Roll on the 20th June

[LarryC]

His the arc magnet site http://www.fdp.nu/shared/manager.asp?d=files\Graham%20Clarke\Gem%20motor\ the rotor is attracted by the iron core of the electromagnetic stator but you can use permanent magnet also the aray is the rotor but it can also be the stator and the iron or permanent magnet stator can go around as the rotor.

Your onepulse motor is a neat application of turning a linear smot arrangement into a circular smot. But the design is not anywear near Archer's shunt. It is a regular smot magnetic gate where magnet are placed so that they get progressively closer to the attracting object. Firing circuitry would not be difficult to create, but it would not be any closer to OU than any of the linear smot's with EM gates. The biggest difference can be seen with the start up speed of the onepulse compared to the blurring movement of Archer's roller.

Archer's shunt uses a magnetic roller which is always the same perpendicular distance to a wider magnetic array as it passes each. His application of using the momentum of the large mass on the magnetic roller to break the rear wall and be pulled to the next is different. The speed of the passage using a large mass is extremely impressive when compared to any smot or trigate that I've previously seen. If anything it seems closer to your trigate but reversed. 

However, I do think that Archer's description of your magnetic knowledge was extremely harsh considering your past accomplishments. I hope you can look pass this and give his technique an objective review. I am sure you can be helpful.

Regards, Larry 

[shakman]

Okay, I think I know where you re going with this...

First off, this is a tangent from my original statement. Archer said to lift the roller a height x will take less energy on a wheel than going strait up. This is not true, as per my support and evidence.

Now that this principle is known, we can look at the system.

To understand a system, we look at a complete cycle.

For a complete cycle, the system will loose a certain amount of energy y regardless of how fast it goes (not entirely true due to velocity dependent losses like drag, but just play along).

Now, the power lost is (energy lost per cycle)/(time per cycle), or y/t.

To decrease "power loss," we must increase t (since y is constant). If we increase t, the system is just going slower.

While decreasing "power loss" may seem better, its "energy loss" that matters.

Energy defines the system, power tells us how fast the energy is being used. Its like distance vs velocity. Once you get to B from A, it doesnt really matter how fast you got there. All that matters is that you are there. (okay, not the best final remark, but I'm leaving work right now so I don't have time to think of something better!)

-PurePower

PS keep the energy questions coming! I'm not the best at electrical systems or magnetism, but this is my bread and butter!..

@PP

Cool, good answer. Thanks mate.

What I would say to that is that if you manage to get the motion started, even slowly, using a little energy over a long time to avoid power loss initially, when it begins accelerate it would then increase energy out. If the cycle is able to repeat perpetually then it is creating energy from no (measurable) power input (by current methods) so there should be no need to combat energy loss for power gain. It is self-powered, the longer it runs, the more energy it should produce. If you can close the system... well I shouldn't need to say any more than that.

This is probably a bad example but here's the first thing that came to mind to explain how I think a perpetual motion device would start-up (which, in a perfect world, would only ever need to happen once...): Imagine a kid hitting a ball directly in the air with a racquet. When it comes down, he hits it again and it goes higher. And this cycle repeats. Now in the real world example there is energy input (the boy swinging the racquet) and the ball would quickly reach its maximum height. You can't apply any of the same equations to a perpetual device. The way I see the wheel is that it isn't going to start out at a million miles an hour. It will start slowly, conserving power whilst initially disregarding energy. Now on a micro/quantum level "starting out slowly" could really mean it only takes seconds to accelerate to full speed. Come to think of it, I can't think of any motors that start at full speed....

Please don't take this as an attack, I will just state what I am thinking: I honestly believe that you have an open mind but there is no way you can be "for" perpetual motion as you claim if you continue to use equations that do not allow calcutions involving infinity as a variable with zero as an input. So if there is going to be any perpetual motion I don't think there is any measurement or sum you take out of a text book that will be able to explain it. Would you agree with this at least? So if you wish to believe there is truly the possibility of perpetual motion (I assume that's why you are here) then you must be willing to concede that something we were taught along the way was wrong, or more probably incomplete or just not entirely accurate. If someone manages to find perpetual motion then we will know what was taught incorrectly.

