Roll on the 20th June

[exxcomm0n]

Aha!

Smoky got the 1st mistake I made.

The LL "platform" is labeled as "3M" but is actually only 2 in the pic.

I am not a professional draftsman, and I'm not familiar with the tool that allows you to measure angled lines while drawing.

The LL is proportionate (I checked) but the RL is long visually for it's actual length.

Isn't there anyone here with CAD experience that would like to take the time?

@ smoky

Keep looking man, there may be more.
This is what peer review is about.

[sm0ky2]

@Exx.

if you can get a verticle siphon operating where the water ends up higher than it started.
like dude said a min ago, you dont even need the damn lever.....

[Rusty_Springs]

Hi Sm0ky2
You are right about the fuel used for breaking and I did work that one out, my question was does it take more fuel to go up or to desend.
I didn't once say take off or land but thats sumantics my point was it takes more energy to push up against gravity then to come down with gravity and thats true even with lift.
I was pointing out this is why on a lever one side needs to be heavier then the other so it can lift its opposite side thats moving up against gravity.
I wasn't showing that with the plane menafor so if you noticed I went to the cars going up hill.
Take Care Sm0ky2
Graham

PS sorry Dirt thanks for that mate now that makes sence to me in regards planes and sm0ky2 your right if water can get higher why have a lever at all.

[exxcomm0n]

@Exx.

if you can get a verticle siphon operating where the water ends up higher than it started.
like dude said a min ago, you dont even need the damn lever.....

Dude, which dude? Where?
(Even though I like to use the term because it sets the stage very nicely for someone to underestimate you, it's still a tricky pronoun. Think of how you've heard the use of "dude", "the dude", and "a dude" and now you know why stoners sound....well.......stoned.)

Think of siphoning gas (Ever a pleasant past-time, eh? I'll assume some occasion in life has made this action necessary for you at 1 time.).

As nasty as that can be if you get gas in your mouth, it's the same principle.

You suck on the hose and as the gas gets near the top of the tube you you remove your mouth from the end of the hose and quickly clamp the hose with your thumb to "trap" the suction.

The double tank arrangement is the exactly the same up to this point.

The valve is your thumb.

But there are other ways.....just a sec.

[From a different place, and sure to offend a few delicate dispositions. Just goes to show you not everyone has the witherall to be playing with gold in the tub.]



I just "discovered" that I can replace the tanks in my hydro-electric fulcrum a different way than Archers.

Anyone heard of a "P" trap?

So, I'm standing there taking a whiz into a already used bowl because I don't dare flush. The toilet is in the basement, and where does the "waste" go?
To a pit below the level of the water I'm standing in, and even though it has a loose lid so that any water on top of it is at a positive pressure, it's just not a good thought.

I try not to think about it much, or else I wouldn't really want to set foot in the basement again (I'm almost there now!).

But anyway..........doin' my biz and not really thinking, just waiting for biz do be done, and I start wondering at the great marvel that is standing between the toilet bowl and the pit.

The "P" trap.

A device that allows the toilet bowl full of water not to run to it's lowest point because the the bowl and the 1st 1/2 of the "P" trap have the same level.
They're pretty much the same as the bowl without a spout with a twisty length off the bottom.

So, instead of the siphon feeding the tank, the siphon IS the tank!!

Now, on the left hand reset side (Don't MAKE me start using abbreviations again!) my design used siphon mechanics and Archers used lever mechanics.

Mine requires a "pre-seeding" of energy and then recycles it. A LOT of energy pre-seeding.

If I modified the design to make it a large "P" trap instead by running a pipe from pool to spout level, then adding the angles (180) necessary to run it back down to almost water level, then 180 again up to feed the spout, I might be able to use a piston arrangement.


EDIT: In this scenario suction is still present. But the valve is used to keep water in the pipe that is under constant suction from being sucked back into the pipe. The tank idea is using the valve to keep the water in the tanks against the tendency for the weight to want to fall out of the spout.
The major difference between the 2 is which way the back flow preventer is attached, trying to keep water from falling due to weight (tank), or trying to keep water from being sucked back to the "P" trap arrangement.


I still have to pre-seed, but not nearly as much.

Like pumping up a flat tire with a foot pump.

A PITA (pain in the a.s.s.), but worth it as the tire (hopefully) will hold pressure for a long time.

Just an allegory of how this exercise is teaching me to think/learn again.
===================================================


Gee, wasn't that fun?

Anyway, your right. If I can have all that self-replenishing potential energy, why have the wheel ummmmm lever?

'Cause for the water to replace the lever the output spout has to be SMALLER than the "sip/draw" tube and for real output you have to have MASSIVE tanks.

Dude ( ). how many people have their own water tower?
Pretty much the same thing going on with the tanks.

It's possible, and if you wanna go that way it's cool, but I'm not sure that it'll net you more energy (I think way less actually), and the "pre-seeding" costs a LOT of energy....and remember gas tight plumbing is a bitch.


Now that I have wrested the thread back to the lever again (MUahahahahahaahahaha!), can anyone tell me the answer to the question I posed a little earlier in the thread?

"WHY IS EVERYONE RUNNING INTO THE WALL INSTEAD OF CAUSING IT TO RISE BELOW THEIR FEET?"

It's an idea, not a concrete principle, but I think it could be done without too much cost to momentum.

Dude?




EDIT:
P.S. K...you don't "need" the lever, but it's power potential is way greater than the siphon.
Why not harvest energy from both?

EDIT2:
Hmmmmmmm....if I build a toy out of the siphon (JUST the siphon at this point), and I can prove that OVER TIME it puts out more energy than it took to "make" it, can I get the $5K to build levers and wheels?
Muuuuaaaaaaaahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahahaa! >

[AB Hammer]

Greetings All

broli brought this up on another string and I thought you guys would want to look at it.

http://www.fdp.nu/dualpistondevice/default.asp