Roll on the 20th June

[dirt diggler]

@All

This is not a standard lever because of the control rods.

Notice the tubes that encircle the lever near the pivot point. Inside those tubes are the control rods.

If you look at the pictures on Archer's website, you will see that the rods are able to slide out of the tubes towards the short end.

When the counterweight is place on the extended end and the large weight is lifted, the control rods slide back into the tubes towards the extended end. Now in order to reset the lever = raise the extended end back into the air...you only need enough energy to raise the extended end so that the control rods slide out towards the short end and the control rods will raise the extended end up the rest of the way.

The weights still need to be reset as Archer explained, but has not shown yet.

Exactly house.  the key to this lever is the control rods.  Archer said yesterday that he could have the lever balance anyplace he desires.  this is what makes this system different to all others, and the reason that it can't be worked out with normal physics.  I think he even said that it could aproach a lift of 100:1 with the proper adjustment.  this is clearly not a standard fulcrum.

[Holz-Michl]

Hi y'all,

just a silly question maybe. What does the device in Archers video has in common with a gravity wheel? Just asking because i always expected something to turn, like dusty and so on tried to replicate...

Maybe someone can explain this to me in short!

Take care guys!

Mike

[House]

Hi y'all,

just a silly question maybe. What does the device in Archers video has in common with a gravity wheel? Just asking because i always expected something to turn, like dusty and so on tried to replicate...

Maybe someone can explain this to me in short!

Take care guys!

Mike

There are two devices (i guess three if you count the siphon machine). Anyway, the thread started out with the discussion of the wheel device. After a while most people understood the concepts behind it (go back an read the thread for details) and some people started to build it. Since the wheel used magnets (and to some magnets are an external energy source), Archer decided to build a machine that was purely mechanical (the egyption fulcrum) that was able to achieve perpetual motion without an external energy source. So, two different devices being discussed at the same time. That's why if you jumped in later in the discussion, it's hard to tell which device people are talking about. Hope that helps.

[purepower]

@Dark_Star

I apologize for not understand what you are trying to ask me on the wheel. I'm thinking there is something lost in translation because from what I understood from you posts I have answered all your questions. And in regards to the magnetic lift, the underlying principal behind the energy to raise the rod is the force and the distance, regardless of how the coil is configured. Please refer to my first paragraph addressing this issue. I tried to answer the electro part to the best of my abilities, but I am a mechanical engineer, not electrical, and there are some details I am just not equipped to tell you.

@ALL

Sorry I may have gotten a little uppity there, Ill try and keep it down. And while I do not have the footage MrKai has to see exactly what was going on at the other end, this does not mitigate my notion of misconception for all other reasons posted earlier (the physics based reasons).

No, inertia has not gone south. But to understanding what the impact of a container of water would do, we must look at the coefficient of elasticity for the body. A container of water water would absorb most of the impact energy and not bounce back as it did, this is why we see large barrels of water near the start of freeway dividers in case of an accident. This is the difference between throwing a bean bag on the ground verses a rubber ball. Throw a water bottle on the ground. It bounces, but not much.

But lets say for a moment that it would bounce back as it did. First of all, it was the little container that hit the ground, do you really think it carried enough momentum to bounce that fast? But now, just for discussion, lets say it was the lever arm that hit and caused the rebound so the lever would oscillate. Archer never let it come to rest, so we don't really know which end would be up in its final position.

One other key point, and this is the nail in the coffin. There was slack in the rope at the heavy end, so while the extended end was in free fall it had time to built kinetic energy. Once the slack is gone and the large weight is active, all the previous kinetic energy from the extended end would be converted into potential energy in the larger weight (ie the momentum from the extended arm falling would lift the large weight to some degree). Once that conversion is maxed out, the larger weight would begin to fall and the lever would come to rest after a few oscillations. This is exactly what we saw and will hold true regardless of which end is creating more torque. The only difference the balance would make is which end us up when in its final position. We saw potential energy (small weight lifted) convert into kinetic energy (small weight falling) convert back into potential energy (large weight lifted). The system comes to rest with no free energy ever created.

You want formulas, just ask. I will guarentee they hold true for Archer's demonstration. Archer was right to some degree, this is more than just simple leverage. But it is not overunity.

[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.


forgot again...