Roll on the 20th June

[sm0ky2]

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

yeah,. it would seem funny to an outsider i suppose.... but on this side of the earth, people cyber-torture one another until a kid hangs himself, or takes out half the classroom with him... its crazy, THAT"S WHY they passed that law..  and people REALLY WILL go to jail for that very sort of behavior. So i guess in light of that, i "missed the pun" .. shame on me, sorry

[sm0ky2]

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.

well see.. here's where i will introduce the problem.  "if" you could tap into that rebound energy, and extract usable energy out of it, that is something "Extra".for the simple fact that when the lever finally comes to rest - the 20kg weight is up in the air because of the leverage.  If that rebound energy collected can "almost" get the smaller weight back up to the top where it started - then what do we do with all that energy from the 20kg dropping to the ground, back to where IT started - sure we could take just whatever energy we need to add to the "rebound energy" to get that 1kg back up top, then we can throw away the rest of the energy and claim that CoE "wins"....  on the other hand, we could use that energy to operate the control rods and such to try and make the system fully automated and cyclic. 

You guys are arguiing over a bunch of bullshit here, you know how much difference there is in the "weight" of an object from Sea Level to 9,000 feet high??  its damn near immeasureable. you weight the SAME on the beach as you do on top of the mountains. YES, if you get far enough away fro mthe earth the effects of gravity will decrease, but NOTHING we build here is under such influence...



The imbalanced weight of the lever is whats doing the work, you dont have to "lift" all that weight, you just let go of the other weight and the lever lifts itselt, its IMBALANCED... you guys kjeep confusing which end is the heavy end of the lever. its more like a crane in that sense.

[purepower]

Thank you everyone for appreciating my efforts! I finally dont feel like an evil "oil guy" that everyone has been making me out to be when Ive just been trying to shed some scientific light on this project. Thank you again!

@libra

From what I read, you seem to have the right idea. In regards to the old time scales, the "hanging" dishes were intentional. They very easily could have placed the dishes in line with the axis of rotation, but this would have placed the center of mass at the axel and it would not have rotated. By hanging the dishes, this lowers the center of mass to a point below the axel allowing the scales to level out when equally weighted.

@Rusty

From what I read, you also seem to have the right idea (your run on sentences were a little hard to follow at times). Two things to remember thought. The first is your analysis of the mass per unit length of the rod (dividing the total mass by total length). If the entire lever were one uniform body you could do this as you did. But since the lever tapers, one meter of lever close to the fulcrum is going to weigh more than one meter at the end. Your thinking is still good, but we cant overlook details. Second, and you probably already understand this, the force of the lever-end acts at the center of mass for the lever-end. If you already understand this, disregard my statement. I felt this was important to clarify for all readers.

@Evg

We all wonder what creates gravity! Still one of the unknowns of the universe. But what it is is actually rather simple. Any two particles or bodies with mass are attracted to each other with a force equal and opposite. Thats it. Simple. Assuming you are sitting at your desk, you are attracted to the earth with the same force the earth is attracted to you. You are attracted to your desk with the same force your desk is attracted to you. Same is true for your stapler, pencil, computer, everything! But since the force is a function of mass, and the mass of the earth is tremendously large in comparison to everything else, the only force you ever really feel is the one between you and the dirt ball under your feet.

Force = (G*m1*m2)/(r²)

Force in Newtons
G=6.673*10^-11 - gravitational constant
m1= mass of body 1, kgs
m2 = mass of body 2, kgs
r = distance between centers of mass, meters

But what causes it? Who knows, but we know how to quantitatively describe it through lab analysis...

@Rusty and ramset

Archer has already shown us how he's going to reset the lever in that hand drawing posted a few pages ago. This is one of the things I was questioning him on when he kicked me out. Ill post my end:

"Well, its a bit more than just the lever being reset; its the  weights as well. Before I can answer, I need to know a few things.

For this discussion, lets call the light weight "MassA," the large weight "MassB," their respective ends of the lever "EndA" and  "EndB," and their respective heights "HeightA" and "HeightB."

At the start, MassA falls HeightA, lifting MassB to HeightB,  and  energy is conserved if we ignore friction. E = [MassA+(mass of  EndA)]*HeightA = [MassB+(mass of EndB)]*HeightB.

