Roll on the 20th June

[Glassglue]

Already did.  See if this link works:

http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,4540.msg100460.html#msg100460

Regardless it's post 1022.  Pretty simple stuff.

To summarize, he changes back and forth in his discussion between 2 different fulcrums with different mechanical advantages to make it seem like he has ou.  It's buried in his 'language', you just have to run the numbers.

I am personally looking forward to seeing this self-teetering-totter. It should resemble, and be analogous to, someone lifting themselves up by their own bootstaps.

[dirt diggler]

Already did.  See if this link works:

http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,4540.msg100460.html#msg100460

Regardless it's post 1022.  Pretty simple stuff.

To summarize, he changes back and forth in his discussion between 2 different fulcrums with different mechanical advantages to make it seem like he has ou.  It's buried in his 'language', you just have to run the numbers.

I am personally looking forward to seeing this self-teetering-totter. It should resemble, and be analogous to, someone lifting themselves up by their own bootstaps.

Is it possible Glassglue that Archer has different fulcrum numbers just to make the math very easy?
It may not nessesarily mean that those are the exact measurements that his machine works with.
The way I see it the math is just to prove a point, without needing to do math to the 4th decimal point.
in this manner, nice round numbers work best, then as Archer say, even a 2nd grader can do it easily.
just my opinion, might not be true, but thats what I get out of it.  pretty easy math actually.

[street_creep]

are the magnet pull forces that are placed around the wheel, different . So at 1'oclock you use 10lb pull force magnet , and at 7 use you a 30lb pull force set of magnets. Granted the 7's should be pushing.  Or is it irrelevant

Thanks

Keep on Building !!

[Glassglue]

Is it possible Glassglue that Archer has different fulcrum numbers just to make the math very easy?
It may not nessesarily mean that those are the exact measurements that his machine works with.
The way I see it the math is just to prove a point, without needing to do math to the 4th decimal point.
in this manner, nice round numbers work best, then as Archer say, even a 2nd grader can do it easily.
just my opinion, might not be true, but thats what I get out of it.  pretty easy math actually.

That's sweet of you to give the benefit of the doubt that way, but again, if you work through it, you see that the different MA numbers are required in order to make it look like he has ou.  He switches from a lever with less MA (4:1), to one that is 10:1 in order to get his weight in the air (although not as high as he claims - this is the cost of lifting with less weight than required by his original device), then back to his original to make it look like he has 'extra' energy.

[legendre]

Hi Glassglue,

Against my better judgment, I took a look at the 'maths' page.. seems we're running into the same "This doesn't make any sense" stumbling block.

Hello Chet
So far I've not seen anything that works, so your point is moot.  Archer voluntarily provided us with "math" to justify his claims that it WILL work. I untangled as best I could his language, and it didn't add up.  Lol then he tells me my math is wrong, but in reality, it was HIS math   
Just sayin'.

Here's an odd series of comments:

"Now with Newtonian physics, the flaw in thinking is the standard thought pattern, that the 1 kilo weight (10 to 1 fulcrum setting) lifting the ten only has the upward pressure of 1 kilo or less perhaps even 10 grams if this was the tipping point of the fulcrum beam to change balance ends completely."

What a load of junk; no educated person believes this statement to be correct, nor is it in keeping with Newton's laws. Hey Archer - when you use the name 'Newton', are you talking about Sir Issac Newton (1643-1727) or some guy who failed physics, but was coincidentally named Newton?

On the 10kg end, there is slightly more than 10kgf of lifting force between the lever and the weight.. not 10gf. The 10gf of lift is the difference between the force of gravity (10kgf down) and the lifting force (10.01kgf up) - they don't quite cancel, so there is a net upward acceleration and the weight is lifted a distance.

"This is Absolutely Accurate."

Now why is this sentence here? First he's describing what he considers to be a flaw in Newtonian dynamics - but then goes on to say that the thinking is accurate? Huh??

Much like a cross between a Sicilian mafioso and a New York performance artist, Archer makes you "An offer that you can't understand".

-L