Roll on the 20th June

[exxcomm0n]

Um, no. You are thinking way to far into this. Its okay, I would overthink things too back in my smoking days. (ya, I blazed, so much I wound up getting a medi card!)

Cold medicine was said man. That the 2 might have a greater catalytic reaction than either singly is the point.
Errrrr...while that medi-card may have allowed you to get much better product for a lower price, it's cost was registry in a database and that is never good man.
In gov't eyes, once you have, you will always will and can never "live that down" (although, hopefully laws will change that remove most of the stigmata associated with its illegality).

No. We never considder construction energy of the ramp.

Pure physics might not, but I do as the only reason to build a ramp and use all that energy to do it is because I want to do it more than once.

I see that as energy expenditure needed to realize a goal, and it costs more than climbing the wall, but only (hopefully) a few times.

If I'm going this far, I have to include the energy used to manufacture the materials too.

A ramp made of brick and mortar would require much more energy than wood and nails, bit they do the exact same thing. All they do is ridirect existing energy. A "jump" takes horizontal kenetic energy and diverts (some of) it to vertically kenetic and potential energy. A skateboard halfpipe takes potential energy at the to, converts it to vertical kenetic energy on the way down, the directs the vertical kenetic energy to horizontal energy at the bottom.

K, the 1st part of your argument is time/energy based. Both ramps do the same thing, but one ramp can weather environmental decay (entropy) much longer than the other so the "much more work" realizes much more potential over time.

The 2nd "half pipe" argument is only 1/2 fleshed out.
At the bottom, do you want the half pipe to continue, or turn into a wall?

If it continues the horizontal kinetic energy at the bottom gets to convert (via the ramp) the kinetic energy to potential energy as it travels up the other side of the pipe.
Horizontal motion becomes vertical motion while doing so and covers more distance.

If it turns into a wall all the horizontal kinetic energy is never able to convert and travel more distance vertically or horizontally while doing so (outside of the wall deformation).
Horizontal motion is used to "break through" the wall and may use up all the kinetic depending on wall material and realize much less distance (potential).

You are arguing that mechanics can convert and redirect energy, which I agree with 100%. What is not true is that mechanics lessen the energy to accomplish a task. A lever/pulley/gearing assembly have the capacity to lessen force required, which is why it becomes "easier," but the energy is always the same because the decrease in force is always accompanied by an increase in distance the force must be applied.

Don't forget about time and repetition.

I may climb a wall once, but if I'm going to do it repetitively, I'm a fool not to build stairs or a ramp so I don't have to loose momentum to convert the horizontal to vertical and can do it much faster in the future.

The energy may be the same, but the result is much different due to time.

Building the ramp may use the energy it takes to climb the wall 3 times (well actually 6 cause you have to build the return ramp too), but if I use the ramps many more times than that, I start conserving energy instead of spending it every time.

I can't jump on top of a highway overpass, but I can walk up the sloped earth on either side used to build it to get there.

If a ramp had the ability to create energy, then FE is no mystery! All we would need to do is roll a ball up a ramp then push it off the back! If it requires less energy to push it up than we get out by pushing it down, FE is solved! Set up a loop that spirals up, has a sudden drop and halfpipe at the bottom that takes you to the spiral back up. It won't work!

I NEVER said energy was being created! (Isn't that supposed to be impossible anyway?)
I said it took less energy (conservation) over time.

A ramp (or any other mechanical means of climbing a wall) "banks" energy expended to realize greater distance IN ONE DIRECTION (up vertically).

If I don't use a mechanical means of doing so, the potential energy created in vertical motion up is immediately converted to kinetic energy traveling down due to gravity.

Purely vertical energy has to be expended all at once in one direction if mechanical means are not used. That (if possible) can seriously deform the object of the motion vs. being able to use mechanics to leverage the same object the same distance and probably being able to do it without deformation of the object.

