Roll on the 20th June

[kitefreak]

Hello everybody. This is my first post. I've been following this thread for a few weeks now. I'd already been reading/viewing stuff on 'peak oil' for a while. Then someone told me about Tesla, I did a few internet searches, noticed this site and started reading. So that's how I've arrived here.

It has been entertaining and interesting. Entertaining, because it's a bit like a soap opera (this thread), and interesting in the psychological aspect. I remember the guy from Storn saying how he could only explain the extreme reactions he got from people in the established scientific community as being like 'fundamentalism'. Religious fundamentalism.

Not that I watch soap operas, by the way, or television at all. But I am interested in world events and the past and future course of humanity.

So this evening I've donated $20 (I'm in the UK so it's about ?10) to Archer's build fund. I don't think he's a rip-off merchant (and yes, I've seen the Google warn stuff). I don't know if he'll get this machine to work - obviously that would be a first (like powered flight),

I think he really believes in what he's doing though. I'd like to try myself but it's a lot easier to just support Archer while he's being so open and transparent recently.

I know he's had his rants - the monkey business, and telling people to dig up Newton so he could **** his **** (I actually thought the latter quite amusing, but he'll need to get this wheel working before he can really issue that directive).

Anyway, I wish him the best of luck. He is doing something constructive He is trying to be positive. He has not given up.

And happy birthday USA! Shame about GW Bush and his friends shredding your most excellent constitution though....

[purepower]

@ Newt

...

Archer claimed to have a 12v, non OU model using electro-magnetics. This model proved his concept. What he is building now is a version which does not rely on any outside power source. His reasoning is correct. If he can create the effect of shifting the weight of a wheel to achieve continual motion with electromagnets, with a bit of tweaking it is very likely he can reproduce the same effect with permanent magnets. After all, one of the biggest secrets is in the leverage - getting the rods to shift, moving the weight. Permanent magnets should be able to achieve this too.

...

shakman

I will agree with you, in partial. The electro-prototype proves part of the device. It shows you can continually shift rods to one side to obtain continual motion.

However, I must respectfully disagree with the leap and assumption that a perm mag version will work just because a electromag version worked.

In the electromag version, the stator coils can be switched on and off. This allows you to move the rods into position with absolutely no "wall" with the magnets off. Once the rods are in position, the coils are turned on, the rod is pushed, and the wheel turns. The energy we get by shifting the rods is the same energy we use when we turn on the coil.

In the perm mag version, the stator mags are always "on." The energy we get by shifting the rods is the same energy needed to break the wall.

I have said this many times before, just not in so few words. If AQ does succeed, then he has figured out a way to reduce the "wall" input energy while maintaining the same "lift" energy.

This would truly present an anomaly and defy our understanding of magnetism as a "conservative" force. However, I am already starting to question this by observation of Rusty's trigate.

While this is against part of our current paradigm, it has nothing to do with Newton and mechanical physics. It would go against E&M physics (electro & magnetism). We know this area is one of the "bumps" in our trail, hopefully these discoveries smooth things out! But I think AQ is picking a fight with the wrong dead guy, he should be duking it out with Faraday and Maxwell...

(In Mawell's defense though, his original works have been "adulterated" to exclude aether theory. Today, scientist are looking for a universal equation that includes the four major forces: gravity, electromagnetic, strong and weak nuclear, but have been extremely unsuccessful. Maxwell had it in his original "equation," plus some "other" material, but it was broken apart into "equations" when that "other" material was not universally accepted. Well, this is the underground rumor at least.)

What we "know" will never be true. This ties into religion for me. We will never "know" God's laws. We see, observe, study, and analyze. We have gotten very close and accurate in our understanding and quantitative analysis for most things. We can use this understanding to design and build extraordinary things that work. This is what engineers do. Our paradigm is always changing. We are working up an endless mountain. To get the the top is to "know" all things, and this will never happen. Never.

-PurePower

[shakman]

(In Mawell's defense though, his original works have been "adulterated" to exclude aether theory. Today, scientist are looking for a universal equation that includes the four major forces: gravity, electromagnetic, strong and weak nuclear, but have been extremely unsuccessful. Maxwell had it in his original "equation," plus some "other" material, but it was broken apart into "equations" when that "other" material was not universally accepted. Well, this is the underground rumor at least.)

I've read about Maxwell's original equations many times before. As I understand it, there is a lot of his material that is not discussed in textbooks purely because some of the phenomenons he documented couldn't be easily explained, and these observations were considered at the time to be of no real value. As you've stated, many theories I have read propose that Maxwell was actually observing the aether force.

