Roll on the 20th June

[exxcomm0n]

My gut told me from the beginning Archer has an idea that he has examined (the ?wheel?).  He built a small device some time ago that showed promise - but just needed some tweaks and a larger scale to 'work'. (like ALL the devices of the past... if only this and that....)
Thus the original adventure - the "upscaling" of the wheel.  I don't believe he EVER had an OU device, or even ever tested it.
His lack of understanding of Lenz Law is enough to prove that.
(among MANY others. An oh - why hasn't anyone EVER commented on his 'state of fact that Lithium Ion batteries are shit, a duracell will outperform it.'  ANYONE with 1/64 of a brain knows a Lithium Ion battery is far superior in energy density  )

This one I take issue with. How do you base your findings?
I typed "lithium ion battery test results in google.

1.) http://www.buchmann.ca/Article2-page1.asp (pay attention to the second sub-heading.)

2.) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium_battery
See how many different grades, types, and forms there are for so many different uses?

I have yet to see real world comparison (same device, same consumer grade battery form
and voltage factor).
Let's go for a flashlight battery comparison, eh?

When I changed the search criteria to "battery charge comparison lithium" I got this:

http://www.powerstream.com/Compare.htm

....had some interesting results.

Then came the switch to the new device....??
He has recently stated he is now working on both... good!  But, for me, let's see the damn wheel! 

The 'fulcrum' sure is huge!  Credit to Archer for the attempt - for sure!
And now videos!  Way to go Archer!! This is a much better way to convey your ideas - your words rarely convey any useful info.

But the original goal of a reasonably sized device that the average Joe could build is a better one, IMO

jratcliff has voiced an opinion that EXACTLY matches mine - and I assume - many others.....

The wheel concept may have some merit - Let's see some videos of the wheel!

If you think about it, they are based on pretty much the same concept, using a shift of the center of balance to create energy potential (said that way because I have yet to see Archers device produce).

One uses equal weights and is utilizing magnets to shift the rod and therefore create an unbalanced beam over the axel.

The other is fixing the fulcrum  to the beam in one spot and using unequal weights that are reset by mechanical assembly so it is not using an "external power source".

They are both leverage driven machines.

Somewhere, way back in the thread, or on his web page at one time I think he said this when there was debate over the magnet being a battery and then seemed to concentrate on the fulcrum as a device on the same principle, but removing a piece that could be used as another detracting mechanism to the validity of his claim.

[House]

am1 thank you for that drawing

the cam needs to be on the inside of the weights after the 12 oclock position

peter

Explain what you mean.

am1ll3r simulation is IMO the correct interpretation of Archer's wheel design.

[canuck22]

you need the cam to push the weights outs, so the cam needs to be on the inside of the weights

this idea does not use magnets, it is totally mechanical

peter

[exxcomm0n]

ramset, Archer's Egyptian fulcrum concept is dead... So is thermal accelerator... And a syphon thingy... And I am deadly serious.

Deadly serious?

Careful with words like that or here come the MIB theories.

Archer's magneto-gravity wheel is doable, but it will never self-sustain, so it is not an Over-Unity device (in the configuration like it was presented)...

And this was proved how?

He still (and a few others out there I think) still have 'til the 20th to produce something.

Having a perpetual motion 2 years ago was A LIE - and you mustn't be surprised that so many skeptics jumped on it... Anyway, do you see skeptics flodding other threads here?

If any of Archer's concepts come into fruition AND IS OFFICIALLY (independent qualifyed lab tests) RECOGNISED AS 'OVERUNITY', I'll pay you (yes, to you, ramset!) 1000 EUR! This is from my savings, currently dedicated for a (partial) HEATING OIL BILL FOR THE FOLLOWING WINTER... (I'm not saying this lightly and I'm not hiding behind my handle - there are people in this forum who knows my real name).

Just to let you know - next winter I'll probably spend some 3000 Eur for my family house gas/oil heating bill. This is killing me...
SO IF I HEAR AGAIN ONE MORE TIME THAT I'M A BIG-OIL FE SUPRESSOR OR DEBUNKER, I'LL HAVE NO MERCY...

Why do you still think that believers/skeptics is always positive/negative??? This is so wrong.
In the past there was a device/concept where I was believer, too,  so I know the emotions involved...

Cheers!

Again....another broad brush painter.

I will prefer to wait until the appointed publicized time of proof to firmly place my foot in either camp.

Hell, I might not even then.

[House]

you need the cam to push the weights outs, so the cam needs to be on the inside of the weights

this idea does not use magnets, it is totally mechanical

peter

Good luck with that, I've had several ideas to make the wheel totally mechanically, one of which uses a spiral tension spring inside of a gear attached to the end of the rods via cam shaft.

The inside edge of the wheel has gear teeth facing inward from 1 to 6:30. So the gear on the end of the rod is turned from 1 to 6:30 by the inward facing gear teeth (using the gravity on the weight at the end of the rod), this stores the energy in the spiral tension spring. When the rod reaches the part of the wheel with no inward facing teeth, the gear is not forced to turn anymore and the energy in the spiral tension spring is released in the opposite direction. The gear at the end of the rod turns the cam shaft which attaches the gear to the rod and forces the rod up.