Roll on the 20th June

[onesnzeros]

@Jratcliff

You wont go to jail for cyber-bullying Archer.  He lives in Australia, and therefore does NOT maintain the rights of American citizens.  He has no protection from cyber-bullying under these laws, once they go into effect.

Since the internet is not a location-restrictive domain, The "attacked" person would have to LIVE in the state that was prosecuting you. If they dont live in that state,. then the crime is outside of that states Jurisdiction.
Only the government could prosecute you, and (in most cases) there would have to be verifyable punitive damages as a result of your bullying. 

Smokey, it would seem that nobody picked on the fact that he is JOKING. It's a joke folks. Bullying Archer? hahahaha. Remember, sticks and stone can break my bones but words can never hurt me.

onesnzeros

[onesnzeros]

you're getting closer.....   


What he said was that the momentum of the weight on te long end in "free-fall" provided more than enough energy to lift the lever, the +20kg, and itself back up to the top (though the mechanism for that last part is still unknown).

Smokey, the lever bounced but didn't quite get back to where it started. This is conservation of energy. If you were to tap into that rebounding energy, it wouldn't quite be enough to reset the larger weight. Hence we see an ordinary device in total compliance with established physical laws. It's wonderful and it works, said the cybermember as he typed from his keyboard while talking with his wife and having a glass of wine and smoking a joit an listening to music and reflecting on the day. But I digress.

Cheers Smokey, keep up the good work.

[purepower]

you're getting closer.....   


What he said was that the momentum of the weight on te long end in "free-fall" provided more than enough energy to lift the lever, the +20kg, and itself back up to the top (though the mechanism for that last part is still unknown).

We watched the first two take place in his videos. the 3rd is suspected to come from the energy in the impact/'bounce' + the 20kg, in "free-fall" from its lifted location. This will have to include a method for detaching the weights from the lever at certain points during it's cycle.

at least thats the way i interpreted what Archer said about the subject...

Yay, you guys are finally starting to catch up! This is something I posted a few pages ago, twice actually:

"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 (be it smooth lift or a "jerk" - thats for you exxcomm0n)]. 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."

Are we all finally up to speed? There is no free energy in the lift ratios because the lever was not balanced. And even if the lever had been balanced, by lifting up the small mass we are putting in energy. Once released, our input energy is turned into kinetic energy turned back into potential energy, and at no point in the process it there an excess of energy that could be used to reset the system back to the original state and especially no additional energy to be used outside the system. No overunity, and the system is a perfect demonstration on Newtonian mechanics

-PurePower

[ramset]

Pure power I understand this is NOT Archers lever    distance yes   balance no  Archers claim of 20-1 on a 5-1 is on an unbalanced lever   Im really having a problem here   he got the 20 units to  the top  with 1 unit in  on a non changing always the same unbalanced lever  no extra bells and whistles 2 weights 1 solid unchanging arm on a suspended pivot  stage one of his concept    some people would say[me] there is a lot of weight up there at a small investment what is he going to do next? Chet

[ramset]

I SAW NO SLACK IN THE ROPE  ISAW MAYBE YIELD IN AN ARM TILL WORK[LOAD] CAME ONTO THE LEVER  dont call Archer a trickster  the rope was only there because he didn't have the scaffolding up to reach the 20 ft off the ground like the device is supposed to work  chet
so even calculating the bounce at half of the machines power is silly  with no bearings in place ETC ETC