Author Topic: Roll on the 20th June (Read 1922460 times)

onthecuttingedge2005 · « **Reply #6825 on:** July 19, 2011, 02:39:30 AM »

Quote from: sm0ky2 on July 19, 2011, 01:31:49 AM

from approximately at or around the horizontal line, the magnetic field
switches from upward repulsion to a downward repulsion, and the direction is counter to the direction of rotation caused by the lower array. from the verticle radius, the top-right magnetic array operates in the direction of rotation. If you notice in the original design, the arrays are placed on diagonal quadrants. pushing from below, and lifting from above.

its also important to note, that although the arrays do impart a small rotational effect onto the wheel, it is not the magnetic field that provides power to the wheel, but the gravitational one.
we are simply utilyzing the "lifting" effect of the magnets, to achieve more gravitational potential.

I'll try to break this down into the different systems, so it makes sense.

Magnetic System:
the opposing magnetic fields are conservative. one magnet lifts the other magnet to a height equal to the energy consumed by pushing the magnet into the field. in and out energy levels of this system are equivallent. we can tweak the fields on one end or the other to offset this slightly,. but at the end of the day, the fields are equal in and out.
magnet goes in, rod and magnet lift a few inches.

Archemedian (leveraged) System:
when the rod slides one way or the other, the mass of the rod offests the center of mass of the wheel, and this causes a rotational force in the downward direction from the point of greatest leverage.
in and out energy levels of this system depend on the gravitational vector. So it is tied into the gravitational system.
since the rod translates as it approaches the horizontal, the "input" energy decreases infinitely, at 90-degrees, it requires almost no energy to move the rod from one side to the other.
but once at that side, on the horizontal level, the leveraged power is at its maximum, and provides maximum torque to the wheel.
calculated by the archemedian theorems.

Gravitational System:
This system has equal energy levels in and out, E = mgh
the magnet is lifted however many inches, and that is the potential energy gained by the rod as the magnet lifts it.
This energy, however, is leveraged. So as it translates into momentum on the wheel, it is multiplied by the archemedian factor.
like pushing one person further back on the see-saw, the other person goes up to the top, even though they weigh the same.

The momentum of the wheel from the upper, leveraged rod end, caused by gravity on it's way down, translates the gravitational output energy, back into the input energy of the magnetic system.
the mass and the velocity of the wheel, at the entrance into the magnetic field, can be grossly misproportionate to the input/output of the magnetic field. The two systems are entirely unrelated, except by a common change-in mass factor.

the ratio of m(rod) : m( wheel +rod)
defines this misproportionality between the systems.

the gravitational system is interlinked to the magnetic system by the equation E=mgh of the rodd mass m(rod).

This is entirely unrelated to the input/output energies of the magnetic system, at close distances. The energies become more discrete at the limits of the field where gravity is the dominant force. Gravity is measured as a potential, at maximum lift, rather than a force throughout the lift.
because of the missing time factor, the two values are not coherent.
At close distances, where the magnetic field is stronger than gravity,
gravities effects can only be measured comparatively by lifting different masses through the field. The strength of the field is determined by distance between the two magnets, irrespective of time.
And the rate of translation is a factor of mass to distance, irrespective of time.

The energy of gravity leveraged on the wheel is measured over the time as the mass drop from its lifted-most point, downwards to its lowest maximum.

the energy of the wheel is a function of its momentum imparted by the gravitational energy, up to the point it enters into the magnetic field.

what is important to note here is that this is at or around a point of gravitational balance of the wheel itself. Leaving the magnetic system to consume as much of the wheels momentum as it wants to, in a direct energy translation slowing the wheel. The effects of leveraged gravity at this point is 0. none, zip, nada...
gravity is not in the equation during this point.
Any remaining monentum goes into the "pendulum-like" action of the wheel continuing to spin, as the rod approaches leveraged balance.
if the rod does not approach and/or cross the balance point before the momentum is consumed by gravity above the wheel's balance point, then it would swing back down the other way, and out of the magnetic field. This point is at or around the horizontal line.. and coincidently at the point where the magnetic array begins to have the opposite effect and must be cut-off.

the upper(attractive) magnetic array is not necessary, but can be used to lift more mass, or to more accurately adjust the translation of the rods to increase the extraction of gravitational energy.
this translates directly into increased torque on the wheel, by increasing the m(rod) factor, disproportionately from the magnetic field energy. but also adds another gravitational "input" as it leaves the upper attractive field. The input/output of the upper array is a complex integration of the lower field, gravity, momentum, and its own attraction to the m(rod).
Basically makes the magnetic system into a dual-magnetic system.
Rather than the much simplier / less powerful single lower array.

Ultimately the gravitational system and the magnetic system are not tied together, but independently effect the momentum of the spinning wheel. In a misproportionate manner.

like. umm... a fieldmouse standing next to a mack truck?

the fieldmouse ate some berries that gives him enough energy to run down the block to the redlight.
the truck gets its much larger self there, by using an ammount of gas 3 times the size of the fieldmouse, 300 times the size of the berries.

you cant compare those two systems, because they are not related.
nor is the magnetic field, and its input/out related in any way to te gravitational effects of the leveraged mass plus the mass of the wheel.
except by the momentum of the wheek, which is used as a medium for the transfer of energy back into the first system.

we can (theoreticaly) tap into at the shaft of the wheel, though i have not seen archer actually achieve this.

if you build a S.M.O.T system that was totally linear around the world it might work through the earth's curvature. else, I think not. anyone want to make a Guinness world record? the longest S.M.O.T run.

just here to indulge your mind.
Jerry

sm0ky2 · « **Reply #6826 on:** July 19, 2011, 05:02:59 PM »

@ Jerry

One of Tesla's writings depicts a track circling the earth at the equator.
and using the inertia of the rotating earth, he proposed to develop a self-sustaining global transportation system, that used no energy.

So if you had a SMOT, around the world, you probably wouldn't need magnets (unless you wanted to go in the opposite direction perhaps).
The problem with looping the SMOT configuration, is the magnetic field will duplicate itself within the track. so you wil have 2 north poles and 2 south poles oriented symmetrically aroud the loop.
and thus points where the roller will get stuck.

in a linear configuration, where the field is broken (not looped), there is a definitive start and end point, corresponding to the bipolar fields.
and in the case of the smot, you have a negative input energy value,
i.e. a sucking into the track.
equally offset by a negative energy output value at the end of the track. the attractiveness to the end of the array.

