Roll on the 20th June

[kitefreak]

Hey TorpedoZee, thanks for that. I think we both got it 'exactly right' by making a small donation; thinking that if enough people do that, and with Archer as our collective paid employee, we can help make a difference in the world. We have our jobs to go to - busy lives, etc. - and a small donation is like what we would spend on beer and dope at the end of a hard day (or taking your kids to the fairground, or taking the family out for a meal). I mean, it wouldn't be missed if it didn't work out. But it is, in my view, money spent on a worthwhile endevour. And we can see what is happening all along. I've said this before: it is transparent. Nothing is being hidden. Progress has been demonstrated. People are trying to twist the truth without even realising they're doing it (as evidenced by people having to apologise for getting the wrong end of the stick).

After all, we're all forced to pay taxes to further agendas which we do not necessarily agree with  For me, this was an opportunity to pay something towards something I do agree with - free-to-all energy generation, and freedom for the people from the shackles of global enslavement. It's called believing in an alternative future.

Do we hear people who have given money to Archer clamouring to have it refunded? No.

Do we hear people who have not given money to Archer clamouring to have it refunded? Yes

Psychologically, what is going on there?

Makes one wonder, huh?

On a lighter note, the hamster nightlight thing is really bringing a smile to my face. Thanks for that RealRastaMan.

[exxcomm0n]

My, go to sleep for a few hours, and ya miss the latest episode of soapz.

<snip>
@ Exx

Please quote me where I say a tool is not useful.

<snip>
@All

Maybe if you got off your knees for a moment you would see AQ is trying to give you the reach-around. (Physically, financially, and emotionally)
<snip>

@ Pure

You've calmed down, and asked a simple question without acrimony, so I will follow suit. But I'm still pissed @ you, and the indirect jab "@ all" exemplifies why sometimes.

As to the quote, here it is:

http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,4540.msg111053.html#msg111053

"Imagine a wall you want to climb over. You can either walk right ip to it and climb strait up and over, or you can build a ramp (or stairs). Either way you go, you still travel the same distance (total height) against the force of gravity. Therefor, total energy is the same.
What is different is power (energy per unit time). Since the ramp allows you to do the same work, just at a slower pace, the power is lower than climbing all at once. This is why it seems "easier," not because the energy changes.

You mention no other tool usage outside of the ramp and the tools necessary to build it.
You don't say what is providing the mechanics (if any are used) to climb the wall.

My aim in the argument was that the usage of a tool reduces FRICTION and lessens the amount of energy needed to defeat it!!
A constant expenditure of energy is needed to negate the effect of gravity/friction and THEN the energy used is the same as long as you don't count the continuous pull of gravity end the energy needed to negate its effect.
Then everything is "balanced".

(All right, I'm an incredibly small person for doing this, but I can't help it.)

Think of that constant energy expenditure like the weight needed to balance a lever with an off center fulcrum.

Gravity IS friction because without it, there is no friction until you try to manipulate a force (this assumes that there is no atmosphere as we are now outside gravity's influence and the only real friction can be because of encountering mass in opposition, or traveling into the influence of a(n) (energy) field.

Trying to move something vertically without the use of a tool is the ultimate in friction.

In your very next post you try to recount the effects of friction (and take the 1st sideways jab @ my intelligence) here:
(You also start using tools to realize an effect that is impossible with out them, i.e. pulley.)

http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,4540.msg111063.html#msg111063

That example is almost as bad as my two magnet demo. But to answer the question, it would depend on the POWER output of the car. If it has enough horsePOWER, it would climb vertically (assuming the tires stick).
But that's not really what we are debating here, were debating energy. In either case, the same amount of fuel (energy) would be used! The vertical climb would burn it fast, the slope climb would sip it on the way up, but the total remains the same.
(EDIT: just added additional values for better understanding)
Proof for ALL: get a 1lb weight, pulley, and ramp. Using the pulley, pull down on a string to lift the weight 12" up vertically. Force=1lb, distance=12", energy= 1 ft*lb. Now do the same, but pull the weight up a 30degree ramp a height of 12". It will require half force to pull, but will require you to pull twice as far. The two changes are directly proportional to each other, indicating the total energy used has remained exactly the same! (demo neglects friction on ramp and pulley)
Anymore "touchy feely" pseudo-scientific armchair observations anyone would like to have analyzed?

