Roll on the 20th June

[exxcomm0n]

@ Dusty

It's just as good as anyone elses.

There's only one person that "knows" and he's not telling until June 20th.

I'm just having fun with the puzzle. It helps that "solving" the puzzle will have @ least as much impact as a thermonuclear weapon or other political device on life on earth.

Give it a shot man!

BTW I just used that "eddy current" example today with a ham operator/EE buddy of mine discussing HHO fractioning methods. He didn't know about that effect.
_I_ didn't even think about applying it to the puzzle @ hand!

Nice thinking "outside the box"!

Now back to reading...........

[Tinker]

He talks about small amounts of weight shift are all that is needed to create an imbalanced wheel.

The weights are standing up on the shaft in the pic of the rods and weight
s/magnets, are not sliding down the shaft.

IS He is shifting the WHOLE ROD W/WEIGHTS assy with the electromagnet and using stops on the rods on both sides of the hub to adjust the throw.

HMM

Be well
Tinker

Never mind that won't work with 3 rods/tubes in the asterisk configuration.

HEAD SCRATCH

[ramset]

Gentlemen  I was quite concerned last night and this morning when i could not access the site   made me think how vulnerable I am to being cut off from this venue   I didn't like it [scary] we need to put in safegaurds  IM thinking about pm my personal contact to those i know [or trust in this forum] any ideas ? Chet  PS I didn't put this smiley thingy on my post I didn't know Stephan had auto smiley                                                                                                 anyway im off to the movies[Stephans Thrapp interview]

[badassdjbynight]

I'm new to this forum - registered today.  Very interested in the topic.  Very curious.  Very skeptical but not a jerk about it. (I'll do no name-calling).  It's also important to point out that I'm not a "rocket scientist" or any other kind of scientist or mathematician.  So my speculations are probably not going to be very scientific.  But I not a moron either.  (hopefully)

Archer.. I appreciate what you are trying to accomplish and I even understand why you are doing it the way you are.  You're a working man and are building this device on your spare time and the delay is so that you can prove your device works by presenting it.  To just tell us the secret now would completely blow that possibility because there would be many who would start to shoot holes in it.

It's also obvious to me that you are very bright and have a lot of good ideas.  I have an unrelated engineering challenge for you but it has nothing to do with free energy and it is something for another time.

One thing that bothers me however, is not about the device working or not - but is that initially you said that you were going to profit by selling the first machine to a museum.  But now you're giving it to yaz?  I don't get that and I feel it damages your credibility a bit.  So maybe you can explain this.

To smokey.. I know we are past this by now, but I have to say it.  A search of satellites on howstuffworks shows that the rockets on a satellite are to correct trajectory because of the altitude and speed lost by atmospheric drag.  If a satellite is high enough in altitude and is placed into the proper orbit it will continue for a very long time.  We know that the moon doesn't have rockets and it's not falling any time soon.  http://www.howstuffworks.com/question378.htm

One of the recent speculations here has been about slanting the wheel to keep it going.  What I read that to mean is that when the weight is at, say the 6 o'clock point slant the wheel down from 90' to maybe 45'.  If you look at that concept from the side you will see that slanting the wheel lowers the top most (12 o'clock) part (how much depends on the center of the slant - but let's assume it's at the base of the wheel and not the center).  So in essence the weight no longer has to travel as high to get to the 12 o'clock point (at 45') as it would to get to even the 9 o'clock point of the 90' wheel.  Then to repeat for another cycle you have to raise the entire wheel back up to 90' and that would take more energy than just leaving it at 90' and moving the weight back up.  So I don't see this working or being part of Archer's plan.

Keeping the wheel tilted at 45% the whole time would lessen the energy required to take the weight back up, but it also lessens the initial potential.  The weight has less distance to travel downward, less time to gain acceleration, and it has to move in a horizontal direction as well as moving down.  All the math changes.  Also the angle would generate more friction on the axis than if it were perpendicular to the earth.  I remember in high school (1985) doing this experiment where I stood on a lazy susan holding a bicycle tire by it's axel with arms on either side.  Someone spun the tire very fast.  You could feel the force of the tire trying to stay perpendicular to the ground.  Leaning the tire to the left or the right gave resistance to that movement - but also made me spin on the lazy susan.  So again I don't see an angle as being part of archer's plan.

One question I have for archer is how fast (RPM) will your wheel spin?  Some of the examples you've given, like the man stepping on the 1 ton water wheel, suggest a very slow moving wheel.  If I remember right you said "think water turbine".  The coin on the fan (no I have not tried it) creates a torque that is in correlation to the added weight.  I would think that you have to have a significant torque to generate a significant amount of energy.  So 1 ton or 1 oz.. if each blade is 1 ton but a 1 oz weight is added to rotate the wheel, the friction resistance needed to stop the rotation is much less than if a 1 ton weight is added to the blade.

It seems to me that a weight inside the tubes moving around also means a slow moving wheel with not much torque.

Again.. no offense intended - just questions.

[The Eskimo Quinn]

firstly i said i would give yaz the first copy, that is of the download and in advance, and a hard copy on disk noted as the first on the disk.

as for how fast it turns beats me??? i am building it as an upscale and finding the parts as i go, as they have to be available, and i have to then adjust the next part according to the last, if i get some rod that is a set size, then i have to find or make weights to match, if i use a holden hub verese a ford hub they are different. the speed will depend on weight verses friction as all generators of this kind (hydro gravity style) do. in fact have picked up a second motor with less friction than the fisrt today as it already had the axel on it and was low torque motor, if i have trouble arms versus axel i will switch. I originally used a fan in 12 volt, almost no friction and it worked fine, but it won't run your tv, hence the upscale.

many have said if it works its not a toy in regard to the small version, now how many know that even if orbo (steorn) works have a look at it, millions of dollars for a device not capable of running a houshold appliance, granted it may be capable of being upsized, but i feel they must be deliberatly toruring themselves to work that small with all that money, or the tech is trapped by size, it may work and they may get a pat on the back, good on ya, but i can g'tee no oil company is shaking in their boots, why??/ because it looks like a toy with too far to go even from the day it works, (and i hope it does)