Most portable smot devices come equipped with a hole at the end of the track, so as the ball reaches the end of the track it stretches the field and the field is pulling back trying to keep hold of the ball, gravity can take over and pull the ball down below the field.

while the ball is in the intense portion of the magnetic field, gravity has
minimal effect on it. As the field weakens, the gravitational force becomes the dominant one.
In principal, the SMOT game it is similar to the Archer quinn wheel, because it utilyzes two seperate force vectors.
one to lift the ball up the track, (magnetic system)
one to pull the ball out and return it to the player. (gravitational system)

In theory, if there were no frictional losses, a perpetual SMOT would have to harness the loss in negative energy at the input of the track.
you have to use energy to keep the ball from entering, as you approach the track. So the energy to move the ball, PLUS the excess energy (mass that the ball could have carried with it) is the energy needed to remove the ball at the end of the track. in/output
there is a magnetic loss there. perhaps field strength and permeability/density of steel effect this value to some degree....
but if you had many balls, rising, dropping, and a low-grade incline on the return path, so that the weigh of incomming balls pushed them close to the field....

the first ball in would pull the next ball slightly up with it, and conserve that loss in energy.

most people assume that the SMOT is consuming energy, when in fact it is equal on both sides. it gives energy on the way end, and takes exactly the same ammount back at the end.

they fail to realize that gravity is the dominant force at the end of the field, and there is obviously a lot more gravitational energy there, because it ultimately wins out and the ball falls out of the field.

once you pass a certain distance away from the field - which is not directly determined by the length/height of the track by the way, but the strength of the field itself.
Gravity takes over. The magnetic effects on the energy of the gravitational field are only significant while the ball is within the effective field. Once gravity becomes the dominant force, the magnetic field no longer has much effect on the energy of the falling ball.

Gravitational energy in the form of velocity and momentum on the ball, how far it falls, and ultimately how much energy is in that ball when it reaches the lowest point on the system, has absolutely nothing to do with the input and output energies of the magnetic system.

Apples and Oranges.
There is no thermodynamic approach to the problem, unless you isolate each system independently.
each system has their own energy levels during their respective cycles.
but the two values are not the same thing, you cannot compare them.

i'll give you a well known analogy. the Internal Combustion Engine.
these have been around for long enough that most of you probably have a good understanding of how they function. if not theres plenty of info out there or people that could teach you the basics..

you have your gasoline system, this takes fuel, of a known energy value, pulls it into the engine, it explodes and creates motion to the driveshaft. you have a known input value, a known output value, and you can calculate and measure your losses in the system.

now lets look at the heat system. exploding fuel heats everything up.
expanding fuel cools everything down.
in the ICE, fuels both explode and expand at a steady rate.
we can calculate and measure the energy values involved, input being the energy value of the volume of fuel, and output being in the changes in heat throughout the respective parts of the cycle.

Now the total energy of the heat system is only proportionately related to the total energy of the gasoline and mechanical and mechano-electrical systems systems

This proportion was defined by Carnot, and it is the relationship between the energy of the expanding gas and the heat of the gas while it is compressing and expanding. it is often used to examine the overall efficiency of the engine, by examining the heat product in and the heat product out. It is assumed that any missing heat that wasnt lost to the envronment, was used to directly convert expansional energy of the explosion into mechanical force.

The mechanical system is only interfaced with the heat system through the expansion of the gas. The timing of the engine, rate and degree of compression, and expansion of the chamber, defined by the action of the pistons, has a proportionate effect on the heat system.
it operate in one direction, and has nothing to do with how hot the thing gets overall, because ultimately the repeated explosion of gasoline creates more heat then the effect on heat the piston has.

The gasoline system intakes an ammount of fuel, and all of the heat and expansion energy is released in every direction, throughout all parts of the chamber. The pressure in the vessel is equal everywhere.
on the side walls of the chamber, which recieve energy during the force of the explosion, as well as heat energy from the hot gas.
The mechanical system interfaces with the gasoline system, in a single direction by allowing the piston to change the size of the chamber.
and simultaneously - the heat system interfaces with the gasoline system, by the carnot proportions, via the changing volume of the cylinder itself.

All of these are entirely unrelated systems, and you cant compare their energy values, only their proportions.

Thus, the colder your cold side of the engine, the more horsepower the engine is thought to have, for the same ammount of fuel.
or thus, "more efficient" operation. There is more pressure/force available, when the cold side is colder than the hot. However this is only a proportionate value of the mechanical systems efficiency, and the proportion of the heat systems energy that wasnt wasted away by the cooling system.

In theory, if you converted 100% of the energy from the explosion of the fuel, into mechanical force, your car would not get hot at all.
( expanding-sphere pistons???)
But since you cannot directly compare the energy values of each independent system, you can only define the engines efficiency by the carnot proportion. Or a more modern approach, is to rate the overall efficiency of the car itself, in terms of miles/operating time per gallon.
But again this is only a proportionate relationship to the known energy value of the fuel.

Ultimately, in an internal combustion engine, HEAT is the dominant system. the heat of the explosion, is WAY more than the energy consumed by the pistons. This is obvious by the fact that everything gets HOT.

NOW, when you look at a gravitational / magnetic system, the energy values are not controlled by a fuel, but rather by the force and mass relationships of the respective fields. GRAVITY is the dominant system.
Gravity requires no fuel.

The magnetic system is has nothing to do with gravity ( at close distances), and is controlled soley by a mass to flux relationship, irrespective of time, but also defining the time involved by such relationship of energies. (mass and the sqrt of the speed of light determines the velocity, through which acceleration, and ultimately, time can be derrived)

The "fuel" of the magnetic system, is in the form of Force, either in or out or both, and what is given is returned in the same manner. an "engine".

Thus, a magnetic system with no losses, would be a direct conversion of energy of mechanical force.

Now, the relationship between the input force and the output force can determine the efficiency of the magnetic system, much like the carnot system. But to compare the Gravitational energy directly to the magnetic energy is just like the Heat in the car.
theres proportionately more gravitational energy than the input/output of the of the magnetic system.
Thus, by the verticle lift of the mass, you can determine the efficiency of the magnetic system.