.....and yet in the next post chronologically you say to Dirt:

http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,4540.msg111076.html#msg111076

Okay, you are digging deep here (which is good!), but highlights why the car analogy is a bad example.
Yes, the slope climbing car would in reality burn more because it is running longer, has to fight friction longer, and experiences more loss due to drag.
But where they are exactly the same is the amount of energy used to climb a vertical distance, which is really the point of the arguement.
All variables included, they are different. Looking at just the vertical climbing component, the two are EXACTLY the SAME. Again, its a bad example for what we are debating...
<snip>

I personally think a car on a ramp is fighting less friction than a car climbing a wall, and that has been my view all along (except for a small misstep that I soon PUBLICLY retracted and apologized for here):

http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,4540.msg111256.html#msg111256

Yup, I never said that the energy amount was different, only the outcome.
Fine the energy balance stays the same, but the "work" is now able to accomplish a lot more towards perpetual motion (movement) vs. a dropped ball bearing (impact).
I'll take the motion, thank you.
Ya know.....we're back to the concepts proposed at the very beginning of this thread now.
Cheesy
Ain't that a pip?
All this time and semantics got in the way. Wink
Anyway, I'll take more work out of the same amount of energy, whether reclaimed or converted into potetial energy any day.

Errrrr.....ummmmmmm.
Sorry Pure.
That post was 180 degrees from what started this (never post while under the influence of cold medicine). I also was trying to use the argument of attraction to gravity to propose the effect of the defiance of gravity.
Durrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.

....and in your reply to this to you take a jab @ my intelligence (or lack thereof) capability when under the influence of personal habits (of which I was trying to say that cold medicine is not a chronic concern. )

I do not overlook gravity ever, no matter how stoned I am.

Yet here, you and Morgy both do:

http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,4540.msg111268.html#msg111268

Not quite there yet. There is no 'banked' energy in the ramp. It only alters the path of motion. Ultimately, to attain altitude X you need energy Y whether you use the ramp or straight vertical lift. The only differences in amounts of energy used between ramp and vertical lift are attributable to the design of the moving object. It's easy to test and demonstrate: build a ramp of a certain incline, and construct a pulley system for vertical lift, both the same height. When you pull object a up to height X vertically count the amount of energy used in watt/hrs and then do the same thing with object a on the ramp (you can even use the same pulley!). You'll find that (if your ramp is as good as frictionless) both ways to get to altitude X cost the exact same watt/hrs.

Yup! I proposed this same demo a couple pages back.
Since most people can't measure power or energy, measure force (linear scale) and distance applied. Multiply them together and you have energy.
As the force decreases due to mechanical advantage, distance applied increases proportionally, and the product of the two remains the same!
-PurePower
PS energy is Watt*hr, not watt/hr, that would be the acceleration of energy, or the time rate of change of power consumprion. While it is useful in some situations, its just the wrong term for what were talking about here. We want power*time, which gives energy (like how velocity*time gives distance).

You're both now using tools now to reduce the effects of gravity, just like I did when all this started.
Gravity is our constant and most important element of entropy on the 3rd rock from the sun (and all other rocks I'm so told by astrophysicists).

Then there was the rocket/plane thingy mixed in there which I tried to use to exemplify the friction difference (which still didn't accomplish anything).

I was trying to point out that one machine is always fighting gravity/friction, while the other uses one (atmospheric friction with the wing) to defeat another (gravitational pull) and using less energy doing it.
A plane (SR-71 spy plane) can easily break out of the atmosphere (maybe not gravities pull since a huge distance is necessary for geosynchronous orbit as a reply to one of my posts in this tread has taught me).
But it can land and refuel and do it again in about an hour (this is not considering in flight fueling which would mean only a small descent into atmosphere).
The rocket/shuttle can't.


