Roll on the 20th June

[noonespecial]

Hi Bubba1,
I'm using WM2D which seems to be the program of choice around here. I guess it will be only as good as the person using it.... . And I have to admit that there will be a learning curve involved. I'm going through the tutorial right now. It will probably be a couple of days before I can present anything. But stay tuned......

[Sprocket]

Greetings Sprocket

It looks like you reed way way to much into things. You need to ask Alex up front instead of assuming what is going on. I answer questions for Alex and I give him advise, and I have not charged him anything. The only time I would get anything is if we partner on a project, or I am test building and a idea of mine that would make it work, then I would expect to get a piece of the pie If they agree to partnering on the changes. Otherwise I get nothing, nor do I ask for anything.

Now as for my retirement I am a 49 year old handicapped blacksmith who can not stand long on my legs to hold a regular job. (God knows I have tried) Yes I am concerned for when my  wheel is exposed  I expect to git my fair share. But I am also concerned for the rest and there will need to be some form of control with such an invention, so friends of mine and people who have helped me and even those I have helped, will be asked to join in on this endeavor for this is way way to big for just one person, and with me, Ralph Lortie is going to become the manager of this when it comes ready, Hans, Fletcher, and several more will be invited. So don't try to post me as a greedy person, for I am far from that, I just won't be a fool and loose everything.

Now the reason for the teasers to use your words. This last one was to show that you can be fooled and then I made sure you would not be, by admitting quickly the real story. This is my opinion about Archer Quinn, now he has put allot out but truly said very little. Just enough to get your attention and he has not shown anything working at all. But he has shown lately construction of a monstrosity so I now have to give some respect even though I very well doubt what he is doing will work any better than the drinking bird that it seem to resemble. But has he shown any earlier projects? NO,  just some drawings of things that maybe slightly different but has been tried before. And several guys here pick up on it and try to build it and work out your problems and if you succeed he comes around and say congratulation you are the second one to do my project, without showing his taking credit as the first. This is what gets to me and now I have shown more on his string than he has. At least what I have shown spins. But all and all I still hope Quinn is correct.

As for my patent protection, maybe you need to be able to afford a patent lawyer first. So until then it will remain quit, and I'll save up the money. But that one is not OU or perpetual, but it is a great design, that hasn't been done. Now as for a working wheel there are connection in the works that will take care of the best patent lawyer available. And when this happens I may use that lawyer to help patent the other invention as well.

Now you know my mind on this and you know where I stand. If someone need a build and it looks like it is worth trying. Just like hartiberlin / Stefan I built his test, sent him the video and it didn't cost him a thing. Now if it would be a runner I would expect a fair percentage for making the dream come true, but that would be between myself and the persons who did the design I am building. If not a runner I get nothing. Now thats fair isn't it? Oh yes the most important thing that Ralph has taught me, I don't share others ideal with others without their permission. Your design is your design. I have built wheels with partners and even though they are non runners I can't show them without permission from my partner  to show them.

AB Hammer, I'm surprised by your reasonable and detailed response - I wasn't expecting that!

Most of what you say is quite plausible and understandable.  The only real point of contention would appear to revolve around what might be perceived as "the greater good" - or if you're a 'trekkie'  - "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one"   I believe things have become so bad, that something drastic needs to be done to rid us of the tyranny of big-oil, whereas you obviously feel that your personal circumstance take priority.  Understandable but sad, considering the destruction the energy giants have wreaked globally, both in terms of the environmental damage caused and the impoverishing effect they have had on entire countries - and all for personal profit...

[legendre]

@AB Hammer,

Wait a moment.. you've also made a gravity wheel claim? Must've missed that part..

I take it that you haven't actually produced a working wheel?

-L

[purepower]

Hi all! Im new to the site (first post) but certainly not new to the device, or Archer. Few of you out there I recognize from Archer's Google group "Soapz." I had been a member but was eventually kicked out for questioning and challenging Archer. Let me tell you all, as an ex-insider, this whole device is a joke.

Now, as I was with Archer, I will not make a claim and not support it. With all the fanciful deception out there, its hard to find were to start. Ah, Ill start where I can provide myself a little credibility. In regards to Archer's disproval of Einstein's "E=mc^2" with "POC2=POC2," after successfully correcting Archer's misunderstanding of the equation he proceeded to withdraw all statements. Similarly, I disproved Archer's "elliptical" rotation of the lever, and he proceeded to withdraw all statements.