By its very nature, the magnetic system will only give you what you give it. Just like a frictionless spring.
Gravity operates in a simliar - but one-directional way, in the form of attraction. but the systems are completely unrellated.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Archer Quinns wheel combines the lift function of the magnetic system, with the linear translation of the rods to interface with the leverage system. While, mathematically, this linear translation has a zero-net energy value,(there are some frictional energies involved), the result of the verticle+linear translation, defined by the archemedian proportion, multiplies the energy value of the gravitational proportion.
this is irrespective of the energy involved in the magnetic field.
completely seperate. the magnetic field is like the piston that taps into the explosive energy of the fuel when it ignites.

The energy obtained from gravity is like the force and heat of the exploding gas, that effects not only the piston, but also the cylinder , the engine block, the antifreeze.....
the entire wheel is turned by the leveraged effects of gravity.
while there is only a tiny mass entering into the field, shifting to cause this to occur.

the "verticle" lift distance, i.e. the E=mgh of the moving parts, do not independently violate any sort of conservation law, even Newton himself would be excluded from redicule in these machines, because the gravitational field is partially, or effectively removed in one or more of the systems.

but more importantly, there is no point in the system where any mass lifts any to a height of greater energy potential than the potential or kenetic energy available to it from the previously part of the cycle.

The excess energy in the system, is a proportionate value of the gravitational potential of the leveraged wheel, that converts into momentum of the wheel's mass
and the input/output energies of the magnetic system

This proportional relationship defines the efficiency of a magneto-gravitic device. just like the Carnot proportions in a heat cycle.

Only, the "fuel" is free, and constantly provided by the graviational field.

The Eskimo Quinn · « **Reply #6827 on:** July 21, 2011, 03:06:27 AM »

Quote from: exxcomm0n on July 16, 2011, 04:35:38 AM

Archer, good to see you back. Ducking questions and selling your "superior skills".

Ya wanna address the issue of your version of the SOG or frame 6:37 of the MA (Mayernik Array)?

C'mon, @ least try man.

Or...just keep doing what you have and proving you're full of ..it.

I looked at it, i see nothing, nor does anyone else, no flick no push, as slow as you like have several videos exactly the same one using a pencil to push it in, but only you see anything this time, the facts are this and undeniable, I am the greatest builder of magnetic arrays in history, not opinion but by proven video evidence and lack of any other better, earlier you quaoted sevral arrys including the mayernick as having the same result, "please feel free to show "any" video in the history of the world of any any setup the even gets a magnet past a 45 dgree lift, there are none because no one else has done it outside the mayernick, further no other magenetic device that self fed ever lifted itself past 45 degrees and then escaped the fiield that pulled it in, not one, so i ligitimately have that title of the worlds great magnetic track builder, post one or shut the fuck up and bow down asshole, you do not get to speak without proof, i have never spoken against any device without proff ever. for the rest of the newbies watch the film and read this, if your math does not say overunity then you are wasting your time,

top comment and undisputed math fact, oh and for those of you who miss the good ol days, this prick is just filthy it wasnt him.

Excellent, this video actually shows over unity as it stands, likely the first of its kind in world history, basic math shows in the film something never achieved before, if it was a one metre lift requiring 1 kilowatt, then the fall would equal 1 kilowatt, even if it required a mechanical lift to 9 oâ€™clock costing 500 watts it is still producing 1ï»¿ kilowatt of fall, so it is still self sustaining. Well done."

The Eskimo Quinn · « **Reply #6828 on:** July 21, 2011, 03:38:16 AM »

For those of you who are new to the game, the best oil infiltartors and government spies are not the one who just bag everything they build to debunk, i am now certian excommvaldez is one of those. proof is that no other person sees anything at that point, but for clarity i am up loading another video where a pencil was used to put it in place and you can see the necil stay put for a few seconds when it takes off clearly showing clean release, the stupidity and clear proof he is an oil man is this, build even a six inch section of a mayernick and you will see it pulls it at high speed on its own without any need for asssitance. the video should be up shortly, and remember to say to all knockers, please show a video of any device that can do this from the history of the world before saying the mayernick is not the single greatest magnetic system ever built (ingore posts of machines running when the film starts or wind up toys like bedni's and so on. self start lift past 45 and out of the magnetic field.

For those not new to this,a rotor is being lathed just for the demonstration for driving an induction rotor to finalise full continous rotation even withou mechanical help, (which would only provide 50 percent overunity), once filmed a full production unit will be built afterwards by the same team.

oh and valdez, they are "superior skills" when they are the best known to man that anyone can see on film

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fnZ1Nm_rzzw

this video would be fuck you valdez

exxcomm0n · « **Reply #6829 on:** July 22, 2011, 10:04:06 PM »

Quote from: The Eskimo Quinn on July 21, 2011, 03:06:27 AM

Quote from: exxcomm0n on July 16, 2011, 04:35:38 AM
Archer, good to see you back. Ducking questions and selling your "superior skills".

Ya wanna address the issue of your version of the SOG or frame 6:37 of the MA (Mayernik Array)?

C'mon, @ least try man.

Or...just keep doing what you have and proving you're full of ..it.

I looked at it, i see nothing, nor does anyone else, no flick no push, as slow as you like have several videos exactly the same one using a pencil to push it in, but only you see anything this time, the facts are this and undeniable, I am the greatest builder of magnetic arrays in history, not opinion but by proven video evidence and lack of any other better,

Archer, your efficiency in understanding the printed word is surpassed only by your SOG building skills, and speaking of the SOG, lets look at how you answered my queries:

1.) ".....the issue of your version of the SOG....."

<not even crickets chirp to profane the silence of your reply.>

Since you deign not to address this question at this time, let me climb into the wayback machine of OU post archiving and help you.

Quote from: The Eskimo Quinn on June 26, 2008, 08:08:43 AM

<snip>
so put up or fuck off. you quote these lies as if i said them.

The first wheel 2 years ago was an electromagnet, the first of these two is a permannent.

second asswipe, at no time have ever ever said i did not have a working wheel, you are filty fucking oil scum. show the people what you are saying, if you cant admit you are a fucking liar and those on the site should treat you as such. I have never quoted anyone without cutting and pasting their own words.

