Roll on the 20th June

[therealrasta]

@pp

Ok.. Well it looks as though it is a ll relative.. The pulley will not save you work in your scenario but there are other ones to try.

Lets try this... Take a square shaped 10lb weight and pull it sideways and not vertically down a road for lets say a mile.  Now lets take the time to build a few wheels to support this 10lb weight and drag it a mile with the same motor.. And we can use this support to drag thousands of the same weights in the future. Which takes less energy? 

[capthook]

If anyone wants advice (like many of you already have), you may pm me, or send me an email. This is what I'm really here for, but it looks like I can't do this and deal with public opinion at the same time.

I will no longer post publically to this thread.

-PurePower

Just a suggestion...

Why don't we all try to get Archer to build the electromag version from two years ago?

-PurePower

Dang! Of course your promise not to post ever again only lasted a few days....

Oh well - no big deal.  It's a free forum....

But yeesh - now you're back to your hyper-fingers, iphone forum reading/posting babbling bumbling ways.

How many times and how many people have to tell you to

SHUT THE heck UP!!

Not forever, not until the end of time...(well - maybe  )

BUT FOR LIKE 10 DAMN MINUTES PLEASE   

P.S.  Your suggestion to Archer to just shrink the wheel to test is a good one - one I had as well - and so obvious a solution how could the "great one" not think of it?
So see? You can have a good idea(s) - but why post so many pages of blabber?

= = = =

@ John Gault: cool pics/designs you posted - tx (any other info/results of that design you would like to share?)

@ AQ:  I admit your last video going 3/4 around was interesting.  Maybe your smot sandbox playtime will payoff someway.  How's about you close the loop?  Or is the repulsion re-entry too strong?
Like PP said - shrink the 'wheel' by sliding the aluminum tighter to test it without waiting for more mags..

[purepower]

While Exx is either stoned, stubborn, or bent on my example that disproves "stored mechanical energy," I'd like to uncover the truth.

I will do so in nontechnical terms, so it will be easy to follow.

Okay, Exx's claim is the more energy used to build a machine, the more energy it banks, the more useful it becomes by making your job "easier."

I have already shown this to be false by my previous example that shows a machine that makes a job harder, now I will prove my point with a machine that makes a job easier.

Heres the job: you want to move your refrigerator 100 feet across the floor.

Okay, two ways to tackle the situation.

The first is to shove the fridge across the floor, having to fight huge amounts of friction.

The second is to build wheels. Now, just for this example, let's pretend the energy needed to make and mount the wheels is equivalent to the energy used when pushing without wheels 10 feet. Now let's say the wheels reduce friction by 90% (or another 10 feet without). Now the total energy used is only 20% of the first situation, or 20 feet without.

Obviously in the second situation, the addition of the wheels pay off. We always have to do work to make the wheels, but we never get it back. Clearly, it costs energy to do.

What the REAL advantage is comes from the reduction in friction.

As I have said many times before, machines dont bank energy to re-contribute at a later time. If this were the case, then we should see advantage to the pulley.

To appropriatly analyze a cycle of an energy system, you look at only the start, process, and end of the cycle. What happens during the construction is meaningless. We can improve the cycle by adding better bearings, etc., but this is not "banked construction energy." It is an improvement to the system that helps the cycle, regardless of the energy it takes to put it there.

Let's reconsidder those wheels. According to the "banked machine energy" (bme) theory, the more energy we use to build the wheels the better of we are, right?

So, if it takes 20 foot equivalent energy to build, thus 30 foot equivalent overall, are we better off? No.

I'm sure Exx's response would be "but the wheels that take longer to build would last longer, so it would pay off in the long run." Okay, well building them out of glass would takefar more effort than with wood. Which do you think would last longer?

Okay, so pulleys dont store energy and wheels dont store energy. I can prove the same for ramps and levers too. Shall I? Or is my work here done?

-PurePower

[therealrasta]

@pp

Obviously it is misunderstanding with the terms used.. Maybe stored energy is not the write set of words.. But these little mechanical inventions such as wheels and pulleys save on applied work force!


edit -- AND SAVES ON ENTIRE WORK COSTS IN THE LONG RUN.

[purepower]

Ya, you're not taking the time and energy to construct the WINCH  and lift and mount it to the beam above.(strange misspelling for an engineering student).

If this is the most base of winches, essentially a ratcheted pully, still costs more energy to make than a standard one, and then there's another rope to actuate the ratchet catch so we CAN DO IT AGAIN.

Not the same energy, and in my understanding of winches they usually have a motor of some type associated with them, or a @ least a lever (handle).

I'm asking what happens without a tool.

Even the bones in your body act as levers.

Lift me something with your coccyx without your legs.

Simple and short cause he already gets it.

EDIT

Owe it to you? For handing you your ass in a box?

You are a sad little boy, and you're regressing all the way to the tit.

Pretty soon you'll make it all the way back to the spermatozoa that was a gleam in your daddy's eye.
Damn, if only it were possible.

I start by saying its an ELECTRIC WINCH. No user input.

Construction energy for the winch is the same in both situations as it is the same winch (I dont know how to make an electric winch, do you? Thats why I left it out)

I do address mounting energy, I say its the same. I also address lifting energy for the winch. Thats why I say the pulley and wench are the same weight, so the lifting energy is the same (and then even go on to spell that out in the original post!)

Read it again.

Weak rebuttal dude. You try picking holes insead of answering the dam question. If you had really read the post, you would see your "holes" dont exist.

Clown.

All construction energies the same except additional mounting and construction for the pulley. Operation is greater with the pulley due to friction. Quit dodging bullets and explain it!

-PurePower

-PurePower