Roll on the 20th June

[exxcomm0n]

Exx what does this mean? seems like you need to explain the question more  Chet

@ Chet

Dude, I asked 5 different questions in that one post, so I guess I have to explain them all.

1.) Why is everyone trying to have it (the lever) balanced?

Because that's the easiest way to shift your focus from the weight it took to GET the lever to balance.

2.) Why do you have to use a control arm weight?

You don't, except to change the amount of weight effected by the long side.

3.) What happens if you don't?

You get to lift more weight.

4.) @  PureP

Can you take your device and show its measures again without the counter weight?

We'll have to wait for him to chime in on this one.

5.) The thing that is still puzzling me is how one weight can lift another weight 5x it's distance of fall?

It's a sorta question.

But I'm starting to see a way to do it.

I will keep you informed.

[CLaNZeR]

ok here's the video. i gave this a light spin to show how easily it goes around. Notice how it pendulates at the end of the clip - this is because the wheel isn't balanced. i'll start this process next. i think the easiest way to go about it will be to sand more wood off the wheel at the 'heavy end' - which ends up pointing down.

then continue this process until the wheel can come to rest in any position.

Sm0ky2 Nice and well done. Good too see a bit of practical work and nice and loose wheel.

I spent most of my weekend taking advantage of the good UK weather and finishing off stuff out in the garden to keep family happy, but did get an hour or two in the workshop.
I re-enforced my bearings, so the magnets no longer stress it out and spent a while reducing the amount of magnets on bottom and top Arc to where I felt they should be.
I have added half the weights, starting with just one arm and was amazed that it actually did push pass the exit sticky spot, even though I had put the same weight on the other end as well, but it dropped through past as claimed.

I have decided to not post anymore videos or pictures of my progress on the wheel as this thread has taken these OU forums off to another level that does not fit comfortable with me.

Before we all knew that we were mad as hatters and trying peoples ideas for kicks and giggles, if this was done in a education establishment then it would of been stamped on very quickly, but we knew we could atleast try mad ideas in these forums. Now this does not seem so, because the same rebute is now here.

The experience of learning seems to be getting lost these days and the pressure seems to be that we should just accept modern day Physics and not even try to question it. If we do then be prepared for a slagging match.

For the record I do not disagree with modern day Physics, they can be proved over and over again in many experiments. But the search for OU/FE is about finding a gap in those teachings that may not have been found. The only way of finding that gap is to sometimes just put modern teachings on the back burner for a while and think outside that box.
People will stop trying to find that gap if there are enough people in place to drag them down to feeling foolish that they even tried.

That is now happening within these walls, shame but SHIT happens.

Will post again if any positive results.

I do not know why Archer has got so many backs up, we have had greater claims than Archers over the years, we have replicated and just gone onto the next when it fails, OH Well another theory out the door!!. But this one is very different, very and I still cannot work out why?

I hope we may see something on the 20th, but if not, then it will not be the first time!!

Cheers

Sean.

[fletcher]

smokey .. you might find yourself sanding for quite a while - I once balanced a similar sort of wheel by using small metal wood screws & you might like to consider this method as perhaps more accurate & expedient - first you need the four corners identified [something to catch on] - I would use screws at 12; 3; 6; 9 o'cl at the same radius - rotate the bottom down heavy quadrant to either 9 or 3 o'cl - put a stick under the screw [so the wheeel leans on it] & have that standing on a set of electronic scales - this will give you grams of weight force - weight a single wood screw to find a similar amount of weight & screw it in 180 degrees to 'balance the wheel' - repeat this process if necessary - you'll be lucky if you can get it within 2 grams but with a bit of persistence it can easily be done - thereafter when you spin the wheel it stops where ever the bearing frictional forces bring it to a halt.

For the record - I agree with everything Mr Kai & PP are attempting to demonstrate - math is a language that only some learn well enough to handle competently [usually as part of their job] - having said that it is an expression of physical observations which is precisely why you have to be competant to use & follow it - most of the discussion group probably struggle with the higher level stuff & so will never be convinced by number crunching alone - only physical evidence will do that, providing the terms of reference have been established & are adhered too & its not a continually 'moving feast' - [quinn is often missing in action on setting the assumptions & parameters for experimentation].

ATEOTD, the rhetoric will ebb & flow with the same regularity as the tides - when someone makes an OU claim [& I am as interested in finding a real, explainable solution as the next guy here] then that person needs to provide an acceptable standard of proof - as we have seen from this thread that is not easy to do - IMO, only closing the loop & accurately measuring Energy In v's Energy Out will ever be of sufficient standard of proof that everyone will eventually accept.

When quinn can do that I will listen closely but so far there has been no proof of anything - so good luck smokey replicating & experimenting.

[sm0ky2]

Keep looking into that, instead of looking at graphically laid out formulas.

Forget about counterbalances and control arms.

Look at the lever and the weight.

Get a metal ruler and some magnets.

I was watching your video, you demonstrate exactly what im saying.  what is the height difference between the end of the lever when the weights are in one spot - and the end of the extened lever?

then what is the height of the lift/ mass on the other end, respectively. im not claiming to be a geometrial genius, but those 3 triangles are not proportional. the 3rd triangle, legA increases greatly, thus the hyptenuse increases, however the verticle (legB) only increases slightly.  we know the weight distribution of your metal ruler (minus that hold in the end) so we could get a pretty fair estimate of the momentum based on the divided mass. This energy MUST be equal to or LESS than the energy of lifting the control rods that very short distance. We assume there is friction, and other losses in this experiment, so we therefore must assume this energy to be LESS than.  now, since the fulcrum remains constant, and we assume that it was placed horizontally at the start and allowed to shift of its own imbalance. So the only  "input" energy is:
  the height of legB of that 3rd triangle( the verticle displacement of the control rods)  * the mass of the rods * g.

Conversly - the energy required to flip the lever the other direction is exactly the same triangle, turned 180-degrees.  So the long end falling CANNOT produce enough energy to lift those control rods that short distance. While you may have room to argue this point while the weight is still sttached to the lever - it becomes clear that the potential energy of the lifted weight on the long end (if detachable) is far greater than the potential energy of the control rods when they are moved up. (extended on the up side, or retracted on the down side).

This is what im having trouble with.....  The system must incur a massive energy loss to balance it out, that im just not seeing..  It must be there, but im not clearly identifying it...

[sm0ky2]

took about an hour to balance the wheel. sanding didn't work.. i started drilling holes to decrease the mass but that was too slow too, so i added tiny steel balls as counterweights. got it as close as i could, then went back to drilling off more woodmass.  i know i can't "perfectly" balance the wheel by hand, but i got it down below the moment of intertia of the wheel. The wheel can now come to rest in any position i put it in. So i know the imbalance is not great enough to turn the wheel-mass. Which, getting it any closer than that isn't going to make much difference.  the wood shavings from the last drill-hole wouldn't even register on the 1/10th gram scale, but it was enough to balance the wheel out.



Does anyone have an idea for the sliding rod mechanism, that will be sturdy, and still have VERY LITTLE friction??  someone suggested a "linear bearing", ive never seen these, anyone have experience with them?

my best thought involved 2 small rings at opposite edges of the wheel, that the rod sits in, so the contact points are small. something about a rod sliding on the inside surface of a tube just screams FRICTION.....

any thoughts on this subject? Thats the only thing holding me back at this point.. as most of you know i have magnets galore.. and im sure i can come up with some "weights" to use..