Roll on the 20th June

[exxcomm0n]

<snip>
@ALL

Sorry I may have gotten a little uppity there, Ill try and keep it down. And while I do not have the footage MrKai has to see exactly what was going on at the other end, this does not mitigate my notion of misconception for all other reasons posted earlier (the physics based reasons).

Yes, that seems addressed to all.

No, inertia has not gone south. But to understanding what the impact of a container of water would do, we must look at the coefficient of elasticity for the body. A container of water water would absorb most of the impact energy and not bounce back as it did, this is why we see large barrels of water near the start of freeway dividers in case of an accident. This is the difference between throwing a bean bag on the ground verses a rubber ball. Throw a water bottle on the ground. It bounces, but not much.

Since you're using my idiom, I'll assume you're addressing my posts.

Did you read them?

I at no time used the word bounce. I did use the word "rebound" which would be proper in this respect as it denotes the reversal of applied energy.
I pointed out the slack created by the heavier side still traveling upwards when the lighter weight has struck bottom. The distance it covers traveling upwards gets realized as energy when it succumbs to gravity. That creates a "jerk" on the bottle that is able to overcome the inertial state of it's mass and the weight thereof, and start it traveling upwards.

If you lift one end of a equal balance with equal weight on each end, it will "oscillate", or go back and forth over the balance point in it's effort to reach balance again.

But lets say for a moment that it would bounce back as it did. First of all, it was the little container that hit the ground, do you really think it carried enough momentum to bounce that fast? But now, just for discussion, lets say it was the lever arm that hit and caused the rebound so the lever would oscillate. Archer never let it come to rest, so we don't really know which end would be up in its final position.

Cool. You do know what oscillate means.

I don't think the little weight did. I think the tiny distance the heavy end covered nearly at it's apex due to inertia helped LIFT the lighter end to the witnessed height. Making it appear to "bounce".

True on the final position, that is a valid fingernail hold.
Perhaps next time you could be the videographer.

One other key point, and this is the nail in the coffin. 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.

K....first off, you cannot generate energy from motion in free fall the way I understand it. You can accumulate energy in an unopposed fall due to the attraction of weight to gravity.
I think that's what you were trying to say.

EDIT: His use of free fall was correct and I had a brain fart. I was thinking of the concept of weightlessness. I'm firing my typist tomorrow.

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). 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.

You want formulas, just ask. I will guarentee they hold true for Archer's demonstration. Archer was right to some degree, this is more than just simple leverage. But it is not overunity.

I don't want formulas. I want longer video times with a dedicated videographer.

But I doubt that will happen until June 20th.
That we have what we're talking about RIGHT NOW is gravy that was neither promised, nor expected, even though it it was asked for incessantly.

EDIT: I just went back and watched videos 1 & 2 and from what I see in 2, the heavy weight/short end is supported by a ladder and when it's removed, the ratio lift of the arm is equal to twice the height of the ladder at that end.
The only way I could see him being able to put the weight on would be pulling on the lever elevating the heavy end into the air meaning the entire weight should be suspended without slack.

Going back to watch 3 & 4.

[The Eskimo Quinn]

well we dont talk to legendre, because he's and oil man, who just likes to use the best attack and say nothing unusual here, clearly the beam is heavier at the longer end??? you cant be serious, i think i read that from every oil person????seriously heavier at the longer end. but of course every beam beam in the world divided 5 to 1 wouldn't be heavier at the longer end would it??? every fucking beam ever fucking used in every fucking text book ein evrery fucking site in the fucking world isnt fucking heaver at the fucking long end, every fucking piece of lying newtonian bullshit isnt also heavier at the fucking long end??? Fuck off

as for mr ratcliff, so sorry you were disappointed, yes today i was only able to break the laws of thermodynamics and shatter the leverage laws that are used to calculate what holds the wings on you plane when you fly. perhaps next time an interesting story for you.

As for the rest of you, i am not going to build your machines for you, get off your ass. I dont need to build it to running,newtons math is dead, so too there is overunity in lift. there is nothing special about the weight of the beam, and i can return it with 2 kilos. you simply forget the other end is also a lever and with an empty lightweigh gutter section at the back end past the lift point, i simply have 2 kilos of the weight fall down to the end of the rear leverage point.

simply have the beam extended end down as far as you want it to go, now draw a straight horizonal line from the back end of the heavy end, so you basically change direction, so your weights fall off together 18 kilos and 2 kilos 18 kilos will hit super fast compared to the slightly below vertical tilt of the rear extension, it will run down to a capture point and the beam will rise again, the rear extension is quite short abouit 3 metres no weight, remember it is only lifting an empty beam. i will at some point weigh the whole thing as best i can  for those building, but if you cant spend five dollars on some sticks and conduit, then you are simply a lazy person or here for the oil and government. it is over people like or dont like it.



end trans

[MrKai]

.....and you don't get me.

And you overthink...a lot.

It's K...for Kai...my name

-K

[The Eskimo Quinn]

as to pure power and the control rods, gee let me see, they woiuld make it harder to lift at 3 kilos each wouldnt it, coz um gee they are on the heavy end ummm, struggling for stories now hey oil man

you just made the machine look better you tool

[DarkStar_DS9]

And in regards to the magnetic lift, the underlying principal behind the energy to raise the rod is the force and the distance, regardless of how the coil is configured.

Ok so let's try this again. FEMM tells me the following:

1) A (air-)coil with 1.000 turns of 0,4mm copper wire and a power-usage of 6,646552 Watts will push a given magnet (which is located 2,5mm in front of the coil) away with 0,37399N.

2) A (air-)coil with 10.000 turns of 0,4mm copper wire and a power-usage of 0,6646552 Watts will push the same magnet (at the same location) away with 0,37399N.

3) A (air-)coil with 10.000 turns of 0,8mm copper wire and a power-usage of 1,01024W Watts will push the same magnet (at the same location) away with 1,95377N.

4) A (air-)coil with 100.000 turns of 0,8mm copper wire and a power-usage of 0,101024W Watts will push the same magnet (at the same location) away with 1,95377N.

It would seem that if you have a specific task at hand (push a magnet away with x N. You have 6V and a maximum of 0.25 A to do that) you can build a coil to do the job. And you could also build a coil that will do the job with half the power required. Or a tenth of the power.

So I fail to see how this is a mechanical problem. If I need x N to move an object and those x N are applied, the object will move. I don't think the object cares why the x N are there or how much electricity was used to get those x N to act on the object, wouldn't you agree?

Regards,

Rainer