I am clearly out of my depth when it comes to debating anything taught in Physics 101, but when it comes to looking at things which can't be explained in the context of current texts I don't really see that as an enormous disadvantage. Sure it would most likely help, but it could also hinder if I were to be taught something blindly. But I welcome any criticism from those who have this knowledge as I've probably made some glaring mistakes. But when it comes to my opinion magnetics alone could force us to rewrite some of what we know, you won't change my mind on that. I have thought this myself from a very young age well before I read anyone elses theories, there is too much that can not be explained about magnetics, and even gravity itself on a universal level (i.e. how the solar system spins about the universe which no doubt spins upon some other axial plane). Archer's wheel and his use of magnets is one reason I landed back here to begin with after such a long time away from the forum. So on this point, if you do not agree then we will need to agree to disagree.

shakman

[purepower]

One important addition to that last post...

That was all assuming we loose energy per cycle. In the event we gain energy every cycle (as in a FE device), then the energy gain per cycle (y) will remain constant regardless of speed.

What will change is power. As we to faster, t (period per revolution) decreases. As t decreases, power (y/t) increases.

So for an FE system, we can get more power by spinning it faster! That, or increase energy gain per cycle (bigger system).

This is also why anyone who claims to have FE "as long as its spinning fast enough" is full of shit. If we gain energy per cycle, we will always gain energy per cycle regardless of speed because energy is not time-dependent; power is.

Comprende Amigos?

-PurePower

[exxcomm0n]

I really eqpected more from you Exx...

Let go of touchy feely observation and look at facts.

The real world is touchy-feely man, get used to it.

First, reread my very first post. I accounted for the time difference. This changes power, not energy. I use more power for a short time, you use less power for a longer time. The two are identitical in terms of energy! Not force, not distance, not power. Energy!

You mean this one?

Actually AQ, newt is right. This is basic physics. Its called "potential energy."

Imagine a wall you want to climb over. You can either walk right ip to it and climb strait up and over, or you can build a ramp (or stairs). Either way you go, you still travel the same distance (total height) against the force of gravity. Therefor, total energy is the same.

What is different is power (energy per unit time). Since the ramp allows you to do the same work, just at a slower pace, the power is lower than climbing all at once. This is why it seems "easier," not because the energy changes.
<snip>

In pure mathematic and physical terms, you are correct I suppose, but this is not real world.
(I should have said power WAY back, but too late now! )

How are you climbing the wall? Is the wall providing the mechanics or are you?

The height of the wall is to be considered too. I can step over a 2' wall, but not a 6' one.

All real world concerns, also physical ones.

Let me use a little example to try to help you understand work, energy, and power:

You are sitting at your desk and have a stack of papers to go through, and you want to figure out the best way to finish.

How often do I have to do this? That (time) is the deciding factor of whether I "climb the wall" or "build a ramp".

All of the papers are of the same difficulty (force). You have 50 papers to go through (distance).

Now, the total "work" you have to do is the amount of papers (distance) times the difficult of each paper (force). If the papers were easier, or if you had less of them, you would have less work. Agreed?

Now you can go through the papers two different ways. You can sit down and do it all at once (jumping up the wall), or you can go through it slowly doing a little at a time (ramp).

In either case, your work (or energy, different name for the same thing) remains the same. All you changed is how fast you went through it (power), making it seem "easier."

There is a 3rd way, but it only makes sense if this is a repeating occasion.

I can use an OCR (online character recognition) scanning program and a scanner to take a picture of the documents, look at the picture and render it into text data and save each page as a individual file in a new directory, then hack (write) a bash script using "diff"  and "uniq" to look at each individual file and discard duplicates and save each unique string of text to a master answer file. It takes about 3 hours to accomplish because I can duplicate effort with a tool (computer).

