Roll on the 20th June

[exxcomm0n]

@ Archer Quinn

As we get nearer the date, i will ask each of those who are contributing good and bad to email me<snip>

I'm not sure on which side of the fence you may view me.

Ok to further illustrate why i need understanding not reverse engineering, 90 percent of everything you think you know you are programmed to believe, not by some evil plot, but by the pure nature of evolution, we can not all have done everything, so we take the word of the people who have, this is programming. to say man landed on the moon is programming, they may have they may not have, i was not there so i do not know this to be fact, and therein lies our greatest downfall, trying to unlearn what we have been taught using skills we have learnt from trial and some that we have simply been told, and trying to work out what is genuine fact.

<snip>

so for the guys who have put in so much work to date, you are thinking tooo electrical, go back to the magnets, pulling over great distance is not optional, magnetic fields are quite small, and where a field is huge enough to reach the bottom of an arm, you missed a basic in your theory, it would spread in all directions including the generator itself and the axel.

also where a device uses total electricity, equality of power production usually follows as you keep pointing out to each other, but any invention where one half of the power is self provided with no use of electricity there is a gain. and electromagnet pulling an object will use all the power the object can generate quite true, there can be no over unity there. but where one half of the field is not provided by the electricity then things are different, if one is a permanent magnet it requires no power for half of the effect, and all your calculations of required energy go out the door. Slow down a little you are doing great.

Archer, sorry if I've offended with my speculations, but the only way I can see to change a conditioned thought is to question it and use puzzles like these to find out how.

I'll keep my musing private, but I can't say I'll stop having them.

I look forward to June 20th!!

[ramset]

HE"S teaching us  im in school  if this was released yesterday i would be in the dark   i need the time to learn his device in small steps I also like  a chance to think about the change [world ] needs a little time for thought  maybe he's doing it for dopes like me    Thanks Archer   Chet

[oak]

exxcomm0n, I did not take Archer's comments as criticisms of your "musings," but rather as additional hints.  Please don't keep your musings to yourself.

I am intrigued by your idea.  I like it that no electricity has to be transferred into the wheel itself.  What if the upper magnet were a permanent magnet, rather than an electromagnet?

[ramset]

sorry guys i was reacting to D 911 about moving and Dissin Archer not necessary  he takes care of himself just fine no offence D911 everyones invited  im certainly not looking to censor anyone either [not that i could]    Chet

[sm0ky2]

it was hinted above, about the "weights" moving through the tube, as its turning, and the angle of incline decreasing as the wheel turns...

we should make note that as this occurs the "top end" of the tube is moving to a lower position.
in essence, decreasing the maximum work-force imparted by gravity. Yes it does lower the height needed to move the weight, but also the height the weight may fall.

so for all intensive purposes, there is a limitation on the angle of incline at the moment the weight moves, such that the "top" position of the weight is in the upper quadrant of the circle.  below 2-3 o'clock - the total graviational energy available to us would be somewhere between squat and diddly-pit.

so the weight has to move from a->b in less than 1/4 of a rotation, at the given RPM of the wheel.

that is if we are to truly circumvent any portion of the circle in attempts to reduce the total path-length of the weights on the 'up-stroke'
This will allow us to utilize the full 'arc' around the down-side of the wheel to provide motive force.

Ideally, the weight's "top" position would be at aprox. 12:15 for maximum recovery of the gravitational field.
However, the mechanism, as it was described thus far - seems to place it a little further down the wheel.
at least thats what i gathered from reading Quinn's vague description.