Roll on the 20th June

[RebeLLz]

11.05.2004 http://magnetmotor.ch/gravitation/index.html Don't Work

[CLaNZeR]

11.05.2004 http://magnetmotor.ch/gravitation/index.html Don't Work

Good job we are not working on that design then 

[ramset]

Yikes alot to read  things happen fast around here  Chet

[infringer]

The outer portion needs to have a heavy side...

The further out the wieghted side the more leverage you have to turn the wheel...

Otherwise the unbalance effect does not have what we need and that is leverage.

I just went out and bought a tent rod repair kit and an enclosed bearring I should have bought two of these bearrings errrr!!!! oh well! I'll assume I will have to wait until next weekend to get another bearring yes! gotta love it.

Hrmmm I really hate store hours around here they are never open still havent found a local place for magnets though.

Frickin aye its kinda tuff to design something with limited availability I do have a cd player hrmmm..

RebeLLz
Jr. Member

Posts: 85



    Re: Roll on the 20th June
« Reply #1265 on: Today at 05:02:52 PM » Quote 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
11.05.2004 http://magnetmotor.ch/gravitation/index.html Don't Work 

This motor may work if the magnet no the end would go over the magnets and have an opposing magnet at the bottom... so it would extend past the magnets this is a key part of the application your weight has to extend out past the magnets once it is extended!!! 33% is reccomended by archer ...

Everyone fails to take this as important but I believe it is a key to operation of the wheel!!!

EXTEND WEIGHT PAST THE MAGNETS.

LEVERAGE IS WHAT WE NEED.

The Center of the wheel is like a fulcrum technically we have more length with the same weight guess what down we go!



Take Care,

-infringer-


Btw the tent rods are fiberglass.

Archer I would appreciate you sticking around.

Your whole life you will run into aholes who think they are better and smarter then you, do you give these aholes the time of day that you give the aholes at this forum? I doubt it!

Ignore them let them keep right on talking...

Or open up a chat section on your website just a one website forum where you can grant access to only certain people you wish...

Just dont forget to let us folks know bud.

-infringer-

[onesnzeros]

First, let me say that I am not an Archer apologist however.... if you squint at his graphic at the top of the page it shows a 1 meter short arm and a 10 meter long arm or 10:1 mechanical advantage and 1.2 kg will lift the 10 kg so he is correct. I think what he was saying is that the one meter arm travels through a 2 meter arc.

Let's have a look at Archers diagram shall we.

If you squint at Archer's diagram you will see a lever that is 1 meter on the left and 5 meters on the right. This is according to 'his' scale that each division is 1 meter. I get 5 meters on the right although I can't read all the ticks due to the lack of resolution. This represents a mechanical advantage of 5 and not 10 as you imply.

For the weight on the left to move 2 meters vertically, the weight on the right needs to move 7 meters vertically. This is pure geometry, lay it out on paper and you can confirm. Notice that the great mighty Quinn  pulls something strange out his ass, "the grey line of axia".  What ever in gods name does that have to do with anything I have no idea. Then he procedes to arbitrarily extent the grey line from the end of the lever to the vertical scale on the right. The vertical distance between the intsection points of the grey axia and the vertical scale measures 10 meters. how clever. The real distance that the weight on the right moves is only 7 meters vertically and not 10. This can be confirmed with trigonometry or drawn to scale in Audocad or on a piece of paper. 

Now lets see what we really have; on the right we have 1.2kg x 7 meters or 8.4kg.m worth of work. on the left we have 10kg x 2 meters or 20kg.m worth of work. I'm reasonably convinced that 8.4kg.m of work is not going to convert to 20kg.m? We're missing 11.6kg.m

This confirms that Archer is either very ignorant of physics and geometry or is trying to decieve.

I include a diagram (to scale) to illustrate my point.

respectfully,

onesnzeros