Roll on the 20th June

[Rusty_Springs]

Hi All
Hopefully my last comment on the lever and it has to do with why it needs to be balanced to show 20:1.

The beam has a 5:1 advantage at the long side before you start thats why the long side drops.

As I said the beams weight is 30k's and its 6m long, breaking up into each meter goes 6 into 30 = 5.

5k's each meter means 25k's at the long end 5k's at the short end thats a 5:1 advantage to the long side, so to get a true 20:1 lift first you must take the 5:1 away so you add weight to the short end till its level or balanced.

With this the weight thats needed to make it balanced is 20k's once thats added you have taken away the 5:1 advantage from the beam in the begining and now you can add your 20k's for your 20:1 lift.

Put your extra 20k's on then your 1k on the long end and nothing will happen because you can't lift a true 20:1.

Take Care All
Graham

[sm0ky2]

Hi All
Hopefully my last comment on the lever and it has to do with why it needs to be balanced to show 20:1.

The beam has a 5:1 advantage at the long side before you start thats why the long side drops.

As I said the beams weight is 30k's and its 6m long, breaking up into each meter goes 6 into 30 = 5.

5k's each meter means 25k's at the long end 5k's at the short end thats a 5:1 advantage to the long side, so to get a true 20:1 lift first you must take the 5:1 away so you add weight to the short end till its level or balanced.

With this the weight thats needed to make it balanced is 20k's once thats added you have taken away the 5:1 advantage from the beam in the begining and now you can add your 20k's for your 20:1 lift.

Put your extra 20k's on then your 1k on the long end and nothing will happen because you can't lift a true 20:1.

Take Care All
Graham

no, this is crap. all crap...   the short end of the beam weights close to 25kg by itself.
the long end has varying mass distributed all along its length,. NOT divisable by the length!!!!!.
each meter has a different mass, and therefore a different corresponding leverage.

4 to 1 lift WITH a 5 to 1 length advantage = 20:1   

^^^^^^ That is archers lever.

the spring retention is enough to pull the lever up by itself, we see this when there is no weights attached.  even though the leveraged mass would normally bring the lever down.
1kg added to the long end overcomes this and the lever drops. at the same time the 20kg is lifted
the 1kg weight is leveraged in comparison to the springs, springs aren't strong enough to hold the lever AND the weight. Take the weight off, the lever returns for free. you can sit there lifting 20kg jugs all day long,  By simply lifting the 1kg. then moving the 20kg off onto a platform at the top.  a 6:1 pulley from the 20kg jug to the 1kg jug will more than lift it back up and reset the process.
so looping the cyc,e is just a matter of logistics

[purepower]

Anyone drop by Archer's page lately? I stopped by, and I think I figured him out...

He is a bright guy, Ill give him that. But he just seems to be missing a few things. He seems to understand that bodies that have kinetic energy have a greater ability to lift in a lever than a static body:

"1 kilo falling 1 metre is not equal to 1 kilo of weight/power at all, it is higher. we only equate increase in velocity with height, but 1 kilo falling 1 metre can pull a lever down to the ground yet not hold it there."

But then he goes on to say:

"The difficulty is that the Newtonian mindset is that they know all these things, and believe they have accounted for them in their math, which clearly they have not."

There are a few instances where he sees something in the device, but assumes Newtonian analysis cannot describe/define it. This is only partially correct, which is why I think he seems to be missing a few things.

There are two types of body analysis, statics and dynamics. Statics describes bodies in equilibrium (not moving) and dynamics describes bodies in motion.

Why I say Archer is partially correct is because he is only partially using Newtonian analysis. What he is seeing cannot be described accurately using statics, yet this is the only Newtonian analysis he has considered. All the Newtonian math he uses and quotes is for a system at rest, yet he is trying to use them to describe a system in motion which will does not work. Of course he is going to think all Newtonian analysis is incorrect because he is not applying the little he knows correctly.

If Archer knew the dynamics half of analysis, I think his stance on Newton would change.

I also noticed he has addresses (again, partially) the difference between free energy and perpetual motion, and I think he may be understanding the lever is not PM.