Next you post this (which seems to point to friction from atmosphere not being a concern as long as you use magnetics):

http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,4540.msg111285.html#msg111285

Actually, NASA has jumped on the "green" bandwagon and are developing their future as we speak: RAILGUNS!
Uses magnetism and electricity to launch the craft from grade, meaning total speed is not limited by shockwaves like jets and rockets are...
Railguns currently hold the all-time (unmanned) speed record of some 1700+ MPH if I remember correctly.

...and then here EDIT is where up becomes down and we conveniently ignore gravity again except to cite it's effect of constantly pulling "down" when traveling down:

http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,4540.msg111351.html#msg111351

@Exx
No offense, but this is by far the most ridiculous debates on the thread.
Ramps, levers, and pulleys do not bank or store energy. They do not lower the energy required to do a job. They change the force/distance applied ratio to make a job seem easier by reducing force, not energy.
Machines can change the form or direction of energy, not quantity.
This is the original arguement, and you took it to arguing about how the weathering of a ramp decreases the banked energy of a ramp!
And while the rolling ball covered more distance, this does not mean it did more work. Tell me, what force did it work against or with to travel horizontally? None! (if drag is ignored, which we have been for the arguement) Reread that post and you will see I say "vertical kenetic energy" remains  equal to the other ball. It does have a horizontal component of kenetic energy which remains the same from start to finish.
Horizontal stays the same, vertiacl changes due to gravity. Only factor that influences CHANGE in TOTAL KE is height moved and mass, not the horizontal components of path!
If we can agree on this statement, then let's please end this here:
Change in total potential is always equal to change in total kenetic energy. Machines will change what "happens" to or how this change in energy is "used," but machines will not change the total amount of energy available.
We have been arguing to totally different things that started with a simple topic.
-PurePower
PS only some states require to go on the registry. Cali doesnt, they only require you to have a valid prescription...

From this point on your jabs become more pointed at EVERYONE, but I will limit myself to what you asked for.

Here for example:

http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,4540.msg111395.html#msg111395

Quote from: exxcomm0n on July 09, 2008, 09:45:40 PM
Fine and Dandy bud.
"The most ridiculous debate" is caused by you clinging to a pure physics concept and not allowing it to be translated into a real world example and me not allowing that.
...
Maybe it is the same energy, but it is NOT realized over the same span of TIME.
I can climb a ramp easier than climbing a wall, and throughout history the rest of humanity seems to think so as well.
Ease means less work in my opinion.
...

I really eqpected more from you Exx...
Let go of touchy feely observation and look at facts.
First, reread my very first post. I accounted for the time difference. This changes power, not energy. I use more power for a short time, you use less power for a longer time. The two are identitical in terms of energy! Not force, not distance, not power. Energy!
Let me use a little example to try to help you understand work, energy, and power:
You are sitting at your desk and have a stack of papers to go through, and you want to figure out the best way to finish.
All of the papers are of the same difficulty (force). You have 50 papers to go through (distance).
Now, the total "work" you have to do is the amount of papers (distance) times the difficult of each paper (force). If the papers were easier, or if you had less of them, you would have less work. Agreed?
Now you can go through the papers two different ways. You can sit down and do it all at once (jumping up the wall), or you can go through it slowly doing a little at a time (ramp).
In either case, your work (or energy, different name for the same thing) remains the same. All you changed is how fast you went through it (power), making it seem "easier."
Get it? Good. Can we please get on with the show?..
-PurePower
PS if you don't get it, or just don't believe, I will give you a detailed setup for a demo mentioned twice now that will prove this to you...

After this I used an example where my energy had been banked to realize conception and use of a tool you didn't know about, i.e. scripting.
I saw it as making the proposed example MUCH more easily realized IF I had to do it more than once (which in computer land you always do anyway since it's the one place you can "take" a bolt from one structure and add it to another structure without subtracting it's use from the initial structure while realizing its benefit much more quickly than having to manufacture [think about] another one.)
You got a little torqued by that as it left the physical realm a bit and played more in the conceptual one. But I see that (ideas and knowledge) as the penultimate store of banked energy.