I'm glad you had good professors at uni told you to keep an open mind, many textbooks have been re-written many times in history. If the Maxwell "conspiracy" (if you could call it that) is proved to be true, it will be a shame that we may need to re-write (or amend) our current texts using discoveries made over 100 years ago that had since been overlooked.

As for your stance on Archer's wheel, that is fair enough and an understandable point of view.

As far as I can tell, even the most brilliant scientists and physicists of our time struggle to explain magnetics within the framework of what we do understand today. From a mechanical perspective of breaking attempting to break the OU barrier I truly believe that magnetics is the key and Archer may just have found the door in using leverage on a wheel. Despite your good points I am still confident that this can work. I guess we'll just have to wait and see about that though. I will remain hopeful.

I'm glad to see we can all make a point and be civil. This will be much more conducive to new discoveries.

Have a good weekend all.

shakman

[Newtonian God]

Okay shakman (and Archer supporters), let's make a pact to focus on the facts and leave personal attacks out of the conversation, for they only provide a diversion from getting to the truth.

This question has already been answered and the answer is in the very "evidence" you yourself provided. I hate to continue making noise in this thread but I know you won't bother going back and looking for the answer I have already provided as it does not support your argument

I have searched for the so called "evidence" that you are referring to but I am not seeing it. Could you simply copy and paste the exact quote from Quinn so we can see the exact words that he used?

So no matter how many times you try to claim that Archer lied about ever having a perpetual motion machine, anyone that actually bothered to read the very article you published as evidence will see that he never made claim to having a working OU device, but merely stated that he has built a model which required power input and this model proved his concept.

Okay, so let's be clear on this, you are saying that Archer never made the claim that he successfully produced a working OU device?

Archer claimed to have a 12v, non OU model using electro-magnetics. This model proved his concept. What he is building now is a version which does not rely on any outside power source. His reasoning is correct. If he can create the effect of shifting the weight of a wheel to achieve continual motion with electromagnets, with a bit of tweaking it is very likely he can reproduce the same effect with permanent magnets. After all, one of the biggest secrets is in the leverage - getting the rods to shift, moving the weight. Permanent magnets should be able to achieve this too.

You are obviously are only seeing what you want to see. The Free Energy Truth interview was only one reference that recorded what Archer has claimed. As I stated in the first sentence of my original post, Archer made the claim on his website (which he keeps changing) that he had created and later destroyed a device that would produce free energy. A device that once started would run continuously under it's own power until the parts wear out.

It is my understanding after reading Archer?s own description of his perpetual motion machine that his so called prototype was not a device powered by a battery or electromagnet. The electromagnet was simply a component of the device that was powered by the device itself, once the device was started in motion by an outside force. The 12 volts Archer referred to was how much power his free energy device was putting out, not a 12 volt battery source that powered it. Am I wrong on this??? Anyone???

--
Newtonian God
"A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool." William Shakespeare

[purepower]

Okay shakman (and Archer supporters), let's make a pact to focus on the facts and leave personal attacks out of the conversation, for they only provide a diversion from getting to the truth.

I have searched for the so called "evidence" that you are referring to but I am not seeing it. Could you simply copy and paste the exact quote from Quinn so we can see the exact words that he used?


Okay, so let's be clear on this, you are saying that Archer never made the claim that he successfully produced a working OU device?


You are obviously are only seeing what you want to see. The Free Energy Truth interview was only one reference that recorded what Archer has claimed. As I stated in the first sentence of my original post, Archer made the claim on his website (which he keeps changing) that he had created and later destroyed a device that would produce free energy. A device that once started would run continuously under it's own power until the parts wear out.

It is my understanding after reading Archer?s own description of his perpetual motion machine that his so called prototype was not a device powered by a battery or electromagnet. The electromagnet was simply a component of the device that was powered by the device itself, once the device was started in motion by an outside force. The 12 volts Archer referred to was how much power his free energy device was putting out, not a 12 volt battery source that powered it. Am I wrong on this??? Anyone???

--
Newtonian God
"A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool." William Shakespeare

I understand what you are digging for, I want the same answers too. The statements in the interview were vague that left much to me inferred and assumed. Which side of the debate you are on will change your assumptions as to what he was saying, and either way is reasonable considering the lack of details.

12 volts could mean it ran of a 12 volt battery or mean it had an excess output of 12 volts (unknown amps, you need amps to define power).

A working prototype could mean a fully functioning OU model, or a model that proves shifting the rods continually produces continual motion.

There is a lot left unanswered that only AQ can answer.

My assumption is that because it was an "FE Truth" interview, he must have had FE, not "something close" or "proof of partial concept." But that's just my assumption...

-PurePower