Roll on the 20th June

[JohnGalt_USA]

actually you do not fucking read either, you are quoting a fucking vertical climb the same height as the wheel, i will say it for a third fucking time, a vertical climb the height of the length of half the circumfrence.(thats higher than the height of the wheel when you straighten out that line ) in fucking engish and crayon that means the vertical climb is higher than the fucking circle.

start reading what i write

Archer, please forgive me if I have missed what you have already written. I can hardly wait to finally see someone show the world a perpetual motion machine that actually works. When will you show us a closed loop version of your machine running multiple cycles on it's own?

[purepower]

@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   

The same would hold true if it were 12 miles, but that demo would be harder to do!

Argue how it "should" work all you want, still doesnt give FE. Until it is put into action and the wheel makes a couple turns, claims are useless...

-PurePower

[Newtonian God]

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?

Indeed, why argue at all if you are Archer?

Simply close the loop and video tape it running multiple cycles!

[exxcomm0n]

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.
(EDIT: just added additional values for better understanding)

Proof for ALL: get a 1lb weight, pulley, and ramp. Using the pulley, pull down on a string to lift the weight 12" up vertically. Force=1lb, distance=12", energy= 1 ft*lb. Now do the same, but pull the weight up a 30degree ramp a height of 12". It will require half force to pull, but will require you to pull twice as far. 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

No man, but i would like to inject that lets change the variable from a car to comparing a rocket and an airplane.

I bet you the rocket uses more juice since acting directly against gravity is a bitch.

Think of the ramp/airplane method as a 2nd or 3rd class lever that is using the fulcrum to impart a lessening of gravity.

You may argue that a rocket is using more energy because it is "petal to the metal" from start until release of gravitational pull (within reason of course) and a plane can throttle it's power usage and still climb to the same altitude.

And that's the entire point. a mechanical aid lessens the amount of energy necessary to perform a task (altitude).

Why NASA doesn't use piggy-back launches, I'll never figure out.

EDIT
The axle of the wheel IS a fulcrum (Sorry, I know how much you like that term anymore ) with a (assuming a balanced wheel) equally weighted lever on it.

A rod shifts weight to one side or the mag train imparts momentum (there is no other reasoning I can get from the 80% vid).

[TorpedoZee]

@purepower
1. No offense taken.
2. I think I do understand your position overall. I have been reading prior posts, what I am trying to say is . . .
3. Didn't you see something extraordinary? Maybe in your experience what you saw, a weight rolling up hill, is common. For me it is novel and surprising.

@Newtonian God
Yes the demo videos you linked were very well done. Granted. And I had not seen them or anything like them before I saw AQ's video today. But to me Archer's video showed a weight rolling uphill, that subequently fell out of the field and whose momentum could be used to do work. The vids you showed me showed a relatively tiny magnet rolling up hill to the end of the magnetic field and sticking like glue to it's track. They are quite different in my limited understanding.

Again I am new, so maybe you old hands look at this and say ho-hum anaother day at the office. But AQ's got me believing.

--TorpedoZee.