Roll on the 20th June

[exxcomm0n]

I was watching your video, you demonstrate exactly what im saying.  what is the height difference between the end of the lever when the weights are in one spot - and the end of the extened lever?

then what is the height of the lift/ mass on the other end, respectively. im not claiming to be a geometrial genius, but those 3 triangles are not proportional. the 3rd triangle, legA increases greatly, thus the hyptenuse increases, however the verticle (legB) only increases slightly.  we know the weight distribution of your metal ruler (minus that hold in the end) so we could get a pretty fair estimate of the momentum based on the divided mass. This energy MUST be equal to or LESS than the energy of lifting the control rods that very short distance. We assume there is friction, and other losses in this experiment, so we therefore must assume this energy to be LESS than.  now, since the fulcrum remains constant, and we assume that it was placed horizontally at the start and allowed to shift of its own imbalance. So the only  "input" energy is:
  the height of legB of that 3rd triangle( the verticle displacement of the control rods)  * the mass of the rods * g.

Conversly - the energy required to flip the lever the other direction is exactly the same triangle, turned 180-degrees.  So the long end falling CANNOT produce enough energy to lift those control rods that short distance. While you may have room to argue this point while the weight is still sttached to the lever - it becomes clear that the potential energy of the lifted weight on the long end (if detachable) is far greater than the potential energy of the control rods when they are moved up. (extended on the up side, or retracted on the down side).

This is what im having trouble with.....  The system must incur a massive energy loss to balance it out, that im just not seeing..  It must be there, but im not clearly identifying it...

Sir,

It took me 3 times reading your post to make sure I understood it correctly.

You did understand the effect I was trying to show.

I do not do well with math formulas and the accepted mechanisms thereof, and so my ideas and way of relating myself might be as hard for you to comprehend as it was for me to understand yours.

But I think we're saying the same thing.

Even though we seems to have a language barrier due to my choice not to pursue scientific nomenclature, we might be asking the same question.

Again, I compliment you on your demonstration that even those that do know accepted science as it is at this time can admit that everything is not known, and that someone has to experiment to find out.

You have earned my respect sir.

[exxcomm0n]

<snip>
Does anyone have an idea for the sliding rod mechanism, that will be sturdy, and still have VERY LITTLE friction??  someone suggested a "linear bearing", ive never seen these, anyone have experience with them?

my best thought involved 2 small rings at opposite edges of the wheel, that the rod sits in, so the contact points are small. something about a rod sliding on the inside surface of a tube just screams FRICTION.....

any thoughts on this subject? Thats the only thing holding me back at this point.. as most of you know i have magnets galore.. and im sure i can come up with some "weights" to use..

Hmmmmmmmm......

The one thing I could think of OTOH, is where you would place the rings, use allthread with anchored bearings like the below graphic.

That should minimize the surface to surface friction.

[exxcomm0n]

@exxcommon

The reason the lever must be balanced is simple. If it is not, the imbalance in the lever influences the lift ratio. With an influence on the lift ratio, the length ratio is no longer identical to the length ratio.

If the lever is balanced, then the length ratio is identical to the lift ratio.

This is why I wanted you balance the lever, then do the experiment. As you can see, Archer having his lever imbalanced is what gave him his magic "20:1" lift on a 5:1 lever.

If I were to remove the counter weight, the weight of the lever alone is enough to lift the mass on the short end. This doenst mean I have created lift with no work, as Archer's logic would have you believe. Please see below picture.

I don't think lift is created without work.

I think that if the lever isn't balanced, there is more weight that it can effect.

It takes weight added to the short end to counter act the weight of the long end.

You have your proof, and I have mine.

We shall both have to see if either have any relevance to the machine Archer proposes.

[sm0ky2]

ooooh i like that,. so basically a square of bolts,run through 4 bearings all edge-in so the rod slides through them!!! 

[MrKai]

ANY time someone goes against the grain, the sheeple will stand up in mutiny. Its not just with science, its with anything that someone holds to be their "truth". wether its 100% truth, or completely incorrect, or mostly correct and somewhat incomplete (like many areas of science).

sm0ky2:

Thank you for agreeing with me and pointing this out

This, the above is EXACTLY how you guys have been acting; you are the "sheeple" here. Anyone that has strolled thru and questioned what they have seen, that has gone against the overunity.com grain, have been met with a mutinous response, epithets and attempts at suppression.

You all have essentially, become hypocrites. You have become The Man.

That should make you very, very sad inside.

-K