Roll on the 20th June

[DarkStar_DS9]

Archer Quinn has constantly attacked his critics, but has not proven his base claim of being able to make a machine that can generate electricity via perpetual motion, or a perpetual motion-like process, in a manner that can be easily replicated by people with modest fabrication skills.

Math THAT away.

That's easy. He promised to show something on the 20th. Today is the 13th. 13 < 20. q.e.d.



Regards,

Rainer

[MrKai]

That's easy. He promised to show something on the 20th. Today is the 13th. 13 < 20. q.e.d.



Regards,

Rainer

ROTFLMAO.

It would have been Pure Comedy Gold? however if he had done it

-K

[exxcomm0n]

Ya know, I hate it when I get so wrapped up in something a lay person can say something about a simple truth they observed, and I have to admit that I didn't see it because of focusing on something different.

It galls me, because I respect myself as a thinking human being, and this, this PERSON that has none of my training and expertise, is able to hit me w/ a zinger about something I forgot about.

Those days I draw from my thespian background and say, "Yeah, I though about that, but I wanted to have other things in place to learn how they would effect it before i addressed that fact."

......and about 85% of the time it works.


I've always been of the mind that I respect a person that does, more than a person that says. The reason for that is, I can say anything, but can I do it?"

From there I learned to listen to what people say w/ a closed mouth (mostly), and wait to see what they can DO, and see if the 2 sides match.

A downs syndrome person can screw in a lightbulb, but I doubt they fly to the moon.
I've heard both things come from that source.
I just say, "But of course you can" and sit back to find out if it's true.

I've been surprised a few times.

True things come from ALL places, and I'm still learning that I don't know them all.

Look @ my signature. It'll probably make more sense now.

[purepower]

Wow! I am honored to have my own page on Archie's site! Thank you!

But I think anyone with half a brain will see just how flawed his thinking is after reading that page. His entire rebuttal is flawed, filled with half-truths and improper understanding.

Understand I am not an opponent to the wheel. I strongly support the wheel and provide insight on obstacles to be overcome, even suggesting possible solutions. Anyone on this site will tell you this, Archurian or Newtonian. I do not support the lever.

Okay, for starters:

This is his post regarding why shifting the Rods will not work.

Not true. My post was regarding THE EXTENSION OF THE WEIGHTS. How many times do I have to say this?..

...momentum converts to torque at the point it is fixed.

Half true. Momentum will provide torque briefly, but will die as a function of time. A spinning wheel has momentum and will convert its momentum to torque to overcome friction.

Momentum=Torque*time

m*r²*w = T*t

To use Archer's ice/water example, lets pretend the ice the momentum and the water is torque. Okay, we start with a block of ice (wheel spinning). Now we want to convert that ice to water (convert momentum to torque). So we let the ice melt (draw torque off the spinning wheel). Now that all the ice has been converted to water (momentum to torque) we have no more ice (no more momentum, wheel is not spinning). So we can use momentum as torque, but only briefly until the momentum dies, as quantitatively described in the equation above.

In regards to the "rock and string" demo, I dont even know how to refute that because there is no solid conclusion. He goes from swinging a rock on a string to spinning my finger in a loop on a string with the rock hanging to something about centrifugal force (which, by the way, doesn't really exist, but thats another discussion for another day, wiki it in the meantime). No where does he make a point, just another demo, followed by broken logic, followed by a rant. Classic Archer.

He goes on...

Since friction (or a magnet wall) is a force that will always act against the motion of a body to lower its speed, momentum will always decrease in the presence of friction (or a magnetic force). No matter how fast we spin the wheel or how much it weighs, the friction (or wall) will always win and decrease the momentum. All we are doing by playing with the variables is extending the amount of time it takes for the wheel to stop.

Strange my car does not stop when I am driving it? why ? because the above statement relates to a single push any item, of course friction will eventually slow it down, but if any item continuing to receive a fresh push,  will continue to move.

If he had bothered to read my PARAGRAPH RIGHT AFTER THE ONE HE QUOTED, he would have read:

The inevitable truth is wheel will always stop at some point in the presence of friction (or magnetic wall), unless there is another force present to counter the effects of friction.

But I guess he was in need of something to refute. When you dont read everything I say, that would come as an easy one to tackle.

He goes one to MISQUOTE ME BY REARRANGING MY SENTENCES:

Read these written above they are a good laugh

Moving the weights out does not alter the torque,

So the angular momentum increases exponentially as the weights move out. This helps break the wall because it becomes more resistant to the force of the wall.

Moment (or torque/leverage)= m*[(L+y)+x] - m*[(L+y)-x] which simplifies to 2mx.

