Roll on the 20th June

[sm0ky2]

i think we need an accurate measurement of the mass-ratio between both ends of the lever.

This should be added to the mass-ratio of the water-containers to get the proper values for experiment.
lot of metal there to consider.

another unknown is the effects of the tensioner springs. Theoretically, the work function of the spring balances out - i.e. you get back just as much pull as you put into it stretching it out (minus heat loss). but it would still be nice to know, so we can see how this effects the 'leverage'.

If the goal here is to "Destroy Newtonianism", I think it should gone about in the proper fashion.



@ purepower - apparently that entire long post i made a while back was completely misunderstood when you read it - sorry, i tried to explain it so you would understand, and it seems i failed miserably at that.. Also, i gathered from your reply that you have an incorrect conceptual idea of how Archer's magneto-gravitic wheel is supposed to operate. Perhaps you should go back and read the thread from the begining - and make note of only what archer himself posts about the subject. also there are a few cut/paste jobs from archer's ever-changing website,that people copied over, some have useful information.

[The Eskimo Quinn]

forget the fulcrum when looking to take it further just use known modern machines, purepower an his crew want to keep you on the fulcrum track as you are unsure, you only need know the lift worked, and that you already have. so to stop him and his oil mates confusing you jump straight to modern machines.

a modern wheel generator can take 40 kilos a fall energy and produce no less tha 39 kilos of energy correct?

a modern motor required to do 12 kilos of work will cost no more than 13 kilos correct?

if the entire beam weighs even 15 kilos (as it did originally before it snapped) and i use a fucking crane to lift the entire weight of the beam, do i still have more power?

fucking shitloads

so what costs cannot be covered? yeah baby, and if pure power argues any modern machine power abilities every engineer in the world will crush him like a bug.

so let us do that again.

the beam lifts the weight yes?? you saw it

do you know how or why?? maybe but who fucking cares, it is in the air at the cost of 1 kilo per metre

we know the 1 kilo can get up there with a modern machine at a cost of 13 kilos yes??

we know that a modern wheel generator can get at least 39 kilos of power from 40 kilos in yes

we dont give a fuck about arguments over the return cost, let them have total cost and get a fucking crane to lift the whole fucking empty beam at the cost of the total weight of the beam



THEY STILL FUCKING LOOSE

now i am going to continue to repost this very post, because everyone understand this, and they cannot beat agreeing to the highest possible costs, and yet they still loose.

[purepower]

THE LEVER IS DEAD. MUST READ!

Another Newtonian contacted me personally and brought something crucial to my attention. Please see attached image he generated (to remain anonymous, unless he comes forth). He included text, but to bring it down to 50KB it became grainy, so I will clarify.

What you see is video magic and deception at its finest. In the main image, and zoomed in on for more detail, are Archer's control rods sticking out from the short end. The control rods are the darker protrusions. By use of the control rods at this end (and even confirmed in Archer's description of the picture), the entire lever is perfectly balanced. Without these rods protruding from the short end, the lever would clearly tilt towards the extended end.

Now I bring your attention to the image taken from the video clip (top left). Here we see the short end with the drum rope attached. Do you notice anything missing? The control rods! By removing the control rods for the demonstration, the lever was not balanced and a mechanical advantage was given to the extended end.

It has become absolutely clear and beyond contestation we were deceived to believe Archer's 5:1 lever produced 20:1 lift. With additional weight and torque on the extended end by the distribution of the lever itself, it is obvious to all we would not need 1/5 the weight to lift the heavy mass. If extended any further, I'm sure we would reach the point of no additional weight is needed to lift the mass as the shear weight of the lever alone would to the job. It is no wonder Archer was claiming to have better and better results.

No control rods on short end, no balance. No balance, no 5:1 ratio. The game is over Archer.

It would appear the control rods are more than just a gimmick. It would appear they are more the "Swords of Satan."

The Archurian reign is over. Newton and his followers triumph. And no Archer, if the rods are on the extended end it would make the large weight easier to lift, for a lever genius you sure don't know much.

Its going to be pretty hard to spin this one Archie. "...struggling for stories now ..."

One more key point is something I have already pointed out, so I will simply repost:

"There was slack in the rope at the heavy end, so while the extended end was in free fall it had time to built kinetic energy. Once the slack is gone and the large weight is active, all the previous kinetic energy from the extended end would be converted into potential energy in the larger weight [ie the momentum from the extended arm falling would lift the large weight to some degree (be it smooth lift or a "jerk" - thats for you exxcomm0n)]. Once that conversion is maxed out, the larger weight would begin to fall and the lever would come to rest after a few oscillations. This is exactly what we saw and will hold true regardless of which end is creating more torque. The only difference the balance would make is which end us up when in its final position. We saw potential energy (small weight lifted) convert into kinetic energy (small weight falling) convert back into potential energy (large weight lifted). The system comes to rest with no free energy ever created."


@exxcomm0n
Your rebuttal to this is irrelevant and unsupported. "Bounce" or "rebound," makes no difference. And if the large mass is shot up so fast it creates slack, still remains irrelevant to the total energy analysis and may only account for some of the oscillations.


A little bit of irony I find funny: through this debate, the Newtonians have been called "snakes" and "oil men," and as it turns out Archer is nothing more than a "snake oil" peddler! Give it up Archer, you have been caught in a lie with your own evidence. I forgive you for the names you have called me and the horrible things you have said. I understand that as someone with as many followers as you had you would do anything to keep them, including making false accusations and spinning truths to your favor at the expense of many.

You are done Archer. There is nothing that could be said to recover from this point. I wish you well. Hopefully you can sell the lever for scrap and get some money back to buy yourself a Newtonian education.

[Rusty_Springs]

Rusty,

(emphasis mine)

You're getting it, slowly.. keep thinking about it. Think 'balance beam'..

-L

Hi L
All I can think is theres two pieces of steel in the axel one on the axel one on the inside of the tube as the arm drops the steel in the axel turns hitting the one in the tube which causes it to spring back pushing the arm back up.
Take Care L
Graham

[purepower]

Archer, you never cease to amaze me (and not in a good way).

You say:
"a modern wheel generator can take 40 kilos a fall energy and produce no less tha 39 kilos of energy correct?

a modern motor required to do 12 kilos of work will cost no more than 13 kilos correct?"

I will argue this (just slightly). First and most important, "kilos" is not a measure of energy! Never has been, never will be. It is a measure of mass. Energy = [(kilograms)*(meters^2)]/(seconds^2) = Joules. Argue this and every engineer in the world will crush YOU like a bug...

Second, you say "a modern wheel generator can take 40 kilos a fall energy and produce no less tha 39 kilos of energy correct." Lets pretend for a second this is a measure of energy. That would mean we have an efficiency of at least (39/40=) 97.5%. I'm not saying its impossible, but I am yet to find a generator of such efficiency.

This is where it gets really great:

"we know the 1 kilo can get up there with a modern machine at a cost of 13 kilos yes??

we know that a modern wheel generator can get at least 39 kilos of power from 40 kilos in yes"

Again, lets pretend "kilos" is a measure of energy. So you say we can get 1 unit of energy with a machine that uses 13 units of energy. Doesn't sound very efficient and is certainly not OU! And a generator that produces 39 units of energy from 40 units of input? Still no OU!

"<YOU> STILL... LOOSE"

-PurePower