Roll on the 20th June

[purepower]

Exx

I have removed your video responses. I will only allow them as a response if you do them as per my procedure. You came no where close.

Stop smoking, read it carefully, and try again.

"Take your same set up, but build a fulcrum a bit higher up, you will see why in a moment. Now place the ruler on the fulcrum at exactly the 10" mark. Put a thin piece of tap across to prevent it from sliding around, but dont let hit hinder the motion.

Now, place some magnets UNDER the ruler on the short end to balance it out. These are your "control rods." Okay, so now we have a balanced, level lever. Place five magnet at the 12" mark. Place one magnet at the 0" mark. Amazing! A balance 5:1 lever (10":2") produces 5:1 lift (5magnets:1magnet). Newtonian logic lives on!

Now, take the same apparatus, but this time place, say, 20 magnets at the 12" mark and 1 magnet at the 0" mark FIRST. Now take your "control rod" magnets and place them under the short end so the lever is just barley favored to the extended end. Now remove the one magnet at the 0" mark. THIS SETUP IS EXACTLY LIKE ARCHER'S IN VIDEO 4/4. Notice how the extended end is raised with the magnet off? Now place the one magnet back on. Notice how it falls back down? Surprised? Still think there's free energy? If you answered yes to either of those last two questions, get back in the pool and give up your "backyard engineering" career."

Do it again, following my procedure step by step. Read it out loud for the camera so everyone knows you are doing it correctly. Until this happens, your videos will remain removed as a response.

-PurePower

[1234aware]

Ok lets get back to some basics:

Why waste time let's talk about something more useful than class 1 levers that are the simplest devices known to man if they don't get it let them build it they will come around..
Look everything described by math and physics came from something as simple as a guy sitting under a tree and getting hit with an apple (aka experimentation).
As a species we learnt how to fly and put huge pieces of metal into the air because you could look out your window and see a bird fly by so it was kind of hard to argue that it was not possible.
Over 3.5 billion years of evolution I think nature would show us an OU device if she had it in her bag of tricks (can anyone say trial and error)...

Just because some are trying to save others time/effort/expense should not dissuade others from building whatever they think. Noone else has ever thought of it so GO FOR IT (if that is how you learn).
All I ask is to elevate the conversation...I mean seriously if you don't get/agree with the physics of hydraulic head, electricity/magnetics, conservation of energy, or whatever go experiment but save making any claims or counterclaims (have a little humility) until you get it peer reviewed.
The whole community is dragged down because somehow Johny woke up smarter than anyone before him, he makes wild claims and oops forgot to account for something, goes into hiding and becomes a cult figure 100 years from now.

If you need a hero or a cause to make your life meaningful I can setup a pay pal account and save you all a bunch of time and effort just direct deposit all of your money into my account. I can the do one of two things:
1) Pull my 6000 foot yacht up to the beach in Monaco and party like a rock star (which you will be entitled to videos so you can live vicariously through me donations of $10 or more + shipping and handling)
2) I use the some of say 3 billion peoples net worth to overthrow all governments and build bases on the moon/mars and beyond saving mankind for all future generations (hmm sounds like a show I once saw)
Take your pick either way I think my idea has a lot of merit....

The human animal is a funny creature as he forgets that his entire existence can be summed up as an infinitesimal blip on a cosmic timeline that marches ever forward...you are irrelevant...wake up!
If we are to make the world a better place for us (+/- 50 years) why waste time on stupid arguments agree to disagree it does not stop one side from building something or the other from debunking it there are no winners and losers.
What I would like to see is everyone in this forum be able to throw there best/worst ideas out let others say there piece and move forward (crowd sourcing).
If you disagree you can always build it and prove the community wrong but do so without all the attacks/counter attacks.
What I can't tolerate is half baked descriptions of nonexistant devices.

If I build something and I want you to get it exactly I can build a recipe and describe it (words, pics, videos whatever) until you can replicate it...otherwise you are a fraud and should be dismissed immediately.
That is not to say that your concept is not a work in progress but it should then be posed as a possibility...e.g. If only I had this super light strong flexible material I could get my catapult to launch cannon balls into space and recover there energy after they go around the moon gaining momentum and returning to within 1 foot of me where I can convert there new found energy into billions of kilowatts of power.

Anyway sorry for rambling but everyone else seem to....

[Tinker]

If all the rhetoric's and dissing were saved for the promised completion date would everyone be better served.

If nothing else this thread would be considerably smaller.

What value is obtained by opposing views that may or may not contradict Archers claims prior to his stated completion date.

What value is all this rhetoric from folks that have not done the work Models and calculations are wonderful but may or may not be relevant.

The reality will surface on the 20th of June good or bad.

BUT that is what is what I think.

MY question to the nay sayers what do they gain with their rhetoric's before the release of the reality good or bad.

Deal with the reality whatever is that not what we do here.

Tinker


 

   

[exxcomm0n]

Exx

I have removed your video responses. I will only allow them as a response if you do them as per my procedure. You came no where close.

Stop smoking, read it carefully, and try again.

Stop smoking?
It the only thing that makes some things bearable.