"your remarks are fucking lies, show all the world i am wrong."
<snip>
Could the admisnistartor either tell me how to cancel this membership or delete it for me thank you.

K then, could we please see the ELECTROMAGNETIC SOG, or a replication thereof?
As to the threat (for it's been proven far from a promise) of "cancel this membership or delete it", I think the fact that you're still here 3 YEARS LATER posting to this same thread proves you're a bit of bluff and bluster, bucko.

2.) "....or frame 6:37 of the MA (Mayernik Array)?"

Now in response to this you wax quite prolifically, but you seem to have let your disdain for mathematics extend as far as not being able to use numeric nomenclature to identify a video frame.

Frame 6:37 is not the entry to the SMOT, but the exit.

It's a small thing, but sorta important as this fact kinda refutes the basis of your rant above.

My issues w/ your latest video are:

a.) We get _1_ run to base any judgment of your superior magnetic array building "mad skilz".

I don't know about anyone else, but ya know, I heard once that for actual scientific investigation of an event them mad Newtonian scientists actually stage the event multiple times to make sure that the astounding effect happens over and over again and is not just an anomaly that is the basis for the well worn phrase, "One out of X,xxxx,xxx times."
If ya got multiple videos of the same effect being proven over and over, trot them puppies out and post 'em on the 'Tube! Let's see a few runs of the one you help Young Jeb build too.
Let's just establish the fact that it can be REPLICATED!
The very fact we're debating a video you already have posted seems to allude to the fact you already know how, and the apparent lack of video frame nomenclature understanding mentioned above, and soon below, doesn't keep you from being able to do it.

b.) Frame 6:37

If you bothered to read the above you know that frame 6:37 does not have anything to do with entry to the array. No flicking, nudging, heavy breathing being used to alter that entry in any way either.

It has to do with the EXIT.

Now, if I had multiple runs like I ask for above, it might not be an issue with me, but since I have only been given _1_ run to base my appraisal of the effect, I'll ask if you noticed that the exit of the roller from the array looks to be at least 20-30 degrees deviant from the array track.
This begs me to ask what sorta machine you gonna build that can harness this effect AND steer the errant roller back into the array track?
We only get _1_ run to witness the effect and that _1_ run is why I ask this question. Frame 6:37 seems to exhibit all the effects of an anomaly as it's:

1.) Seen only once
2.) Not allowed to re-enter the array
3.) The only proof we're allowed to see as the culmination of 3 YEARS worth of time you've had to not only perfect the effect, but actually design and build a machine to harness it.

Remember? You stared spouting about the MA July 7, 2008 here:

Quote from: The Eskimo Quinn on July 07, 2008, 02:10:20 AM

Hope to have a vid to show you how powerful the new shunt/train is, this not only runs, but it runs uphill, and wait for it, the heavier it is the easier it runs, I will show you the same track with increasing upper mags and weights in one uninterupted shot, I really have discovered the key to gates and shunts whilst building the wheel, so powerful is it, that it could likely run a car upscaled.
No smot in history ever worked because you could not run magnetic carriages or balls uphill with the magnets, only momentum.
Until now.
This is probably June 20 for every smot builder that ever lived. For it means if it goes uphill on its own, it will roll down.
Oh and unlike every other device of this kind ever built, there are no sidegates for cornering.
Prepare to see it live on youtube in one hour.
Give me the math for this.
Oh and no we wont be using baby 10gram weights, we will be using ball busting wheel turning power generating mindblowing motherfuckers

Seems at the time you were selling the MA as the "silver bullet" that would let you build a working SOG.
Where is it?

Quote from: The Eskimo Quinn on July 21, 2011, 03:06:27 AM

earlier you quaoted sevral arrys including the mayernick as having the same result,

No I didn't. Where's that famous "copy/paste" quoting you allude to above?

Quote from: The Eskimo Quinn on July 21, 2011, 03:06:27 AM

"please feel free to show "any" video in the history of the world of any any setup the even gets a magnet past a 45 dgree lift, there are none because no one else has done it outside the mayernick, further no other magenetic device that self fed ever lifted itself past 45 degrees and then escaped the fiield that pulled it in, not one, so i ligitimately have that title of the worlds great magnetic track builder, post one or shut the fuck up and bow down asshole, you do not get to speak without proof, i have never spoken against any device without proff ever. for the rest of the newbies watch the film and read this, if your math does not say overunity then you are wasting your time,

Now this one I love. Let me reply to it in aussie like terms so it may be understood considering your demonstrated feeble ability to comprehend the printed word.

Listen you bloody twat, quit feltching the old woman's fanny long enough to fossick up some proof of your furfie claims.
Don't spit the dummy anytime your bodgy claims are brought to challenge and claim that they are dead set bloody oath, instead of a bag of porkie.

...or in american vernacular:

Shut the fuck up you menstruating kunt and quit sucking the wife's ass long enough to scare up some proof of your bullshit claims.
Don't go apeshit anytime your bullshit claims are called crap and say that they're true, instead of a bag of shit.

I usually don't stoop to the use of such euphemistic expletive, but I guess I should try to speak to you in the language you prefer.
Does this help your understanding?

Quote from: The Eskimo Quinn on July 21, 2011, 03:06:27 AM

top comment and undisputed math fact, oh and for those of you who miss the good ol days, this prick is just filthy it wasnt him.

Not exactly sure where you're going with this, but I'm sure I'm not alone in that either.

Quote from: The Eskimo Quinn on July 21, 2011, 03:06:27 AM

Excellent, this video actually shows over unity as it stands, likely the first of its kind in world history, basic math shows in the film something never achieved before, if it was a one metre lift requiring 1 kilowatt, then the fall would equal 1 kilowatt, even if it required a mechanical lift to 9 oâ€™clock costing 500 watts it is still producing 1ï»¿ kilowatt of fall, so it is still self sustaining. Well done."

Good to know you still have a fan base amongst the Aussie that joined YouTube about mid may. Not exactly stellar proof there bud that you're not blowing your own kock via a bogus account set up before your "stellar return".

But it's good I went back to look @ your channel and saw the new (again w/ the _1_ run thing) MA demonstration.

