Roll on the 20th June

[purepower]

@Dark_Star

So sorry I havent gotten to answering your questions.

For the electromagnet:

Force={[(μ*N*I)^2]*A}/[2*μo*(L^2)]

In simple terms, increasing the number of terms does increase the force of the magnet. However, there is much more to the picture.

For this analysis, I will assume the magnet is lifting perfectly vertical (easier calculations/visualization). To use an electromagnet to lift and object, say a rod with a perm magnet at the end, the force of the magnetic repulsion would have to meet and  exceed the force of gravity (Fm>=Fg=mg). Agreed by all? Good, then I will continue. Now lets consider the energy aspect. The force of the magnetic repulsion moves the magnet/rod assembly up a distance of say, h. Now, energy from a force is E=Force*distance, where the distance is along the action line of the force. Still no objections? Great, now lets calculate the energy exerted by the electromagnet on the rod. Just to recap, Fm>=Fg=mg, distance=h, so we have E=(Fm)*h=mgh! Interesting, the energy exerted by the electromagnet is equal to the potential energy gain of the rod. Needless to say, this is not a coincidence.

Now some may be asking "but if I increased the force by increasing the number of turns and not the current, why wouldnt that allow it to lift with less energy?" Great question. As the number of turns increases, so does the inductance. As the inductance increases, the voltage required to establish electron flow increases. And since Power=Volts*Amps, power increases. Now energy=power*time, and with a larger force the time to lift the rod will decrease, so a greater power multiplied by a smaller time results in the same energy expended. (In a nutshell). Hope this helps!

For the "massless lever:"

Okay, I think I understand what you are asking. To start, yes, using a homogeneous disk of constant density and thickness would result in a perfectly balanced lever and would allow you to have perfect mechanical advantage ratios with no influence from the mass of the lever itself. And yes, some mechanical advantage will be lost to friction, F=μ*m*g, where μ=coefficient of friction in bearing, m=total mass of assembly resting on bearing. Now keep in mind this is a linear force acting tangentially at the center of the wall of the bearing. To find the axial torque, we have T=μ*m*g*R, where D is the average radius of the bearing.

Now Im not sure what you mean by "reach its maximum velocity." Terminal velocity, like a skydiver in free fall? If so, this would be a huge wheel, but luckily everything I am about to say will hold true for any velocity. Once the wheel is turning (with or without the weights), the wheel itself will have angular momentum and continue to rotate, until friction stops it. Angular momentum=.5*m*(r^2)*w, where w (omega) is the angular velocity (in radians/s) and r is the radius. Including weights at any position on the wheel would add additional angular momentum, L=m*(r^2)*w.

A spinning wheel set on the ground perfectly (no loss of rotation due to impact) would climb up a hill by converting its kinetic energy to potential energy. KE=PE ==> .5*m*(v^2)=m*g*h ==> h=[.5*(v^2)]/(g) where v=r*w. Bring it all together now, h = [(r*w)^2]/(2*g). h is height climbed, w is angular velocity in radians per second. Now as I said before, this is assuming no loss in impact, which is probably impossible to obtain. Take two wheels with the same mass and same angular velocity, one with weights close to the center and one with weights close to the outer edge. The wheel with the weights closer to the outer edge will carry more angular momentum and would suffer less loss to its angular velocity as a result of the impact.

Hope this answers your questions!

ATTENTION ALL. If you are in contact with any physics professors in Australia near Boronia, please contact Archer Quinn (The Eskimo Quinn) as soon as possible. He has offered to allow his device to be tested before Tuesday, 10 June 2008. This is a very important offer and would bring to rest much debate.

[fletcher]

@ jratcliff .. one of the most sane & objective posts I've read on this thread - if both sides of the camp had kept their eye firmly on the ball [which has to be objective independent replication of one of quinns alledged OU devices] then this thread could have been shortened by a factor of 10 & avoided a lot of unpleasantness, as you point out.

Of course, if details had been provided at the outset then this might have been an easier task 

[spinner]

This should be interesting - as people try to replicate quinns beam experiment from the information in the video, real world & simulation, to get OU & not simply another leverage device.

Indeed!   I'd say this is looking more and more like a tragedy...

