Roll on the 20th June

[dirt diggler]

I can never understand why people just dismiss friction, they just through it aside as if its nothing to worry about but don't they understand its friction thats stopping you from having OU, friction is your main enemy.
Take Care All
Graham

Nah Rusty,  just harvest the heat being produced by the friction to run a stirling engine, then you have two devices pumping out the free energy

[purepower]

I disagree.
The correct arm weight centralized or not, placed in the right location will give the overall device arms enough momentum/kintec force to slip past the oval wall; in affect a forced slippage in the downward motion (thank you gravity) of the arms. Each slippage should increase RPM. I do not currently see a way to control RPM's accept by friction or a additional control device. Friction is also not a concern at this time. Once the device is running and fully understood;only then should you start picking and prodding at it to make it more efficient/sleek/aerodynamic, yada yada yada...
I for some odd for some odd reason feel archer is holding back the secret ingredient (the gravy).
I am overall watching this with anticipation! I can see it working but for some reason my brain tells me there is something missing. I have all the parts sitting around so when the 20th comes I'll be ready to build that damn thing over night and start feeding the grid. In my city they pay back what you feed back. Screw Solar, I want me an Archer wheel on speed!
C-yall on the 20th.

Welcome! Here's something I posted a while back. It addresses your post well.

"Analysis of the mag-grav wheel:

Okay, to begin with, in analyzing the rods on the wheel what must be considered for calculations  of torque and energy is the locations of their mass centers (or the center of the rod if symmetry exists). In regards to the whole extension arm bit, there is no additional benefit to having additional weight five feet out or at the ends or located at the mass center.

L=length of arms from mass center
x=distance from mass center to fulcrum
m=mass
y=extension from end of rods

T= m*(L+x) - m*(L-x) = 2mx
T= m*(L+x+y) - m*(L-x+y) = 2mx

As you can see, adding the extension gives no benefit to total torque. All that does matter is total mass (2m) and distance from mass center to fulcrum (x). Now understand having additional magnets on the extension would provide more magnetic force, but as soon as you see the analysis it is up to you to decide if that would be beneficial.

In regards to the analysis of the magnets, the force and energy must be treated with care. For starters, the force of the magnets vary with the distance^2. Few manufacturers provide values so it would probably be beneficial to take some measurements on your own and do a curve-fit analysis. With magnets (and other field forces, like gravity), it requires the same amount of energy for one magnet to enter another's magnetic field as it gains (or loses, depending on orientation) from exiting the field. Simply put, you can not gain "extra energy" from a magnet by moving it into another's field from one direction coming out another. This is why Steron has failed. Similarly, this is what most people encounter with the "sticky wall effect." They are able to move into a magnetic field, but trying to get back out will require the same energy it received by moving in.

Now what Archer has done is used an imbalanced wheel to try to overcome this sticky point. By placing all the mass centers of the rods on one side of the wheel, the magnets will be moved past their sticky point at the expense of energy from the "falling" mass centers. Once the sticky point energy is overcome, the rod is allowed to free fall and contribute it potential energy to the device.

Sounds great in a vacuum, but there is a hitch, and it is this that has prevented people from successfully achieving overunity (including myself). The issue is simple: the device must be constructed so that the potential energy of any one  rod is always greater than the sum of the "sticky point energy" and the energy needed to reset the potential energy for a complete cycle. To overcome this will most certainly result in overunity.

Now the reset energy is simple. Thats where the magnets come in. By moving the magnets on the rod into the stator magnets' fields, the bar is lifted to reset its potential energy. However, as stated before, the gain the magnet received to move out of the field (E=mgh) is the same energy it took to move into the field. The energy it took to move it into the field (E=mgh) came from equal contributions of each of the other two rods (E=.5mgh). Now if each of the rods exerts .5mgh joules to lift one rod, and mgh joules to lift both rods through the whole cycle, and its only energy was its original potential energy (E=mgh), then where is the free energy supposed to come from?"

-PurePower

[purepower]

My take on the water/lever bit...

Archer is planning on lifting a large body of water (20kg drum) and then distributing the water to reset the system; I learned this inside "Soapz." We all know the lever will not be reset by leaving the water at the end of the lever, but let me ask you a couple questions.

Water always runs downhill, right? Therefor, water loses potential energy as it distributes itself. We can distribute the water to a greater height (squeegying it to another location), but this takes energy.

No let me ask my second question: if the water at the end of the lever didnt have enough energy to reset the system, do you think distributed water with less energy will be able to reset the system?

Didnt think so...

-PurePower

[exxcomm0n]

Another long one, really only for Exx and Dark Star...


@Exx

Deal. I understand most people would rather learn be doing than reading a post, so Ill try to come up with a few experiments as we go along or stumble on a concept someone is struggling with. I tend to leave out minor details in my explanation from time to time, so simple experiments should serve to fill them in...

In regards to your drawing (and dont think Im trying to shoot you down, just giving advice), here are a couple things you might whant to considder. If its the rotation of the wheel that pushes down the lever, thus lifting the counter weight, then it is the lever's energy used to lift the weight. Also, you will need to make sure that the counter weight is heavy enough so that upon its return, the lever has enough torque to remain in position to lift the rod.
<snip>

The wheel doesn't push down on the lever, it pushes out, raising the counterweighted end on the hinge.
Since it's hinged, it's close to free-fall potential, and falls down driving the wall in towards the wheel with leverage and momentum.

Right now I'd think it would the around the weight of a rod for the whole lever/wall assembly.

EDIT: Oh, Archer told me the complete plans  description for the lever are posted on his site and I should tell you.
Going to check them out myself.

EDIT2 was my fault.

[sm0ky2]

AhhHah-- but we can move water from one location to another without cost. using a Siphon.
well, very little cost,. is just needs a slightly lower gravitational potential, and it can cross a horizontal distance. much more efficient than a squigee. - but still is a loss..