Again, I'm going to state that I'm more interested in the exit of the array than your ability to push the roller into it with a pencil. Isn't that the "big deal" part of this?
To be clear, I mean the frames represented by the time specific numerals 0:49-0:52 at the VERY END of this video this time.
Now, you'll notice at this time that the "heavy fucker" you lift into the array rolls rather slowly and does exit the array with all the force necessary to climb the entry side a good 2-3 cm. and settle at the bottom right before the abrupt end of the video.
I was expecting a touch more "umph" from my experiences with the "Dirt Devil".
It almost looks like it <gasp> hits a wall at the end of the run.

Even if that's not the case, still too much weight to re-introduce itself into the array.

So far, an epic fail when set against the claims of its portrayer.

So, to recap:

1.) SOG - You have nothing to say, and to that my response will be the refrain of a popular song by the Ben Folds Five.

"Give me my money back.
Give me my money back, you bitch.
I want my money back"

......or I shall keep posting here until I feel fulfilled in commensurate compensation in the entertainment of ridiculing you. The amount of enjoyment this can afford me depends completely upon your ability to STFU.

History would seem to say I have a pretty good chance of being compensated.

2.) MA - Let's see some of the requests from me and some of the comments on your Tube channel filmed and posted, ya twat.

Til' then, why don't you piss up a rope and start a new thread topic for the MA, and leave this one to Smoky, who at least tries to do things, show things, discover things that have something to do with the wheel.

ramset · « **Reply #6830 on:** July 22, 2011, 10:57:29 PM »

Who wouldah thunk it??
The crew shreddin each other up!!
Don't do it boyz............

Go find a spider somewhere that needs a good Leg Pull ,or find that dam Cat![for Kickin Purposes]
Anything But this...........

Lets save the Dust ups for the bad Guys!!
Ankle Biting And eye poking is Beneath Us!!

You are Open Source free energy engineers!!Not A pack of Ankle Biting Sissyboys!!
I feel your frustration ...........United we stand divided we fall...

Lets get Constructive!!
Please?

Chet

exxcomm0n · « **Reply #6831 on:** July 23, 2011, 12:19:09 AM »

Quote from: ramset on July 22, 2011, 10:57:29 PM

Who wouldah thunk it??
The crew shreddin each other up!!
Don't do it boyz............

Go find a spider somewhere that needs a good Leg Pull ,or find that dam Cat![for Kickin Purposes]
Anything But this...........
<snip>
Chet

Bud, unless your interested in covering Archer's debt, I'm not that interested in your input at this present time.
<EDIT>
The interesting thing you allude to in your examples above is cruelty to things that cannot protect themselves, whereas the Aussie prick shouldn't be considered as such.
<EDIT>

You're talking to the "new and improved excomvaldez" here, as I used to let Archer duck the slightest investigative question, but I shall not anymore.

Just looked up synonyms for arch @ M-W.com and found the fifth one "crook" to be the most apropos.

Want me to go away? Pay off "Crooker's (Archer's)" debt or come up with answers to the questions I set forth above.

Until then bud, "the boss" is responsible for his own representation.

Sorry man, you've always been a good sort, but let the Aussie prick answer for himself, or smoke the Bondi cigar by not doing so, please.

WilbyInebriated · « **Reply #6832 on:** July 23, 2011, 05:13:11 AM »

debt? what debt does he owe you?

The Eskimo Quinn · « **Reply #6833 on:** July 28, 2011, 05:07:22 AM »

Of course no comment on the second video proving your silly claims unfounded EX and clearly new and improved means you gave up basic math and physics - no matter what you say nothing in the world can make the main comment untrue nothing,

(top comment)AGAIN

Excellent, this video actually shows over unity as it stands, likely the first of its kind in world history, basic math shows in the film something never achieved before, if it was a one metre lift requiring 1 kilowatt, then the fall would equal 1 kilowatt, even if it required a mechanical lift to 9 oâ€™clock costing 500 watts it is still producing 1 kilowatt of fall, so it is still self sustaining. Well done.

nothing you ever say or any human at all for that matter will make this comment untrue, I beat Newton, videoed it and gave all instructions.

(i think he is referring to the promise to beat Newton and produce a device that beats unity as the debt)

For all others who followed my advice about the gold last time to reach 1200 when it was at 625, next tip silver 80 by xmas, world economy will fall in 75 days or less. why? Logic, the argument between the two US parties is weather or not to accept the dollar for dollar cuts against the debt increase, even if they accept it, there are no people in America in any financial institution that are smarter than a cow turd. why

The logic master will answer it for you, even with obama accepting the cuts, that only covers the debt increase, not the original 13 trillion dollar debt they were already unable to pay, so there is no benefit to the us to recover, and additionally 4 trillion in cuts will destroy the people just like greece

sm0ky2 · « **Reply #6834 on:** July 28, 2011, 08:35:06 AM »

the pissing contest has been delayed due to wind...

Current score:

AQ: 17 Exxo: 14

with 3 posts left in the 3rd 1/4

can we get back to work now?
----------------------------------------------------------------

It was recently pointed out to me, by someone who has already attempted an Axial-Bypass situation,
that the 'bending' of the rods i experienced is a common result for that approach.

It was then suggested that i add a center-piece to the axle, that allows a guided movement of the rods.
i made a few minor assumptions as to what exactly that means..
and drew a little something to pass around.
maybe someone has a few thoughts on this?

exxcomm0n · « **Reply #6835 on:** July 28, 2011, 09:46:53 PM »

Quote from: sm0ky2 on July 28, 2011, 08:35:06 AM

the pissing contest has been delayed due to wind...

Current score:

AQ: 17 Exxo: 14

with 3 posts left in the 3rd 1/4

can we get back to work now?
----------------------------------------------------------------

Sure man, I just hold QtE in contempt since he now longer will touch the topic of the wheel and I'm grooving on my new status as an "oil man".

I'll reply to him separately.

BTW....what are you using as score criteria?

Quote from: sm0ky2 on July 28, 2011, 08:35:06 AM

It was recently pointed out to me, by someone who has already attempted an Axial-Bypass situation,
that the 'bending' of the rods i experienced is a common result for that approach.

It was then suggested that i add a center-piece to the axle, that allows a guided movement of the rods.
i made a few minor assumptions as to what exactly that means..
and drew a little something to pass around.
maybe someone has a few thoughts on this?

