Hi Archer,
just please tell us one thing:
How do you want to move your weights from 7 oclock to 1 oclock ?
What are the weights ?
Ball bearing iron balls ?
 Many thanks.

no the smot is an unrelated device, as i have said before, newtons laws can be beaten 6 ways from sunday, an ideal smot is like a roller coaster long ramps to drops, where the weight turns a simple turbine, the flaw in all smot is placing magnets under the track, as most smot users understand the pull from the forward position but not the brake effect when directly above it. but when the magnet that pulls that last bit momentum cannot push it over the crest of the next hill, is suspended by a bracket past the crest at the same angle as the rise of the slope to gain full forward pull with no downside, the magnet need only be triggered by a non friction light sensor when the ball reaches the critical filed point. The magnet chosen must have the power to pull from the final stage of the momentum. previously near impossible unitl the advent of super magnets.

This is simply another device to show that newtons laws are meaningless with what we know now to be true like flight and technology that long surpassed our scientific tables. Have fun making it run, self propulsion is the next step to overunity.

you JUST quoted a scientific explanation that shows the sattellite must maintain a forward motion of 8000m/s.
gravity does not propel the sattellite this fast,. ROCKETS DO!!!  as soon as the sattellite slows down to LESS THEN 8000 m/s it starts falling towards the earth, htat's why they have massive power sources onboard to keep boosting them forward and back on orbital path.

if the rockets DIDN'T, the sattellite would FALL. as they sometimes do.

attempting to belittle me doesnt change this. Keep researching, its good for you.

perhaps a little ballistics would be in order next. then you may come to grasp with what you are actually trying to say.

Yes, Smoky. As you've just explained, basic mechanics/physics. Too bad that it is an enigma to some people...


Mr. Archer Quinn (aka ...), fantastic! Brilliant!

Let's us all just wait for the June, 20th, shall we?

I'm going on vacation soon, so please, if possible, stick to the deadline? I don't wanna miss the new world beggining!

Cheers!


(O.    M.     G.   ....)

 

Sattellites do require forward thrusters, though this may not be apparent, because there is little to no 'friction' in space slowing them down. They do slow down over time from inertial changes while the rockets are maintaining their elliptical path, and thus are given precise 'boosts' to maintain their constant velocity.

If you took the time to speak to a NASA engineer, you will get the same answer.  I dont expect you to be capable of engineering a rocket, but you should at least gain SOME understanding of a concept before you try to use your 'knowledge' to overthrow several decades of research and experimentation. trial/error, do you have ANY idea how many sattellites have been launched since our achievement of space flight?

Absolutely NONE of them, have kept themselves up there for any ammount of time, without energy input.
If sattellites were "perpetual", then each one of them has millions of dollars wasted in intricate propulsion/navigation systems for no reason?? 

As for obtaining one of these systems yourself:
 you can buy one directly from ARC,TRW, Daimler-Chrystler-Benz or a few others, they are extremely expensive, and im not sure what you would "do" with a sattellite propulsion system, on the earth's surface if you actually HAD one,..   Their output is very small compared to their size (and most are not as big as a car).
They are not designed to operate in a fictional environment - thus loses inccured by their use planetside,  would probably outweight most of the useable "output" these engines can provide.  They dont accellerate the sattellite to their velocity, they simply maintain it.  When the shuttle leaves the atmosphere - its already moving faster than the required orbital velocity.
----------------------------------------------------


Anyhow, this thread is directed towards your "gravity wheel",  so for me to teach you rocket-science here would be a waste of thread-space and probably annoy the readers of this thread. Not to mention it would be a complete waste of my time, as you wouldn't understand what you are reading and probably just ignore it and continue spouting off the non-truths as you have done in your comments above.


I think its in poor taste, and disrespectful to the readers of this forum to attempt to mislead them by misrepresenting information to further your cause. you know good and well that the function of a sattellite has nothing to do with your gravity wheel. - wether you understand a sattellites function or not, its absolutely rediculous to USE this misinformation to propegate an entirely unrelated device.

