Roll on the 20th June

[ramset]

Evil   did you have problems in school with understanding what you read?  Chet

Having the opportunity to watch RESEARCH real time !!   some of you just make NO sense at all  thank you Archer Quinn for the privilege of watching research and a man trying to [already has] make the world better.

[mscoffman]

An Engineer would sit and say.

I know the wheel will trun with a weight shift on an evenly balnced wheel, "I have seen it"
I know the rod ends can go through a gate and accelerate "i have seen it"
i know the rods can be lifted by those magnets "i have seen it"
Therefore there is " no reason" it should not run

engineers take what they "know" and design and build into the future. they do not wait for proof, that is a replicator, not an engineer.

You do not "know" the laws of conservation are absolute simply because learned men told you so, no more than those engineers believe the earth was flat because learned men told them so.

If you only relate one thing to Newton and flat earth thought, consider this, you can hold him in high regard still, on the basis that he lived in the time of ferro magnetics, where their power would be seen as difficult to overcome friction in such a wheel, even though mine did, i can see the fine line it crossed, yet he did not know of neo magnets, expanded fields and so on. You cannot write a set of physics laws when you don't know all of the physics that there is to know.

Be an engineer, build from what you "know" not what learned men have told you, if you wish to invent, invent something new, but do not discard what your eyes show you is true over what "should be true" based on a set of laws written when all physics was not known. Today all physics is still not known, i doubt we will live that long.

Archer;

While I respect what you are doing, you are generally wrong about what an engineer does. He may use his intuition and fantasy
to set the overall goals of his project but he very much uses equations and mathematics and the principles of science to implement
a design. In fact in that way he is an accountant. We go over an over a design untill we assure ourselves that we understand
each and every bit from every angle before anything is built, this is why people are so critical of any errors in thinking. I've completed
many personal  projects and have done engineering design with each one and have been successfully reached goals almost 100%
of the time.

This is very different thing from what you are doing. It has to be, because obviously you can not use design equations to do the
"impossible" or implement fantasy directly. This is why it is so important that you do what you are doing publically. Once there
is an operational model for a unit, then us accountants will complete the design equations and computer optimisations to really
understand and apply this discovery under all sorts of conditions. The design equations become the tools to understanding the
operation of the unit. So let some folks help you with the theoretical aspects of this by doing it publically

I already have developed a significant theory as to why the Newtonian Theoriests may be in trouble with this wheel relative
to CoE Conservation of Energy. But I need the scratch. Please finish or fail to finish this unit publically, but please do not,
leave us in a hanging state.  Thanks in advance...I keep expecting bad project trajectories but you seem to continually be
demonstrating the better angels of humanity.

S:MarkSCoffman

[mscoffman]

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

Newtonian God;

You will notice that when he started his current wheel Archer designed in a 110/220V AC Generator directly
into it. This makes me think that he used a 12VDC automobile alternator previously to gain power from
his wheel. The thing people don't realise is that an automobile alternator is not self excited and it does not
contain static magnets as a DC field. It uses a regulator powered from a battery to excite the field coil, and
as such is a variable mechanical impedance machine, which is part of it's reason for being so successful
in it's applications. So to me 12Volt implies an alternator which implies a battery.

I think subsequently Archer decided correctly that the electronic activation and battery would be a theoretical
hindrance to the acceptance of the machine as a PMM. So he bravely redesigned it midstream to make
it operate almost completely based in these dual conservative field modes. Nobody looking at it can now
seriously question that in it's current form it is not operating totally via ZPE zero point energy contained in
the magnetic and gravitational fields.

I like thinking of a simplified wheel that has only DC solenoids coils and no permanent magnets! It would not itself
operate overunity, but any electrical engineer would be just as surprised by a DC motor with no commutator switch
as they would be by a perpetual motion machine, because one almost certainly implies the other.

:S;MarkSCoffman

[shakman]

Is this what you think Engineers do?

Design and build bridges,skyscrapers, cars, computers and medical equipment without proof!

You are a fool.

ERS

Tell that to the engineers that built the Tacoma Narrows Bridge (aka the Galloping Gertie). It seems they didn't understand (or research) mechanical resonance.

shakman

[Evil Roy Slade]

Evil   did you have problems in school with understanding what you read?  Chet

Having the opportunity to watch RESEARCH real time !!   some of you just make NO sense at all  thank you Archer Quinn for the privilege of watching research and a man trying to [already has] make the world better.

Anyone who has not done proper RESEARCH cannot tell the difference between it and Trial and Error.


@shakman
Engineers make mistakes. Nobody is infallible. Difference is that Engineers will not make excuses but delve into the reasons for failure and design appropriate practical solutions.

FYI: The Tacoma disaster was not entirely due to mechanical resonance. The aerodynamic design of the trusses supporting the roadway was the main underlying cause.  The trusses acted like wings that cycled through a Lift phase and the inevitable Stall phase.

Refer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacoma_Narrows_Bridge   

ERS