Gravity Powered Generator With Gyroscope 'Sails'

[lumen]

telecom,

The basic idea is to provide a stationary platform (non rotating) near the edge of a larger rotating disk.
From the view of this platform, it would be like sitting still but gravity is rotating around you. While on this platform, you do not need to build a wheel and move the weights to make it rotate, you only need a wheel with a weight on one side and the weight will fall to the rotating gravity causing constant rotation.
Using a gyro makes it easy to understand this concept and you can see there is no load on the wheel generating the gravity(centrifugal force).
There are other ways to create the non rotating platform without using a gyro but appear to work against the disks rotation even when they do not.

A simple connecting rod like used on a steam engine can provide the stationary platform that does not hinder the wheel though it looks like it should. (takes some thought to see why)

Even roberval linkage can provide the stationary platform and is the hardest to grasp, but again, it does not work against the wheel driving it.
This is the last thread I will post this in. (already in 2 others)

This is the most advanced concept because it can transfer the work from the wheels centrifugal force to the stationary world to do work for free.

[lumen]

Here is the final explanation of why disk "A" can drive sprocket "B" but "B" cannot drive "A".

"A" can generate very large centrifugal force in "C" which can turn "B" at the same rate as "A" but without any additional load on "A". If "B" could inversely drive "A" then this surly would not be true since this would indicate that "B" could apply torque to "A".

Why it cannot:
Suppose we rotate "A" to 1000 RPM and the weights on 'C" are fully extended and "B" is rotating with "A" as expected.
Now while rotating, we switch the drive from "A" to "B". At first everything appears to continue, but "B" is not driving "A" it is driving "C". 

"B" starts pulling on "C" and the weight pulls inward slightly and  "A" increases in RPM to match the new shorter path of the retracting weights. Now you cannot let the weight back out or "A" will slow back down. So as normal friction on "A" slows it further, the weight on "C" is further retracted to maintain the RPM. (you surly cannot let off now or "A" will slow even further!)

You continue to keep the torque on "B" to maintain the RPM of "A" but the only way to maintain the RPM is to continue pulling the weights on "C" inward. Eventually, the weights turn fully inward and there is no longer any way to maintain the RPM on "A". Of course this would have been much faster with any load on "A"

So the fact is, you cannot drive "A" with "B" but you can drive "B" with "A" and with increased torque.

[lumen]

webby1

That's why 'C" is never connected to "A" in any way, to avoid the torque on "C" driving "A".
Even torque applied on the edge of disk "A" can make it rotate.

The only torque that "A" ever gets from "C" is bearing resistance and this is occurring at very low rpm since most of the time "C" is simply rotating with "A".

[lumen]

Torque from "C" maybe, but not reactive force.

Use "B" to rotate "C", now try and stop "C" from rotating.

This reactive force is applied to "A", so not the torque of "C" but its resistance to rotation turns the axle for "C" into a fulcrum and "A" is what holds that fulcrum against motion allowing for an output from "C".  This then creates the torque that "A" sees, so not the "torque" of "C" but the resistance TO the torque on "C".

Lets completely stall "C" relative to "A", now use "B" to try and turn "C".

This can be done with a pencil, a string and a ruler.  Tie the string through a hole at one end of the ruler, put the pencil through a hole at the other end of the ruler, hold the pencil and pull on the string.  Which angle must you pull the string at to not move the ruler.  Any angle of the string will move the ruler, this angle will also correspond to any diameter given to "B", so no torque from the string but there is the reactive force from the string which moves the ruler and the ruler responds and transforms that into a torque.

You always want to tie "C" to "A", sure if you bolt "C" to "A", then "B" is simply the center of "A" as a rotational point and is directly tied to disk "A".

This is the common mistake that everyone makes!
That's why I said this is hard to understand. In fact "C" only appears to "A" as a single bearing with a weight on it.
All forces on the connecting chain are connected only to "B", that is also not connected to "A".
The connection from "C" to "B" in roberval and can apply no torque into "A".

Only a force at "C" appearing at some angle to "C" and "B" can be seen in "A". But all weights on "C" are applied only directly to the center of "A" because of the roberval connection to "B".
From visual experience your brain normally connects "C" to "A" and you think you see a problem, but that exact problem cannot exist as I explained earlier. Even if you continued to drive "B" after everything was already rotating which would have been the best condition for driving "A" from "B", disk "A" will still slow to a stop.

[telecom]

Hi Lumen,
where is the the  output, since there are no generators in a new design.
Is it a sprocket B?
With the generators as before, I would make B stationary.In this case the chain would
rotate the stator around the rotor attached to the weight. Under the load the weight
would pull from the radial line until it reaches an equilibrium with the load, IMHO.
But what exactly happens in a new design w/o the generators?
Thank you, this is a very exciting design, btw.