"Take your same set up, but build a fulcrum a bit higher up, you will see why in a moment. Now place the ruler on the fulcrum at exactly the 10" mark. Put a thin piece of tap across to prevent it from sliding around, but dont let hit hinder the motion.

Now, place some magnets UNDER the ruler on the short end to balance it out. These are your "control rods." Okay, so now we have a balanced, level lever. Place five magnet at the 12" mark. Place one magnet at the 0" mark. Amazing! A balance 5:1 lever (10":2") produces 5:1 lift (5magnets:1magnet). Newtonian logic lives on!

Now, take the same apparatus, but this time place, say, 20 magnets at the 12" mark and 1 magnet at the 0" mark FIRST. Now take your "control rod" magnets and place them under the short end so the lever is just barley favored to the extended end. Now remove the one magnet at the 0" mark. THIS SETUP IS EXACTLY LIKE ARCHER'S IN VIDEO 4/4. Notice how the extended end is raised with the magnet off? Now place the one magnet back on. Notice how it falls back down? Surprised? Still think there's free energy? If you answered yes to either of those last two questions, get back in the pool and give up your "backyard engineering" career."

K...they were quite rambling, and after the 1st one I got tired of editing.

Let's try this from a different tack.

Wikipedia says ratio means:
A ratio is a quantity that denotes the proportional[citation needed] amount or magnitude of one quantity relative to another.

Ratios are unitless when they relate quantities of the same dimension. When the two quantities being compared are of different types, the units are the first quantity "per" unit of the second ? for example, a speed or velocity can be expressed in "miles per hour". If the second unit is a measure of time, we call this type of ratio a rate.

5:1 is a distance ratio, meaning that there are 5 of the same units on one side, and one unit on the other.
They are measured from the fulcrum to each end in this circumstance.

20:1 is a weight ratio, meaning that something needs 20 units to balance 1 unit because of some mechanical influence.

Why can't a 5:1 distance ratio give me a 20:1 weight ratio to BALANCE?

Each unit away from the fulcrum has a certain leverage due to it's weight.

The long end starts out the same with it's first unit, but the second unit beyond the first has it's own weight, plus the weight of the first unit, and then the leverage weight it gets from being so far from a suspended point

It progresses like this.

      1      fulcrum    1          2          3          4          5       <--distance
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      1      fulcrum     1          3          7         15        30      <-- weight


If you move the fulcrum, the long end weighs less.

      2          1          fulcrum          1          2          3          4    <-- distance
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      3          1          fulcrum          1          3          7         15   <-- weight

Move it again and you have balance.

      3           2         1           fulcrum          1          2           3   <--distance
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      7           3         1           fulcrum          1          3           7   <-- weight

Plainly put, weight ratios do not get figured the same as distance ratios.

Why are we trying to when comparing 5:1 to 20:1???

Do it again, following my procedure step by step. Read it out loud for the camera so everyone knows you are doing it correctly. Until this happens, your videos will remain removed as a response.

-PurePower

Its too late, and I'm too tired to play anymore.
I'll have to live with the fact that my videos will stay removed until tomorrow.

Bummer duuuuuuuude.

[DarkStar_DS9]

Ok guys... since we've all put more thought into a simple lever than is appropriate for such a simple device, let me quote purepower (when he explained to me why some levers will level off and some won't):

However, some levers will level off due to a little  
thing called center of mass. The weights have nothing to do with this  
action, it is entirely to do with where the fulcrum is located in  
relation to the center of mass of the lever.

Ok, I think I got it. So the answer to my question would be "x is the
gravitational pull acting on the mass of the lever which will be
unevenly distributed in relation to the pivot point", yes? So - in
addition to the points you already mentioned - the arm will not
balance if a) the arm itself has no mass (only theoretical possible I
guess) or b) the arm has very little mass and its imbalance can't
overcome the friction - right?

You got it...

So... given a 1:5 lever that is self-leveling and a "start position" that is the position of the arms with no additional weights attached, if I add 5kgs to the short arm and 1+x kgs to the extended arm, the extended arm will go down, yes?

If I remove the weights, the lever will be back at it's start position, yes?

If I use a 1:5 pulley I can use the 5+x kgs to return the 1kg and the 5kg to the start position, yes?

So I need to supply enough energy to the device to lift x kgs from the "down" position of the extended arm to the "up" position of the short arm to make it run continuously, yes?

Now as purepower confirmed (and I have every reason to believe that his math is correct, because he does seem to know what he is talking about), the weight of the beam itself needs to be great enough to overcome the friction at the pivot point... what if I add more friction by attaching a generator to the axle? I only have to increase the weight of the beam to overcome this additional friction, right? The lever will then continue to lift my 5kg weight, and it will also return to the start position, right?

So we just constructed an OU device, because the generator can be scaled to whatever size is needed to generate enough power to lift x, because all we have to do is increase the weight of the beam. And if we need more RPMs we use a gearbox, so we're fine there. And since we probably don't want to have the generator run "backwards", we use a ratchet.

Now that was easy. Next?!

Regards,

Rainer