I gots a couple.

1st, your bypass looks like it'll work and if you want to go that way there's a few ways I see it happening for cheap and ease of installation.

a.) Braze/solder a small length of appropriate diameter copper tubing to a non-SS hose clamp and !viola! you have an easily adjustable rod guide anchored off the spindle. There will be some weight differential that may mess w/ things but if you pre-measure/size the clamps before attaching the pipe to the hose clamp track and you can have the screw/tightener be exactly opposite of the guide this can maybe offset the tightener assembly weight.

A "less weight", but "no adjust" type scenario can use a piece of PVC pipe of the appropriate diameter w/ a hole drilled in the middle of one side. Then you can use a screw/post that will fit into the pipe and put it through the hole and use that to mount the pipe to the spindle by screwing it in or using glue for the post in a pre-drilled hole in the spindle.
If you use a screw you might just want to cut off the head and epoxy the threads into the hole you drilled in the side of the pipe as now there is nothing obstructing the rod travel or providing extra drag.

b.) I thought about the just offset placement of the rods way back when and came to the conclusion (NOT through experimentation!) that it would make tuning the balance of the wheel and the attract/repel arrays a complete PITA.
If you offset the rod you start playing w/ the angles it is at when coming into a mag array.

Instead of having a rod end every 60 degrees going around the wheel that has an exact opposite such as:
(I.) rod 1 - 0 to 180 degrees one way and 180 to 0 the other
(II.) rod 2 - 60 to 240 degrees one way and 240 to 60 the other
(III.) rod 3 - 120 to 300 degrees one way and 300 to 120 the other

You now have a wheel with:
(I.) rod 1 - 357 to 183 degrees one way and 177 to 3 the other
(II.) rod 2 - 57 to 243 degrees one way and 237 to 63 the other
(III.) rod 3 - 123 to 303 degrees one way and 297 to 117 the other

....when viewed in regards to the spindle center.

So this new offset rod wheel doesn't have the 7:00 to 1:00 o'clock push but both a 7:15-ish to 12:45-ish push and a 6:45 to 1:15 push (if you use the rod exact center as your "clock" center) and BANG!, gravity grabs ya by the 'nads and says, "No dice sailor".

I still highly suggest you think about drilling THROUGH the spindle and using that as another strengthening leverage point/guide as then all your angles "stay true" and you have one less weight balancing headaches as all your holes "lose" the same weight and there is no addition of weight like the guide assembly would add.

I'll agree that when the weight is sooooo close to the spindle that the weight difference seems negligible, but that "negligible" seems to have this ability to effect "possible" a busload!

Just turn both wheel ideas in your mind. it's not as easy as it sounds because each "lever" the rod is, is "above offset" when it goes through the arrays the 1st time and "under offset" when it goes through the arrays the 2nd time.

Remember when "underslung" was the magic bullet for the E-gypt-ing Fulcrum? It might work against ya.

Each rod encountering an arrays will alternate over/under and that might negate this entire argument but as it turns in mind, the extra effort of conquering the overslung axle defeats the more relative ease of the underslung and the wheel stops.

Just some thoughts dude. Shouldn't take too much time or materials to mock up a toy for a trial run and see.
I did not come to these conclusions from testing, but just armchair vegging so take that fact into account.

sm0ky2 · « **Reply #6836 on:** July 29, 2011, 04:10:10 AM »

@ Exx

thanks for the reply, ive torn through the problem of the overslung/underslung rods when they are offset from the axis.
both mentally, and physically.. There are notable problems, as you mentioned, and also the angle of entry into the magnetic array(s) with respect to each rod, is off-center to the center of gravity of the wheel itself. This is why i think the bending occurs. The off-set model i did with wooden rods, were sturdy enough that they did not bend, but friction fron the twisting got the best of me, and they did not slide properly.

The main problem have here is this... A rear-face mounted wheel just is not pheasable. At least not with the materials i can easily obtain.
not sturdy enough

The center axle is sturdy enough to hold a 200lb man sitting on the stone wheel.
But,. theres a solid axle in the center of the spindle.
Drilling through the spindle wont work, because the center axle is stationary, while the outer spindle spins on top of it.

My sort of "last resort" idea, was to attach a piece on the end of the spindle, that sticks out past the axle.
Then i can drill the holes close together, so that they just barely clear the Axle-Bolt. this gives me a much smaller offset to have to deal with.
As well as serving the purpose of the stabalizing center-guide.

im still concerned with friction at this center point, and i may consider an EB-type function on the center piece.

The new EB's im designing are triangular. using 3 bearings
i think it should function the same with 3, just have one less frictional surface - so its an upgrade i believe.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

As far as scoring is concerned. We generally use the Webster's Cyberbattle Guidelines.
Points are assigned for acts of textual aggression, including but not limited to insults, using obscure factual ( or fictional) content to emphasize your point of view, name-calling, and tactics geared towards convincing the audience that you are "winning".

Bonus points are awarded in several categories, including:

using the enemy's own words against him
substitution - this is where you insert an irrelevant idea in place of the
one you have failed to logically present.
diversion - this is when you steer the course of the argument to a
completely different direction than your competitor was
trying to take it.

in short - you're doing quite well, but you are going to have to step your game up if you seek to conquer the reigning champ.

WilbyInebriated · « **Reply #6837 on:** July 29, 2011, 06:33:43 AM »

Quote from: sm0ky2 on July 29, 2011, 04:10:10 AM

As far as scoring is concerned. We generally use the Webster's Cyberbattle Guidelines.
Points are assigned for acts of textual aggression, including but not limited to insults, using obscure factual ( or fictional) content to emphasize your point of view, name-calling, and tactics geared towards convincing the audience that you are "winning".