But anyway....on to your next example, here:

http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,4540.msg111447.html#msg111447

<snip>
@Exx
Damn it! Why do you have to go take a shit on my perfectly good analogy with your computer shenanagens!
You seem to be "hitting the wall" because the average human can't climb with a wheelbarrel.
New example:
Okay, we both are wearing backpacks with 50lb weights. Now we must both get to the top of a 20' wall.
I have a ladder that goes straight up with 20 steps.
You have a staircase with 20 steps.
Now we race. On your mark, get set, go! Who wins? Its a tie, even though we get there at different times.
Wait, huh? Here's the catch: it wasn't a speed (power) race, it was a race to see who could burn more callories (energy). We both did the same work, fighting the same vertical force for the same vertical distance, so we used the same energy even though we had different (horizontally), yet similar (vertically), paths.
The point is energy is force times distance (along the same axis). Clean, simple, and real world applicable.
<snip>

I then proceeded to poke a hole in that in the way of the use of 2 limbs vs. 4.

So you counter with this:

http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,4540.msg111501.html#msg111501

@Exx
I'm tired of dancing these circles. I am speaking of only the potential energy component of the systems you speak of.
So how bout this:
We both write out the full formulas, analysis, and comparison for a 1 lb block pulled straight up a 12" height by a 1:1 pulley vs the same block pulled up the same height but on a 45degree slope.
I will account for friction losses and show the potential energy component is the same in both cases. I will also provide a video proof of my calculations.
You must account for friction losses and account for the "banked ramp energy" and how much of this energy is used per cycle. You too must provide video proof for your calculations.
There it is. Analysis, general formulas, detailed calculations, video proof.
I'll be ready by the end of the weekend with guaranteed 100% accuracy. How long will it take you? Can you promise the same?
Put up, or end the sharade. I've grown tired of this debate. Everyone else seems to have learned but you. This is wasted effort on my part.

I want to take you up on this one, but I'll be disappointed if yours doesn't include this effect as a free falling energy constant:

              m              ft
g = 9.8 ---- = 32.2 ----
              s2              s2      (seconds squared)

Both our uses of tools have to use this to account for gravity/friction but stairs (except for those longer than 1m) never have to get squared due to time.

The energy becomes "banked".

The stairs only have to realize that cost once because now that weight/force is being held against a surface (like the earth, and in direct relation to it via mechanics) that will not allow it to become realized potential energy whereas the pulley can't do that.
It needs constant energy expenditure to hold the rope in one place IF it is effecting weight.

Then things start getting REALLY interesting here:

http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,4540.msg111601.html#msg111601

@Exx
Hm, that sure was an easy way out. How bout you just show to energy equations, one for the vertiacl lift and one for the ramp lift. Include friction and "ramp bank contribution." Then enter values and calculate input energy, less the "banked energy contribution." No need to make a video for the construction of the ramp, just show us you pulling the block up a ramp to verify the calculations are correct.
And before I hear "ooo, that's to hard power" try explaining the contribution factor in Architian rant format.
Oh, and a 1:1 pulley is a string that goes up, over and back down a pulley once. No tricks, that's why I said to use this system.
And what was this unanswered question? Must have missed it.
My energy calculations a perfect and describe the ramp system with 100% accuracy. Calculated, tested, and true. Real life. In practice. Newtonian. And the funny thing is, there is no "banked ramp energy!"
If you really want to use this arguement, then I will use it against you.
Even if AQ gets a wheel turning past a couple cycles from rest, then there is no FE! If it is able to do this, then the energy we are seeing must be the "banked wheel energy" from the past few weeks of construction!
Here's another little something to construct that should use your banked energy wonder. Build a circular ramp with a sudden drop back to the start. The ramp has "banked energy" to help up a ball on the track, right? So try it! The ball should drop, use its kenetic energy plus the "banked" energy to go back up! Perpetual Motion! Solved by Exx's "ramp battery!"
Tell me, why wint this work? It uses your "properties" and principals. Hmm?

