Overbalancing wheel

[Low-Q]

Thank you Bill, thank you Vidar...
As for now I don't believe Vidar about gravity machines  , but who knows... maybe I will have to?  However I am open for the truth. I found many strange arguments against harnessing the energy from gravity.
For example: the field of gravity is homogeneous... But if we compare gravity to the wind we can assume that in many cases the forces of wind are homogeneous too, and we still can get energy from it - we just put there a windmill.
Some ppl on this forum say avoiding the friction in gravity wheel is not enough... don't know maybe they're right, but I believe it is enough to make them working.
All the best

Wind and gravity is not the same. Wind is kinetic energy (Which includes a force that has put mass into motion), gravity is only a force. The mass you put into that force will provide a potential energy that is either gained or lost if the mass change altitude. Since every weight in a gravity wheel is going up and down with the same vertical distance, the net output will therfor be zero. See?


The windmill in the drawing is rotating due to the profile of the fins. The mass flow of the wind will provide subpressure on the upper fins right side (the convex side), and pressure on the left side the concave side (due to its curved shape - similar principle as an airplane wing). This will cause the windmill to rotate clockwise. The bottom fin is curved opposite with respect to the wind direction, but also on the opposite side of the hub - providing clockwise rotation too.


Vidar

[Low-Q]

Hi Raphael,
                 Thanks for your 'input' ---------------- most welcome!
Time will tell, as the saying goes!   What you probably DON'T know, is the fact that Vidar, & I, have been privately
comunicating for quite some time now ----- about a year, or so.     Since that time, I've made up my mind, that I will
not have anything more to do with him ------------------- I've tried, believe me I've tried!   If only...,
Keep up your work, and all the best to you!

BILL.

I have tried as hard as I can to help you with your desings. I have tried as hard as I can to understand your drawings, replied with comments and questions. I have had many hours trying to feedback with comments I have had with the designs. The problem is just that you "know" it works, and will not accept my replies. Lately I have stopped commenting designs which is based on weights that is limited within a given change of altitude - so called self powered over balanced gravity wheels. All the designs you have spent hours in thinking out (And I respect you for being stabborn, and never giving up), and handed to me for evaluation, is designs which prevents itself from being selfrunners. If you cannot accept this kind of feedback, that should be your own design problem - problems that shouldn't be me in person.



Vidar

[Rafael Ti]

Wind and gravity is not the same. Wind is kinetic energy (Which includes a force that has put mass into motion), gravity is only a force. The mass you put into that force will provide a potential energy that is either gained or lost if the mass change altitude. Since every weight in a gravity wheel is going up and down with the same vertical distance, the net output will therfor be zero. See?

Ha ha! Vidar ... 'gravity is only a force'... wind also can be assumed as only force unless there is no molecules to move. It doesn't matter for final effect what causes the movement, or in other words what energizes the mass.
Another common mistake I believe the sceptics make is a simple conclusion (as Vidar said) that: "since every weight in a gravity wheel is going up and down on the same vertical distance, the net output therefore will be zero". No, I don't agree... because as this is a multi-leverage system the weights on falling side have more energy (coming from gravity) than weights on rising side. It's obvious for me...

[Low-Q]

Ha ha! Vidar ... 'gravity is only a force'... wind also can be assumed as only force unless there is no molecules to move. It doesn't matter for final effect what causes the movement, or in other words what energizes the mass.
Another common mistake I believe the sceptics make is a simple conclusion (as Vidar said) that: "since every weight in a gravity wheel is going up and down on the same vertical distance, the net output therefore will be zero". No, I don't agree... because as this is a multi-leverage system the weights on falling side have more energy (coming from gravity) than weights on rising side. It's obvious for me...

There would be no wind if the molecules weren't there.
Gravity is not a mass that moves.
The multi leverage system does not change anything. Look at each weight separately, and how they separately moves in a complete cycle. What do you see? Is it now obvious that this weight has more energy on the way down on one side, than the energy it takes on the way up on the other side? Each weight must account for themself.

This is simple physics. If you don't understand it, that is your problem, but also your chance to learn and confirm if you experiment with this kind of physics. I've been there, learned, and moved on.




Vidar

[Rafael Ti]

Vidar, the mass can be energized either by wind or by gravity or by pushing it with a finger. It doesn't matter how... The levering around axis allowes the wheel to move. Actually the windmills also use some kind of leverage... Overbalancing wheels use multi leverage with continuesly changing ratio... and this is why I can't say; "Each weight must account for itself". Each weight is a part of whole system and tied to others, mostly opposite weights.
Vidar, maybe u right, but time will show, as Bill said. I guess some projects failed due to poor particular design or perform. I think we can't expect a great gain of power from gravity wheel comparing to its dimension. And this is why the idea often can not overcome the friction and some design mistakes... 

All the best in your attempts people...