Roll on the 20th June

[purepower]

I dont think so,. on the right you have full verticle translation at the larger circumference. (minus the magnetic pull-back)     However on the left you only have the outer circumference until you hit the magnetic array, then it is closer to the center of rotation on that side.  the leverage point is not at the center of mass of the rod. it appears equally in opposite directions on the mounts holding the rod in place, where they attach to the wheel. Which translates to rotational torque.  its like having 2 fulcrums, one on top and one on bottom at opposite ends of the lever - which act as one WIDE fulcrum.   So essentially your working lever corresponds to the two ends outside of the mounts. which one is shorter with respect to the other. This represents the torque on the wheel.

My post was in regards to the lever, not the wheel... Two different systems, two different analysis...

[purepower]

Hi Dirt
The answer is friction increases and the reason it does, has to do with speed, having said that in what you described you are taking into account the friction from the lever but your not taking into account the friction from what ever system your using to put the weight on and off the lever.
Take Care Dirt
Graham

FYI

Wind friction (drag) varies with speed squared, axial friction does not change at all...

And you bring up a good point: the more complicated Archie makes his lever, the more opportunity for loss...

-PurePower

[purepower]

Okay, I know I said I didnt want to do this anymore, but people keep talking about Archie's magic reset.

Attached you will find a picture hand-drawn by Archie, originally released privately to Soapz. Hartiberlin posted it on here a while back. When I saw it on Soapz, here was my message to Archie:

"Well, its a bit more than just the lever being reset; its the weights as well. Before I can answer, I need to know a few things.

For this discussion, lets call the light weight "MassA," the large weight "MassB," their respective ends of the lever "EndA" and "EndB," and their respective heights "HeightA" and "HeightB."

At the start, MassA falls HeightA, lifting MassB to HeightB, and energy is conserved if we ignore friction. E = [MassA+(mass of EndA)]*HeightA = [MassB+(mass of EndB)]*HeightB.

Now MassB is pushed off, lifting water equal to MassA to HeightA to allow the cycle to continue. What the rest of the energy of falling MassB [E-remainder = (mass EndA)*(HeightA) - (mass EndB)*(HeightB)] is used to lift the lever back to the start. However, this would be the entire remainder of what is left and no "free" energy is available.

If my understanding of the mechanism is flawed, please correct me so we are on the same page and may continue with our conversation."


He did not correct me. Instead, he assured me the lever would be reset "with no cost to the machine."

Ya, I didnt buy it either.

Evg hit the nail on the head. The only working lever exists in his head...

-PurePower

[exxcomm0n]

You're right, the drawing is crap.

The non-formulaic reasons for why this illustration is wrong as follows:

The counterweight is attached to a rope FAR AWAY and above it, not directly above it so there is more sideways drag as it's lifting/falling detracting from the weight energy.

That's if it could.

The rope going through the pulleys from the counterweight is attached to the lever itself.
This is the one that jumps up and down and screams at me.
How often does a weight influence itself?

If the rope is loose, it just travels through the pulleys doing no work.
If the rope is tight, it's creating more friction on the pulley axles and robs any type of movement.
The best it can be is a steadying mechanism.

The falling weight (the actual energy producer) is flawed to.

It's trying to use the fall of 1 M to lift something 5M (at least).

That don't work.

I think this drawing was more something along the lines of "placating the kids so you can get work done", as well as a little obsfucation before the 20th.

Anyway, if there are other designs in play without these flaws and I guess we gotta wait until the 20th to see them and I'll still look as this entire thread has taught me not to take what I know, whether at a cerebral level or gut level, for granted.

Maybe it's only what I think I know.

[Morgenster]

Hold on a sec. Archer's still showing us a working wheel next week, right?