Now MassB is pushed off, lifting water equal to MassA to HeightA to allow the cycle to continue. What the rest of the energy of falling MassB [E-remainder = (mass EndA)*(HeightA) - (mass  EndB)*(HeightB)] is used to lift the lever back to the start. However, this would be  the entire remainder of what is left and no "free" energy is available."


Simply, what Archer is planning on doing is using some of the large weight to lift the lever and some of the large weight to lift the mass to reset. He thinks he will do this and have excess energy because he thinks there is excess energy from the initial lift.

What he does not understand is that he would be doing the same resetting by simply leaving the masses on the lever. Instead, he is going to do it with pulleys. And since there wouldnt be enough energy to reset the system with the lever, there wont be enough energy to do it with pulleys since they have a great deal of friction, and their certainly wont be any overunity.

Like I said before, since his most basic concept of the device is flawed, the rest is flawed. If there is no free energy from the one process he claims to have free energy in, the device is dead.

Any questions? Can we get back to the wheel then?

-PurePower

[Rusty_Springs]

Hi sm0ky2
Your right its the 1k overbalance thats the key, the only reason the 20k came into it is Archer was saying he did the imposible and lifted 20:1 and I was pointing out he didn't also if there was extra energy in the rebound it would go up further then it came down and it doesn't, what has to be done to keep it going is you take the unbalanced weight away then put it back at the right time and I have seen nothing to show how this can be done, his trying to do that with the wheel by adding magnetic force but as I said everything is give and take so the magnetic force gives you something by moving the weight at the right time but it takes from you with its attract back and repel in so to over come that you add more weight so gravity will help you and gavity gives you the force to break the magnetic force but takes from you going back up so to over come this the magnets force must be stronger and so on but just say you get it all right then you add a load this load gives energy but takes from you with drag to overcome this you add weight and your back to square one and the machine doesn't work.
Take Care Sm0ky2
Graham

[purepower]

well see.. here's where i will introduce the problem.  "if" you could tap into that rebound energy, and extract usable energy out of it, that is something "Extra".for the simple fact that when the lever finally comes to rest - the 20kg weight is up in the air because of the leverage.  If that rebound energy collected can "almost" get the smaller weight back up to the top where it started - then what do we do with all that energy from the 20kg dropping to the ground, back to where IT started - sure we could take just whatever energy we need to add to the "rebound energy" to get that 1kg back up top, then we can throw away the rest of the energy and claim that CoE "wins"....  on the other hand, we could use that energy to operate the control rods and such to try and make the system fully automated and cyclic. 

You guys are arguiing over a bunch of bullshit here, you know how much difference there is in the "weight" of an object from Sea Level to 9,000 feet high??  its damn near immeasureable. you weight the SAME on the beach as you do on top of the mountains. YES, if you get far enough away fro mthe earth the effects of gravity will decrease, but NOTHING we build here is under such influence...



The imbalanced weight of the lever is whats doing the work, you dont have to "lift" all that weight, you just let go of the other weight and the lever lifts itselt, its IMBALANCED... you guys kjeep confusing which end is the heavy end of the lever. its more like a crane in that sense.

Im liking your thinking. If we could tap the rebound energy though, this wouldnt be as great as tapping the fall energy because there will be some lost in impact, and the system would come to rest in the same place either way. And from either "source" (fall or rebound), neither would be able to give us enough energy to get back to the start due to losses.

But you are dead on with your "weight at altitudes" analysis. Anything we produce will not realize any effect from the change in gravitational potential.

And thank you for seeing the light in my crane analogy!


@Rusty

Again, great thinking!

"and I can see that to get OU you need everything going for you and nothing against, once I see he has to fight magnetic force or gravity at some point I say to myself this will not work..."

Perfect, you understand. In a lever, we have it working for us in one half the cycle, but against us equally in the other half of the cycle! Overunity would be easy if we could turn on or off a permanent force with no expenditure of energy, such as that from gravity or a perm magnet (it is that "no expenditure of energy" bit that rules out electromagnets).

To turn on and off gravity, we would have to actually turn matter into antimatter. Dont think were quite there yet (understatement of the century).

To turn on an off a perm magnet, however, we might be close to doing. The trick is the "no expenditure of energy" part again. We can easily counter a perm magnet with an electro magnet in the reverse direction, but this requires energy.

-PurePower

PS Please dont take offense to that last statement, none was meant.