Roll on the 20th June

[Rusty_Springs]

Hi hartiberlin
I have no idea, what I don't get is how he gets the water back up the hill to refill the lever at the top or is he just refilling the water at the top by hand.
Again I don't know what his doing but I never looked at his site only the videos so I can't really make a comment.
Take Care hartiberlin
Graham

[Evg]

It is very possible that the only working fulcrum is in Archer?s head and I would think he can see it as clear as daylight. Like many of us, we had ideas that we were positive about that they should have worked, but after 2 weeks of drawing/sketching and leaving it alone for a few days, we usually come up with an answer e.g. ?holy scheisse? why didn?t I see the obvious flaw? Archer on the other hand went with his idea public and like a steam-roller, that may be the way to go and you may pick-up hints along the way, but it is also very dangerous if you get followers that add hype, but do not fully understand your concept. So an open source free energy way may not work as well as I thought it would.
Still after the 20 June if there is no result, I for one will not kick the boot in as I believe Archer had good intentions, just a strange way of bringing it to the world.

[sm0ky2]

In regards to "horizontal distance," having "sin(angle)" in the torque equation would give you the true torque values, but since it would be on both sides of the balance equation equation they would cancel out.

I dont think so,. on the right you have full verticle translation at the larger circumference. (minus the magnetic pull-back)     However on the left you only have the outer circumference until you hit the magnetic array, then it is closer to the center of rotation on that side.  the leverage point is not at the center of mass of the rod. it appears equally in opposite directions on the mounts holding the rod in place, where they attach to the wheel. Which translates to rotational torque.  its like having 2 fulcrums, one on top and one on bottom at opposite ends of the lever - which act as one WIDE fulcrum.   So essentially your working lever corresponds to the two ends outside of the mounts. which one is shorter with respect to the other. This represents the torque on the wheel.

[Rusty_Springs]

Hi Dirt
The answer is friction increases and the reason it does, has to do with speed, having said that in what you described you are taking into account the friction from the lever but your not taking into account the friction from what ever system your using to put the weight on and off the lever.
Take Care Dirt
Graham

[purepower]

Hello Rusty.
I'm sorry Rusty, but you will have to explain this to me cause I'm just not getting it(musta been that bump on the head today). If I take a lever set at 5:1 put 5 kg on the short end, and 1 kg on the long end, will it lift?
probably not, because of friction at the pivot. but if I move the 1 kg out 1mm then will it lift? sure will.  so now I have a 5.01:1 lever.
a very insignificant change to get the lift that I wanted. agreed?
Ok, so now I take my 1 kg weight off, and the lever drops.  Ok?
then I put the 1 kg back on at the 5.01m point on the lever. it lifts again right?
I can do this over and over for eternity(well, me and future generations of my family) and the lift will alway work, the friction will never make my lever lift less than what I designed it to.
the reason as I see it that friction is not really a factor in the lever is that if I get the lift that I want, the friction is already taken care of. yes it is there, but my very minor change in fulcrum length hadles it with no lose to how high my weight is lifted.

take care Graham
Dirt

Hi Dirt
I will give you one hint to the answer, find out if friction decreases, stays the same or increases on each cycle and you will find the answer.
Also whats causing the heat biuld up when your system starts running and does that heat biuld up get less the longer the system is running.
Take Care Dirt
Graham

Hi Graham

I think there is something wrong with your calculations, cause I'm POSITIVE that if I keep putting the SAME weight on the SAME spot on the SAME lever it will lift the weight on the other end FOREVER. THATS WHAT LEVERS DO.
You put the weight on, the lever tilts, remove the weight, the lever tilts the other way.
there will be NO significant heat build up on a simple 5:1 lever lifting 5KG. ever.
lift, drop, lift, drop, lift, drop, always the same lift with the same weight.
as much as it freaks me out to say it, I think even PurePower would have to agree with me here

take care Graham
Dirt

Okay guys, this is how it is. You are both right, Im just going to tie up some loose ends.

Dirt, you are right. You can put the weight on a lever so it is "5.01:1" and it will overcome the friction to allow the extended end to fall, remove the weight, place it back on, etc. However, this isnt for free. By extending the placement of the weight by just "1mm" as you suggested, when the lever is raised the starting position will be slightly higher than if you didnt use the small extension. With this small increase in hight come as small increase in energy needed to reset the weight at that height. How much extra energy? The same energy that is used up by friction in the "falling" half of the cycle. So while friction may be "overcome," it is done so by adding extra energy to the system to be taken back out by the friction.

So when you say "the friction will never make my lever lift less than what I designed it to," you are wrong even by your own logic. If you extend the lever to be 5.01:1, then it should lift 5.01:1 by design, but it doesnt as confirmed by you due to friction.

In regards to the machine wearing out... of course it will become less efficient! A machine is not like a bottle of wine, it does not get better with age. It will not run the same forever, regardless of how light the load is. As long as a machine is being used, it will wear out and become less efficient as time goes on.

Now about the heat dispute. Friction works in a number of ways, but ultimately does the same thing: it takes useable energy from the system and converts it to unusable energy. By rubbing two bodies together, the kinetic energy of the two bodies is reduced because friction converts into two other other forms: thermal (heat) energy and sound (vibrational) energy. Between the two, thermal energy is by far more significant. Sound energy requires very, very little energy to produce. Heat on the other hand, is very significant.

The reason why you may not see the friction heating up your room has to do with a few things. One reason has to do with radiation/convection. But the main reason has to do with specific heat. To heat up 1 m³ of air 1 ^oC, we would need about 1200 Joules of energy. In friction terms, 1200 Joules of energy would be released if you were to rotate a 1 kg wheel on a bearing for about 2,000,000 rotations (mu=.001, r_bearing=1cm). While this may not seem like much in heat terms, it is very significant in mechanical terms.

Heat energy packs a pretty big punch in regards to energy production. This is why weve been burning our fuels for so long. A little bit of burnt fuel goes a long way to drive a machine. To bad it kills our planet and has allowed a handful of men to control society (Im a little peeved, I just spent almost $70 for 14 gallons of gas!)...

-PurePower