So moving weights does not alter torque, but the angular momentum helps break the wall, and then he writes movement is torque?? I think I see something else unbalanced

All out of order. Very funny, considering at the top of the page he says "I shall not alter it, I don?t need to." And I dont say "movement is torque," I say "Moment (or torque)."

"Movement"=/="moment"

He goes on...

My favourite is the clever use of equations to impress people. like this.

Moment (or torque/leverage)= m*(L+x) - m*(L-x); which simplifies to = 2mx.

That equation is rubbish or gibberish in any math language you care to name, what is missing? Umm we have weight? And we have length (not really)  and we have distance travelled (also not really). So that means the goat that towed a ten kilo weight had as much torque on his neck as the drag car had in its towball?? Very good.

Really? This math is rubbish? I know a handful of ten year-olds that would tell you otherwise. It simplifies perfectly. But if you want to argue its meaning, then I will tango...

(Oh, one thing I forgot in there is "g," gravitational constant. Im so used to Archurian math at this point, having everything in "kilos" instead of "Newtons")

Okay, we have mass: m. We have length: L, x, and y (doesnt make much sense without the pic, I really wish he posted it to, so Ive included it in mine). Torque is a function of force (weight) times distance. Nowhere does torque include height or distance traveled, which is why it is not included at all. How can he say "not really?" It is either there or it isnt. Length is there, distance traveled is not. If you want to include that, we are now talking about ENERGY, NOT TORQUE!

And there is nothing "clever" about it. Its actually rather simple. And it wasnt meant to "impress," rather substantiate my claims. Do you really think you are impressing people with your complete lack of an utterance or anything closely resembling an equation? Dont think so...

You cannot do a torque equation without time for a start, because you need to have speed as part of the equation.

Yes you can. In fact, you cannot do it with time or speed. In this instance, you are dealing with much, much more than simple torque. Torque is statics. Impulse, momentum, energy, and power are all dynamics.

But you understand there is an equation for torque. Then, Archer, what might this equation be that includes dynamic speed to define static torque?

As I have said MANY, MANY times already, the EXTENSION ARMS do NOTHING for the TORQUE. It will change the momentum, but as stated earlier, the momentum will die out, regardless of how much we have to start.

He then tries to compare the pulling force of a drag car and a goat:

That equation is rubbish or gibberish in any math language you care to name, what is missing? Umm we have weight? And we have length (not really)  and we have distance travelled (also not really). So that means the goat that towed a ten kilo weight had as much torque on his neck as the drag car had in its towball?? Very good.

Seriously, this is bad. Lets use Archurian logic for a moment and assume torque does depend on speed and distance. Now, according to Archer, a drag car going the same speed as goat the same distance as a goat will provide the same pulling force as a goat. Wrong! Lets think of some heavy movers for a second. When was the last time you saw a big rig take off faster than a Corvette? Never. Does this mean the Corvette has more torque than a big rig? No, Id like to see a vett try to pull half the payload of a semi. TORQUE IS INDEPENDENT OF SPEED AND DISTANCE TRAVELED.

I have a demo of my own:

Find a ruler, something to be used as a fulcrum (pivot point), some light weights, a scale, and some weights. Now, set up the ruler as a lever and add equal weights to either end, but construct the system so it is not balanced. Now, place the scale under the "heavy end." Note the reading. Now, move the weights equal distances towards the center or equal distances away from the center. The reading on the scale will be exactly the same as before.

As you can see, moving the weights out equally does not change the torque. Case and point.

Try to prove that wrong with Archurian logic.

The problem I see is you continue to try to explain things on a "touchy-feely" basis. This is how things were described pre-Newtonian analysis. You aren't trying to rewrite the physics books, you are trying to set them back a few centuries. Was it our pre-Newtonian, Archurian analysis that put countless satellites in orbit, put man on the moon, allowed man to fly, and countless other achievements? No, it wasnt. Quit trying to set us back in our quantitative understanding of our physical world with your analysis. You are a tinkerer, keep it at that and leave the numbers to the big boys.


-PurePower


PS I really hope Archer adds a link to his site for this post. If he does, kudos! If he doesnt, well I can imagine why. Id hate to feel as foolish as he does after reading this.

PPS Not once to I resort to name calling or other grade school debate tactics! Cheers Archie!

PPPS To the true engineers reading this post, I understand I did not mention inertial forces or couples in detail. I tried in previous post, but it didnt sit well. Baby steps...

[AB Hammer]

Congratulation purepower for being posted. 

I did a little drawing about the swinging fulcrum so you might see how it works. For some reason people are missing the dynamics.  A swinging fulcrum's dynamics of weight distribution change and are very misleading.  Here is the picture.