Roll on the 20th June

[purepower]

Just a couple things I noticed on Archie's page we should all watch out for when building the wheel...

So you need another set of magnets around the top of the wheel from 1 o?clock to 9 o?clock. Now these magnets do not have the wall like the bottom magnets because they a facing so they pull on the magnets at the end of your rods.

Not true. Attraction magnets still have a wall, but their wall is coming out, not going in like repulsion.

"So how do we get past the invisible wall? Well this is really easy, but you have to listen to the teacher, and when the teacher tells you to stop and go back and you do not, your wheel will not work. So do we understand that you must always listen to the teacher? Good."

Yes master...

"Now let it go at the 1 o?clock point, and watch how far it travels and mark that point. Now undo the tape and move the ruler so that it sticks right out from the wheel with the coin out on the end, and do the same thing and watch how far it goes this time. Went further didn?t it?"

Here, he is trying to demonstrate how we get more energy by extending the rods. While this is true, it is only half the picture. The other side is extended also, so it is being raised more, sucking up more energy. While it would be nice if we got more from the one side falling than the other raising, this is not the case.

"Well the wall is always equal to the weight of the rod and the power required to move it, if you make the rod heavier you will need more power to move it and the wall gets stronger. So you cannot break the wall this way. So how do we do it?"

Okay, so he confirms my post:

"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?"

But then he says:

"This is how we break the wall. We cannot add weight just like you did not add weight with the ruler test, we simply moved the weight.  This weight movement increase the leverage that was applied to the wheel, or the extra weight in the from of the ruler and coin. The extra weight on the machine you are building is just like that ruler, only the ruler can move across the wheel and make the one side heavier, we are simply going to make the ruler start at the edge of the magnetic wall."

But this is simply not true. Extending the weights does not provide more torque because the other end has been extended also to counter it. It will provide more momentum, but as I said before, forces (magnetic, friction) will always beat out momentum.

Then he says:

"wall in = wall out!!"

But remember, "arms fall down" = "arms lift up."

Also, "arms lift up" = "wall out."

Therefore "arms fall down" = "wall in"

Bring it all together "arms fall down" = "wall in" = "wall out" = "arms lift up" = "arms fall down" = "wall in" = "wall out" = "arms lift up" = "arms fall down" = "wall in" =....

And the cycle continues. This is by definition PM, not OU. But we have a failed PM machine to due friction.

So to go off that last one, the energy we get from the arms falling is the same energy we need to break the wall is the same energy we get back out of the wall is the same energy needed to lift the arms back to start. Again, PM until friction adds a big negative to the whole equation.


The trick is going to have nothing to do with the rods since extending one end means extending the other and all advantage cancels out. The "arms fall down" = "arms lift up" will ALWAYS remain true.

The trick is going to be in the "wall in = wall out" part. If we can bring this to "wall in < wall out" then and only then will we have PM and if its more like "wall in << wall out" we may have OU.

This is why I had been considering bismuth. I was hoping since it was a diamagnetic material that was only active when aligned just right to a perm magnet we would be able to slip the magnet in with no wall...

-PurePower

[purepower]

PurePower, I know you hate to talk about the lever, but if it as you say, and weighted towards the long end, then how is it that in the video, the long end is up, and the short end is down? if the long end is truely heavier, it should be on the ground.

No problems. I said if anyone still had questions I will still provide my input. Im just not going to go there myself...

Okay, its like this. Im going to use archaic Archurian math here, not dealing with torque, energy, or anything of the sort. Everything will be described in "kilos" even if it is not mass...

We have a small mass(1 kilo) a large mass (20 kilo) and a lever (15.5 kilo advantage towards the extended end).

Okay, so with the no mass on, the lever would fall to the extended end with 15.5 kilos. Now we add the heavy 20 kilo mass. Now the lever would fall to the short end with 4.5 kilos. Still with me? Good...

This is how the lever is weighted towards the long end, but it is still up in the video.

Now we add the 1 kilo to the 5:1 lever. This means we are getting 5 kilos lift at the short end. Since the short end is only down because of 4.5 kilos, the 1 kilo would easily fall to the round, lifting the 20 kilo mass.

Still believe in magic?

-PurePower

(Wow, I just realized I can prove this thing a freud fake using Newtonian or Archurian analysis...)

[BATMAN]

BATMAN Hi All ..........9 DAYS AND COUNTING IS THIS FUN OR WHAT. Is it going to be "THE WHEEL OR LEVER" After seeing the 3 new videos BATMAN HAD TO GO AND GET 3 CASES OF BEER just to view the 3 videos again !!! We can work on P.M. MOTORS but We can't get a F......ing TRIPOD TO MAKE NICE VIDEO !!!! wake up up up up.

Here is another pic of THE BATMAN PRIMMOVER.

p.s. it was put togeather in 1989. still working. running 10,000 watt gen.

purepower i also have solidworks Perm.2008  i can send BATMAN files to you.

I like The Penguin ,nice penguin !!!!
        .___.
     /            \
    |   O _ O  |
    /      \_/     \
  .'  /            \ `.
/ _|              |_ \
(_/ |              | \_)
      \             /
    __\_>-<_/__
   ~;/           \;~

The Penguin

WAKE UP THINGS ARE HAPPING STAY TUNED...............................BATMAN ........POW........

[DarkStar_DS9]

But this is simply not true. Extending the weights does not provide more torque because the other end has been extended also to counter it.

Uhm... isn't the whole point that although both ends are extended, the whole rod will be shifted so that one end is closer to the axle while the other (the upper one) "sticks out more"?

Regards,

Rainer

[MrKai]

Now we add the 1 kilo to the 5:1 lever. This means we are getting 5 kilos lift at the short end. Since the short end is only down because of 4.5 kilos, the 1 kilo would easily fall to the round, lifting the 20 kilo mass.

Still believe in magic?

-PurePower

(Wow, I just realized I can prove this thing a freud using Newtonian or Archurian analysis...)

I think fraud is a bit strong. The way I see it is like this: if whatever his reset mecha/method is works (which, I don't know, but I think Newtonian physics thinks/says "no") then it doesn't *matter* how wrong his numbers are...at least not to me.

What appears to be the case tho is that because the numbers are wrong, it wouldn't actually work in the first place, I believe, is the Newtonian physics argument.

As an amateur magician (aha!) tho, it certainly seems to me like a bit of misdirection is going on in the descriptions of these things (it is a building block of conjouring; you make false statements as true...the hat is empty, the deck is shuffled, a card is freely chosen, nothing in my hand, etc) so that he can SAY that something is one way and it have no bearing on its actual operation whatsoever.

Since we do not know if this is intentional falsehood or confusion, "fraud" seems a bit harsh. "Confused" seems more apropos, maybe?

-K