Roll on the 20th June

[dirt diggler]

Still no answer to my simple question, only more personal attacks. Big man.

Here's another one for ya:

The task: lift a 10 lb block vertically 20 feet (same as before)

Assembly for BOTH methods: a 25 foot tall rig, winch mounted on top, electrical control panel at grade (again, this is for BOTH methods, "banked energy" is the same at this point)

User input for BOTH: push a button

Method 1: clip weight to winch cable, push button, weight lifts (no additional input or loss from system as described above)

Method 2: build a pulley on the ground AND lever directly above (when winch pulls, one end of the lever is pulled down, other end lifts weight). Additional construction energy: pulley AND lever, plus loading the weight onto the end of the lever. Additiona load: pulley AND lever friction.

So, two otherwise IDENTICAL systems, perform the same task with the same user input.

One costs far more energy to construct AND operate.

Where is the banked energy benefit now?

-PurePower

PurePower;

Holy crap, you still don't get it man.
Noone ever said that higher cost, or more time to build would increase the usefullness of the tool.
Obviously there would be no reason to build a device if it didn't help in some way.
Now consider this:  same senario as you have been decribing, however there is no room above the load to build your winch.  there is a small spot to mount a pulley.  now your choices are to somehow lift the 10 lb load up 20 feet by hand.  not really sure how, maybe you can break it into small pieces, throw them up, then try to put it all back together,  Or you hook a pulley up there, and pull it up. Yes the load you are lifting is more than the 10 lbs because of friction, but it sure saves in the long run eh?  especially if you have to do it more than once.

ciao,  Dirt

[TinselKoala]

From Wikipedia:
"The scientific definition of a "machine" (derived from the Latin machina) is any device that is not a computer that transmits or modifies energy. In common usage, the meaning is that of devices having parts that perform or assist in performing any type of work (cf Concise Oxford Dictionary). Machines normally require some energy source ("input") and always accomplish some sort of work ("output"). Devices with no rigid moving parts can be considered tools.

A machine is anything that makes work easier."

I hope that clears that up.
Now, I understand that a fellow named Archer Quinn has made a magnetically-assisted gravity wheel, that actually worked. But I can't seem to find it. He appears to have made the statement that his first wheel on his site "ran roughly" then "stopped working". So clearly it RAN (made multiple turns without intervention) and WORKED (else how could it have stopped working?) So why not repair or finish that first working wheel instead of going off on a magnetic tangent?

[kude]

@Stoner and Boner
Stoner and Boner discuss story problems. Fascinating.

Is Archer abandoning the weighted moving arms toward the more track like motion he has shown?

[TinselKoala]

Ahh, somebody wants to talk about Archer!! Finally!

I think he is so ecstatic about "breaking the wall" that he has taken the weekend off. But I would really like to know why he doesn't just fix the wheel that "ran roughly" and "stopped working". Seems easy enough to do. I mean, it was RUNNING and WORKING according to Archer himself.
So just what is the difficulty?

[purepower]

From Wikipedia:
"The scientific definition of a "machine" (derived from the Latin machina) is any device that is not a computer that transmits or modifies energy. In common usage, the meaning is that of devices having parts that perform or assist in performing any type of work (cf Concise Oxford Dictionary). Machines normally require some energy source ("input") and always accomplish some sort of work ("output"). Devices with no rigid moving parts can be considered tools.

A machine is anything that makes work easier."

I hope that clears that up.
Now, I understand that a fellow named Archer Quinn has made a magnetically-assisted gravity wheel, that actually worked. But I can't seem to find it. He appears to have made the statement that his first wheel on his site "ran roughly" then "stopped working". So clearly it RAN (made multiple turns without intervention) and WORKED (else how could it have stopped working?) So why not repair or finish that first working wheel instead of going off on a magnetic tangent?

Thank you, this is exactly what I have been saying. They can modify and redirect energy, but at no point does it say they store energy for later use.

Case and point.

@Dirt

Actually, exx has been arguing that the more energy put into developing a tool, the more useful it will be. You guys keep changing the story and the arguement as you understand your failures, yet never seem to be willing to admit you are wrong on some things.

Sound like anyone else we know?..

-PurePower