What eventually got me kicked out was the challenge I posed to the function of his device (as shown by one of Archer's hand drawings earlier in the thread). The correspondence went as follows:

PurePower:
"How is one of the heavy masses going to lift the dish 4.5 meters if it only moves .9 meters? A 5:1 mechanical advantage in the pulley? If this is the case, it will only be able to lift 1/5 the weight (5.25/5=1.05 kg). The water/dish assembly wont be lifted high enough or the mass wont be great enough...

Now, lets say we increase the heavy mass to 6 kg (falling .9 meters) to allow a full lift of 1.2 kg 4.5 meters. Once this hits the lever (which also has a 5:1 ratio) the system would cycle because the 1.2 kg has just enough mass to lift the 6 kg back up. However, this would not be enough energy to lift the other (10.5-6=) 4.5 kgs. Now we would have a little additional lift from the extra weight of the lever on
the extended end to lift a little more mass, but this little extra energy would all be used in the return process to raise the extended end.

I see how the cycle 'could' continue forever in the absence of friction. And while friction may be negligible in the lever, you certainly cannot ignore the friction from the pulleys. And even if all
friction could be ignored, there is never any additional energy in the system that isnt used to reset the lever and weights."

Archer:
"5 to one distance pulley not a 5 to 1 block and tackle for weights, you know, big wheel little wheel stuff"

PurePower:
"Block and tackle, big-wheel little-wheel, lever... doesnt make a difference. If there is a 5:1 ratio, one mass (m=x) will go a certain distance (L=y), causing either: a) a larger mass (m=5x) going  a shorter distance (L=.2y) or b) a lighter mass (m=.2x) going a longer distance (L=5y). Hence, x*y = (5x)*(.2y) = (.2x)*(5y)...

And you may have the beam balanced, I see that from you pics. This is all fine and dandy and eliminates the need for energy expended to reset the beam (with the exception of the inertial couple as no beam, especially one this massive, will move on its own). But at the same time, the imbalance in the beam itself was the only energy source outside the water system. So the water system has no additional energy, the beam is balanced... Sounds more like a "unity" system (if we ignore friction)..."

Archer:
"ok so if the raitio is 5 to one and the msall power we needed to lift was mutilplied five to 1, your math cannot be out betwwen the two,

if you have to multiply 5 to 1 to get your lift equation, and you gearing is 5 to 1 they should be the same, now allowing for the fact there is huge spare energy by comparison, you math has to ber worng.

you do the orignal 5 to 1 to know what it will take in power, so if the cost is 5 to 1 then you are spot on what you allowed, i think you have added the same thing twice, you are not lifting the beam and 1.2 kilos just 1.2 kilos and have given yourself 5 times this to lift it.

your pulley costs 5 times the weight to lift it, so you are exactly where you wanted to be.

you have added it on once as a lever calculation and again as a pulley calcualation

unless you are saying 5 to one pulleys use 100 percent friction thus it is ten to one, you added it twice, do it again."

Archer (to another member):
"to harty as before it is simply the cost to move the empty beams with pulleys.and the weight to do this.

remember you can no more create a flase "need for power" as you can a production of one or math is completely useless.

if the math says it takes 5 kilos of power to lift an object a set distance, then excluding some huge friction from another source this is the amount needed. dont try to make it work, and dont try to make
it not work, just do the math.

I am afraid what i gave you yesterday was real from lift tests, so it is what it is, i cant unmake reality even in a bad test with losses to beam flex."

PurePower:
"" dont try to make it work, and dont try to make it not work, just do the math." Take your own advice and listen to what you are saying. "if you have to multiply 5 to 1 to get your lift equation, and you gearing is 5 to 1 they should be the same, now allowing for the fact there is huge spare energy by comparison, you math has to ber worng." Your gearing equation is your lift equation, and we are not multiplying the whole thing by five. There is no "huge spare energy."

Yes, 1 kilo will lift 5 kilos. Nothing new. What the equations (and ratios) tell you is that the 1 kilo will lift it only 1/5 the height it falls. 1:6 - 1 kilo will lift 6 kilos 1/6 the height. 1:1000 - 1 kilo will lift 1000 kilos 1/1000 the height. Simply because a small mass lifts a large mass does not mean free energy.

Its not that "Physics 101 isn't working anymore," its that you didnt understand what everyone is trying to tell you. Mechanical advantage allows one to lift larger masses with smaller masses, but at the expense of a lower height lifted (or vice versa).

