simple overbalanced wheel with flywheel

[Rafael Ti]

"You can transport a 1 N weight from the ground to the moon and back to a table 1 meter higher than the ground. The weight has gained only 1 Joule of potential energy."

And this is explanation given always by skeptics. The statement is true of course, however applicable only to one separate mass. So they want you to see weights as if they work separately. But they don't.
The multi-leverage system makes weights work together as one mass with its center offset from the axis/fulcrum.
There are some ways to achieve it and some people succeed.. Sjack Abeling among them I believe.

@Dusty, if you have any pictures of your not working wheels would you like to post?

P.S.
By the way interesting what's going on with Sjack Abeling...

[MileHigh]

however applicable only to one separate mass. So they want you to see weights as if they work separately. But they don't.
The multi-leverage system makes weights work together as one mass with its center offset from the axis/fulcrum.

You are dead wrong.  As I already explained, if you have one rolling ball or four rolling balls or 10 rolling balls, it doesn't make any difference.  One rolling ball should give you one-quarter the "hypothetical gain" of four rolling balls.  i.e.; you don't need multiple rolling balls.  All of the balls follow exactly the same path and will do the same thing from an energy perspective.

You are just imagining that multiple balls will "work together as one mass with its center offset from the axis."  The fantasy is that the center of mass of the multiple balls will be permanently offset from the axis and therefore permanently create torque that keeps the wheel turning.  Well, before you even build a wheel you could make some drawings that show multiple balls cycling through the system as the wheel turns.  For each drawing you could easily calculate the center of mass of the set of balls and see if you are on the right track about the alleged "permanent offset of the center of mass of the multiple balls causing permanent torque."

If you do your drawings well and make a serious effort to study this, there is no chance at all that you will find the alleged permanent offset and permanent resultant torque.  This is just a 16th century notion that just won't go away.  If it actually was true then the entire world electrical grid would be powered by giant Bessler wheels and there would be no energy supply problems.

[Dusty]

I have a few old pictures.  I have 27 videos of progress reports and tests of the old gravity wheel.


The old timers on this forum will remember all the work that went into research.


I'm trying to attach three pictures to this post, lets see if this works.

[Low-Q]

"You can transport a 1 N weight from the ground to the moon and back to a table 1 meter higher than the ground. The weight has gained only 1 Joule of potential energy."

And this is explanation given always by skeptics. The statement is true of course, however applicable only to one separate mass. So they want you to see weights as if they work separately. But they don't.
The multi-leverage system makes weights work together as one mass with its center offset from the axis/fulcrum.
There are some ways to achieve it and some people succeed.. Sjack Abeling among them I believe.

@Dusty, if you have any pictures of your not working wheels would you like to post?

P.S.
By the way interesting what's going on with Sjack Abeling...

No, they unfortunatly don't. Each weight carries a separate given potential energy depending on where they are. That potential energy must account for THAT particular weight. The weight will therfor never have excess potential energy to lift or doing work on other weights in the same system.
The weights will never, by the design, be able to overbalance unless all weights are fixed on the different locations and never be able to roll or change their distance from the hub. In that case the wheel will turn 90 degrees and stop there with the weight furthermost from the hub resting at the bottom.

In classical "overbalanced" designs the weights are allowed to move around. Guess why; Because the system will be forced to conserve energy.

So, what appears to be an overbalance is only true for a static view - looking at the static torque when the weights still are fixed to one position on the wheel. As soon as the wheel "starts moving" the force that each weight represent will turn into kinetic energy which automaticly will be equal on both sides of the wheel.

Look at the mid pic in the post above. Look at the ramp that pushes the weight closer to the hub. Further there is a ramp which moves the weight up to the circumference. Notice the angle of attack that the wheel must fight against. That will apply an additional countertorque. Then use cosin or sin to calculate the energy required to lift the weight closer to the hub during that partial revolution of the wheel. The result is the very same as the energy released from the weights that is furthermost from the hub which want to go down.

If you separate torque from energy, and you will understand why closed looped gravity wheels cannot produce excess energy. And if you separate sceptics from realists, you wll understand even more ;-))


Vidar

[Rafael Ti]

Hi Dusty
Nice work indeed... my first impression is that the curved arms do well in a bottom half of wheel, but have horrible characteristic in upper half /in conjunction with ramp/... unless Mr Sjack Abeling has invented something special to improve it.