Bonus points are awarded in several categories, including:

using the enemy's own words against him
substitution - this is where you insert an irrelevant idea in place of the
one you have failed to logically present.
diversion - this is when you steer the course of the argument to a
completely different direction than your competitor was
trying to take it.

in short - you're doing quite well, but you are going to have to step your game up if you seek to conquer the reigning champ.

nice!

exxcomm0n · « **Reply #6838 on:** July 29, 2011, 07:11:02 AM »

@ Crooke....ummmmm....Archer

Quote from: The Eskimo Quinn on July 28, 2011, 05:07:22 AM

Of course no comment on the second video proving your silly claims unfounded EX and clearly new and improved means you gave up basic math and physics - no matter what you say nothing in the world can make the main comment untrue nothing,

Look weenie boy, you address the topics you want to recognize when replying to someone and forget the specific questions and observations they originally posted.
While this action may be seen as the ruse of a self-aggrandizing fop with low self esteem and nothing to back up that small amount of self esteem they do have, I'll let your track record with both math and reading comprehension speak for themselves as they're evident for anyone to read if they want to waste the time.

Quote from: The Eskimo Quinn on July 28, 2011, 05:07:22 AM

(top comment)AGAIN

Excellent, this video actually shows over unity as it stands, likely the first of its kind in world history, basic math shows in the film something never achieved before, if it was a one metre lift requiring 1 kilowatt, then the fall would equal 1 kilowatt, even if it required a mechanical lift to 9 oâ€™clock costing 500 watts it is still producing 1 kilowatt of fall, so it is still self sustaining. Well done.
nothing you ever say or any human at all for that matter will make this comment untrue, I beat Newton, videoed it and gave all instructions.

I'm sure you massaged your schwantz quite thoroughly over that comment and probably hurt your back in the attempt to honk down on yourself in congratulations after you posted it, but the "math" that you like to alternately embrace and disdain isn't being used here.

You're trying to liken your array travel cost to that of a free falling weight and neither side of a magnetic array is really free fall at all is it?
It travels in defiance of gravity.

Now since you wanna use the kilowatt vernacular to describe the effect could you tell us the weight of the thing it takes 1 kilowatt to lift 1 meter?

I'll stick w/ using weight since I'm so math challenged.

Let's say your roller is 1kg.
You ABSOLUTELY HAVE TO HAVE an array potential that is greater than that to pull the roller up and into the array so let's say the array lift potential is 3kg therefore:

3kg - 1kg = 2kg
HooRay! you have extra energy!

You have 3kg of array potential acting on 1kg. of roller weight making the roller weightless with an excess of 2kg roller energy potential left over!

But, we forgot about gravity. BUMMER!

Let's figure a cost of .5kg to lift the roller into the array because of the leverage it can use against the sheet metal.

But, just before the 9:00 position there is no leverage against the metal sheet and the 1kg roller now has to cost more energy potential than the .5kg it takes to introduce it to the array. It's defying gravity!
Let's be kind and say that it only takes .75kg cost to keep the roller in the track in defiance of gravity instead of the 1 to 1 it takes to achieve weightlessness that real math demands.
Damn! More loss!

So now we have:

3kg -1kg -.5kg -.75kg = .75kg energy potential!
Still busting through that OU envelope!

We lost 2.25kg energy potential somewhere.

BUT IT'S STILL EXTRA ENERGY!!!!

Until we remember that the .75kg is imparted by the 1st part of the array, and no matter how funky your magnet spacing on the other side of the array it still costs you energy to get through it.
The wall, remember?
But wall is more apropos of the problem with repel activity of magnets, LIKE THE WHEEL CONCEPT USES.

When you build a MA symetrically, both sides have the same attraction for entry or exit no matter of it's flat or circular, and a roller introduced into the array will zip back and forth but settle in the middle 1/3.
The dirt devil experiments proved this to me and helped me imagine the type and shape of the magnetic field.
It's not a wall of repulsion that you're battling, but an anchor of attraction the roller seems to be attached to that rests in the middle of the array.

Use a cylindrical magnet with no ball bearings added as your array roller and I bet you get that same middle 1/3 effect.

In fact why don't you film it, post it, and prove me wrong?
You've got the set up, your prior videos prove it.
My dirt devil and MA vids are still up, and while not the exact circular shape of yours, still prove the point.
But my videos aren't nearly as good as yours because I do MULTIPLE RUNS with DIFFERING OUTCOMES sometimes.
I must not be doing it right.

They are at:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cEgPQV_ZtM4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=StsLxsLPpPg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6fISJvmUYOQ
(in fact this has a comment from some dufus named newtonsend269. Too bad when I click on the handle UTube says, "This channel is no longer available because the user closed their account. ")

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D0M_1-5KJIg
(This has another comment from that Newton guy. He seems to think I understand the MA when he comments:

Quote

Second internal loop in world history, very cool. Some clown copied the original loop video and tried to make it look like i had flicked it around, clearly there is no need for a push it reaaly does accelerate at high speed away, with sufficient power to defy gravity. This alongï»¿ with the key is the future of all power generation.An inventor is not worth anything without those who independantly prove the original is the real deal. Watch this guy make a switch to go with it.Top stuff guys newtonsend269 3 years ago

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gLb_A174W1o

Say, where are all your old videos at?

Now while creative spacing seems to lessen that attraction, it don't make it disappear. There's a cost for escaping it.

So our roller is exactly 1/2 way through the array and it has .75kg energy potential left after getting there.
But that .75kg of potential is just enough to break from that attraction and deposit that roller smack dab in the bottom of the array track where we started.

In fact, it costs enough potential that the roller in the video just barely gets past our start point at the bottom of the array and settles back to the bottom.
I pointed this out with the statement "it looks like it <gasp> hits a wall!" before in a previous post but you and your monkey boy ways just seemed to miss it since it's a valid observation and kinda goes against your grand claims. It's been within the last 5-6 posts so not to hard to find.

This means that we have to invest another .5kg to re-introduce it to the array.
This is only effecting the roller's own weight and not even driving an external load.

There goes the OU.....

.....bye bye.

Now all of these weights and costs are hypothetical.
Why don't you use the math and physics you say I don't understand to describe your exact setup to prove I'm wrong and teach your future replicators something as well as me.

I bet TK would even come back to have a good laugh about
that.

Quote from: The Eskimo Quinn on July 28, 2011, 05:07:22 AM

(i think he is referring to the promise to beat Newton and produce a device that beats unity as the debt)

Nope weenie boy.
I'm talking about paypal'd cash that I, as well as other misguided OU advocates, sent to you. It's all there in thread history.
It was at the time that you asked for "donations" to finish the wheel and Clanzer (you know, the thread starter) said he'd "been there, done that" and was now going to run as far and fast as possible from you and your concept.

