggestion thin  disks [if you have the room] from the bottom up    or just a delran cap at the top to keep/ help the blades not to flex up during the push   Chet PS I will check on the product name

[CLaNZeR]

If it is true that 80 bucks go for each kg of machined aluminium, and he already used 13kgs, this is a very sad situation. Quinn, you shall stop, try to explain everything as clear as possible, and read / digest / discuss the arguments like the ones Glassglue and others had been writing down since the beginning.

You do whatever you like with your money, but maybe it is intelligent to USE a bit of devil?s advocate discussion, just to check your ideas againt it.

Sigmax this reply is not aimed at you personally, just you were the last person to post and I hit reply hehe

Must admit I cannot see the point of discussing Archers unique ideas, using the base line of Physics that are programmed into everyone, because if Archers design works then it blows some of the stuff that we have all been taught over the years out of the water.
I think the time to talk about that kind of stuff and get into debates is when it is seen that Archers design works as he claims.
Till then I see no point and I think we should all enjoy the ride and examine why it would work by thinking out the box.

Difference with Archer compared to hundreds of other people making the claims on these and other forums is that he is not just CLAIMING and then going for a patent and with holding it from the world, he is prepared to back his ideas by making a working unit and also giving his ideas out there for free rather than making a claim and running away.

I know Archer has an approach that shocks some people, but then maybe he has the right too? only time will tell.
I have seen other people that claim the same as Archer does and get idiolised because they only pop up every few months to feed a tit bit of information to the audience they have created.
Archer has not done that and has been here everyday since his claim went public to defend his views/opinions. Show me someone else that has done that?

Do not judge the man for his attitude because that is the way he expresses himself, the same as others express there ideas that are based on a different way of thinking.

Also I wish people on this thread would realise that life is a game show and they should enjoy stuff like this that swerves around natures ways. The Goverment and society of this world play all of us and we get sucked into it , Lock Stock etc etc. Oneday something will arise to show this and alot of people on these forums, inlcuding Archer just may be one of those people.
So pull up a chair, ignore main stream science and enjoy the ride. If it does not give you the thrill you expected, then wait for the next RollerCoaster to come along!

But do not get bitter while waiting for that next ride, no point and too much effort and hurt gets created.

Cheers

Sean.

[CLaNZeR]

what you may need to look at as you move forward is what is called a cushion, used with pnuematic cyliners,
peter

Hi Peter

Thanks for the link, just the kind of thing I was thinking of.

Cheers

Sean.

[legendre]

Now a few words about flywheels and torque.

First and foremost, it must be understood that the mass (or correctly, MoI) of the wheel has absolutely no bearing on how much net power (rate at which work is performed) the machine can produce. But, as MoI increases, so does the 'flywheel effect' - which allows the machine to better cope with changing loads without losing significant angular velocity (rotational speed). A rotating flywheel, like a capacitor, is a reservoir of stored energy - which can be tapped as needed, but which must always be replenished if velocity is to be maintained (it is, if you want it to keep rotating). If this were untrue, then the only thing required to increase the power output of an engine would be a larger flywheel.. which is clearly not the case.

Secondly, the torque of a 'gravity wheel' device is a direct function of how much mass is offset, and at what distance, from the axis of rotation. So, if your wheel is 2ft. in diameter, and has 1lb of mass offset at its edge, it will produce a maximum torque of 1ft-lb when the mass is at either the 3 o'clock position (for clockwise direction of rotation). At any other point in the cycle, the torque will be less than the maximum - and in fact, moving from 6 o'clock up to 12 o'clock, the torque is actually negative - that is, it opposes rather than favors the direction of rotation. This maximum continuous torque is an absolute figure - and is not in any way tied to the angular velocity (RPM) of the wheel. If you can't produce enough torque to spin a generator at 1 RPM, increasing to 100RPM won't fix your torque problems.

