Overbalancing wheel

[SPANG]

Yu've come to the wrong conclusion as well.
I think you should read my last 'post' again. It is ALREADY overbalancing --------- I'm NOT causing it to overbalance. Do yourself a favour ------------ look at the drawing FIRST, THEN come to a conclusion!
Do NOT come to a conclusion, before you've seen the 'evidence'.

SPANG.         (BILL.)

[onthecuttingedge2010]

Yu've come to the wrong conclusion as well.
I think you should read my last 'post' again. It is ALREADY overbalancing --------- I'm NOT causing it to overbalance. Do yourself a favour ------------ look at the drawing FIRST, THEN come to a conclusion!
Do NOT come to a conclusion, before you've seen the 'evidence'.

SPANG.         (BILL.)

in 'history', you would be responsible for giving the force energy. all forces contain energy applied from history alone. nothing more. stored energy. a sort of memory of energy itself. unless you put more input than what is used you will be left with a system with no usable information after it is used.

It is all about 'usable' information period. it is 'all' and everything is information, it just depends on your filter of that information.

how does it feel to be no more than a sophisticated algorithm.

jerry

[SPANG]

I won't like YOU on the jury of a case I was involved in ------------- I'd be found guilty, before the
evidence was shown TO the jury!

SPANG.     (BILL.)

[Low-Q]

I'm affraid you have misunderstood my design completely, Vidar!
My design does NOT work on the principle that an extra weight causes the overbalancing in the first place.
The device ALREADY overbalances ------------------- I use the'movement' of the weights ------------ TO KEEP IT OVERBALANCED.  Also note please, that TWO weights are moved at the same time ----------- one
at the top, and one at the bottom! Perhaps you think the weight at the top is heavier than the weight at
the bottom ---------------- WRONG ------------- they both weigh the same!  In fact, ALL the weights,
'weigh' the same!  Sorry!

SPANG.       (BILL.)

There is more to such a desigh than just the overbalance. There is time and torque also - the very essential factors which determine over unity or not.
I've seen your drawings. As a static device - as one solid unit -, it overbalance.

To easier understand the principle, take away ALL weights except for one. Let it drop on the supposed overbalanced side, and try to gain enough kinetic energy at the bottom to lift it all the way up via the other side plus extra energy to accelerate (Let's assume there is no friction whatsoever). Now it suddenly is quite clear that your design will not work.

Each weight represent a single independent element. If one weight cannot do the work, neither the rest of the weights can. All that matters in the field of gravity is the vertical movement of each weight. If it is limited to travel 1m up and down all the time, the outcome would be quite easy to predict.

What you, and other designers tries, is to let the weights fall 1m, and rise less than one meter, then fall 1m, and again rise less than 1m. This can easily be done by rolling a wheel down a hill. But eventually, the hill will flatten out to horizontal, and the wheel will eventually stop. The last part is the truth about any gravity wheels - it does not change potential energy as it spins, and therfor it will not work.

Vidar

[SPANG]

Unfortunately Vidar,
                           You have again missed out the fact, that TWO weights are moved AT THE SAME TIME,
one from the top, and one from the bottom --------- how is that moving one weight 1m, over and over
again, in order to gain an overbalancing force (?)  --------- of a device THAT ALREADY OVERBALANCES?
You yourself, have admitted, that my device already overbalances!
You need to seriously re-evaluate your reasoning.
Sorry Pal!

SPANG.         (BILL.)