Overbalancing wheel

[Low-Q]

   You might be a skeptic Vidar, but you are curious  :-)
I did get banned from one forum for saying math supported
perpetual motion. There is a different outline I developed.
It's basic algebra. There was also Hans von Lieven who mentioned that from 45 to 135 degrees after top center was the prime area for an overr balanced weight to develop force.
This is because the weights minimum force would be 70.7% of it's weight.
What I like about all of this is it has helped me with my pursuit of Bessler. Engineering guidelines always help.

                                                                      Jim

The problem is that the weights minimum force applies at 225^o and 315^o as well. The weights must go back the very same hight to the top in order to repeat the cycle, right? And what have you then gained? If this is not the case, how have you implemented time in the equation?

The basics here is allways the altitude of the weights. Discussing torque or forces isolated from the other factors does not show the whole picture. Force, torque, mass, weight and not least, TIME. Who is considering TIME when constructing gravity wheels? If a torque of 1Nm is applied on one side of the wheel, and 0.5Nm at the other side, doesn't mean that the wheel will run. Time will make sure that the energy on both sides equalize.

Gravity applies vertically to any object in its field. So vertical (altitude) factors are the only interesting to discuss. How a weight tumbles around in a impressive fasion, isn't interesting. It is all about the vertical axis.

So, what we now need is an alternating gravity field.

Vidar

[Dr]

Low- Q: you were supposed to use your superior math skills to solve the problem, I have already done the experiment! You should have been a politician!!

[SPANG]

Whilst a lot of you are arguing the 'toss' about whether gravity wheels could work or not---------------------- the answer to MY gravity wheel, would be by studying the drawing/notes, that way you could make
your own minds' up.
My thanks to Vidar, for vouching for my integrity!  (We've been 'in touch', many times before.)
As far as Stephan Harti is concerened ----- 'one day, old son, one day'.  Right now, it's just an idea!

SPANG.     (BILL.)

[Low-Q]

   Hi Vidar,
I agree with you completely.
>>  So, what we now need is an alternating gravity field.  <<

I like the way you ph(r)ased that  :-)
  Since a wheel does rotate, at some point torque would need to be considered.

                                                                    Jim

Torque must be considered. I agreed. But torque isn't more than a tagential force on a lever. Gravity will take care of the torque if we by hand spend energy to position the weight in advance.

Torque alone is not energy. You can have trillions of Nm, but that does not help if the torque isn't making anything to move.

God bless the one who makes the gravity-alternator

Vidar

[Low-Q]

Low- Q: you were supposed to use your superior math skills to solve the problem, I have already done the experiment! You should have been a politician!!

I couldn't care less about politics As far as my suprior math skills conserns, I have no higher education than most of you guys. Frankly, I am pretty average (I think).
Maybe you could show me the experiment of yours?

Vidar