Roll on the 20th June

[ramset]

Cap your entitled to your opinion [education] Archer is hinting at more  [pretty cool on your dad ] this is research into something new    I personaly don't understand gravity [ but there are alot of things that are that way in my life ] I am finding this thread very cool and mentaly gymnastic I like that and since we have a date with Archer june 20th im even more interested!!! PS i think static is a little iffy[considering our orbit [speed] around the sun  then our spining speed] Chet

[The Eskimo Quinn]

to the see saw and paint cans guy.

Now that "is" the right question. what you have just described is the Newton classic, what you see is misleading, and you see what Mr. spinner and all his mates see, classical training in Newtonian law.

why they are all wrong is simple, and the guys especially on here are beginning to see why something feels wrong. For me it was easy as i only see logic puzzles.

What does Newtonian law miss??

The tourque at the axel has changed, the torque is the power to drive bigger and bigger generators.

If you want to see the other difference its easy. go down to a local park, take your paint tins, and your 3 pound weight, now have some friend to help you first lay on the ground under one end of the see saw, and have some one place the cans on each end until balanced and then place the weight on the end you are under, the impact you feel is the 3 pounds falling. now put the see saw up in the air and add the weight, feel any different?? it should, you see to start at 9 o?clock is worthless a small weight against the friction, but from around 2.30 or the top of a see saw it is a little different.

where Newton followers go wrong is they think you have to change the weight you add to increase momentum, momentum is not torque or power, (turn you bicycle upside down and spin the wheel, tons of momentum there not quite nuclear reactor power though is it?)

now get your four friends to sit 2 on each end and when lying down under it get the 5th friend to give the outside person above you the 3 pound weight, the see saw will move and you will feel a bump not much more than the paint tin for all that weight, and why experiments never usually go any further, for all Newtonian physics shows wheel function in the equations of balance. now get some to hold your friends up with the 3 pound weight and let them go, trust me this will hurt.

if you think that is a good example. think about this, many of the devices over the years used pendulums as they seem like a good source or converter of energy, perhaps in the back of all minds is a small spluttering logic computer for the see saw and the wheel are also pendulums with trapped inertia.


I first saw anomolies in a glass of water, take a glass fill it to a line, empty and pour it back into the glass and take a slow look at the glass, the water does not sit equally in the glass, the meniscus proves this, cohesion, at what point is electricity passing through a wire at any given resistance becoming a heater?

At what point is momentum a singular??? When Galileo (not Newton) first theorized that an object traveling with no force acting against it would travel forever, if in space or a vacuum no item has a weight but has been propelled, the momentum is a singular.

What am I getting at you ask?, the expression there is a fine line does not apply in physics teachings, they teach there is a line. There is ?no? line, the application determines the line as with resistance wire and so on.

Whilst many people believe push is equal to pull it is not, get someone to stand behind you and without saying when, push you in the back, do you notice the energy displacement through you body as your head rocks back, now keep you body stiff and do it again is if you were a solid object, you still feel the effect of the object you trying to disperse the energy in more than one direction, pull has a different effect.

G Force proves this, an object in a rotational or forward accelerator will try to flatten, an object being pulled with equal force will try to lengthen.
The flaw in general physics is using the expression there is an equal or opposite reaction, can I say there is a different reaction??? Is that not still true??? So now that I have free thought to examine different reactions, I can then think freely to examine what I can do with each different reaction without having the equal or opposite thought process entering my head, ok here is an action or reaction, what can I do with this.

Go back to the 1.5 volt magnet that can lift 200 pounds yet not push 200 pounds under the same circumstances. So there is not an equal or opposite reaction to everything. Again it is not that the field produced is not the same, it is the flatten or stretch effect, each different with different shapes and abilities.


If you want stupid simple, take a piece of gum and flatten it with a one pound weight, now take an equal piece of gum and apply one pound pull or stretch to it, the flat piece will slide under a door whilst the stretched piece will go through the keyhole. Mans mistake with Newton was simple, depending on what is done with each action even in a fixed environment can give very different outcomes.

An example, some water pumps pump by pressure some by volume or mechanics, but hey volume equals weight right???, A pond that pumps water to the top in order to run a water wheel to power the pump can work because volume equals weight, equals torque on the turbine equals power that is equal to the weight, until!!! ?less friction? means it won?t turn. What about heat to water to steam to condenser, nope the heat required to produce the vapor is still equal to the power, Ahhh one day maybe we?ll invent a heavy liquid, heavy like gold, maybe we?ll name it after a planet and that problem will be solved. Would that work goes up the cry??? I don?t know never tried it, but I thought of it and that is the difference, if you don?t go out and squash some gum occasionally you won?t know what is real and what is just poor teaching. There are no equal or opposites, there is only different (funny thing the women on the planet have been saying it for years)

That was the right question, everyone keeping going for down versus up equals momentum, I don?t need momentum I need torque, and that is the different reaction that is not equal or opposite to the added or shifted weight, it was always there at the dam wall just waiting for that tipping weight of water whatever the load for that size generator to break the friction point may be.

as for guys on the 1 kg on a ton wheel only being ikg energy potential, can you catch a ten pound medice ball? good now put one at the top of a ferris wheel connected to a hdyro dam sized generatorand stand at the bottom and step in front of that carriage not facing it, shouldn't hurt you at all it's only ten pound, you are indeed correct !!!! ya you win hoorahhh woop woop woop, but now put your ten pound ball on the kiddie ferris wheel and see if it can turn the same turbine, sick of explaining that basic flaw in newtonian crap. that is the real world jack like it or not.

[capthook]

Hi ramset:

First - I wouldn't be here if I didn't believe that some of the "laws" of physics may have holes in them and that our basic understanding of the world around us is limited.  Take dark matter/energy.  Scientists suppose it makes up ~95% of the universe - and we can't see it, touch it, or know anything about it.  So we only know a small percentage of the 5% we DO know about.  To think OU is impossible is not realistic.

With the inaccuracies and suppositions put forth with this current incarnation of OU - I am just suggestion caution before pouring too many resources into it.

The 'whipmag' comes to mind.  Hundreds of people devoting countless hours and resources on a questionable device with little to show for it.

I certainly hope for the best - but there a many reasons for prudence.

All the best,

CH

[The Eskimo Quinn]

just a quick note. we really need to stop saying laws of physics, i obey the laws of physics, i just don't agree that newton knew what they were. and most of whta is quoted is newtonian.

as for the guy whose fater is a rocket scientist, if garvity and being pulled down at 30,000 miles an hour is not acceleration on an object, then i don't know what is. I must be so so dumb

[fletcher]

While I agree with all the classically explained physics here, 20 June 08 isn't to long to wait for a definitive answer - if Archer is proven correct then a lot of us will be excitedly sucking our breath & pouring over his explanations very carefully indeed - if he cannot produce the goods then someone else will be feeling a tad uncomfortable & unhappy instead.

My question at this stage is, has Archer made the right tactical decision ?

I mean, he says he had a working mechanical system [that didn't require an elctromganetic system ?] to create a self sustaining wheel 2 years ago, that he subsequentially destroyed.

Now, he is building a different POP wheel not based on the tried & proven method - yes, I understand he thought the other was in the toy category & therefore of little utility but for a world wide disclosure should you change a winning & trusted strategy ? - that could be very risky indeed, unless you were supremely confident of your theory, so much so to put it straight into practice.

The crux is how to get the vertical lift for less energy than normal physics provides.

I guess we'll see soon enough !

EDIT : ahh .. I see Archer has just posted so I will go back & read what he has to say.