Roll on the 20th June

[ramset]

PURE POWER IF THIS IS NOT TRUE PLEASE SAY SO Chet  oh well gotta go

[MrKai]

And I'm holding you to the same standard as a debunker.
Any questions?

OK, exx...I don't know if you are being serious, if you are ignorant, or just...whatever...but it doesn't work that way.

While I know you...feel...that there is "something" out there and "someone" may be "holding back" the "keys" to better energy, etc...

It is 100% patently disingenuous in *honest debate* to throw out HISTORICAL EVIDENCE as valid data. It seriously is.

Just like my gun example...you don't HAVE TO SHOOT YOURSELF to have *reasonable belief* supported by mounds and mounds of evidence that it would be painful, if not fatal.

All of your "well debunk it!" retorts always seem to ring from, I don't know a nicer way to put this, but, well, ignorance.

It is ignorant as hell, and quite frankly shocking, that in order to "win" a "debate" you basically resort to saying "well...if the last 900 attempts at the same thing failed, it doesn't mean that THIS ATTEMPT WILL FAIL (which is 100% true...but...) and the fact that the other 900 attempts bombed is irrelevant."

That last part is where you lose me, and I think any other fairly honest person,  because you seem to wish to discard the whole of human knowledge and observation as "worthless".

REASON and LOGIC are the things that separate humans from the rest of the animals.

Reason, Logic, and HISTORY *all together* form an overwhelming body of evidence that say this whole thing is a load of dingo's kidneys.

Now, while you could (sigh...) argue "Oh Yeah? WHO'S LOGIC? Who's so-called REASON"...but there is nothing...NOTHING you can do to dispel the historical evidence "against" these type of devices...so I think overall, you need to be showing a little more respect, and a LOT more honesty with these "well, prove it wrong, then!" claims, because, since we all like to talk about the "real world" here, in said and such real world place, it comes down to the reality that the person claiming they can kick my ass has to be the one to step up and see if they can claim that asswhipping...

...Or if the strong Pimp-Hand of Mr. Kai smacks them back the hell into reality.

No one is compelled to "prove a negative"...to prove Archer's ideas "won't work"...because they don't have to. History has done a large amount of the work...if you want to discard science.

I don't like picking on you per se, but I think really, that approach of yours doesn't make you seem clever at ALL; it makes you seem ignorant and disingenuous.

-K

[mscoffman]

libra springs;

I started wondering myself why a balanced lever balances with equal weights
on both sides as there would be no force difference (or at least very little)
to cause it to move. It turns out that the single force vector summation
method we use is only an approximation of reality. In reality, each atom
in the weight attracts each atom in the earth. What happens as the weight
sits higher above the horizon these vectors are clustered together closer
to the vertical down making the upper weight slightly heavier while
the lower weight has a more spread out vector cluster making it slightly
lighter. This is dynamic system until horizontal balance is achieved.
As the language (english) tells you.

Interestingly except for the vector clustering effect equal weights should
"lock" into place because gravity is an r^2 force varying with distance.
Meaning that the weight further away from the CG (earth) is the lighter.
This same locking effect causes the weighted rods in Archer's Wheel to become
a centrifugal "flip-flop" that lock the wheel CG into each of two different
mode states. If the wheel rotates faster that flip-flop requires more external
(magnetic) energy to flip and if it doesn't get that, it will create an
inefficiency inducing delay. So a wheel will not accelerate to distruction.
But operate at nearly fixed constant RPM's.


So you see purepower your statement;

>Actually, on a perfectly balanced wheel, with two perfectly equal weights placed directly across from each
>other at the exact same distance from the center, the wheel would not rotate at all, regardless of the position
> they start in.

...Is actually an incorrect statement ie it is wrong! You haven't analyzed the details or this real world situation fully enough!

I want to use the above as an example. Newtonian are often using *oversimplified* methods of analysis on real-world
situations.It could very well be that Archer's wheel runs based on draining some mechanical characteristic from the
materials which make up the wheel. But if he is, it will still run and maybe it will run long enough to pay back energy
costs which have now become speculatively distorted.

That is why I am much more interested in what Archer has to say and less in what purepower has to say. Also I
cannot actually operate scientific experiments in my head that might involve 2% difference one way or another.
This is why I would like to deffer to the real life experiment and also why I defer to the experimental results before getting
too interested in experimental analysis based on claims. This is same as what folk of Newton's day were seeing,
He was using planets because they are stripped of the forces that effect us everyday in the real world making it
the real world very complex to analyze and detailed scientific laws difficult to produce.

On the other hand this is an experimental device not a product. First, you get the principles understood and down pat
and then you design and test a product.


