Roll on the 20th June

[MrKai]

it is only fair to show the newtonian view, "unedited", so i gave purepower the credit he desrves with his own page.

what did billy the kid say??

go ahead I'll make you famous

All jokes aside...

Until you actually produce what you claimed you could, all of YOUR "debunking" amounts to nothing more than very large, stinky, red herrings, Archer.

And on your "ha ha, look at the fool PurePower page" you have again attempted to use straw men, glittering generalities, ad hominem attacks...logical fallacy after logical fallacy, appealing to the confirmation bias of the OU "dreamer" subset.

But at the end of the day, you have proven N-O-T-H-I-N-G. You have made a lot of "and thusly, it will all come together, if you aren't stupid" sort of flourishing End Game-type comments...but ya' know what ya haven't done yet?

You haven't made or demonstrated anything that works, and no matter how many tangents you go off on, I'll be right here in "Club Whatever, dude" until you back up your claims with some 1. observable and 2. repeatable results.

Stop wasting time attacking people. Simply completing your task in the manner you intially described, or something similar to it, should be more than sufficient to shut down ALL decent.

I assume that one of your obvious talent and superior intellect is capable of building something that you've already built before...right?

-K

[dirt diggler]

Hi Dirt
I have a question for you, do you use more fuel/gas going up or desending in your planes?
Take Care Dirt
Graham

Hi Rusty springs,

Actually, I use MUCH less fuel to climb up to a high altitude, cruise along, and then descend. than if I had stayed low the whole time.
the gains are massive, on some aircraft 50% less fuel would not be uncommon.
so to answer your question, I burn less and less the more I climb, and I burn more and more when I descend.

take care Graham.
dirt

[The Eskimo Quinn]

@K
I think today alone I proved the leader of Newtonians as a liar or an idiot, I think idiot I found where he got the math, i proved even his physics claims false about the upper wall, the use of torque to break the wall thin the arm design even before using moving extensions, an i have proven this of all who agreed, including rusty, spinner and yourself who agreed with the math.

Do you know what your leader and spreader of your dribble is? He is a net surfer, not a math or physics specialist, not even close, he has a set of computer links in his favorites to go an get answers from, if you hacked his computer you would find it is so. Not that i did of course.

But I should have guessed the answers were too generic, more reference material math with the numbers changed.

I thought i recognized his torque equation even though it did not apply or seemed incomplete. That is because one of his links must have related to torque in general, and in his haste to quote it, did not realize it was a reference to static torque, you do know what static torque is Mr. k don't you?? one that has no movement? a torque wrench ring a bell, sometimes called a tension wrench??? tension is a static from of torque, the huge difference is it has no power equation, no speed or time or kilowatts or pressure variant, that is what is required for torque in momentum,  he described the torque of the tension in retracting items. the math he gave was for a clothes line strand or a bolt on the head of a car. he gave the math for tension, because he is simply an articulate web surfer. Not too successful, hence the reason someone from a fortune 500 company who is supposed to be a genius is here. He is probably the building cleaner.

You agreed with him, so that leaves your credibility somewhat to be questioned, or is a tag team or perhaps the pretence of the nicer side of the same man. Funny how you got so upset, yet said nothing of the math being incorrect??? very strange??? for someone who wants the truth?? thought you would have gone with shocked, or yes I noticed that, clearly he is a fraud, but no, you got upset.

I need say no more or call names, I have provided many videos of my claims, each word for word in video as I spoke them to be in advance of doing them, yet never wrong was I once. Yet still you did not believe the next until shown, and then it was the next until shown.

Men like you can never be shown, men like you are bitter at lack of self-achievement.

A video from spinner? what about rusty? Yourself other than music? purepower himself with his labs and all that equipment on hand so freely he built an unseen accelerator, yet cannot build two small levers side by side to even show the inversion alone is more powerful??

And I am the one lacking??

Dear sir, it is not I that you see on your screen, it is the angle of it.

That is but your own reflection you gaze upon with contempt, for you and yours I now only have pity, for I see the depth of your merits, and they are no deeper than the contact lens that covers the true windows to the soul.

I have proven already more than most will ever hope to show fresh to the world, yet never did you acknowledge once achievements made, simply of those unseen by you, as if your eyes will make what is real more so, alas, for even shown I fear your contacts will let you down, they appear an ill fit to eyes portrayed as all seeing.

[Morgenster]

Crap. Had a long post ready but the server puked it back at me and now it's gone.
Look at attached drawing with proposed trajectories for the weights in red. The drawing is crude but should give you an idea.
Then try to visualise this moving.
This wheel of Archer is not going to work I now completely understand why.
Purepower is right.
The 'wall' that replicators are running into cannot be overcome because it's not the magnets or weights that are the problem. It's the trajectory of the weights. The leverage advantage can not kick in until somewhere around the 1h30' mark. In the meantime angular momentum has already decreased because the lower weight on the same rod is being pushed up suddenly by the magnets. By the time the upper weight is in an advantageous position the losses in angular momentum can never be fully 100% overcome by this.

[MrKai]

@K
I think today alone I proved the leader of Newtonians as a liar or an idiot, I think idiot I found where he got the math, i proved even his physics claims false about the upper wall, the use of torque to break the wall thin the arm design even before using moving extensions, an i have proven this of all who agreed, including rusty, spinner and yourself who agreed with the math.

Do you know what your leader and spreader of your dribble is? He is a net surfer, not a math or physics specialist, not even close, he has a set of computer links in his favorites to go an get answers from, if you hacked his computer you would find it is so. Not that i did of course.