Potential Energy = (mass)*(acceleration of gravity)*(height). Any closed system such as a pulley or lever will conserve its energy. So:

(mass1)*(acceleration of gravity)*(height1) = (mass2)*(acceleration of gravity)*(height2)

If mass 1 increases, either mass2 or height2 may increase. If height1 increases, either mass2 or height2 may increase. The ratio comes from either comparing height 1 to height2 (height1:height2) or the masses (mass1:mass2). And in the end you will ALWAYS find height1:height2 =
mass1:mass2.

Set up as simple test, either by pulley or well-balanced lever and provide me with your data and I will PROVE this to you.

Dont lose hope, but wake up (just a little)..."

Archer:
"I give up trying to explain it to you, the math on the test page is simple the vast jump from 1.2 kilos need to 12 kilos "IS" to cover the energy needed, there is no pulley system needed to lift 1.2 kilos 10
meteres that will use much more than 12 kilos, the exact amount allowed. if you cant understand that basic, i cannot help you. and as for wake up, you forget this already works.

Thanks but i think i will stick with reality for now and leave newton and his bullshit to others.

when you can do me the math for the siphon on the front page then you can quote me math, and there is no publication of anyone ever noting that phenomena before, so spare hopw clever the science crew are that you all missed that."

PurePower:
"Call me dense, call me ignorant, but I simply dont believe that this machine produces any free energy. I understand proper mathematics and physics, the culmination of thousands of years of human evolution and discovery and know there is no error in my figures. I dont understand nor do I accept "Archurian analysis." I also do not believe that this machine will even function past a single cycle without human intervention to reset.

All I have read so far is "magic magic magic... bad "maths"... magic magic magic... fuck the world, Im so smart... magic magic magic..."

Has ANYONE but Archer seen this (or his last model) run? Any videos? Pictures? Anything? If seeing is believing, then make me a believer and post a video of your last model running. Oh wait, let me guess, you had do destroy it before the oil companies could get to it?

You claim to be getting better ratios in your tests (last couple posts). Mind taking pictures of what you are doing? Video please? Or is all this some elaborate hoax so you can say "I duped the world" come June 20?"

I was then kicked out. I know this was a very long post, but I felt all information necessary so people may understand who they are dealing with. He understands very little math. The only time his calculations are ever 'correct' is when he butchers them to work in his favor. If they dont work for him, then they must be some BS from Newton.

While I know for a fact he is not out for money (someone on the site offered up $1000 when he broke the lever, turned it down), this does not mean he is not a con artist. A con artist does not have to be out for money. His motives are non-monetary, but he is still out to deceive.

Only reason I have been able to fathom is for publicity. People would kill for the international hype he has generated about himself. ABHammer may be onto something as well; he simply throws ideas out there and if someone happens to get one (or something similar) to work, he gets the credit.

His Thermal Accelerator is a joke. As a mechanical engineer, I built and tested a device. No magic, simply a recirculation preheated air to raise over all temperature (total volumetric flow rate decreases to all such occurrence).

And as of yet, the only device I saw having any potential is his mag-grav wheel. But, sad to say, no one (including Archer) has been able to demonstrate a functioning device, even after his great release for that.

His syphon isnt another device, just "proof" of how stupid the world was before he blessed us with his wisdom. Only problem, there is no free energy there. He claims by splitting the exit pipe he is "getting the water to fall twice." The flow rate remains the same, and it all eventually makes its way to a lower state of potential energy with no work being done by the system. So wheres the free energy? How does this prove the world wrong? Um, there isnt, and it doesnt...

As far as June 20 goes, I have a feeling he will simply state the device is up and running and he has saved the world. No one will see it run, just maybe a couple of pics. He will maintain his celebrity status by assisting those who "just cant seem to get it to work," and the world will go on as though he never existed.

[legendre]

Hi all! Im new to the site (first post) but certainly not new to the device, or Archer. Few of you out there I recognize from Archer's Google group "Soapz." I had been a member but was eventually kicked out for questioning and challenging Archer. Let me tell you all, as an ex-insider, this whole device is a joke. (...)

The whole episode reads like a joke - and having said that, I need to emphasize that I really enjoy a good joke!!

But I have an arguably high standard for Internet-based technology hoaxes.. and this 'Archer Quinn' is no John Titor!

-L