It's 2008, 21st century, and there are people claiming OU behavior of a simple leverage system. How sad is that? I can understand Archer, he lives in his own world, he has different views about nature (and physics) itself...
But the number of his blind followers is simply frightening. And almost all of them thinks that the voice of reason, (usually) coming from (most) of the skeptics, is just a way of corrupt suppression of 'FE movement'.
Sad, sad....
 
@Archer
About your "Egyptian fulcrum" or whatever the 'working title' now is...
A 5:1 lever and 1:20 weight lifting is nothing special. In fact, it's just a bit extended lever mechanics.
There are many ways to achieve that. And it doesn't defy Newton in any way.
Like many 'skeptics' said before, you're completely forgetting the drop-raise heights difference. And, of course, the weight of both beams (missing COG calculation - your actual weights on the beams could easily be 1:5 instead of 1:20 with correct COG calculation)... And, of course, raised fulcrum... Which is transformable to 'banana shape' see-saw... Or your's skaters sketch...

Btw, an ancient tool, nowadays called a "crow-bar", has some interesting abilities.... Why is it shaped like it is? Why is it better than normal lever when you pull-out the nails??

If you are willing to, please, answer just one question
1. describe a balanced, neutral configuration of your lever. (the heights of both weights from the ground level ). A photo would be helpful... Thanks!

@purepower
I couldn't believe that someone really took the task of analising the 'thermal accelerator'. That is because the thing is so easily deduced from the basic thermodynamics...

And I'm surprised that you're actually willing to mathematically analyse the wheel... Good luck with it, and I really hope you're well equipped with the integral/calculus math. So far, you were just dealing with static or partial dysection of the wheel...
When you will deal with dynamics (wheel rotating), the things will change dramatically....

@experimenters
If someone thinks that the "Sword of God" has potential (in OU terms), build it and try make it self-sustained. I am certain that IF this thing works, you'll know much sooner than anyone analysing it theoretically. FOR SURE!

Well, I'm still with my original evaluation of this gravito-magnetic wheel. It can work, but it's far from being OU.

Sorry, but this is what I know.
Cheers!

[The Eskimo Quinn]

our spinner lives in a fantasy world, look up every link to leverage in the world, there is no lever that can lift outside the length ratio, well not until this one, dont let him bullshit you he is another oil guy trying to ply nice but show you "his" truth, simple ask for one web link in the world that shows a lever that lifts outside of this. he can't

we know he has no brains he keeps saying the wheel will turn but no OU, sound like a dumb high school kid. DUUUH the heat on the axel is energy, and a shitload more OU than orbo was paid to produce. end of spinner.

Ok 4 hours later they are being uploaded to utube now. they should be right to go in around 30 mins will give you the main page link when done.

remeber if the math published on every single site in the world says that this is impossible with a 5 to 1 lever, then no leverage argument of any knid from the newtonians, or even rotational dynamics based on it is correct, and they can now only argue in false math.

It truly is over, anyone arguing against proven results should have their heads kicked in as oil thugs.

you oil is done, get over it and move on

[spinner]

our spinner lives in a fantasy world, look up every link to leverage in the world, there is no lever that can lift outside the length ratio, well not until this one, dont let him bullshit you he is another oil guy trying to ply nice but show you "his" truth, simple ask for one web link in the world that shows a lever that lifts outside of this. he can't

we know he has no brains he keeps saying the wheel will turn but no OU, sound like a dumb high school kid. DUUUH the heat on the axel is energy, and a shitload more OU than orbo was paid to produce. end of spinner.

Ok 4 hours later they are being uploaded to utube now. they should be right to go in around 30 mins will give you the main page link when done.

remeber if the math published on every single site in the world says that this is impossible with a 5 to 1 lever, then no leverage argument of any knid from the newtonians, or even rotational dynamics based on it is correct, and they can now only argue in false math.

It truly is over, anyone arguing against proven results should have their heads kicked in as oil thugs.

you oil is done, get over it and move on

Hello, Archie! I see you're in a good mood today!

You cannot answer my only question? Too bad.
And thanks for flattering me, but I'm a little older than a high-school brainless kid. LOL!

Now, chill out, go drink, get laid, go fishing, smoke a joint, take your meds,.. or whatever you need for a 'normal' functioning...
You know, this is getting ridiculous?