Roll on the 20th June

[Rusty_Springs]

@All testers,

Just more actual testing, no drawings or simulation. Just using 1/16 X 1/2" X 1/4" neo magnets and a K'Nex set.

The first picture (Repulsion and attraction) shows that the test rod has moved 12MM with single repulsion and attraction magnets. It would move 24MM but it is blocked by stops.

The upper single magnet along can not lift the test rod as all, so I tried to determine how many it would take.
The second picture shows the same test rod with 13 neo's trying to pull up that same rod at the same distance as in the first case. Note that Neo's stack together increase their pull ability almost proportional until you reach around 1" thickness. With 13 neo's it is getting close to pulling the test rod up, but I ran out of space for the test. Just think of the wall you would have if it pulled it up!

The third picture shows that the lower single magnet along is only able to lift the rod 4 MM. The lower magnet is under the plastic orange piece taped to the bottom area.

These are all real results from simple testing that anyone can cheaply reproduce.

Testers, please keep in mind that professional spooks and skeptics try to lead the actual testers astray by presenting what seems to be viable alternatives, but have not worked in the past. Please don't fall for their deceptions.

Regards, Larry

     

Hi Larry
To be honest I wouldn't care if people used my gate or not and it is proven to work, what is not proven is a sytem to work it with.
Its not hard lifting a weight using attract and repel as Sean and dusty have shown what is hard is breaking the wall comming in and going out which your experiment does not show.
Take Care Larry
Graham

[tekylife]

Archer is back at it!

Have new axel and bearings. will commence repairs today 23rd. sorry for the delay.

New show , no deadline , less pressure more success ?

[Evg]

This post will discredit me and will show you, I do have a peanut brain.

A wheel is thought to have a central axle (Most of the time)

Now enter dreamland of? if, buts, imagination and scenarios.

If I had a 10 meter diameter tube, made out of solid, but light plastic, (and had to change a light bulb on top/inside 10 meters high) I would put a pole in the middle straight up and would climb it with my 100 kg body weight (Example only), that would bugger me up, so to help me I get a bloke to slide down the pole, acting as a counter weight (through an 1 to1 pulley). But I would still have to climb 10 meters.

Now as per magic I can walk up walls (still same body weight).
I have to drag up a hundred kilos (depending where I?m in relation to the wheel angle) to the top of the wheel 180 degrees.

Now this stupid 5 year old comes along and says, ?Why don?t you just walk inside the tube for about 15 meters it will roll and the light bulb will be under your feet, with little effort?

I hate little smart kids!

Then this kid went on, put the tube on a round (level) track and you won?t get lost, and next time, you will only walk on a very slight incline to get to the top always.

What does all this mean?......... No idea.

[fletcher]

LarryC .. a pathetic & paranoid statement - dammed if we do & dammed if we don't - people will use their own brains to find any truth or possibilities in anything said by ANY member here - if they can't see any logic but can see potential they will do experiments & then form valid objective opinions based on their observational evidence & experience.

[fletcher]

evg .. you could log walk it [from the inside] & the offset weight of the light bulb would help you turn the tube [gravity pulls it down] - to return it to its full potential height you would have to work harder as you're raising the bulb against gravity the exact same height it came down.

P.S. having a countereweighted person to assist you in a vertical pole dance routine would use the same energy as if you shimmied up the pole then let gravity bring you down - that does not mean YOU used the same amount of energy, but the system net energy is the same in each instance [no adjustments for ordinary system losses] -