Roll on the 20th June

[maw2432]

I see Archer is still posting to his site.

""""


7.45am 11/05/08 oz time

To those following this machine, i have made some alteration due to problems with some materials i had chosen, so some items will change, however as of yesterday the rod was succesfully fired from 7 oclock to one oclock, this was enough to get the arm to rotate, i am now constructing the repitition mechanics.

This firing was my only major concern in reproducing the previous working machine.

There should be some photos this week sometime of changes.

""""""""

I look forward to this working.

Bill

[ramset]

Archer  thanks  Exx thanks  helmut Im out at sea also [working] back in a few days   Chet

[infringer]

I think we should make a little wager here...
If Archer is right no matter if laws are violated or not everyone that was proven wrong will live the rest of there life without the using this device...

Everyone who says impossible or its just babble should be 100% restricted from the use of this device.

And should agree to it as well hell in there mind there does not even exsist the possibility that the device can function!

Hell if everything is so damn impossible and OU is impossible why waste your time at these forums?

Its one thing explaining why something may not work or to start a thread debunking a claim but to hijack a thread a productive attempt at learning more about the devices working is just nonsense!!!!!

He is not harming no one he is not stealing money or even asking for it?

What is the loss here? Hope? We all know the good saying about hope in one hand and _____ in the other!

So are you playing good cop? I highly doubt it.

If this was my forum I would ban the living sheet out of people I wouldnt tolerate half the sheet stephan does!

Shut it or start your own thread on debunking for pete's sakes let the guy lead sheep if thats what you think he's doing wouldnt be the first time peoples hopes were crushed in fact it is a daily occurance.

Finally if your so worried about peoples hopes being crushed then why are you crushing them before the full release anyways?

Say whatever slander you want from now on but please start your own thread on debunking cause your slander is just as non productive as the vaporware you are trying to disprove. Don't waste your time and that way I wont have to waste mine going through posts and posts of complaints that do not even belong in the thread!

Enjoy remember you're my favorite!

-infringer-

[redriderno22]

my replication is going well

thanks archer

I still wonder why everyone thinks your holding some important part out?

im attempting to use all perm mags
ill try to post pics when i have it complete!

[zerotensor]

From Archer's "new and improved" rant, with rebuttal:

Ok so we know how stupid Newtonians and scientists are you should print this out and ask anyone who thinks they are smart the following questions, and I will tell you what they will say (no fun unless they look stupid, only fitting after the names I have been called)

Let the games begin!

If a see saw, or fulcrum (that?s a fancy name for a see saw) has 1 kilo on one end and one kilo on the other end it will balance true or false?? They will answer true

Well, a fulcrum is actually one component of the see saw.  I'll assume you are talking about a symmetrical lever.
Yes.  The weights will balance.

If  the see saw is above the ground like a wheel axel, will this change?? The answer the will give is no,

I'll go along with this, although it is hard to imagine the fulcrum point being below the ground, so all levers have this property anyway.  Tautology aside, fine.  The fulcrum is above the ground and this changes nothing.

If I take the one kilo from the left side of the see saw or fulcrum, will the left side with the I kilo still stay there? Their answer will be no

If you take weight off one end of the balance, it will move.  I'm with you so far, Archer.

If the see saw weighs two ton, and we do the same thing, will the same thing happen? The answer will be yes. Now here is where they insist on protecting their god Newton, they forgot to look at any other physics from that point on and quote his words chapter and verse.

You're right, archer, my answer is yes.

So this is their favourite question as it for them dismisses perpetual motion from gravity. Ok now if I put the one kilo on right side the two ton see saw (this means each side of the se saw equally weighs 1 ton), what is the weight falling?? Their answer will be 1 kilo.

Right!  You are good at this!

And do you know what??? They would be wrong, because even a 10 year old knows math, it would be 1 ton and 1 kilo, you see what a Newtonian is trying to say is the pressure of the weight is 1 kilo falling and they would be right, but the 1 ton also fall doesn?t it??

The one ton also does fall.  But you are neglecting the OTHER SIDE of the lever!  There, we have one ton BEING LIFTED!

Ok let us make it more simple for them, we will put a 1 ton weight on each side as well and the put the 1 kilo on the right side, the Newtonian will say it is still one kilo falling. Gee they must be invisible weights those one ton blocks, because I could swear if you keep your eyes on it you head will follow it down, hang on, its up there and then it is down there??? Are you confused, so why do they say that??

And on the OTHER SIDE of the lever, "it's down there and then it's up there".  We say that because we look at the WHOLE SYSTEM and not just one side.

The answer is that they have spoken in Newtonian math for so long, they have left the real world and real thinking, of course the ton falls, it does not magically float whilst just the 1 kilo falls.

You don't need calculus to know that 1 ton plus 1kg on one side of a symmetrical lever can lift 1 ton on the other side.  It's COMMON SENSE!   The 1 ton on one side falls, and the 1 ton on the other side rises.  The "magic" is that the lever connects these masses into one system.  The center of mass stays atop the fulcrum, and doesn't move at all.

They will start screaming about now that that is not what they meant, and of course the ton physically moves but the weight transfer effect does not take place as you may think, in other words a set of scales under the see saw would read one kilo.

A scale under the heavier end will read 1 kilo.  Yes.

Ask them if that is correct, they will say yes that is correct,(how are we doing???)

You are doing poorly.  You forgot about the symmetry of the situation.

What they are trying to ptove is that if a weight falling on one side is equal to a weight on the other there is no gain other than an added weight.

Right-o.

The problem is they have been shouting and screaming the quirky bit of information for so long like it was only known by the minds of giants, that our giants forgot that there was actually a real ton weight on that fulcrum.

On the fulcrum, yes.  Not at the end of the lever.


If any of you are fooled by Archer's argument, I have a bridge I can sell you real cheap... I have half a bridge that will get you across the river.

-zt