Roll on the 20th June

[oak]

"Did I not read somewhere the electromagnet only fires for millisecinds? This denotes it will shoot upwards and the overhead magnets will now grab the weight barely holding it until release."

@ libra_spirit, no, in Archer's system, the electromagnet for a particular tube "pulses" for approximately the time it takes the tube to move from 7 o'clock to 9 o'clock.

The upper magnets should not grab the rod weight, but should only work with the electromagnet to 'float' the rod above the lower end of the tube (similar to a ring magnet on a pencil floating another ring magnet above it).  As the tube turns progressively clockwise (farther from vertical toward horizontal), the rod 'floats' progressively farther from the lower end of the tube, i.e. more towards the right, because the balance between the magnetic forces and gravity shifts as the tube becomes more horizontal.

The arch of upper permanent magnets should stop at some point before rod reaches its point of farthest travel rightward (within the tube), because you don't want the permanent magnets to grab and hold the rod, or drag too much on the rod as the tube continues turning clockwise.

[ramset]

WELL IT SEEMS A LOT OF FELLOWS HERE GOT JUST WHAT THEY WANTED THANKS  i guess you can all go look for another house to haunt  maybe pull legs off spyders or something    swell bunch    couldn't just let those that are building alone  and watch  NO A FREEKING PISSING CONTEST    NICE WELL I GUESS YOUR THE WINNERS NOW !!!! [feel like winners ?  look like LOOSERS to me]  I get away on a job a couple days and come back to this PUKE   you SUCK period     Chet

[sigmaX]

SO. .... this is it Quinn is down into flames ? I?ll be myself damned (but I earned it, it?s my fault to try to believe) all this wasted time reading and waiting. He even took away the "construction" pages.  I also found in youtube a "fantasy perpetual motion machine" that is somewhat similar (but mechanical) on what Quinn seems to tell ... and of course it does not work at all.

Now this guy Quinn ... I wonder if he is just mental, or he is getting a laugh out of everybody in here... if so, someone should really pay him a visit, with, say, a 1 meter quinn?s wheel, and as he placed in his website "up yours"...

[Morgenster]

Intresting thing about gravity is that all objects fall at about the same velocity of acceleration, 32 feet per second squared.
Since the wheel is balanced does it matter how much weight you add to one side? Because inertial momentum and gravity are suposedly the same force functionally, will the balanced weight oppose the resulting pull of gravity by a squared function also? If true this means that altering the offset weight ratio will effect the acceleration of the fall, and we no longer are observing gravity, but a combination of inertial momentum opposing gravity. What is the best ratio?

Rod offset weight must exceed 1/32 of the wheels weight for a squared gain in acceleration of the wheel. This is because 1 squared is 1 and will offer only a linear gain.

Some rough and quick Calculations:

Set up a balance beam.
16 pound weights on both ends of a balance beam falls 1 foot to reach a 45 degree position where one side hits the floor.
Add 1 pound weight to one side, this side accelerates at 1 foot per second squared straight down, the other side accelerates upwards at 1 foot per second squared [best case]? This is because the 1 pound weight is about 1/32 of the total weight of the balanced inertial mass it is working against [best guess].

[So gravity is balanced for 16 pounds on each side, leaving 1 pound of acceleration down at 32 feet / sec ^2 and 32 pounds of resistance from inertial momentum. 1 pound moving it into motion now at 1 foot per second squared acceleration. The balance accelerates at ~1 foot per second for 1 foot and hits the floor traveling 1 foot per second. Inertial momentum is about 33 foot pounds per second? If true I will not be placing my finger under this. This assumes the balance is firmly attached to the weights on both ends and the upward moving wieght pushes the downwards moving weight also as it stops.

We now double the length of the balance beam and see that the force is squared because the motion is an acceleration with twice the drop distance, [2 times the acceleration distance]. However 1 foot per second squared is still 1, so we see there is a minimum weight ratio for gains here! The counter weights off set balance, must be heavier then 1/32 of the wheels balanced weight, to create acceleration of a squaring increase above 1 where only a linear gain is present. In the above example the impact should be doubled for a doubling length of the fall, but if we use a 2 pound weight then we get 4 times the impact or about 2 feet per second squared. However we still only have the same resistance from inertial momentum to overcome = the balanced weight so the wheel acelerates faster.

With a 2 pound weight dropping 2 feet we now get a velocity of 4 feet per second hitting the floor with inertial momentum of 132 pounds of force. This is a ratio of 1/16 on offset weight to balanced weight giving a 4X gain of force in 2 feet of motion.

Actually, I wouldn't mind putting my hand under that setup when it comes down. I'm not sure what you're trying to say, but even if the weights on both ends were close to a tonne the force (or kinetic energy) with which your beam touches the ground on one side would be exactly the same except if you increase the 'extra weight on one side' and the travel distance.
An example of a flywheel would make this easier: a flywheel with a mass of 1kg would need x joules of energy to attain 100 rpm. If you would apply the same amount of energy to a 2kg flywheel it would probably end up doing 50rpm. Making it stop will give the same amount of energy in both cases. So no matter how much weight you put on either side the force with which your arm lands is directly proportional to distance traveled * 'weight extra on one side'. This would mean that in your examples the falling arm would not give more force with a heavier balance beam.
A heavier balance beam (by adding extra weight left and right) will not influence the force it delivers after a 1foot drop by adding one pound but will influence the accelaration of the fall and therefore the endspeed.
So a balance beam with 16 pounds on either side and a 1 pound extra on one side dropping 1 foot to the right (or left, whichever you want) would give the same force as a balance beam with 20 pounds on either side, but the drop but would be slower in the latter example. Heck it's even the same amount of force you'd get from just dropping a 1pound weight 1foot down.

The only benefit extra weight in the wheel could have is that it balances rotational speed by adding inertia, but that also makes it harder to speed it up.

[ramset]

SIG  another big winna  step up and take your prize    you saved us      thank you    the world thanks you    so how far was your finale piss       real good I hope   well whatever .  so whats a good pisser like you do now ? seems like your still hanging around //shouldn't you be off training with your buddies ?   Chet