Roll on the 20th June

[exxcomm0n]

You're right, the drawing is crap.

The non-formulaic reasons for why this illustration is wrong as follows:

The counterweight is attached to a rope FAR AWAY and above it, not directly above it so there is more sideways drag as it's lifting/falling detracting from the weight energy.

That's if it could.

The rope going through the pulleys from the counterweight is attached to the lever itself.
This is the one that jumps up and down and screams at me.
How often does a weight influence itself?

If the rope is loose, it just travels through the pulleys doing no work.
If the rope is tight, it's creating more friction on the pulley axles and robs any type of movement.
The best it can be is a steadying mechanism.

The falling weight (the actual energy producer) is flawed to.

It's trying to use the fall of 1 M to lift something 5M (at least).

That don't work.

I think this drawing was more something along the lines of "placating the kids so you can get work done", as well as a little obsfucation before the 20th.

Anyway, if there are other designs in play without these flaws and I guess we gotta wait until the 20th to see them and I'll still look as this entire thread has taught me not to take what I know, whether at a cerebral level or gut level, for granted.

Maybe it's only what I think I know.

EDIT : Awwwwww c'mon, 6 hrs between these posts and no one else saw this???

[Edpsx]

New wheel build info is up!

http://www.surphzup.com/gpage1.html1.html

And a video about the wall is also showing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iSriV08sfG0

[dirt diggler]

Lol, Bubba1, better not... People here are already confused enough! Let's leave the lever thingee...

After all, IF he would ballance the lever BEFORE he attached both weights, WE WOULD all know that "he never lifts a 20kg with 1kg on a 5:1 lever"....
Cheers!

IF Archer balanced his lever, then he wouldn't be able to return to the starting point, why don't you get this?
in the last set of video's it is plain to see that the long end is in the air, which HAS to mean that the short end is heavier. Right?
so, if more weight is added on the short end, that means it is heavier still right?
that means that when he places his 1kg weight on the long end, it should not move, right?
ahhh, but it does move.
so how is it again that you can claim that this lift is flawed?
all the arguments before were that the long end was heavier than the short end, and that was how he was doing the lifts, but now he shows a lift where the short end HAS to be heavier, and you still think there is an imbalance that has helped the lift.
please tell me how this can be.
Archer even goes as far as lifting more than claimed, he says 5kg lift, but as the scale shows, it is more like 5.3KG
so thats even more of a problem for your "unbalanced"  math.

Looking forward to your response.
ciao, Dirt

[hartiberlin]

Hmm,
I just watched again this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b9qMfgbE0ys

and there he says, he is using 2 fulcrums !

So he is trying to get the 1 Kg water up somehow with a 2nd beam fulcrum.

Does anyone understand how the 2 fulcrums interact then ?
Can anyone draw a few pictures or an animation to show
how these 2 fulcrums work together to lift up the weights again ?

( the 2 fulcrums seems to be a totally different unit than his perpetual wheel...!)

[spinner]

IF Archer balanced his lever, then he wouldn't be able to return to the starting point, why don't you get this?

Lol... I guess it would be unfair if I ask you to read previous posts?
With a balanced lever, and a 1:20 weights, he would discovered a catapult.... Yes, I probably didn't get it...

in the last set of video's it is plain to see that the long end is in the air, which HAS to mean that the short end is heavier. Right?

Yes. A simple logic . An (unbalanced) lever with a 20kg additional weight on the short end.

so, if more weight is added on the short end, that means it is heavier still right?

True.

that means that when he places his 1kg weight on the long end, it should not move, right?

No. The lever is just a little heavier on the short side. If you put a small weight (eg. 0,5kg) on the long side, it will flip...

ahhh, but it does move.
so how is it again that you can claim that this lift is flawed?
all the arguments before were that the long end was heavier than the short end, and that was how he was doing the lifts, but now he shows a lift where the short end HAS to be heavier, and you still think there is an imbalance that has helped the lift.

The short end (right side of the fulcrum + 20kg weight) is heavier than the left side of the fulcrum beam alone. But when you put additional weight on the left side, the lever will re-gauge.... What's the problem?

please tell me how this can be.
Archer even goes as far as lifting more than claimed, he says 5kg lift, but as the scale shows, it is more like 5.3KG
so thats even more of a problem for your "unbalanced"  math.

Looking forward to your response.
ciao, Dirt

You're looking for a fight? Well, I'll not engage....
Maybe it's just a misunderstanding? I know my English sucks...
Cheers!