Unless the weights on your wheel are moving in excess of 8km/s around the arc to offset the downward force of imparted onto the weights, then the gravify-defying effect you are promoting has NOTHING to do with orbital navigation.

Seems to me that each time you are asked about this gravity-defying effect, your response has been::

Hey look over there!! - there is something completely different go look at that for a while.

I believe the question that is asked of you, is how you intend to move this weight, vertically through the gravitational field - with LESS energy, than you obtain from letting it fall through that field in the downwards direction.

This in and of itself is a very simple question and though its answer may be somewhat complicated, steering us all off in other directions by misrepresenting well-known areas of science is immoral, irresponsible, and completely dodges the questions we are asking you.

Why then, keep up this charade??  Why not just show us the working principal of the device you are talking about?  You claim to have already built smaller 'working models', and it seems by your posts here and other places, that you are well versed in its construction and functionality. 

Why not simply pass that onto us, and we will all gain a better understanding of the device.  If you can do that, i garuntee you more people will begin construction of your larger device, so when the 20th comes around, there will be even more of these devices in operation to help realize your world-changing dreams.

@exxcomm0n
yes, must be something simular than this.

You can also use the electromagnets directly at the end inside the tubes
and inside the tubes near the axis.
This way, if they are wound around iron cores, the magnet weights inside
the pipes would stick near at the electromagnet core
from 7 to 1 o?clock and can then be pushed away by applying a reversed field
to the electromagnet.

But then it all comes down to be able to push or pull
weights with less electrical energy than the wheel would output
from the displacement of the weights.
So it is basically more a magnetic motor which converts it
output to mechanical motion via the help of the gravity field.
So it is no real gravity wheel as Archer wanted to make us believe
in the first place.
Just alone with gravity you will never get the weights up from 7 to 1 o?clock.

Regards, Stefan.

Archer didn't start this thread  why not just let this evolve   don't like it change the channel   whats the hyper ventilating all about?   some imaginary reputation ? this is a public forum !! I think its great no censorship fresh ideas  take it or leave it    don't try and reverse imagine it[not engineer] then pee on it because you think you figured it out and its not what he said     so what I and others want to build it   no gun to your head  watch us make idiots of our selves    whats new  [maybe you'll have a nice laugh brother][maybe not]   Chet

@Ramset. Totally agree with your last post. I am not a rocket engineer, just a washing machine engineer. So why has no one else noticed that the biggest satelite orbiting earth, which has been there quite long time ,definitely has no boosters, rocket or otherwise. My memory is not as good as it used to be, but I think this satelite was called the "Moon".

Archer didn't start this thread  why not just let this evolve   don't like it change the channel   whats the hyper ventilating all about?   some imaginary reputation ? this is a public forum !! I think its great no censorship fresh ideas  take it or leave it    don't try and reverse imagine it[not engineer] then pee on it because you think you figured it out and its not what he said     so what I and others want to build it   no gun to your head  watch us make idiots of our selves    whats new  [maybe you'll have a nice laugh brother][maybe not]   Chet

One can get the impression,that the debunkers are all ready in action.

A shame for this forum.

Instead of develop an idea to find a way to move the weight strait from 7 to 1 they just attac the inventor
that the solution is not presentet on a silver table.
In my own vision i see the wheel as open dual system,where the weights  are taken from the wheel,after they
left their Impact as moment on the wheel.At about 7 o?clock the weights are shifted to a seperat section.
The Section becomes weightless because of a counterweight action.So the actual movement to pass from 7 to 1
needs a distance not more than the diameter of the weight.
Archer gave more than one hint.But it seems that nobody is able or willing to do a search by them selve.
I am shure,that my own idea is different from Archers idea,but it does not matter.Our Goal schould be
a working wheel to heal the world .We search for solutions and not for problems.
This Formula : Epot= m x g x h  might be good to do the math for a falling stone, but not to be used in general of a
overbalanced wheel.

helmut