The rocket is a mechanical means to use and channel energy potential.
So is the jet engine.
Both machines, but one is so much more efficient than the other due to the way (direction) the energy is used to reach the same goal (altitude).

Very simple example:

Take two identitical balls, drop them from the same height at the same time. They hit the ground at the same time, right? This is because they start with the same potential energy and end with the same kenetic energy.

Now, do the same thing, but have one roll off the table, dropping the other straight down from the same height just as the other rolls off. Still hit the ground at the same time, right? Again, they start with the same potential and end with the same vertical kenetic energy EVEN THOUGH THEY HAD DIFFERENT PATHS!

My point is, and has been, the change in potential energy to get from point A to point B will always be the same regardless of path!

Mechanics change what happens to the energy, but they do not change the amount of energy.

-PurePower

K.....I understand that, but which one covered more distance (work)?

The energies aren't the same either as the ball on the table is moving.
They might reach the ground at the same time traveling the same distance downwards, but will not end up in the same place.

Blazing as I type......

[Fred Flintstone]

@Everyone

In my opinion, Archers magnet array seems like something worth trying. I am going to order enough magnets to close the loop. In order to keep my cost down I am going with 1.5" cylinder magnets (1/2" thick) around the perimeter. Then I am going to mount .5" cylinder magnets (also 1/2" thick) on the arms. Basically, very similar to his latest video. His perimeter magnets look more like 3" wide but I cannot afford that width.

Before I waste a bunch of money on magnets...

1. Does anyone see any major problem with the sizes of magnets I am ordering?
2. Has anyone already attempted this and found that it will not work?

Freddy

[Rusty_Springs]

Hey Chet and Dirt
It is good to see Archer likes my ideas as is happy to use them, weather he came up with it himself or went to the site I showed you that only Archer knows but he did show me something I never did and thats setting them up for the loop but then again I wouldn't have thought of it because I know the force it would take to remove that roller from the stator as you couold proberly see from the force he has to use to remove it once it sticks were ever it stops.
Take Care Boys
Graham

[shakman]

Wow.. it's been flat chat at work tonight so I haven't had a chance to start on the mock-ups I promised yet.

Anyway, I will quote from one of my favourite songs: "... smart people out-smart eachother, then themselves, then themselves..."

@Graham/Archer

I think it only fair to address you both. I know you both have the best of intentions. I know you both want an answer to this age-old puzzle (or for the sake of those argue the key has been found but long forgotten - I will say 're-discover'). Arguing over who discovered what first as far as I'm concerned is counter-productive at this stage.

I am guilty of taking fire when fired upon so I understand the need for you each to make your point. From my point of view you are both bringing some very good ideas and advances to the table (much more than I am). I respect you both for that and I think I speak for most people here who truly believe that magnets might hold the key to some break-throughs for OU/FE.

What I propose is that you agree to disagree on certain points but try to work with eachother here. You are wasting eachother's time, time better focused on putting your obvious skills into action. With more info sharing without the emotional attachment we might make some big progress. The key is to agree to disagree and accept that when someone does not agree with your opinion it is not the end of the world, and it's not neccessarily a personal attack. More often than not it is merely an opinion, correct or not.

Then you can share your results and your data and decide for yourselves which direction is the best to go and see if you can get something going. When you are doing your own experiments you have total freedom over what you want to do (within the confines of what resources you have access to of course). Then it's only your opinion that matters.

Alright, I've had my sook.    Tough night at work so far. I've gotta get back to it.

shakman

PS @All - Before you all ruffle your feathers, I know, I know, it's the pot calling the kettle black. I have addressed Graham and Archer because I think the have the most to gain from cohesion.

[TheDangler]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simple_Magnetic_Overunity_Toy


In the theoretical SMOT design, a steel ball is pulled up a ramp by an array of permanent magnets. At the top of the ramp it falls, converting magnetic attraction into kinetic energy.


How is Archers new smot any different than this one that goes up hill and over again?