I then edit the master file and fill in the appropriate values, and save it.
(Let's say for example this file is 5 pages of unique strings. each unique string is appended by the files associated with it to make sure appropriate values are chosen.)

Then I hack another script (I haven't linked them together yet since it's 1st run) to read the answer file, compare it's contents to each individual file in the new directory, replace lines that match up to a certain word count with answer file values, save it to a new file and send that file to the printer or (much more difficult, but doable) hack yet another script to compare the new file to the old and remove anything that matches while leaving the remaining text in it's exact placement and copying that to new file prefaced prn_org, load the original sheets of paper into the printer  in the order they were scanned and send the files (probably created with a numeric value when originally scanned and incrementing for each new scan) to it (they might already be waiting for the paper in buffer).
THIS IS BUILDING THE RAMP.

It takes a lot of time and effort to do that, but if I have to do the papers 2x it costs 1/2 that time and effort, 3x costs 1/3, 4x costs 1/4, etc.
THIS IS WALKING UP THE RAMP.

Computers are really powerful tools and I'll address that in another reply.

Get it? Good. Can we please get on with the show?..

Ummmmmm....by your own word, if we ain't building and showing something, we ain't the show.

PS if you don't get it, or just don't believe, I will give you a detailed setup for a demo mentioned twice now that will prove this to you...

The whole wall/ramp argument started because of the this:

"Ok as to newt, sorry you dont know physics and cant read, i said vertical against the height of the length of one half of the diamter, not the same hieght as a wheel, as the length of a side is longer. take a pen and draw a line 6 inches long running right to left at 45 degrees, now turn right and go up another 6 inches at 45 degrees and you have the side of a circle as far as energy requiement goes. that is 12 inches. now take a wall climb 12 inches, it takes more energy to go straight up. or does you car that goes up 45 degree slopes go vertical too. get off the thread, you dont even know base physics."

The difference between using mechanics to achieve a distance (both magnet and ramp) and not using the ramp.
If you take all the magnets used in the ramp and put them together at the top of the wheel height, you probably cannot extend their field to attract the the gate/ramp magnet standing motionless at the bottom of the wheel height.

Magnets do strange things to CoE.

[shakman]

One important addition to that last post...

That was all assuming we loose energy per cycle. In the event we gain energy every cycle (as in a FE device), then the energy gain per cycle (y) will remain constant regardless of speed.

What will change is power. As we to faster, t (period per revolution) decreases. As t decreases, power (y/t) increases.

So for an FE system, we can get more power by spinning it faster! That, or increase energy gain per cycle (bigger system).

This is also why anyone who claims to have FE "as long as its spinning fast enough" is full of shit. If we gain energy per cycle, we will always gain energy per cycle regardless of speed because energy is not time-dependent; power is.

Comprende Amigos?

-PurePower

@PP

That's more like it. A concept that supports perpetual motion  I was starting to wonder why you kept coming back to OverUnity.com 
You just put nicely into technical lingo the point poorly I tried to make. And that point is exactly how I can see Archer's wheel working in my head.

I think I've come up with a plan to break the wall if mags are can be used to successfully move a weight from 9-3pm (see the pic in one of my recent posts). I think the biggest problem with my addition is the added friction and the extensions swinging back at the launch point, but if you consider the extra thrust from the falling extensions this might level out. Remember, they are purely designed to push the arm through the magnetic arrays wall by dropping the weight past the wall. And talking of mechanical advantage, remember the fact that the extensions can be started closed in for all arms starting between 6 and 12 while it gains momentum (no point in sticking them out when you kick it off!). I think I might be on to something.

From a text-book point of view, and assuming Archer's SMOT (or whoever wants to lay claim to it, no need to start another war!) can repeat the action over and over from 9-3 whiles carrying weight (attached to the wheel in the form of arms) what do you think about my idea to break the wall? Do you think the "feedback" from the arms retracting would be too great?

shakman

EDIT: Ooops forgot to finish my question... added it to my last paragraph