Roll on the 20th June

[cub3]

Quote pp

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.

PP

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.

Snip

Quote
above PP


PP  some lightness & practicallity (sorry no spell checker)

To move a  FRIDGE

Walk into the lounge room, grab a rug, mat floor placement off some description I am sure that you may have noticed them (lady not home) do not roll up an expenditure of energy. Transport ( cost) device to fridge. Place at side of fridge fluffy side down.

Estimate, width of fridge allow say 6" on  width bunch device against side at base, lock with foot.
Apply leverage to central top of fridge, this will allow device to be slipped full length ( your calc's on length), when underneath tilt opposite side and extract, mat, rug, etcWhen

No constuction of  wheels or any all aviabale.

This item  has
as
Exx's has said Banked

may i enquire what went into the manufacturing  proccess of this final product that gave it the ability to reduced friction / decorative / functional a tool .

To produce such a useful article was beyond the original conept of the rug maker.

The production costs associated to make this a decorative  piece is !!!

Or something that, is more than  that it can also be very useful, that is produced, cost's absorbed

With respect's to all  Tired

Den,\

ps Have a go Archer

[g4macdad]

Quote pp

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.

PP

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.

Snip

Quote
above PP


PP  some lightness & practicallity (sorry no spell checker)

To move a  FRIDGE

Walk into the lounge room, grab a rug, mat floor placement off some description I am sure that you may have noticed them (lady not home) do not roll up an expenditure of energy. Transport ( cost) device to fridge. Place at side of fridge fluffy side down.

Estimate, width of fridge allow say 6" on  width bunch device against side at base, lock with foot.
Apply leverage to central top of fridge, this will allow device to be slipped full length ( your calc's on length), when underneath tilt opposite side and extract, mat, rug, etcWhen

No constuction of  wheels or any all aviabale.

This item  has
as
Exx's has said Banked

may i enquire what went into the manufacturing  proccess of this final product that gave it the ability to reduced friction / decorative / functional a tool .

To produce such a useful article was beyond the original conept of the rug maker.

The production costs associated to make this a decorative  piece is !!!

Or something that, is more than  that it can also be very useful, that is produced, cost's absorbed

With respect's to all  Tired

Den,\

ps Have a go Archer

What if Archer put rollers "wheels", at the end of the rods on his wheel? I know he has been concerned with the power of the magnets on his machine, tearing it apart.

[chap]

  I know Archer has broke "the wall" in his latest video, but I still have to ask,
would using weaker magnets towards the end of the chain help break the wall?
  I'm thinking about the wheel builders. I've seen pictures of stacks of magnets in the middle, to make them stronger(I guess), but I'm thinking more along the lines of strong to weak. Strong(BIG magnets) at 1:00 and weaker (small magnets) at 3:00. Most of the wheel attempts I see are using all the same size magnets.
  Would this help diminish the wall effect?

  Chap

PS The magnets on the rods would all be the same size, of course. They should still attract/repel the same, just not as much. I don't know.

[helmut]

@all
Last night i had build a small track from ceram magnets and used a neo with a coin on each side because of a missing ball. The magnets have quader shaped size and i mounted them the small side up
To my surprise it worked.
The Neo was rolling till the end of the track.
Now i was inspired and took the wheel , that was prepared to be the rotor at the bedini motor.
A new track was glued under the circle,that the wheel-neos where rotating.
But there was no significant succsess.
Because : The  rotormagnets must be able to rotate. In the bedini rotor they have been fixed, so the sourrounding
magnetic field was not able to roll over magnets flux lines.

If one of you are rtrying to close the loop, just think about it.

helmut

[ramset]

NEWT if your offer is legit   your prepered to spend money   so send a couple hundred good faith $ and start the ball rolling  Archer says on his soapz [no longer private ]that what he has done so far, is fine for his wheel design and is putting this tech into the wheel     ONE could see how multiple rotor mags entering the array will turn this wheel no problem   Chet PS send the guy some scratch any one    hes been at this for months at great sacrafice to his life for your sake [and his]  even the most negative observer see's this works send some dough unfunded research is our BIGGEST problem here
good morning [here] Helmut