The way I see it, there are a few terms that are used interchangeably that have a significant difference. Allow me to clarify (you dont have to accept the definitions as your own, just understand how I refer to the terms):

"Free" energy - energy available that comes at no cost. Solar panels and wind/water turbines are examples as the input energy comes at no cost

"Free energy" - aka "overunity" - output energy from a system that is in excess of the input energy

"perpetual motion" - a system that may run continuously, but with no excess energy available for work outside the system

I think Archer has begun to understand he has a "free" energy device, not a "free energy" device. The energy of a body falling has energy available to do work that comes at no "cost" to us, which is why it is a "free" energy device. But he does not have a "free energy" device because the input energy is the user setting the mass at a height, which is the same energy we get back out. Hence, we have energy from a source we do not have to pay for, but we do not have overunity.

Now, for what I am about to say, Id like you to read all the way through before jumping to conclusions. As you all know, I am a proponent of "free" energy and the mag-grav wheel. In my personal opinion, I do not think a true "free energy" or overunity device could exist as they break the laws of thermodynamics. I do not think any device can output more energy than input. At the same time, I think a well designed magnetic or gravity device could work because they are "free" energy devices. In those examples, the input energy is the stored energy in the magnets or gravitational potential, similar to the light energy input of a solar panal. But I dont think they would produce more energy than they have stored.

Thats just my take on it though. Id love to see a true "free energy" device, but it is yet to happen. Even the only two "free" energy devices I think have worked in all of history (one by Tesla, one by Morray) had input energy. Let me know if you'd like my take Morray's device, Im a pretty good reverse engineer and have done a lot of research, but havent had the time to build. Still trying to figure out all of Tesla's...

-PurePower

[purepower]

no, this is crap. all crap...   the short end of the beam weights close to 25kg by itself.
the long end has varying mass distributed all along its length,. NOT divisable by the length!!!!!.
each meter has a different mass, and therefore a different corresponding leverage.

4 to 1 lift WITH a 5 to 1 length advantage = 20:1   

^^^^^^ That is archers lever.

the spring retention is enough to pull the lever up by itself, we see this when there is no weights attached.  even though the leveraged mass would normally bring the lever down.
1kg added to the long end overcomes this and the lever drops. at the same time the 20kg is lifted
the 1kg weight is leveraged in comparison to the springs, springs aren't strong enough to hold the lever AND the weight. Take the weight off, the lever returns for free. you can sit there lifting 20kg jugs all day long,  By simply lifting the 1kg. then moving the 20kg off onto a platform at the top.  a 6:1 pulley from the 20kg jug to the 1kg jug will more than lift it back up and reset the process.
so looping the cyc,e is just a matter of logistics

Now now, play nice. I agree with you, the levers mass is not evenly distributed along the length as its thickness changes. We cant really argue the specifics since we can only put together bits and pieces of Archer's lever as he gives them to us. But we have been given enough to all agree on one thing:

IT IS NOT OVERUNITY!

Now, back to that wheel...

-PurePower

[Rusty_Springs]

no, this is crap. all crap...   the short end of the beam weights close to 25kg by itself.
the long end has varying mass distributed all along its length,. NOT divisable by the length!!!!!.
each meter has a different mass, and therefore a different corresponding leverage.

4 to 1 lift WITH a 5 to 1 length advantage = 20:1   

^^^^^^ That is archers lever.

the spring retention is enough to pull the lever up by itself, we see this when there is no weights attached.  even though the leveraged mass would normally bring the lever down.
1kg added to the long end overcomes this and the lever drops. at the same time the 20kg is lifted
the 1kg weight is leveraged in comparison to the springs, springs aren't strong enough to hold the lever AND the weight. Take the weight off, the lever returns for free. you can sit there lifting 20kg jugs all day long,  By simply lifting the 1kg. then moving the 20kg off onto a platform at the top.  a 6:1 pulley from the 20kg jug to the 1kg jug will more than lift it back up and reset the process.
so looping the cyc,e is just a matter of logistics

You have got to be joking sm0ky2 if the short end is near 25k's why does it lift, why does the beam drop at the long end, easy because the long end is heavier, if you put the pivot point right in the middle never end will drop why because both ends of the beam are the same weight, you move the pivot point even one inch one end will drop why because one end is heavier, your weight displacement has changed changing the weight on ever side of the beam.
Take Care smoky2
Graham