Posted by Joel L. Lewis (24.197.38.131) on May 27, 2003 at 15:05:18:
In Reply to: Re: Yet ANOTHER idea(I THINK this is a good one, though!:-D :-)) posted by Scott Ellis on May 27, 2003 at 14:32:58:
Okay, I apolagize-maybe I AM wrong, if it's just a lever with weights directly attached. I haven't tested that one, and I don't want to end up a crank! But I DO know, and have physically tested, re-tested, and checked for possible mistakes, that if the weights are hanging from either side, there's no question-they rest at vertical. If I'm somehow mistaken on that one, then I really do have no idea why a ballance works. But for my idea, I think it's still just 'design' issue, and the basic idea, that here 'equal weights move apart, equal weights come together', remains viable and practical. Unless I'm wrong again...
: Hi Joel,
: Just wanted to say thanks for your posts and that I appreciate your continually optimistic attitude. But, I don't appreciate you taking an aggressive tone when trying to defend a patently false supposition.
: I would like to ask you to do me a favor:
: 1. go to the hardware store
: 2. buy enough simple hardware and supplies to put together a "balance beam" or lever like the one you have described (<$5)
: 3. tell us what happens
: You will see that a balance beam with equal weights positioned equidistant from the fulcrum will balance and remain motionless at any angle.
: If you won't take my word for it,( or anyone else's on this list for that matter), please try it out for yourself before vehemently arguing your case.
: Respectfully yours,
: Scott
: : Actually, I've got about three now, among them one that I suspect is just a re-hash of what John collins is attempting(:-D), but this is the one that I feel most confident with;oddly enough, though, it's also the least 'efficient' and least likely to be the one Bessler employed. Odd. Anyways, here goes; tell me what you think:
: : Example 1: Imagine a lever at an angle, with two equal weights equidistant from the center. Left on it's own, what's going to happen? The lever is going to seek a position of rest, which here is both weight's level with the axle, right? In fact, if you drew a line through it, another way of looking at it would be to say that gravity drew the two weights, from equal distances above and below the axle, together to that level even with the axle, right?
: : Okay, second thought experiment: same lever, same angle, same weights, same distances from the axle. This time, though, there's one difference;the weight at the top is tied to it's end, and hangs down far enough that it is level with the other weight. What happens if the lever is left free to turn this time? While the places where the forces of the weights are APPLIED to the lever, I.E. the one attached weight and the place where the other weight is tied to the lever, will do the same thing as in the previous example, if you draw a single, horrizontal line through the center of both of the weights THEMSELVES, you can see that something very different happens to them-the weight actually on the lever moves up, the weight tied to the other end of the lever moves down, the same distance of course, and they will come to rest one above and the other equally below the position they began at. In other words, you could say that here gravity drew the weights equal distances up and down AWAY from their common level, which is THE VERY OPPOSITE OF WHAT HAPPENED TO THE WEIGHTS IN EXAMPLE 1. Now, it's just possible that I am missing some subtle, vital point here that would swamp the whole idea, but it seems to me that we have here the two halves of a 'closed loop', AND have some energy left over to boot.
: : Well, whaddya think?