Error #1: I have no leader.

Error#2: I have agreed with no math. NEITHER sides "arguments" are what I am after. I am after results. Period. Look again at who you are speaking to.

Quinn: Have you built and demonstrated a working end-to-end solution? Until the answer to this is "Yes!" then all of the rest of your claims are red herring distractions from this.

You see, I don't argue like you are used to; I'm not going to attack your math. I'm going to stay ON THE POINT.

And presently, you have not demonstrated a single completely working concept; all you have shown is reinforcing the same confirmation bias 100's of other videos on youTube have.

At this point, I'm not even sure I'm going to hold you to generating electricity; I'll settle for one video, with WIDE SHOTS, of any of your constructions doing anything close to PM.

Pushing rods with your finger...even "eevah sew slawytly" is YOU PUSHING, not *it pushing itself*.

I don't NEED PurePower, Legendre, GreenDoor or ANYONE ELSE to tell me what to think...I can simply look at what you have shown your machines *not* doing and claiming they can/will.

But let's move on for now....

But I should have guessed the answers were too generic, more reference material math with the numbers changed.

I thought i recognized his torque equation even though it did not apply or seemed incomplete. That is because one of his links must have related to torque in general, and in his haste to quote it, did not realize it was a reference to static torque, you do know what static torque is Mr. k don't you?? one that has no movement? a torque wrench ring a bell, sometimes called a tension wrench??? tension is a static from of torque, the huge difference is it has no power equation, no speed or time or kilowatts or pressure variant, that is what is required for torque in momentum,  he described the torque of the tension in retracting items. the math he gave was for a clothes line strand or a bolt on the head of a car. he gave the math for tension, because he is simply an articulate web surfer. Not too successful, hence the reason someone from a fortune 500 company who is supposed to be a genius is here. He is probably the building cleaner.

Hi Archer.

Again with the ad hominems, and more red herrings.

The ONLY QUESTION THAT MATTERS is this one:

Where is the evidence that you have built a machine that does what you claim is possible?  Can we stick to that question? All of your questions above are NOT RELEVANT.

Where is the PM?

You agreed with him, so that leaves your credibility somewhat to be questioned, or is a tag team or perhaps the pretence of the nicer side of the same man.

My credibility?

Where is a single piece of evidence, ONE SINGLE PIECE QUINN, not implied or inferred, that your wheel will spin for an hour, let alone 5 mins?

I am NOT the one here with credibility issues my man

Funny how you got so upset, yet said nothing of the math being incorrect??? very strange??? for someone who wants the truth?? thought you would have gone with shocked, or yes I noticed that, clearly he is a fraud, but no, you got upset.

I need say no more or call names, I have provided many videos of my claims, each word for word in video as I spoke them to be in advance of doing them, yet never wrong was I once. Yet still you did not believe the next until shown, and then it was the next until shown.

Wait...so you've provided a video of a machine that has spun or even worked on its own, without you touching it several times?

Please post the link. Once I have a look, I will cheerfully change my tune.

What you have provided are videos of explainations of why it *would* work, but nothing actually working.

There are a bunch of those on youTube already. Some by the very builders you mention.

Men like you can never be shown, men like you are bitter at lack of self-achievement.

I actually own and run my own software company. I'm not lacking for achievement at all.

Again, an ad hominem attack...but no evidence to back up your claim of knowing how to build a PM machine that can generate electricity and free us all from the power whores.

Anytime you are ready to show these results, I am ready to see them.

Surely you don't think explanations of machines that are NOT working consitute proof of a working machine...do you?

A video from spinner? what about rusty? Yourself other than music? purepower himself with his labs and all that equipment on hand so freely he built an unseen accelerator, yet cannot build two small levers side by side to even show the inversion alone is more powerful??

And I am the one lacking??

Yes in fact you are. You have not produced at all what you have claimed. I have claimed that you have not produced what you have claimed.

It appears one of us is more...accurate at this time than the other

Again, I'm very single-minded and cannot be sidetracked by your song and dance. You cannot offend or "discredit" me because I have nothing to prove...

You, OTOH, seem to have quite a bit to prove.

So where is this machine again? Got some plans? Got even a single video of anything you've built actually running independently for any amount of time beyond 20 seconds or 1/2 a "cycle"?

No. This is irrefutable. All of the math, white papers, smear jobs and ranting in the world cannot disspell or warp THAT reality.

At all.

Dear sir, it is not I that you see on your screen, it is the angle of it.

That is but your own reflection you gaze upon with contempt, for you and yours I now only have pity, for I see the depth of your merits, and they are no deeper than the contact lens that covers the true windows to the soul.

I have proven already more than most will ever hope to show fresh to the world, yet never did you acknowledge once achievements made, simply of those unseen by you, as if your eyes will make what is real more so, alas, for even shown I fear your contacts will let you down, they appear an ill fit to eyes portrayed as all seeing.

More personal attacks.

Here is an idea:

You give me permission to re-publish the original version of your site that I have cached.

It returns to the internet, we examine what you claimed you would do, what you've done thus far, and what the results are.

Welcome to your nightmare; I'm not a Newtonian...I'm not an Archurian.

I am Kai. I am transparent and un-anonymous. I have no manifesto...I only have ONE THING:

Truth.

Archer Quinn has constantly attacked his critics, but has not proven his base claim of being able to make a machine that can generate electricity via perpetual motion, or a perpetual motion-like process, in a manner that can be easily replicated by people with modest fabrication skills.

Math THAT away.

Your Man in the Field,

Mr. Kai