Roll on the 20th June

[mscoffman]

Purepower said;

>Then you say...

>"...gravity is an r^2 force varying with distance. Meaning that the weight further away from the CG (earth) is the lighter."

>So which is it? Is the "weight that sits higher... further away from the CG" of earth heavier or lighter? You say it is heavier
> in the first statement but lighter in the second. The truth is that that the further two bodies are from each other, the gravitational
> attraction decreases and the body becomes "lighter."


Yes, which is it? We happen to have experience with weights on a balance arm. But which is it if we have no experience
with the system under study? As I have said one generally can design but not perform physics experiments in ones
mind. We need to see experiments performed before we decide. So I am arguing that we should not "step on" Archer
while he promises to demonstrate a working system. On  the other hand I don't want to argue that everything Archer
says is correct for I know that to be false. Archer has said a lot that is correct without having total correctness in all
details. I consider him an interesting enigma. But if he cannot provide the gold standard of proof - a total working system
he is not going to be able to build any one system large enough to have my attention in the future. I hope he doesn't
consider this too harsh, because I would demand the same from anyone making claims. So we shall see.

I don't consider whether an idea was generated inside or outside of any particular box, only that an idea that is part of shipped
delivered product is that which creates value for society. The public has defaulted on controlling their energy future when our
grandparents and great grandparents turned energy generation over to monopolistic organizations, so they deserve no special explanations. But they do deserve what they have come to expect from any product. One must understand what one ships.
Thank you btw, for a reasoned reply.

S:MarkSCoffman

[purepower]

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

I think a light might be flickering on in ramset's head, whether or not he knows it yet.

First of all, you must understand that it is not just "1 unit" in because of the input from the unbalanced lever. This is a good start. Now what you also must understand is he didnt get "20 units to  the top". Take a closer look at the height difference between how far the bottle went and how far the drum went. If you take the distance the bottle traveled times the mass of the bottle and added it to the mass of the extended end of the lever and multiplied it by the distance the center of that end traveled, it would be equal to the mass of the drum times the distance the drum traveled plus the mass of the short end times the distance the short end center traveled

[(MASSsmall)*(DISTANCEsmall)+(MASSleverlongend)*(DISTANCEcenterofleverlongend)=(MASSlarge)+(DISTANCElarge)+(MASSlevershortend)*(DISTANCEcenteroflevershortend)]*g

This equation states the conservation of energy and I guarantee its accuracy.

-PurePower

[purepower]

Purepower said;

>Then you say...

>"...gravity is an r^2 force varying with distance. Meaning that the weight further away from the CG (earth) is the lighter."

>So which is it? Is the "weight that sits higher... further away from the CG" of earth heavier or lighter? You say it is heavier
> in the first statement but lighter in the second. The truth is that that the further two bodies are from each other, the gravitational
> attraction decreases and the body becomes "lighter."


Yes, which is it?

Did you read my reply?

Archer has demonstrated what he considers free energy. If the most simple form of his device is flawed, what makes you think it will produce OU as it gets more complicated? When the entire machine is built around a principal that is incorrect, anything that follows will be completely useless.

-PurePower

[ramset]

silly idea   but if there is enough power and it is? 20-1 why have a bounce let it be high enough to flip past 12 and keep going  I  think that would be easier to play with on the bench   Chet PS and I suppose if pure power is right it either won't do that or will   or will and stop  Chet

[ronin]

hey truepower, is what your saying is that what archer displayed as NOT in fact a true 5:1 lever because of the unbalanced state?

that might answer rams question..