......and here I am using your words against you, and having to use too much space and effort to do it.

I have done what you asked and shown you where.

I ask that you FINALLY do the same and show where I say "The more energy used in making a tool, the more useful it is."

If you're going back to the wood vs. brick ramp, the usefulness (energy expenditure lessened) is never cited to have become enhanced, only the durability.

Now I'm tired again man, and I've only gone through a small percentage of your more recent posts.

I ask you in others to account for your tools (or lack thereof) in other posts, and you seemed to miss those, except by every response adding yet another tool to try to get the equation to balance.

Can you NOW see the object of my aim?

Horizontal motion using tools to achieve vertical ascent vs. pure vertical ascent using only vertical motion costs much EDIT more LESS every time that it is under the influence of gravity.

You finally start owning up a little bit in the last post before your "vacation" by quoting something I gleaned from Wikipedia when Tinsel tried to support your stance with the definition of "machine".
It's here:

<snip>
Hey genius, you use it once and you lose more energy due to friction. You use it a million times and you lose a million times more energy.
You don't need a psyc, you just need a third grade education.
Here's another example:
A fucking gas motor!
It takes time and energy to build, but does it bank energy? No, that's why we give it gasoline. Do we get additional energy over and above the energy we put in? No.
My crazy theory? You mean the one that is accepted by every engineer, ever physicist, and everyone with half a fucking brain? Oh ya, I'm really worried about my job security, luckily I don't have to deal with "pulley batteries."
Clown. Talk about half baked theories, just look at who this one started with!
He even went as far as saying a wrench was a battery of construction energy. How far back do we go to measure it's banked energy? To the forge? To the ore? To the big bang? This is a joke!
A tree takes tons of time and energy to grow, does this mean if I carve a branch into a wrench it will store that energy?
Machines enable us to do tasks otherwise impossible. They can transform or redirect input enegy. They may reduce some energy variables in a system, like friction. THEY DO NOT STORE ENERGY!
-PurePower

I never said that tools or machines were batteries, I said they were utensils (only because I can't think of another term to applicably use outside of tool) that "banked energy" used to realize (manufacture) them to make a previously impossible task easily realized.

P.S. "Chalkdust Torture" by Phish just queued up in the play list.

Irony abounds!

[shakman]

@Exx, sorry dude, PP wins. There was one thing we'd been missing all along that makes PP prove us completely wrong...

@PP
....
You have proven me and Exx wrong by proving that a) you are a tool; and b) you are useless; so you can drop that debate already.
....

There's a real-world example that supports his argument 100%


shakman

[exxcomm0n]

@Exx, sorry dude, PP wins. There was one thing we'd been missing all along that makes PP prove us completely wrong...
There's a real-world example that supports his argument 100%

shakman

Maybe it wasn't just for him, but others that were convinced by his arguments. 

I feel this inane need to furnish PSAs (Public Service Announcements) whether they are listened to or not.



EDIT

I mean, isn't that what we're here to try to do?
To build a new tool to realize previously undiscovered energy?

It's been a worthwhile expenditure (both time and money) in education, entertainment, and stretching mental muscles almost dead from atrophy.

[Mark69]

To Spinner,

I am not naming names on who is attacking Archer,  This isnt kindergarten and I realize Archer has done some attacking as well.  So this then goes to Archer, stop attacking people too.  I dont know who started it and I dont care.

I can understand why he sometimes flies off the handle.  If you were getting ganged up upon, wouldnt you lash out?  After all it is his original intention to share his ideas with us and try to get a wheel to work.  Yes he has gone off tangents, but maybe it is to better the wheel.  I dont know what he is thinking, I only see the end results. I too want to see a working wheel so I may build and stop forking over big money to utility companies for hardly any return.

If you believe that you are in the group and are being defensive upon what I said, then thats on you and are welcome to your opinion.  All I was asking was for everyone to settle down and make peace.  How many pages of this thread has been about people attacking someone else and trying to get the last word in?  Can we not work together to get this wheel working?  Dont you think people are more productive in a positve enviornment instead of a negative one?

Mark