Roll on the 20th June

[sm0ky2]

If Energy IN is equal to or greater than Energy OUT

    THEN : Momentum cannot be conserved in this wheel.

If Momentum is conserved,

       then Energy OUT, is greater than Energy IN

[spinner]

TTB  the Boss has enough going on there to get my attention   a liitle tuning    some bearings ETC ETC 25-1 at 5-1 or better  Using Fluids      He's working on the wheel KNOW   sweet   Chet

Ramset, your Boss has a lever... And this device acts like expected. It's not 5:1 in length (I think Sm0ky evaluated it as 4:1? That may be close..), and it's not balanced with 1:20 kg weights. Not if you include the weight of both lever beams and it's CoG's.  Sorry.

You had a chance to understand the difference between an ideal lever and "real life" lever in many of posts throughout last few days - instead you choose to believe Archer... 

A balanced lever is useless (in energy terms). The sum of torques is - nil. Even if it weighs 100 tons.
Every time Archer climbs the ladder and hangs a small bottle on the beam, he inputs potential energy (m1gh) to the lever. Small bottle unbalances (changes torque sign in favour of a long side) the lever which re-gauges and lifts 20kg weight. Energy released - less than mgh of a small bottle (for an exact calculation there is not enough data).
Still, m1h1=m2h2, or  m1L1=m2L2. No free energy.

[TryToBelieve]

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!

[dirt diggler]

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!

That makes no sense at all TTB.  in the video, you clearly see that the drum will hold the beam down. there is nothing else holding it there. only the drum.  so if the weight is dumped off the long end, the beam MUST return, because we already know that it holds it down, plus now we have the momentum of the fall, which obviously has energy to add to the system.  slow down and watch again.
if the weight will hold the short end down, and it has an increase in energy from the fall, how can it not hit the bottom?

[purepower]

@ Purepower

I'm looking at it a little differently...  when you move the weights off of the center of rotation, their distance from that center DOES play a part in the leverage (or torque) imparted onto the bearing mounts (or slide mechanism mounts) which are where the rod actually affects the wheel.

Also important to note is the horizontal displacement of the rods - because THIS TOO adds (i dont think i can call that energy so lets just go with "imbalance") to the system, which in turn aids in breaking that magnetic wall.
If we measure our "input" only in the verticle direction, the system could be overunity in the proper proportions. Also the angle of the magnets plays a part in the direction of the force imparted onto the rods. - this should be adjusted to prodive the most "radial direction" as possible, to minimise back-torque from the "sticky spot".  remember the stick-spot doesnt necessarily have to be "overcome". all you have to do is overcome gravity (against the rod) with momentum of the heavier wheel, which as you can see in a few of the builders demo vids that off-setting a single rod does this. let te rod "ride" on the outside of the repelling field.

Dont try to fight the fied is what im saying, use the field to move the rod.

its just like the design that uses a arc'ed ramp and rollers on the ends of the rods.. just without the friction.

I dont think we do see it differently (well at least the leverage part). If you read back through my long post, pay special attention to the equations. That "+/-x" is what I used to note the distance the from the mass center to the center of rotation. In regards to "horizontal distance," having "sin(angle)" in the torque equation would give you the true torque values, but since it would be on both sides of the balance equation equation they would cancel out.

What I was really trying to communicate in the thread was shifting the weights an additional 10cm or 10m wouldnt change the torque in the lever (as long as they are shifted equally). Simple verification experiment (and sm0ky, Id really like you to this one, assuming you have a scale). Take a ruler, add weights to it and place a fulcrum so it is NOT balanced. Take a scale, place it somewhere under the level, note the reading. Now, with out moving the lever, fulcrum, or scale, shift BOTH the weights either 1" in or 1" out. The reading on the scale will not change, again assuming they both move in or out the same distance.

Why is this? Though it would appear contradictory to logic, it is actually rather simple. Because both masses move the same distance relative to the mass center, the mass center remains in the same location. Because the mass center remains the same location, the lever maintains the same torque.

In regards to the magnets, I see them as like a spring. In order for a spring to do work, you must do work to compress the spring and then you can get the work back out. Similarly, you must do work to overcome the wall of a magnet before the magnet will do work for you. If you dont do work to move into the field enough to cause repulsion, then there wont be repulsion available to do work.

-PurePower