Roll on the 20th June

[LarryC]

Forgive me if this was brought up before, not a regular on this thread, but everybody seems to be so concerned about fulcrum math and I'm confused as to why so many ignore the most important of Archer's statements under THE EGYPTIAN FULCRUM section that makes the 5:1 lever work like a 20:1 lever:

To make such a claim, i will naturally show you a small section of this relating to velocity, that ever child in the world will understand. That being said they will know all who safeguard Newton?s math as liars or simple.

1 kilo falling 1 metre is equal to 1 kilo power/weight true or false? it should be true

2 kilos falling 1 metre is equal to 2 kilos power/weight true or false? it should be true

4 kilos falling 2 metres is equal to 8 kilos power/weight true or false? it should be true.

Unfortunately we have mistaken power for weight in velocity, leverage and rotational dynamics
1 kilo falling 1 metre is not equal to 1 kilo of weight/power at all, it is higher. we only equate increase in velocity with height, but 1 kilo falling 1 metre can pull a lever down to the ground yet not hold it there. So if the weight to hold it there is greater than 1 kilo, then the power from 1 kilo falling 1 metre is clearly not 1 kilo, but higher. Yet all the math you do, relates falling weight x height @ 1 kilo per metre equals 1 kilo power or weight.

If any of those who still choose to ignore these statements would please test the difference between a 1 KG weight resting on your head and 1 KG falling from a meter on to your head. If some sense is not knocked into your head, then there is no way it can be explained.

Regards, Larry

[fletcher]

Same shift distance from pivot/fulcrum - dampened spring reads the same length, also the lever has the same angle, therefore same torque - if released the momentum for each is different but Tot Ke is the same.

[dirt diggler]

MrKai:
thanks for being straightforward with me.
I shall make a reproduction of Archers lever to try things out.
the problem is just like you say, there are soooo many variables that how can we know if our scaled down model will work the same as his?
it is the same as all the people trying to reproduce Alsetalokin's ocmpmm. so many things that can change the results, that you never know if you got it right.
while you and others may feel there is nothing going on here, it could be possible that Archer has just by chance found the proper way to put this together in a way that works.
personally I'm convinced there is no fraud going on, and I have never seen someone work so tirelessly on a project as Archer. 
I'm willing to give him a chance to explain and show any theories he has, and to try and help him see these idea's through. 
I just keep thinking that there is something more to this lever that we are not seeing, but what do I know, I'm just a guy that builds, fixes and flies airplanes and helicopters

ciao, Dirt
  

[MrKai]

I just keep thinking that there is something more to this lever that we are not seeing, but what do I know, I'm just a guy that builds, fixes and flies airplanes and helicopters

ciao, Dirt
  

I have said that the *lever* isn't particularly special, but the reset mechanism would be the determining factor of the usefulness of the machine.

Thing is, he seemed to half-ass that part because he has a perverse hatred of science for reasons only he seems to know or fathom.

Are those big helis and planes, or RC ones?

One of my Moms is a pilot...flying is cool

-K

[sm0ky2]

"leverage" = torque

And no, this doesnt work. The extension does not provide more torque, so it does not provide more leverage.

@sm0ky
Archer does provide a simple test, the same test provided on his website. However, this fails to show the whole picture as he is only looking at one end. Once both ends are considered, you will see there is no effect. I too provided a simple test that shows what happens when you look at both ends. Did anyone do this? or do I need to make another video?

-PurePower

ok, im going to post on this subject again, since it seems to have gone over everyones head....

The test proposed uses a Wheel with a Single sliding rod. magnets on the lower-left quadrants to repel the rod upwards.

NOW:  adjust your weights/magnets so the wheel can "almost" break the wall, but not quite - AND your magnets are strong enough to lift the rod against gravity.

NEXT:  extend the weights out beyond the magnetic array
       This will allow you to break the magnetic wall using the same weight. AND the magnets are still strong enough to lift the rod.

This was the test, and this was verified.   

Below is my drawing of how this operates.  The red/blue boxes represent the Mounting Brackets where the sliding mechanism connects to the wheel. The Red side is the side that experiences the Force of the graviationally-imbalanced Rod. The Green arrow indicates the Direction of that Force.

the GREY part of the rod acts as the FULCRUM. - YES its a very WIDE Fulcrum. The distance between the weights and the two mounts represents your "lever arms".

I can't make it any clearer than this.