Posted by Darren (65.35.124.63) on May 19, 2003 at 21:04:44:
In Reply to: Re: Darren, sorry one last one posted by Joel L. Lewis on May 19, 2003 at 15:26:37:
: Picture a lever, and on each end a smaller lever, with(for the sake of making it easier to picture)equal weights on each end of the smaller lever. Now, the thing is, no matter what position the smaller levers may be locked in at their pivots, the ballance of the large lever is unaffected, or so I understand. Now, imagine both end levers locked at their pivots in line with the larger lever, and rotate the lever to vertical. Now, what'll happen if the two end-levers are released at their pivots(by, say, "removing pins?" *wink wink*) so they can rotate freely. Yup, that's right-they'll turn to right themselves, and actually end swinging back and forth several times if the axle is well-oiled before settling at level. Now, doesn't that count for 'free energy' to be tapped without moving any weights, that could take a 'wheel' 'over the hump'?
Remove the larger lever and replace it with a solid bar, attach the two smaller levers to the ends of the solid bar, the same thing will happen.
When the lever in the middle is connected in such a way as to be unaffected by the position of the smaller levers then the larger lever is redundant and can be replaced with an immovable connection point.
Now... calculate the torque and energy required to turn the main wheel and raise those two smaller levers up the ascending side of the wheel. It will take exactly the amount of energy to get them there as you get out when you release them and let them right themselves.
Levers are not the answer... you can't raise more than you drop. Look elsewhere :-)
Darren