If only I had listened to the older and wiser in OU experience.
Oy vey.

But no, I (as well as Joe Mayernik) sent you cash to FINISH THE WHEEL, and we all know how you like talking about that subject. No wonder you have a mental block about it.
Well that and the fact that you asked for donations to complete something that you never did complete.

So, to be perfectly clear, you owe me money as you didn't deliver on the SOG, now did you?

But, if you don't want to pay up, trot out your working SOG.
Otherwise, give me my money back.
Bitch.

<Bold emphasis used in this section only to point out that all the bolded words should be considered synonymous.>

Until you do one or the other, dance monkey boy, dance! Your capering amuses me.

Quote from: The Eskimo Quinn on July 28, 2011, 05:07:22 AM

For all others who followed my advice about the gold last time to reach 1200 when it was at 625, next tip silver 80 by xmas, world economy will fall in 75 days or less. why? Logic, the argument between the two US parties is weather or not to accept the dollar for dollar cuts against the debt increase, even if they accept it, there are no people in America in any financial institution that are smarter than a cow turd. why
The logic master will answer it for you, even with obama accepting the cuts, that only covers the debt increase, not the original 13 trillion dollar debt they were already unable to pay, so there is no benefit to the us to recover, and additionally 4 trillion in cuts will destroy the people just like greece

Oh good! You're on the run from your prior claims as you're spouting political rhetoric as if you have a crystal ball, just like you did last time the questions started making too much sense.
Thing is, anyone that passed primary school math and uses critical thinking practices could (and did) come to the same conclusion long ago and probably doesn't need your help.
I want my money back from you so I can buy more gold.

But it does come with new prognostication of a firm date in the future. 75 days or less until economic collapse.
But if I read the description of your 1st video it has another forecast date:

Quote

My name is Archer (the Eskimo) Quinn, this is a video of an energy weapon against the NATO western economy and my gift to Gaddafi and all free men and women who fight against tyranny.

Good quality oil will stioll be need to make plastics, car tyres and so on, but coal will be obselete and petrol as electric cars can be charged for free. and a vesion of this will be able to be fitted to many cars to continually charge the battery 24/7

The 21st of December is when my grandfather died and is the birthday of both my brother and sister (not twins), and it is my hope to officially open the first commercial version of this in Libya on the 21st of December next year in memory of my brother and grandfather and for my sisters birthday, and change the world forever to a new course, and in the mean time destroy the stock market value of coal and all other western stock market energy commodities

for anyone that has any doubts that this has already achieved the goal of destroying newtons laws of the conservation of energy, you must remember that the law is about energy not electricity, the train, being the magnets carried a cargo of steel up and over a hill and down the other side leaving the magnetic field and delivering it further along the track without any extrnal or other energy source, it was built by a third party will instructions for all other to do the same, i could put same green gass on the top if you like, but the train provided overunity from the replusion and attraction of the magnets and fields, not ever before achieved and in defiance of a law of physics that says that is impossible. you saw that here now, so you know without track friction and a rotor the machine is the real deal, and the first ever to prove it can be done not in theory but in actual machines, not harvard, yale,columbia.nyu or even nasa themselves have achieved what you are seeing now.

Oh really really GOOD! We have another predicted date that you still have time to meet as it's still in the future instead of the past like all your other prediction and release promises have graduated to.

But why are you waiting until a few months after the economic collapse to release this world changing energy device?
Won't it be tough to replicate after the economic collapse kills most, if not all markets and distribution for the magnets and hardware you specify?
Wouldn't that make it hard for the common man to really stick it to an "oil man" like me?

Let's not all hold our breath in anticipation of that forecast date as we all know how well you do at meeting the deadline of a prophecy.

Dance monkey boy, dance.

@ smoky

Good 'nuff?

WilbyInebriated · « **Reply #6839 on:** July 29, 2011, 07:24:43 AM »

Quote from: exxcomm0n on July 29, 2011, 07:11:02 AM

I'm talking about paypal'd cash that I, as well as other misguided OU advocates, sent to you. It's all there in thread history.
It was at the time that you asked for "donations" to finish the wheel and Clanzer (you know, the thread starter) said he'd "been there, done that" and was now going to run as far and fast as possible from you and your concept.

you just admitted that it was a donation... if you gave (donated) him money there is no debt.

Quote from: exxcomm0n on July 29, 2011, 07:11:02 AM

If only I had listened to the older and wiser in OU experience.
Oy vey.

indeed. but you didn't...

Quote from: exxcomm0n on July 29, 2011, 07:11:02 AM

But no, I (as well as Joe Mayernik) sent you cash to FINISH THE WHEEL, and we all know how you like talking about that subject. No wonder you have a mental block about it.
Well that and the fact that you asked for donations to complete something that you never did complete.

again you acknowledge it was a donation... not a debt.

Quote from: exxcomm0n on July 29, 2011, 07:11:02 AM

So, to be perfectly clear, you owe me money as you didn't deliver, now did you?
But, if you don't want to pay up, trot out your working SOG.
Otherwise, give me my money back.
Bitch.

to be perfectly clear... and you have been, it was a donation. thus, there is no debt and you are owed nothing. if you want him to 'deliver', simply produce your contract with archer that guarantees his 'performance'.

i'd say the above idiocy puts you far ahead of archer... but i'm not an official websters judge.

News:

User Menu

Author Topic: Roll on the 20th June (Read 1922460 times)

onthecuttingedge2005

Re: Roll on the 20th June

sm0ky2

Re: Roll on the 20th June

The Eskimo Quinn

Re: Roll on the 20th June

The Eskimo Quinn

Re: Roll on the 20th June

exxcomm0n

Re: Roll on the 20th June

ramset

Re: Roll on the 20th June

exxcomm0n

Re: Roll on the 20th June

WilbyInebriated

Re: Roll on the 20th June

The Eskimo Quinn

Re: Roll on the 20th June

sm0ky2

Re: Roll on the 20th June

exxcomm0n

Re: Roll on the 20th June

sm0ky2

Re: Roll on the 20th June

WilbyInebriated

Re: Roll on the 20th June

exxcomm0n

Re: Roll on the 20th June

WilbyInebriated

Re: Roll on the 20th June