Roll on the 20th June

[badassdjbynight]

Can we get back on topic...  As I've said before there is no need for name calling or posting photos of underwear.

tbnz...  ego sure, why not. If the hero can have an ego why can't the anti-hero.  Oh and look.. it appears the moderator of this forum agrees with my video:

...Also with changing pivot points you can not get any energy gain.

Always there is truth in:

m1 x g x delta h1 = m2 x g delta h2

It is always conservation this way and also via
shifting pivot points or lever arm this equatation stands....

Wheel must rotate slow, as when speed gets too fast the centrifugal forces will
influence this principle negatively.

Regards, Stefan.

This was the point of my video, that no energy is created when you balance an offset lever with weights.  Archer's point is sometimes hard to figure out, but to stupid old me it sounded like he was saying that if you have a 10kg weight on one side and you position the pivot close to the 10kg side you can lift the weight (on a wheel or on a lever either one) with a smaller weight, say 2kg.  So now you don't need 10kg to lift 10kg you only need 2kg.  You see, this is proven by newtonian math - it does not invalidate it.  But this is NOT OU.  Somehow the 2kg has to be lifted up to put on the top of the lever.  The weight times the distance it is lifted is the work it takes.  If you were to change the pivot point closer to the 10kg so that only 1kg is needed, the 1kg would have to be lifted twice as high, meaning the same work was done.

So I see that Archer is back posting again... but now he's talking about a 3rd system?  What happened to the other two?  Is this an indication that he has realized that they don't work?

[onesnzeros]

@Archer

Conservation of Energy Myth

Science believes that work in equal work out. The siphon itself proves this false.

If the weight of the pressure of the 5 kilos/litres of water falling its own height as it lowers was only equal to gravity of the weight falling and the pressure it took to fill it I would agree that Newton was correct, but I can fill the bucket with only the pressure required to get it just over the lip of the bucket pumped from I inch below the bucket, when I siphon it out, the pressure of the falling water is equal to the lift, standard Newtonian physics, yet I can raise the siphon to a far greater height over the lip of the bucket and still get it to run. So I have more power required to raise the water higher to empty the bucket than to fill it in the first place, and this is not provided yet it still happens, against the Newtonian laws of conservation of energy.

You cannot beat that or explain it in math.

Myth busted 1/06/08

Archer Quinn


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Archer: raising the siphon to a much higher level than the lip does not represent more energy nor does it break the law of conservation. The pressure caused by the colum of water on each side of the siphon cancels each other out. Thats why the siphon still flows. once the sypon is established. The pressure to raise the water up the tube is provided by the water flowing down the tube. The available potential energy is related to the difference in elevation between the level in the bucket and the point of exit from the siphon tube. Energy is lost in the syphon due to the friction of the flowing water in the tube and therfore partly dependant on length. So making the syphon longer looses energy. Myth busted.

onesnzeros

[AB Hammer]

Greetings Fletcher and all


Before what I posted gets out of hand. It takes about 3 minutes to start noticing slowdown. Without the arm weight it would only run for about a minute and a half, with the same push. But with the arm weight and the same push it ran for 6 minutes (but with a slight wind from the side it would run longer. So I have to wonder, how much energy did it produce over energy put in? Or is it even truly detectable? Yes I have much better, and I will only show my old test and toys at this time.

[legendre]

Archer: raising the siphon to a much higher level than the lip does not represent more energy nor does it break the law of conservation. The pressure caused by the colum of water on each side of the siphon cancels each other out. Thats why the siphon still flows. once the sypon is established. The pressure to raise the water up the tube is provided by the water flowing down the tube. (...)

Absolutely. It's also worth mentioning that the second stage siphon needs to be primed (work input) to flow.

Once primed, the system is very similar to an elevated pulley with a rope and weights.. you raise the weight (prime the siphon by drawing up a water column) which then falls and raises a second weight (the next column of water), which falls and raises a third weight (column) and so on. For ever weight raised, an equal weight must fall - and when the bucket is empty you get back the energy 'loan' you made in priming the system as that last remaining column of water falls back to ground level. All minus losses, of course.

If anyone doubts this, try cutting the siphon output pipe just at the last 90' downward turn, so it looks roughly like the spout on a teapot. If this worked, the Magic Soda Straw would have been patented ages ago.

I certainly hope no one is wasting their time or money building something based on such deeply flawed concepts. Siphons have been around since the stone age - and have never been shown to be anything other than useful but conservative machines.

-L

[legendre]

AB Hammer,

Before what I posted gets out of hand. It takes about 3 minutes to start noticing slowdown. Without the arm weight it would only run for about a minute and a half, with the same push.

Yes, for certain values of 'the same'.. you must realize that your uncontrolled manual work input completely invalidates any results of the demonstration.

But with the arm weight and the same push it ran for 6 minutes (but with a slight wind from the side it would run longer. So I have to wonder, how much energy did it produce over energy put in?

Easy, the answer is "zero".

Or is it even truly detectable? Yes I have much better, and I will only show my old test and toys at this time.

Yes - with the proper equipment, any gains or losses in such a system can be detected and measured. What type of measurement system are you currently using to study your gravity wheels?

-L