S:MarkSCoffman

[mscoffman]

People should be aware when using a 12Volt Alternator that there are three parts all of which are necessary
to making a system work. An alternator, a semiconductor based regulator, and the charged acid/lead storage battery.
Some small alternators have a regulator pre- built in. An alternator is a variable sized generator machine. The
regulator controls how much current is diverted to the alternator's field coil so that load current demand is
matched by the supply of current making the voltage constant. The alternator translates the electrical energy
demand to a variable mechanical braking variable force on it's rotor pulley. Without a charged battery, an
alternator doesn't have a magnetic field to work with.  A large 110Volt generator often uses an DC magnetic
based exciter for this function.

--->

Also one needs to be "carefull" if pulsing an inductive coil fast enough from an acid lead storage battery or
you will induce CF cold fusion in the storage battery. That will cause it to store latent heat as internal energy...
I mean, you wouldn't want to accidentally mistake operation due to CF overunity energy for mechanical
overunity wheel energy, now, would you? ...So, free energy, I guess there really is more than one way to do it.

S:MarkSCoffman

[exxcomm0n]

OK, exx...I don't know if you are being serious, if you are ignorant, or just...whatever...but it doesn't work that way.

While I know you...feel...that there is "something" out there and "someone" may be "holding back" the "keys" to better energy, etc...

It is 100% patently disingenuous in *honest debate* to throw out HISTORICAL EVIDENCE as valid data. It seriously is.

Just like my gun example...you don't HAVE TO SHOOT YOURSELF to have *reasonable belief* supported by mounds and mounds of evidence that it would be painful, if not fatal.

All of your "well debunk it!" retorts always seem to ring from, I don't know a nicer way to put this, but, well, ignorance.

I put up my video questioning PureP's method of proof.

HERE: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cd8bxAeHGm0

What was the weight of his control arm/counter balance again?

K then,
He posted. I posted my rebuttal as to the validity of his test. I used a standard measurement that is hard to ignore since a ruler, is a ruler, is a ruler.
(Alright, since the lever is not anchored to the fulcrum I approximated a 5:1 at 10 1/4 to 10 3/8" of a 13" ruler.)
I do have to compliment you on your use of ignorant instead of stupid.

It is ignorant as hell, and quite frankly shocking, that in order to "win" a "debate" you basically resort to saying "well...if the last 900 attempts at the same thing failed, it doesn't mean that THIS ATTEMPT WILL FAIL (which is 100% true...but...) and the fact that the other 900 attempts bombed is irrelevant."

They all were using the same materials the same way with the same judiciary?
History is fraught with examples of "The winners write history".
I prefer what I've seen with my own eyes. PureP has rendered his version, and I have rendered mine.

That last part is where you lose me, and I think any other fairly honest person,  because you seem to wish to discard the whole of human knowledge and observation as "worthless".

Which last part? The forum is equipped with a quote function you use above, but not here.

Why?

I want to make sure apples are compared with apples, not crab apples, horse apples, or pomme d?amour (apple of love, or commonly tomato).

REASON and LOGIC are the things that separate humans from the rest of the animals.

DING! that's why we debate and make physical examples of our concepts.

Reason, Logic, and HISTORY *all together* form an overwhelming body of evidence that say this whole thing is a load of dingo's kidneys.

<see above about experiment verification methods>

Now, while you could (sigh...) argue "Oh Yeah? WHO'S LOGIC? Who's so-called REASON"...but there is nothing...NOTHING you can do to dispel the historical evidence "against" these type of devices...so I think overall, you need to be showing a little more respect, and a LOT more honesty with these "well, prove it wrong, then!" claims, because, since we all like to talk about the "real world" here, in said and such real world place, it comes down to the reality that the person claiming they can kick my ass has to be the one to step up and see if they can claim that asswhipping..

Getting a little more flavored by the principle in the debate, aren't we?
You're starting to (in tone) sound like Archer.

How much historical evidence of flight was there BEFORE the Wright Bros.?
Supposedly, Icarus and Daedalus did it WAY before them.
Seems that until the Wright Bros. every attempt at flight had failed, but it didn't stop them.

...Or if the strong Pimp-Hand of Mr. Kai smacks them back the hell into reality.

No one is compelled to "prove a negative"...to prove Archer's ideas "won't work"...because they don't have to. History has done a large amount of the work...if you want to discard science.

No, I want to exemplify science most cherished tenant. If you say it will OR it won't, PROVE IT!
Gonna bitchslap science now?

I don't like picking on you per se, but I think really, that approach of yours doesn't make you seem clever at ALL; it makes you seem ignorant and disingenuous.

-K

And your's seems to disregard one of the basic rules of science you use as validation.
These are not hard things to do. You don't need a particle accelerator or anything.

Now, it's true my video is using magnets and ferromagnetic material to prove a point, but they were the materials at hand.

Pick on me by all means, I can live with it.
Get out from behind the keyboard and show something and then I'll grant you bitch slap potential.