Overbalancing wheel

[Low-Q]

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...

Energy can be transfered from wind to running a windmill. That also mean that the wind will loose kinetic energy as it power the wind mill, by transfering some of its kinetic energy into a wind mills rotation. Some of the wind will heat up due to losses like turbulence and surface friction, and the rest is a mechanical transfer of kinetic energy. An overbalanced gravity wheel can therfor only work if you apply similar energy (It can be waterfall, sand (like the kids toys)) on one side of the wheel. The mass you apply on that one side must also escape from the wheel before it completes the cycle.


Regarding the weights in a complex wheel, each weight have enough potential energy to bearly complete one cycle of its own. If you add more weights, the total mass increase accordingly, accounting for the number of weights you add. So the wheel will not work better with several weights than only one.


Let friction be out of the equation. Friction is loss in any type og engine, and is easily overpowered by the engines kinetic energy (That could be burning gasoline to power the pistons). A gravity wheel have no potential energy that can be converted into kinetic energy - in order to overpower friction for example. Even if friction weren't there, the wheel will stop as soon as you try to get some energy out of it. Transfering energy into useful work, or into loss/friction doesn't matter. The wheel will "see" the energy transfer as something it has to give away in any case.


I am afraid you overlook the free energy that is already present in wind. Why struggeling for something "most probably" useless when you can harvest the energy that is already there - right in front of you.


I really hope that I will be wrong some day about perpetual motion (eventhough I don't see the point when we have energy already), but the gravity approach is most likely a dead end road.


Vidar

[johnny874]

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

  Hi Vidar,
One thing I am not against is someone being skeptical. I think it helps to keep people like myself
grounded. Family also makes a nice base. It is more important than this.
And I agree with you Vidar, this is a chance for people to test their idea's against accepted principles in science and engineering. The laws of physics can not be broken. The only thing left is to show a different interpretation and application.
With what I will be pursuing (building), it will be to show one way perpetual motion is possible (if everything works out).

                                                                                                                 Jim

[Rafael Ti]

O.K. I think it is all about what we think the gravity is. It is very easy to say that gravity is 'only a force' affecting everything around and giving all the bodies a mass. But this is kind of magic isn't it?  We can't see these forces,  but we see the effects. Years ago people couldn't imagine a particle smaller than electron, but today we know about neutrinos. Years ago respectable scientists believed in aether. They thought it is a kind of fluid in the space and everywhere. But one experiment proved that there is no such an aether around and all respectable scientists started to believe Einstein that light can propagate in the vacuum... But now we know(?) that neutrinos are faster than photons and that they are everywhere.
Perhaps the gravity is an effect of omnidirectional wind of neutrinos being everywhere and moving in all possible directions? And carrying the energy by the way? Neutrinos are thousands times smaller than atoms and can easily move through any mass, even planet, but doing this they leave an amount of energy in these masses. And this is called a gravity. So gravity is for us actually kind of pressure rather than pulling down...
Phenomena like Casimir effect, or fact that the gravity is stronger on the top of mountains, than on oceans level (see NASA photos) can even prove this theory.
This is what I believe the gravity is, and as long as neutrinos carry any kind of energy we can harness it, and this is why I like to compare it to the wind...

[Low-Q]

but we see the effects

Precicely. We see the effects. That should be sufficient, shouldn't it? Understanding gravity is no point if it cannot change how it behave, or make that d.... wheel turn by itself. That would be like describing the water in detail in front of a drowning person. That would not change the outcome.


So, since we do see the effects of gravity, and we know the behaviour of gravity (In spite of not knowing what gravity REALLY is), why do we make gravity wheels and believe they are overbalancing??


Vidar

[SPANG]

According to some people, potential energy, prevents there ever being a perpetual motion machine.
If that is so, then why does overbalancing work?       And, it does!

BILL.