Overbalancing wheel

[Low-Q]

This is enough Bill!!! I am tired of being assulted every time I try to both understand your drawings or try to explain. I really meant all about more drawings. Not meant to assult anyone. You are just a little touchy everg time some one are questioning your ideas. What is the point with sharing ideas if you are not open to others opinions or point of views?   

[SPANG]

I'M sorry too Vidar.   You constantly avoid my questions, to the point of my having to accept your words as
Gospel ------------------ they're NOT!  It is my concidered opinion, that you think you're right, every time I
ask a question!   If I ask why you are of that opinion, in an attempt to understand your reasoning, and to
try to better the design etc.., you get upset.   What the rest on this forum DON'T know, is the fact that I've been in contact with you, for the best part of this year privately ------------- NO CHANGE!
Sorry pal, goodbye!

[Low-Q]

http://www.overunity.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=10709.0;attach=54988;image

If this is the design we are discussing, I can tell it wont work. The chain is taut on both sides of the wheel. A tension will force the upper wheel to rotate counter clockwise with the inner wheel, and clockwise with the outer wheel. The torque is greatest at the outer wheel so the sum is clockwise rotation*.

The very same tension must be applied to the bottom wheel, but the direction of tension points upwards, and force the bottom inner wheel to rotate clockwise, and the bottom outer wheel to rotate counter clockwise. The outer bottom wheel have greater torque, so the sum is a counter clockwise rotation**.

*, **: The sum of both wheels is clockwise + counter clockwise rotation, which means a stand still, LOCKED - no rotation at all.

What rig you got around the bottom wheel does not change anything, because you must use wheels on that one as well to allow any of the other wheels to rotate also.

The sum is no rotation, No free energy.

I am sorry I cannot help you out on this one.

Regarding our personal communication, it has NOTHING whatsoever to what I explain, misunderstand, requirements of more pictures, descriptions etc. I am not avoiding your questions - maybe taking some short turns, not completely avoiding. I do this sometime becaus it is so damn obvious that the design cannot work. What is it to explain anyways?
I try as hard as I can to understand. If you aren't satisfied with the sum of my attempts to explain, not agreed to your point of view of your designs, so be it. That is your problem, and not a problem you can just hand over to me.

The complexity of some of your designs might give me a headache some times, and pictures which is not always easy to "read". But I try as hard as possible.

Btw, you're always welcome to send me pictures for resizeing. No problem at all. Let's kick the ball, and not eachother. OK?

Vidar

[SPANG]

Vidar,
         Despite our ongoing arguement about THIS design, I don't mean to upset you at all, but do you know
it's about three (3) different reasons you've given for this design NOT to work?   Be fair now, which one is it?
That was a lovely long 'post' you put together for your last reply, and STILL avoided answering my questions!
How on Earth do you expect anyone to take what you say seriously? How are they, (or anyone) to know what you realy mean?
In another 'post', you praised me for my ability to draw, and make myself perfectly understood ----------------
you've now gone against it --------- WHY?
You've even praised me for my ability to think 'outside the box'---------- have you changed your mind on that
also?
I agree with your last sentence ----------------- 'let's kick a ball about, not each other'!!
I don't mind being wrong -------- but I'd like to know why!

[onthecuttingedge2005]

Hi Spang.

you are wasting your time in this field. use your time else where. I don't want you to waste your time period.

keep up the good work.
jerry