Roll on the 20th June

[MrKai]

Wow.

he is obviously still reading this thread, because he is commenting on the comments on this page here:
http://www.surphzup.com/gpage1.html1.html

The last 8 paragraphs are FUNNY, lol.

OK, here is a hint:

Take Mr. Man's upside-down 5:1 lever, and raise it super high, with no weights.

Guess what? It would hang vertical at rest, straight up and down...so why it is it such a shocker that the damned ground is stopping it? it isn't being "held down" by anything but frickin' gravity.

Add heavy weight on the short end..gasp, it raises the long end!! Sake's alive!

Add a ubertiny weight on the long end (I did 2lbs short, 1.5oz long) and lo and behold, it pulls the long end down!!!!!

"1.5oz" lifting 2lbs.

woot. Big woop.

Ugh...I give up. This is beyond all belief.

And for the record, until *he* shows his damned wheel working I'm not impressed with that either...we've seen several (apparently "wrongly constructed") wheels *not turn*.

From his last video, I can tell you guys that the wheel to rod diameter to length ratios are much different than what the builders have been doing.

If or not this makes a difference remains to be seen, but I think you guys are making the wheel parts of your wheels too big.

-K

[DarkStar_DS9]

Im sorry, I dont recall saying we are dealing with a centered lever. Could you please quote me? If you refer to my drawing attached a few posts ago, you will clearly see I am not revering to a centered lever.

Your statement about the torque not changing was confusing me, I was guessing what you may have been talking about. I think I understand what you are saying now, but currently reality does not seem to agree. I used a tube and put in a rod with a weight of 290g, shifted off-center by 10cm (total length 1m). I put a scale under the longer end - it showed 65g. I then removed the rod and strapped 2 weights to the tube (where the ends of the rod where), making sure that the weights + all materials used where not > 290g in total. The scale showed 82g. More weight pulling down would mean more torque, no? So I take it that this outcome is unexpected and therefore my experiment was flawed, so I will do it again with a less crude approach. Just have to wait for my materials to arrive

Sorry about the confusion.

Regards,

Rainer

[dirt diggler]

MrKai and Purepower:

Mrkai, I don't know much about your background, except that I think you said you produce music, you obviously have some background that allows you to talk with some knowledge here, but I don't know any details, so I really can't accept you analysis of the lever, other than it is your opinion. not dissin, just sayin.
Now PUREPOWER on the other hand, I know you said that you are an engieer, that tutors physics.
I simply cannot accept that you only answer for what is seen in the videos is that it is a trick.  comon, really?
you think that Archer is moving the control rod counterweights while he is holding the camera and talking about what he is doing, and loading/unloading the appropriate weight to be lifted?
in all honesty purepower, I could accept this answer from anyone else on this forum, cause I don't know their backgrounds, but sorry old friend, I can't accept this answer from you.
You said you would help me understand this so I'm asking you to, there has to be a way to explain what we see in the video without just saying fraud, parlour trick.

thanks in advance
Dirt

[Mark69]

To purepower:

I am reading one of your above posts and really, have you ever used tools in your life???  Tell me this, if you have a bolt the wont come off with a regular 1/2" rachet, what do you do?  You get the 1/2" breaker bar that has a longer handle to give you more TORQUE on the bolt.  Well guess what, thats exactly what happens here when the rods shift.  You multiply the force of the weight on the end with the longer arm.  If you look up what torque means, it is a measurement of twisting force.  The rods are applying torque to the wheel and the further out it is, the more the weight is multiplied.  When you look at a automotive engine, you really want a larger torque number, because horsepower is not worth crap.  It is the torque that, you know, the crankshaft turning.  Why dont you go ask a race machine shop why it is almost always better to put longer rods in then larger pistons.  It has nothing to do with the weight of the piston either, its about rod ratio. 

You have heard of a "torque wrench" havent you?

Mark

[MrKai]

MrKai and Purepower:

Mrkai, I don't know much about your background, except that I think you said you produce music, you obviously have some background that allows you to talk with some knowledge here, but I don't know any details, so I really can't accept you analysis of the lever, other than it is your opinion. not dissin, just sayin.

I'm a software engineer by trade and vocation, dirt.

It doesn't matter. No one can convince of the simple fact that the lever he constructed is ordinary.

he is befuddling you with numbers that *don't matter*...

Just make a smaller version for yourself; mine was out of pvc.

If you raise the fulcrum high enough, with no weight @ 5:1, it will hang straight down.

Add enough weight to *the end* (just tie it on a string, like he did) and play with it.

You will find that the the short end with the weight does not rise any massive, signifigant amount outside of known physics...no matter how spectacular Archer makes it seem.

Do you not find it odd that no one with a science background is at all shocked by this?

Furthermore, and this is just so important (which is why people keep bringing it up) you have make a "5:1" lever with that *length ratio* from the fulcrum but massively unbalanced *weights* withing the construction itself (control rods, cement, whatever) that the work distribution isn't 5 to 1.

The best thing I can suggest is to just make your own lever and fool with it. You'll see. There are SO MANY variables in that seemingly "straightforward" "5:1" lever its just not funny.

The only way to determine that it is *truly 5:1* dirt is to have it with *no additional weights attached* and balanced on the fulcrum. Balanced being defined here as level (horizontal) with no load.

If it is NOT balanced with ZERO LOAD it is NOT a 5:1.

There is just no other way to explain it.

He's mixing terms and concepts to "make it true"...thats all.

Its like saying a song is 150 bpm, and then trying to say it is slower because of how many measures are played.

Its like saying that a car in London is faster than a car in Boston because one expresses speed in kph

It is like trying to write an IOKit driver in Java

It is like a lot of things like that, but the common vein is that they are all wrong

-K