Roll on the 20th June

[purepower]

Uhm... isn't the whole point that although both ends are extended, the whole rod will be shifted so that one end is closer to the axle while the other (the upper one) "sticks out more"?

Regards,

Rainer

I quote myself:

"Leverage proof (from an earlier post, this time with a pic so you might be able to wrap your mind around it a bit easier):

L=length of arms from mass center
x=distance from mass center to fulcrum
m=mass
y=extension from end of rods

With masses at end of arms (L)
Moment (or torque/leverage)= m*(L+x) - m*(L-x) = 2mx

With masses at end of extensions (L+y)
Moment (or torque/leverage)= m*[(L+y)+x] - m*[(L+y)-x] = 2mx

As you can see, adding the extension gives no benefit to total torque. All that does matter is total mass (2m) and distance from mass center to fulcrum (x)."

Again, focus on the center of mass. By extending out the arms equally, the center of mass does not move. Since the center of mass does not move and the weights do not change, the torque does not change.

Im not addressing the "shifting" from the magnets. I am addressing the extension arms Archer suggests using for additional torque.

They will not provide more torque (mathematically, graphically, experimentally proven). They will provide more momentum. To see how momentum doesn't really help us in the long run, please see post #2152.

-PurePower

[dirt diggler]

Because in at least two cases, he has added weight to the short end and is *holding it down*.

Again, we never, ever see this thing without either some weight on the *short end* or it being held.

He's holding it down because he had to attach the 1KG bottle with the lever in the long end down position because he can't reach it otherwise. then he pulls the short end down and lets it go.
we know that the drum with water in it(don't know how much it weighs) will hold the short end down because we see him remove the 1KG bottle and with nothing else on the short end, only the drum, down it comes, meaning that it is heavier.
sorry guys, still not convinced with your explaination.
if the long end was "out levering" the short end, then when Archer removed the 1KG, it should not move.
but it did, the drum on the short end clearly drops, which means it has have more leverage.

ciao, Dirt

[Gustav22]

The trick is going to have nothing to do with the rods since extending one end means extending the other and all advantage cancels out. The "arms fall down" = "arms lift up" will ALWAYS remain true.

...although both ends are extended, the whole rod will be shifted so that one end is closer to the axle while the other (the upper one) "sticks out more" .......

In other words, the rod as a whole will will be shifted relative to the wheel hub/pivot.

Would that change the result of your analysis, purepower?

edit:
example: two people each have 100 bucks. One of them slides 50 over to the other one.
Question: after this transaction, how much does "the other one" have more than the other one?
Note: The answer is not "50".

....
(Wow, I just realized I can prove this thing a freud fake using Newtonian or Archurian analysis...)

Better take care.

[BATMAN]

BATMAN LOVES BATGIRL........And Reads books over 18,000 books in the BATCAVE.

I think he makes love with the BatGirl........got that right !!!

BATMAN IS PUTTING a P.M. motor Into a car.

Stay tune.........BATMAN.........where is BATGIRL .....i know she is in the BATCAVE  instailling "big cap's in the bat car.................Gotto go.....BATMAN !!!

[purepower]

I think fraud is a bit strong. The way I see it is like this: if whatever his reset mecha/method is works (which, I don't know, but I think Newtonian physics thinks/says "no") then it doesn't *matter* how wrong his numbers are...at least not to me.

What appears to be the case tho is that because the numbers are wrong, it wouldn't actually work in the first place, I believe, is the Newtonian physics argument.

As an amateur magician (aha!) tho, it certainly seems to me like a bit of misdirection is going on in the descriptions of these things (it is a building block of conjouring; you make false statements as true...the hat is empty, the deck is shuffled, a card is freely chosen, nothing in my hand, etc) so that he can SAY that something is one way and it have no bearing on its actual operation whatsoever.

Since we do not know if this is intentional falsehood or confusion, "fraud" seems a bit harsh. "Confused" seems more apropos, maybe?

-K

If you reread the post, I wasnt calling him a freud, I was calling the device a freud. But I edited it anyways...

The way I see mathematical analysis is similar to how we use computer programs and calculators: "Garbage in is garbage out." Its not that the equations are flawed, its that the user isnt using them right.

If someone ever tries to disprove a device that is functioning before their eyes, and the numbers say its impossible, it usually because they are missing some key component (garbage in).

Archer feels Newtonian analysis is wrong for this very reason. As I said before, he is using "statics" equations to try to solve a "dynamics" problem. The garbage in is the misapplication of the equations, the garbage out is incorrect results.

I know Archer has no concept of the difference between the two. If he did, he would be talking about torque, energy, momentum, velocity, etc and using the correct units, not slapping a "kilo" to the end of every figure and calling it good...

-PurePower