The puzzle has been solved

[unstable]

Silvertiger, in my example surely energy is being spent but the lifting does not happen mechanically (by lever). I was referring to this.

[Georg Künstler]

Ovyyus wrote

Can you describe a physical example?

When a rolling cylinder or ball is going down hill the force on the ground will be different to the force when going up hill.

Condition: the rolling down way is longer than the rolling up way.

The force on the surface is different.

If the way is extreamly short, then the force is dramatic.

[eccentrically1]

The cylinder didn't rise to the top of the ramp without being lifted.

[Silvertiger]

Ovyyus wrote

Can you describe a physical example?

When a rolling cylinder or ball is going down hill the force on the ground will be different to the force when going up hill.

Condition: the rolling down way is longer than the rolling up way.

The force on the surface is different.

If the way is extremely short, then the force is dramatic.

Is this your physical example? If it is, it is completely wrong. What do different accelerations have to do with determining whether a rising weight has been lifted? "Lift" and "raise" mean exactly the same thing, and thus your answer has no meaning lol. A ball rolling downhill will BE lifted by its own momentum...that's what conservation IS. The FORCE of its own weight causes it to roll downhill and gain momentum. Once it begins rolling uphill, the FORCE of its own weight causes it to slow down and stop at max PE. Ergo, the same force that caused it to fall is the same force that caused it o rise...to be lifted.

So back up now and freeze...once again now...the forces are exactly the same! F=mg(cosθ)!!! Only the individual vector components are different, for which you are trying to claim that "six one way" and "half a dozen the other" are different. They are the same. All you need to look at is the net Force that acts. In ALL isolated systems, that net force is always, and will forever be ZERO.

[ovyyus]

This analysis of lifting weights should be continued in ME's topic http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=6448

[ovyyus]

...

[unstable]

Bill, if I understand correctly, I think your question is intended to raise the doubt (not the weight :-)) of what Bessler said about the magic lifter 4:1 mechanism. With gravity alone I do not think it's possible to get what he wrote. He used another form of energy in addition to gravity.

[ovyyus]

Can doubt rise without being lifted? :7)

Bessler never said he had a magic lifter 4:1 mechanism.

[unstable]

"One lift four", or something like.

[Silvertiger]

A great craftsman would be that man who can 'lightly' cause a heavy weight to fly upwards! Who can make a pound-weight rise as 4 ounces fall, or 4 pounds rise as 16 ounces fall. If he can sort that out, the motion will perpetuate itself. But if he can't, then his hard work shall be all in vain.

Even Wagner, wherever he is now, will have heard that one pound can cause the raising of more than one pound.

He wrote that a pound can CAUSE the raising of more than one pound. He did not say that this was achieved through leverage. I find that interesting.

[Georg Künstler]

Hi Silvertiger,

you didn't get what I like to say.

The pressure on the surface is different. You expressed it with
F=mg(cosθ)!

So also in your formular the F is variating because the your cosθ is different.

I havn't said anything about energy, this will be constant.

So the F up is not equal to F down if the lenght of the ramps are different.

[unstable]

Silvertiger, thank you for writing exactly the words of Bessler ... and yes, it's interesting.

[Silvertiger]

Hi Silvertiger,

you didn't get what I like to say.

The pressure on the surface is different. You expressed it with
F=mg(cosθ)!

So also in your formular the F is variating because the your cosθ is different.

I havn't said anything about energy, this will be constant.

So the F up is not equal to F down if the length of the ramps are different.

Georg, I am not the one who doesn't get it. There are two possibilities:

1. You don't know physics, but you THINK you do.
2. You know a little physics, but pretend you know more.

Georg...F=mg(cosθ) is not pressure. F=(mg)/A is pressure. Do you know what a vector component is? Do you understand why your answer does not matter? It DOES NOT matter whether the angle is different. When you add the vectors TOGETHER, you get simply F=ma, and it will be the same for both ramps. Your answer...is meaningless.

You don't seem to know what energy is either...do you know what you mean to say by saying that the energy is constant? I did not directly mention energy either, btw. I mentioned conservation of momentum, which is a form of energy, stemming from kinetic energy, which is 0.5mv^2. The energy we like to work with in Newtonian mechanics is potential and kinetic. These energies are NOT constant by the way.

[Art]

Quote :-

" 1. You don't know physics, but you THINK you do.
2. You know a little physics, but pretend you know more."

-----

There is another option ,-

3. You are the idiot who needs a basic lesson in manners ! : )

[Silvertiger]

Agreed. :) Most likely because intonation cannot be accurately expressed in written form lol. ;P But in all truth, how many years between everyone here, including myself, have been wasted for lack of knowledge or understanding or both? How many more years will people spend in the dark pretending they can see? My own knowledge of physics is limited to precalculus and trig level. But I know and am able to practice what I know within those bounds. If I attempted to operate outside of those bounds it would be foolish of me, as I would get myself into trouble trying to talk about things which I would know very little about. Don't get me wrong...talking and discussing them is fine. Claiming as axiomatic fact is entirely something else. We should all try to avoid that. There are two culprits for it nonetheless. One is ego and the other is fantasizing. Although the second one seems innocent, it is just as big a time-waster as ego. Myself, I would rather be told what I'm doing wrong rather than be placated; that way I will learn how to do it right. In my career, the former can be deadly. For example, would you play around with a live circuit at 10,000 volts drawing 30 amps without knowing how it works? Even knowing something may not be enough. Someone once told me that "knowledge is not power; application is power." But knowledge must precede application. So if the application is performed without the correct knowledge...then all of our "hard work is in vain." :)