Roll on the 20th June

[dirt diggler]

Pure Power says  "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."

Now I am no expert, but what I believe Archer was talking about with his "elliptical" motion of a lever, is not that the actual movement of the lever, as we all know if the pivot does not move, then the distance from the pivot has to remain the same.  no problem there for me, however, when a lever is being used for a real life job, all of the usefull work is done in the middle of the "stroke".  as the lever is moved more and more, the load moves more in towards the pivot point, rather than straight up.  the distance to the pivot never changes, but the amount of usefull work of the lever if graphed, would appear to be elliptical.  this would be very obvious to antone who ever used a lever to lift an object, instead of studying them in school.

[Morgenster]

This Archer Quinn character is deluded at best.

I thought there might be something to the wheel he proposed but it seems to me he doesn't care to provide tolerances and construction details because he's winging it from the get-go. There's so many things that can make this thing not work and when you ask him to give up some details on how to overcome the obstacles he goes off on a tangent.
Granted, the idea of working with magnets to displace some of the weight is interesting. But they would need to be powerful enough to move the weights and therefore can be poweful enough to block the wheel entirely. Some simple magnet strength to weight ratios would have been nice. Instead he tells people to figure it out for themselves.

The whole levers and fulcrum stuff is just mindblowingly inaccurate and he doesn't make any effort to present his ideas clearly.
If that's the theory behind the wheel this does not inspire trust.

The whole watertank thingamajiggy is another one of those problems: It can't work like he says because he misrepresents the power that can be generated from the moving water by a serious margin. Especially on the final downward movement where he vectors the entire trajectory from top of the tank to the bottom of the lower tank. The vector should start at the waterlevel of the final tank, not the top.

And what pushed me over the fence was his comments on the moonlanding being faked. His argument being that when the astronauts hop around the moondirt settles at the same pace as dirt would in earth gravity. I went to check the available recordings just to see it for myself and find that argument to be completely false. It's real easy to see and try for yourself. The dirt falls back down much slower than it would here.

As for his 'heat recycler' thingy. Purepower's arguments are entirely valid and the alternative design where one moves the fan more upstream will cancel out the venturi effect and effectively render the extra pipe completely useless (not that it wasn't useless before).

In the end though, I'd say kudos to those who are actively trying to replicate the wheel. Who knows, it might actually work.
All the other stuff this guy spouts leads me to believe it won't though. Purely on the basis of his other examples of 'Newton-beating' theses.

If anyone is to blame for this thing not advancing rapidly it's the Quinn-meister himself being all drama queen and destroying his alleged first perpetuum mobile long ago.

[ramset]

well the thread is still booking along at almost 100 reads an hour [over 32000.00 so far] and this forum is ready to go crazy[COMPLETE UNDERSTATEMENT} with new techs  so.... Archer bringing all these new folks here   that never would have been here is GREAT!!!!  Archer is a good guy    the rest of you     that are afraid of change   better put on some diapers  Chet

[chrisC]

well the thread is still booking along at almost 100 reads an hour  and this forum is ready to go crazy[COMPLETE UNDERSTATEMENT} with new techs  so.... Archer bringing all these new folks here   that never would have been here is GREAT!!!!  Archer is a good guy    the rest of you     that are afraid of change   better put on some diapers  Chet

@Ramset

I agree with you. Whatever Archer said that seemed preposterous to many is his right to express what he feels and hopefully knows! If he puts time, money and efforts into his project for the good of others, why not give him a chance? Everyone deserves a chance. Why not sit tight, listen and shut-up. Maybe something great will come out of this. If not, you can start to laugh. Is that too difficult?

cheers
chrisC

[purepower]

@dirt digger

"as the lever is moved more and more, the load moves more in towards the pivot point, rather than straight up.  the distance to the pivot never changes, but the amount of usefull work of the lever if graphed, would appear to be elliptical."

First of all, he was referring to path, not work graphs. He posted diagrams on "Soapz" to try to depict the elliptical motion of the lever. Second, when graphed, the usefull work would appear to be sinusoidal because it is sinusoidal. For it to be elliptical would mean it has two values for any given position, which is simply incorrect. This would be very obvious to anyone who ever used a lever to lift an object and studied them in school. Dont be too hard on yourself, better luck next time.

@Morgenster

"Some simple magnet strength to weight ratios would have been nice. Instead he tells people to figure it out for themselves."

This is because there is no simple strength to weight ratio. The strength of the magnet is going to vary by: size, mass, material, geometry, and age. Ask you manufacturer, and if they cant provide the information, no one can but you yourself with simple analysis. For details on how to do this, just ask me how and I will provide procedures. Hell, send me the data you collect and Ill do the curve fit analysis for you!

Also, "The whole levers and fulcrum stuff is just mindblowingly inaccurate and he doesn't make any effort to present his ideas clearly. If that's the theory behind the wheel this does not inspire trust." You are referring to Archer here, right? From the flow of talking about finding the values of magnets (which I suggested) to this makes it seem like you are referring to me, which I must oppose. I have been entirely detailed and accurate through the entirety of my analysis. Any clarification needed by anyone, feel free to ask.

Oh, and similar to the moonlanding, he told me just before I was kicked out of "Soapz" the majority of his argument come June 20 is going to be that sunscreen actually gives you cancer! True or not, what does this have to do with free energy? It doesnt, just another diversion tactic...

And I will agree (in partial) with ramset and chrisC. What Archer has done to bring awareness and attention to free energy is admirable. The more great minds we have working towards the same goal the sooner it will be realized. But I think that has been Archer's only good contribution.