Roll on the 20th June

[onesnzeros]

from AQ site:

"This is an example of why I no longer respond on websites to questions from supposedly smart people.

?Gee mate the drum looked like it stops just short of where it started, which means it will slow down eventually. ?

Now you see why I think the entire planet are monkeys. fuck me idiot, it doesn?t just slow down there, it fucking stops, it catches under the weight about to be lifted, which is oh wait not a flat A4 fucking piece of paper so it actually has fucking height which means, oh fucking yeah it is not level with the fucking floor WATCH THE FUCKING FILMS "LISTEN" READ THE FUCKING SITE"


So here's the problem....

we actually understand that it "F-ing" stops.... but if the weight falls off the top to where it started, and we know it's not a piece of paper flat on the floor... but the "handle" or whatever you want to call it on the weight started at height x....  the lever started by "catching" it at height x and lifting it, the weight has now fallen back to height x, and the lever returns to get it at, ohh, wait for it... not quite height x, NOW what?  I can't get down low enough to "catch" it......   you make the weight drop a little less than all the way back where it started and then get it.... each time you will have to let it fall slightly less..... and well.... think about it 40 cycles from now..... (if you got that far....)


Done....  I'm outta here.... good luck with the wheels guys....   I tried hard to believe, but I just can't anymore!

There has to be a medication for this kind of thing.

onesnzeros

[OU-812]

There has to be a medication for this kind of thing.

onesnzeros

It's called Reality 

[purepower]

Hi Graham,

as far as the friction goes, I didn't say BIGGER, I said MORE MASSIVE, two wheels of the same size, but different masses will spin for drastictly different times on the same bearing. even though the friction is higher on the heavyer wheel, it still spins longer. friction is still a part, but as you see in this test, it is moot. the wheel with less friction stops sooner.
this is what we are trying here, and it is the same with the wheel or the lever. small weight moving a large weight, the losses to friction are minimal, because of the momentum of the large mass.
hope this helps, not sure if I explained it properly.

Dirt Diggler

Edit:  sorry, didn't read the self resetting lever on his site, musta been a little birdy that told me

Edit 2:  just checked, yes I did read on his site that the resetting was sucessful today, video's tomorrow.

Hmm, well actually Graham was right but for the wrong reasons, and you are wrong but for the right reasons.

Friction is a function of contact FORCE, not SIZE. So if you increase the mass of a lever, you also increase the friction in the lever. Friction is independent of surface contact area.

Demo: get a table coaster (those little disks the little lady makes you set your beer on so there wont be rings on the table she just cleaned), add a second one on top. Pull it across the table, measuring the force required with a spring scale (make sure table is clean and free from dirt/debris). Redo the demo, but this time with coasters side-by-side. The mass is the same, but the surface area has doubled. You will find the force is exactly the same.

Now you ask "then why do race cars have wide tires to prevent slip?" Same reason I had you clear the table from dirt and debris. If there is sand, bits of gravel, etc between the road and the tires of a race car, this will reduce the coefficient of friction. Lets say for a moment the car has sand under 1" of its 12" wide tires. The sand has now jeopardized the contact friction of 1/12 of the tire. But by widening the tires, there is more contact surface and the portion decreases. For a 24" tire, now the jeopardized portion is only 1/24 of the total tire, decreasing the probability of slip.

Still stuck on DarkStar's lever:

I don't see that happening.  If the fulcrum is still centered on the lever, the weights would still be pulling downward with equal torque, one at 10cm and one at 20cm, (neglecting any string weight).  I don't see what would make the lever move.  I think the lever would still stay where it is.

We are in accord. I think there was a miscommunication somewhere though. I probably wasnt clear.

For a balanced lever (weights hanging, equal or unequal lengths), the torques would be the same and the lever would not move from horizontal. It would move if you rotated off horizontal as it would try to regain its balanced, level position. A balanced lever with weights on the center axis of the lever would not do this, which is what I meant by "it would move" as opposed to "float" at some angle. I was not suggesting a balanced, level lever would rotate simply because one was hanging lower, which is where I think the miscommunication occurred.

Also, considered two unbalanced levers, one with weights hanging equal distances and one with weights hanging unequal distances. When I said this "would produce a different effect due to unequal vertical shift contributions from each side," I was implying the two otherwise similar levers would have a different resting position.

-PurePower

[Rusty_Springs]

Hi All
I will give Archer the benifit of the dout, as I said I think he will show a wheel but it will be with an electromagnet which is true to his design.
What he has to do is prove its OU which as I said I don't think it will be, if he does show a wheel with permanent magnet working then I will eat my words and say great job mate.
Take Care All
Graham

[purepower]

BATMAN Here... back from taking care of evil do'rs. (working with LAWER'S If you think gas guy's are bad !!!)

PurePower what year of Solidworks do you have??

2008 Office Pro...