Roll on the 20th June

[legendre]

Kai,

It doesn't matter. No one can convince of the simple fact that the lever he constructed is ordinary.

he is befuddling you with numbers that *don't matter*...

Now you're starting to sound like me, from last week.. the 'me' that so annoyed you as to suggest that I just clam up and walk away until the 20th. Recall now, my emphatic comments about 'just a lever' - and absurd, made-up mathematics?

Some people might find this aggravating, but I'm just as happy to read it. Yet I'm still a bit disappointed that you never stepped up and admitted to your fabrications regarding my posting history, here.. But truth be told, I never actually expected it; these interactions are, unfortunately, predictable.

Anyway, it sounds like people are on the right track with Archer's time-wasting silliness. Guess I'll slink back into the shadows, for a while.

-L

[exxcomm0n]

@ Dirt

Man, it's clear that there are 2 decided camps here.

We build and give the idea a shot because we're "physics dumb".
But we're smart enough to know that we don't know.

Others are sure the idea has no merit because they are "physics smart".
But they HAVE done the math, over and over, with hands on physics "labs" (some classes will not let you graduate without a few lab tests and most require more than a few.

Now it's the "over and over" part that concerns me, and I use it all the time.
American schooling is based for the most part in "by rote" teaching, even for mathematics.

It was taught to me the 8 x 8 = 64

When someone asks me what 8 x 8 is, I automagically say 64 without hesitation.

I do that not because I order 8 rows of 8 objects each in my mind and counted them (even though while learning mutiplication I did that a lot), but because I KNOW THE ANSWER IS 64.

It was told to me umpteen hundred times, I figured it in my head about as many and the result "stuck".

It's even the same whether you use base_10 or base_8 mathematics...............

................but its not the same if you ask what 8 x 9 is.

Base_8 math (I use it for TCP/IP addressing schemes all the time) has no 9 unless you want to get philosophical about the whole deal and call the sticky bit a number).

But it can't figure Pi equations either.

I do not ask physicists to do network architecture.

They do not ask me to do quantum mechanics.

You being a pilot (amongst other things), would probably not trust either of us to plot a course by OMNI station either, especially in a mountainous region.

But each uses a math system, that while incompatible,  has very necessary and real applications.
It's just that you can't mix and match them.

I think Archer must laugh his ass off nightly because he's been able to (no matter if the device ideas do work, or not.) work such a group of people into such a tizzy over such a period of time.

I'd have to be hospitalized man. The smile would be chronic.

Let's accept that others have different perceptions and use them, instead of going to war because of them.

But that don't mean "roll over and die" neither.

The debunkers have taught me a bit of math in spite of myself.
I may have taught them a little machine design.

If antigravity gets discovered, your going to be a very popular man.
Not because of avionics, but because you know how to navigate the air, and that's a lot harder than it sounds like it should be.

[fletcher]

Well, I've been known to do a bit of flying from time to time too - but I still use Newtonian mechanics & can navigate fine using math & trig, most of the time 

But I agree - lets just wait till quinn reveals how it is all done - remember that the 20th here down under is actually the 19th for you guys state side.

[Rusty_Springs]

exactly Larry,  thats the whole point!  we are after the power of movement, momentum, whatever you want to call it.
there is a big difference between a weight sitting on a lever, and a weight falling from the height that the lever lifted it to.
this lever, although extremely simple in operation, just might hold the answer.  weights move up, drop, and release energy, some of that energy is used, and the system goes around again.
ciao, Dirt

Just my point of view but any energy gain going down is lost at the other sides weight comming up.
Remember you have one weight on one side going down with gravity but you have another weight opposite going up against gravity.
Work it out wheres the gain.
Take Care All
Graham

[exxcomm0n]

This site surprised me a couple of times in the last hour (I was googling "lever class cost physics").

http://physics.kenyon.edu/EarlyApparatus/Mechanics/Mechanical_Powers/Mechanaical_Powers.html

I think I learned a couple of things just looking at the devices.

If school would have had this, I wouldn't have dropped out.

So, the pulleys and lever shown here not only worked (some of them incredibly by the looks of that 15 pulley block, that had to have a mate. That's a LOT of advantage!), but were used for shaping young minds?

Why don't they use this stuff anymore?

I think I have ideas for the return side now.