Roll on the 20th June

[dirt diggler]

Its not that I don't read, its that you don't understand. So I will explain it for the third fucking time...

The total "path" on the circle is greater, but only because it includes a horizontal component. But guess what? The horizontal component of travel requires no additional energy because it is not against the force of gravity! It does not require any energy to move when you are not moving against a force, get it?

All that matters is total distance traveled in the direction of a force. Gravity is a vertical force, therefor the only distance that matters is vertical height! The horizontal components mean absolutly nothing (in terms of energy, niglecting friction) because you are not working against a force!

All that matters is start and finish. Path is completly irrelevant when dealing with energy potentials.

@Exx

That example is almost as bad as my two magnet demo. But to answer the question, it would depend on the POWER output of the car. If it has enough horsePOWER, it would climb vertically (assuming the tires stick).

But that's not really what we are debating here, were debating energy. In either case, the same amount of fuel (energy) would be used! The vertical climb would burn it fast, the slope climb would sip it on the way up, but the total remains the same.

Proof for ALL: get a weight, pulley, and ramp. Using the pulley, pull down on a string to lift the weight 12". Force = weight, distance=12". Now do the same, but pull the weight up the ramp a height of 12". It will require less force to pull, but will require you to pull further. The two changes are directly proportional to each other, indicating the total energy used has remained exactly the same! (demo neglects friction on ramp and pulley)

Anymore "touchy feely" pseudo-scientific armchair observations anyone would like to have analyzed?

-PurePower

PurePower,
I'm not so sure about that,  wouldn't the slow road up actually burn more?
same vertical rise, but also longer horizontal.  much further distance travelled.

ciao,  Dirt

[Newtonian God]

start reading what i write

Archer, it would be wise to heed your own advise. You often leave out key words that unintentionally change the entire meaning of your onslaught of run-on sentences.

[LarryC]

@All,

Why are you arguing about a stupid 12"? Archer ran a device up a 80 degree ramp, no wheel, no counter balance. A wheel will be balanced. If the device is balanced, the power required to move the wheel will be infinitely less. Is this not obvious?

Regards, Larry   

[purepower]

PurePower,
I'm not so sure about that,  wouldn't the slow road up actually burn more?
same vertical rise, but also longer horizontal.  much further distance travelled.

ciao,  Dirt

Okay, you are digging deep here (which is good!), but highlights why the car analogy is a bad example.

Yes, the slope climbing car would in reality burn more because it is running longer, has to fight friction longer, and experiences more loss due to drag.

But where they are exactly the same is the amount of energy used to climb a vertical distance, which is really the point of the arguement.

All variables included, they are different. Looking at just the vertical climbing component, the two are EXACTLY the SAME. Again, its a bad example for what we are debating...

@Newbie (no offense, I'm on my phone and can't go look up your name, sorry)

Welcome! I understand you are new, so I can't expect you to understand my position at this point.

I'm not saying AQ hasn't shown neat demos, I'm saying he is describing the principal actions incorrectly.

I'm not here to "debunk" or "discourage," just provide accurate information so those attempting to duplicate will understand what they are experiencing.

For more info on my stance, please see my post on or around July 3rd, starting with "thank to for the bday greetings."

But I do feel AQ has hijacked his own SoG thread under "gravity powered devices" with magnetic "discoveries."

-PurePower

[The Eskimo Quinn]

to newt go down to  a wrecking yard and watch a whole car shoot up to a single field, that should amaze you for hours.

to purepower your are still not reading, i thought you were smarter, i said length of the diamter on the lift side high, that is not the same as they are both traveling the "same distance"

i will spell it out in two year old

get a piece of sting from 6 oclock to 12 oclock now straighten it out, now make a vertical climb that height. so they are the same distance, now tell me it takes the same energy. I explained quite clearly that i was not talking about the height of the wheel, but the height equal to the length of the diamter of the lift side, everyone can go back and read it several times.

if it can climb that distance it will turn a a cricle with a diamter of the length.

you choose not to read it because it crushes newtonian physics.

On that before i go to work.

can anyone with any balls and honest bone in their body, say that the climb with no energy in, did not produce a movement and energy out??

i dont fucking think so, so spare me the newtonian bullshit of trying to mislead people by not following what i wrote, based on a false conservation law of newton's that you cant get work for free,

for the others playing at home with this, if there is a weaking set of magnets at the top it will fall, like it or not that would complete a loop the moment it touched the magnet at the base again. remember the vids? it will roll across level first, so that would make it past start point. and the newtonian god dead. i am sure there are dozens of people making these as we speak because they require no building skills.