Roll on the 20th June

[MrKai]

Hi All
First I have to be honest here I hope the other videos are better because I didn't see anything there, I didn't see the 20L on the other end

I pulled the hi-res versions of these vids and it is fairly clear that there isn't any *visible* trickery going on when he shoots downrange.

The thing is rather long, so getting the shot might be tricky; perhaps putting the camera on the ladder pointing back at the other end will do the trick?

But in the H.264 version, you can see things a bit better; it was hard to see the drum in the flv.

-K

[purepower]

Archer pulls another fast one. Okay everybody, take another close look at videos 3 and 4. Notice in 3 he has a blue bottle which is obviously filled with more water than the red one in video 4, yet the blue bottle in three holds the lever in equilibrium. We then switch over to video 4 with a bottle filled with very little water (especially in comparison to the previous blue bottle). Now he shows us the weight, good, then placing it on the lever, okay, and then it magically plumits! Funny how he doesn't show us whats going on at the other end trough the fall. He does show it to us on the return though. Now as yourself this, would a lever so favored to one end as Archer would have us believe bounce back so quickly? No, but some levers will rock back and forth before a couple times before they come to rest at one end. Did Archer let this happen? No, as soon as it came back up, end clip. My money says that someone was hiding behind that wall to lif the large weight on the first half of the motion, then when let go the light weight was lifted gracefully back into Archer's hand. Though I may not have all the details, Id love to hear the Archurian analysis!

To put this to rest, show us one continuous clip this the entire lever shown through the whole motion. Show us it completely unloaded so we know of any bias in the lever itself. Measure the arms. Show us the weights, load her up, and let her go. Again, always show the entire lever.

@Dark_Star

Your computer program and I are in accord. You say:

" If I put a permanent magnet near the coil in FEMM and have it calculate the push / pull, it will show (literally! it's displayed on the screen) that the same force will act on the magnet, even if it displays half the Watts used for the coil."

Watts are the SI unit for power. I did say the power would change with the number of coils to keep the force constant. Energy is power*time (kWh, Joules=Watt*second), but since the time changes also (in the lift process), energy for remains constant. Please reread my post. I understand the confusion on the units, Archer has been around too long...

In regards to the wheel, you are correct in your equilibrium analysis (from what I understood you were saying). If a ball weight were released and allowed to move up a ramp, its height would follow the same principals as if the wheel were to roll up the hill.

"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 in meters, w is angular velocity of wheel in radians per second, r=radius of location of weight before release (in meters), g=9.81 m/(s^2). Please use SI for these calculations, if you use English system (puonds, feet, ets) you will have unit issues. (I am a red blooded American and I HATE the English system, SI it definatly my preference). If you absolutly insist on English, let me know and I will provide you with conversions.

Whether or not the ball remains on the wheel or is released to roll up a ramp makes no difference to the height it will achieve (with the exception of the different friction factors, but we will ignore friction for now). For a simple visualization, take the wheel out of the picture for just a second, and instead only imaging a ramp (like a rollercoaster) for the ball to roll down. Imagine this ramp starts at the same height as the wheel and rolls down a distance the same diameter as the wheel. Now as you can imagine, in both cases the potential energy (mgh) is the same, and therefor the kinetic energy at the bottom of the hill (or wheel) is the same. Now imagine we have two different options for a ramp for this ball to roll back up: one is curved like a circle and the other is linear with a constant slope. As you can imagine, the ball will roll up to the same height regardless of the path it takes. Now this curved track is actually our wheel and the linear track is what you have suggested. As you can see, there is no benefit to be gained by switching from wheel to ramp. This is potential energy to kinetic energy conversion at its finest.

For future reference, PE=KE == mgh=.5*m*(v^2). Build yourself a track and you will find this equation always holds true (minus friction). Go Newton! Thank you for this wonderful equation!

And in regards to using this for perpetual motion, by releasing one ball the other would fall and come to rest at the 6 position. Now the trouble is, how do we get the other ball back on the wheel to the same potential as it was to start since we lost some of its energy due to friction?

[ramset]

THIS lever is unique   to throw stones from the chair is silly  it needs to be either put to work[HIS final design] or tested on site as ARCHER offered  gotta go   Chet PS pure power@ all I apologize for using vulgar language

[purepower]

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.


Almost forgot...

[ronin]

Pretty sure he said the beam itself was load balanced (hence the extra tubing on the short end.. to counter the length of the long end).. though it didn't seem like it in this video, little too hard to tell to be honest.

Also, maybe I read wrong, but I thought the idea wasn't to have it go up and down by itself, but rather the goal was to generate energy from the impact of the heavy weight attached to the short end when the light weight on the long end is released.. His theory is that it takes very little energy to lift 1.25 kilo of weight on the long end to set this in motion.. and the energy from the "heavy" weight hitting should produce enough extra energy to "reset" the system, or counter the energy expended to raise the long end with light weight attached...

.. without knowing the science behind it, even to me that seems like an illusion because of the greater distance you must life the "lighter" weight on the long arm..

Either way, verifiable results are proof.. not a video by the ones making the claims..  This is NOT an attack on anyone... eliminate all the variables by providing a detailed design document (aka sketch with dimensions/weights) and let others prove it either way.

(also, too many responses between what I wrote here and what I was responding too.. I'm too old    )