Roll on the 20th June

[dirt diggler]

@ smokey.

It was my understanding that the springs were an add on component after some initial tests tried to bend the lever.  I personally don't think they are anymore than a way of keeping the cables tight,  simply all he had on hand at the time.  am I missing something?  are they adding to the "abilities" of this system?
Tomorrow I am planning on building a slightly smaller version of Archers lever, around 18 feet(sailboat mast)  and it is quite stiff extruded aluminum, so I don't think I need the springs/cable for strength.  do you think I need them to duplicate what Archer is claiming?

input greatly appreciated.

[redriderno22]

for all of you who spend most of their day chatting on this forum.

You know what, its just not worth it

just wait and see

untill then argue all you want

[exxcomm0n]

as do you... (except when it comes to battery technology )

And no need to quote the whole page of the link...
It doesn't discuss ANYTHING about alkaline batteries or energy density or battery performance.  It is a piece about the difficulties in designing a commercial battery tester that can accurately test all types of LiIon batteries...not what the data of actual battery tests are...

So....we're comparing Lithium to anything else.

Wouldn't a page saying that it's extremely difficult to do, that it depends on which type is tested with which testers, and that the technology changes every 6 months seem to allude to their being difficult to compare with each other, let alone another battery type?

That is the content I was looking at on the page, but I don't know that that is true either.

I will admit that Lithium has, in my experience, lasted longer than a alkaline battery.

But not that much longer, and DEFINITELY not being worth the increase in price.
I didn't take exception to your statement until it came to the 1/64th part where in my experience noted above (flashlight), the extra time and "worth" of Lithium instead of alkaline was negligible.

And for the last time - why the heck would I waste my time running experiments to PROVE to you what is fact and supported even by the DATA THAT YOU PROVIDED?

Wait, you discounted one above, how can you use that as scoring material when you dismiss it being relevant from the git go?

Rather than take my word - or believe the data - YOU do the test if it's the only way to PROVE to yourself the truth.  Learning by doing beats the hell out of taking someone's "word"

All the best....

CH

I didn't say that anyone with 1/64th of a brain would know, you did.
So, since you've put the burden of proof on me, I know (as stated above) that it's true to a point. But my experiences are not the same as yours, or the person on the pages, so I am having a hard time finding your statements as a "one size fits all" solution.

I saw somewhere in there that each battery excelled supporting a certain load type. That's why I made the challenge to your "1/64th" statement and then went to the trouble of figuring the type of test and materials.

You seem to take the trouble to come back here and infer that people waiting to see if there is any actuality to Archers claim  are in the "1/64th" percentile.
I just asked you to prove it.
I gave you how.
I gave you with what.

If it's worth your time to type such things, it should be worth it to support them with something you prove.

Bud, as with the great majority of people posting to this thread, I'm sure you're intelligent, resourceful, stubborn, and a bit left of center.
Our differences to this point have only been demonstrated by your belief that something from a book is true and cannot be questioned, and my refusal to take the understood champion theory of the day and worship it.

My major failing is that sometimes I'm too broad minded about some things, but in this particular case all either of us has to do to surmount this debacle is wait.

Kosher?

[exxcomm0n]

As to this...

Forget a time schedule - it's unrealistic as variables always seem to throw a kink into things requiring re-tooling/re-thinking....

Nope, not gonna do it.
Anyone debunking the idea would have a field day with the fact that he doesn't make his deadline.

Why should I allow you any better?

And I have pointed out the errors in Archer's "science" when needed to show that if he's wrong about these things - what are the odds he is wrong on his "word" that the wheel works and is OU (especially since that's all he has provided - his "word")
1. Lenz Law (it has nothing to do with OHMS)
2. 900kg wheel and 100 kg man etc...
3. satellites will stay in orbit forever without rockets (the earth doesn't provide free acceleration)
4. Lithium Ion batteries (vs alkaline)
etc... etc...

AND - MOST OF ALL - FOR ARCHER TO PROVIDE EVERY SPECK OF INFO HE CAN on the wheel...
so that others here might take what he has, and improve on it and maybe SOLVE IT

What about the floating ring-magnet idea?
Or a pendulum?
Or a belt attached to the wheel that moves the "stator" magnet in and out of the "rotor" field?
etc..

And I'm holding you to the same standard as a debunker.
Any questions?

[Rusty_Springs]

Hi All
I know nothing about math but I will put what I worked out on this, when it comes to levels the beams weight comes into it, here goes Archers beam weight 30ks and is 6m long so to get the weight of each meter we divide 6 into 30 that gives us 5ks for every meter now we have the pivit point 1m in on one side so the weight of that side of the beam is 5ks for that 1m the other side is 5m long so the weight of that side is 25ks for the 5m's so because that side is heavier it will drop to that side which is the long side now we add 20ks to the short side that already has a weight of 5ks so now the short sides weight is 25ks the same as the long side so everything is all balanced, now we add our 1k to the big side and now the big sides weight is 26ks and heavier then the short side so the beam drops at the long side lifting the short side and we have a 20 to 1 lift because we added 20ks to the short side and 1k to the long side, thats my basic maths and the weight of the beam must be taken into acount when your doing the maths.
Take Care All
Graham