Roll on the 20th June

[exxcomm0n]

<snip>
If you stop and think about it though, Archer's aggression is misplaced.  Why is it the end of Big Oil?  Petroleum will still be needed to produce all the plastic, asphalt, lubricants, etc and free energy will not be replacing that need.

I think Archer should be claiming anyone opressing FE/OU ideas are 'Coal Men' not 'Oil Men'.  Think about it. If vehicles are going electric, how is most of it produced?  Coal.  His invention is to produce the juice to run your house, replacing what?  Coal.

So I think everyone should change their rhetoric to beat the opression of Big Coal.  Die you Big Coal mother f@kers!!

With my twisted logic, I like HHO as a personal vehicle replacement fuel, as a regular ICE with some minor (timing) modifications can use it.
A lot easier than replacing all oil based ICE with electric motors in my opinion.
Faster realization of benefit too.
But it uses electricity to be produced.

Actually, it's not the oil companies chaining us to fossil fuels (that we know of), but the lack of an affordable better battery technology rather than heavy lead acid ones we presently use.

Otherwise, electric motors are more efficient, and can produce greater torque per pound than ICE.

I worked for a power company with coal fired generation and visited that plant often.
That's what keeps me looking for ANY alternative.

But as far as pollution vs. power generated, coal is still much cleaner than oil (gas), is utilized more completely during conversion to power, and is at least somewhat geographically bound to a location.

[sm0ky2]

@ Fred - get heavier weights for yoru bicycle wheel !!  and make sure the brakes aren't touching.


@ Libra

  Sometimes its easier to take away the wheel, and just imgaine the 2 weights connected to the ends of a lever. Take note of the direction of motion - the weights aren't traveling straight up and down. Gravity acts differently at different angles - anything but straight down is going to be LESS force the full potential of gravity. For the same reason that rolling down a ramp is a slower fall than a free-fall. The force operates at a vector angle between the vertice (straight down) and a tangent to the angle of motion of the weight.
in short - the 1 o'clock weight is imparted with more downward force than the 7 o'clock weight. The force decreases for the upper weight until it approaches the 3:00 position. The force increases for the lower weight until it reaches the 9:00 position, where the two forces balance out.

an important point often overlooked is that the rod only moves a short distance, AND at a vector angle off the verticle.  Whereas, the offbalanced system is being affected by gravity at (or near) the perpendicular for several times that distance
From 7:00 to 3:00 while under magnetic influence, and  again from 3:00 to 5:30(ish) under (almost) the full influence of gravity.

from (approx) 5:30 to 6:30 the weight is traveling almost horizontally. the effects of gravity are perpendicular with respect to the motion, and with no frictional surface gravity does not slow down OR speed up the weights, they maintain their momentum until 6:30(ish) where gravity starts trying to slow it down, and the rod needs to be shifted up again.

[onesnzeros]

Hi all, I am new to the board, but not to OU "research".

After reading and rereading everything Archer said, I think he really has found something. Keep it up Archer!

ouboy,

What exactly has Archer found? Can you edify the forum?

thanks

onesnzeros

[ramset]

I still giggle when I think of evolutionary monkeys on the third rock from the sun      makes me laugh    any of you guys drag your knuckles on the ground when you walk?  anyway   someone level the playing    field !!!!
what is not possible or irrelevant about 1 unit lifting 20 units at 5-1? is there no available power in that statement? if the units are fluid and can repeat a cycle will this mean anything?       tell me what is not possible     the above lift ratio?   or    the ability to self run using fluids as ARCHER stated ?   Chet

[onesnzeros]

I still giggle when I think of evolutionary monkeys on the third rock from the sun      makes me laugh    any of you guys drag your knuckles on the ground when you walk  anyway   someone level the playing    field
what is not possible or irrelevant about 1 unit lifting 20 units at 5-1 is there no available power in that statement if the units are fluid and can repeat a cycle will this mean anything?       tell me what is not possible     the above lift ratio   or    the ability to self run using fluids as ARCHER stated    Chet

Chet:

1 unit is not lifting 20 units with a 5 to 1 lever. The weight of the long end of the lever is contributing to the lift giving the appearance that 1 unit is lifting 20 units. Archer built a lever, a simple lever. there is nothing about the lever that defies or breaks any known physical laws. And certainly there is no OU. Archer is very dellusionial but hard working. Archer is not the Messiah that you are looking for.

onesnzeros