-L

[sigmaX]

Sean,

I understand your point, and I think it is irresponsible to think in that way because Quinn is apparently using loads of money (his money) to prove something that, when he explains it, you dont need to be much of an elightened being to see that either he is wrong. For example: he says that a lever / fulcrum system works in "such a way" when that is simply not correct. The same happened before, with other examples he gave. Either he is talking in some kind of weird code that I don?t get it clarified (which frankly I doubt) or he is a combination of nuts / ignorant.

Just like his thermal accelerator: Did ANYONE took a look at his "invention" (a pdf) ? and subsequent explanations ?

In short, he takes hot air from the end of a heater / turbine, thru a hose, and reinjects it in the air intake, stating that this gives far more hot air.

Yes, but of course: if you reinject already heated air into the intake, you will have more heated air at the end. BUT A LOWER FLOW BECAUSE PART OF THE OUTPUT FLOW REROUTED INTO THE INTAKE AGAIN. But then he says that he breaks the "law" that states that  ?It is not possible at a set wattage and set voltage to get more heat out without more power in? ... And I should add "WHILE MANTAINING THE SAME AIR FLOW"

His invention does not mantain the same AIR FLOW. the real air flow output is less, because part of such airflow goes back into the heat turbine. He gets less air, but hotter. Something that could also be somewhat accomplished by closing a bit the air intake.

Quick practical (ala Quinn) example: Go grab your electric fan forced heater, turn it on, feel the heat yeah! now go and grab a plastic bag, and cover half the air intake... wowwww see those heater filaments go NOVA and the heat is way up ! cool we just doubled the heat! good lord.   phew ... wish newton was here to see it working, apple in his ass ... haha big time show newton bent over only by using a plastic bag I got double heat! woooha.


Either I got his invention wrong, or it is simply 1) not an invention and 2) something used way before not only for heating air, but also in other situations: for example one car that my fathers had some 25 years ago, bought used, an old NSU car (german), an "antique" (made in the 50s or 60s) got at the exhaust autput in the motor, a hose that took part of such gases and reinjected them in the carburator, in order to use the excess of gas and heated air, for a better overhall performance. SAME THING.

SO, we got in here a guy that he is used to claim things that are EVIDENTLY not as he states. I don?t think that these forums bandwidth is being correctly used, by this kind of stuff.

I am prepared to enjoy the rollercoaster, but on serious proposals. Now I am pissed because Quinn is getting all wrong ideas, with minimum thinking, and there are actually people FOLLOWING him. When everything goes "boom", more than one guy will feel betrayed, wasted, used his time by following a lunatic, that in turn, lives in a parcel with a wheeled house (or whatever it is said in english) and is just wasting 1000 or more dollars in pursuing his apparent crazy ideas, IN PART because some people in here, encourage him.

This whole plot REDEFINES the pathetic concept: it is more like a live, Big brother show: someone (more than one) is going to get hurt, while others do the cheer waiting for the closing act. Dont get me wrong: If Quinn COULD explain his work, in a better way, I would maybe be turned into a believer, given a cool exposition of his ideas...

BUT RIGHT NOW we got 3 or 4 guys wasting their times, doing yet ANOTHER version of the (in) famous perpetual motion wheel with magnets at 1 oclock and 7 oclock (which is WAY older than quinns weird ideas, I actually found thru google graphics, 3D anims, and discussions dating 8 or more years ago about this same idea).

Was this quinn's original concept ? or is he pulling these guys limb and flowing with the current (being HIS the biggest laugh at the end) ?

Other thing: now he plays with levers. His first appearance on the perpetual motion radar, involved a generator, a bycicle wheel, a round wooden wheel ... mini concept levers yeah, as stated on PREVIOUSLY YEARS AGO posted ideas of the magnetic wheel, even in youtube. NOW he detaches from it, and introduces the lever concept. Can?t you see he is drifting away, with no sane explanation, no clear concept, etc.

THIS IS MY LAST POST IN THIS THREAD. I think there is nothing else to be said. I am very sad about this thread. If this were my forum, I would PRESS for more serious work and demonstration.