Gravity Wheel Idea

[Super God]

I'm not good with pictures, but I had an idea just now.  I don't know why it wouldn't work so I'm hoping one of you can tell me.  Ok, start with two weights of, lets say, ten pounds.  They are each 12 inches from a center axis, like a wheel.  Now, make it so each weight can slide towards the axis a few inches.  Now on the right side, force the weight outwards, maybe using a spring or preferably something less resistive, maybe some sort of latch.  Then, on the left side of the 'wheel' put a track or something to guide the weight inwards towards the axis a bit, something that will be as frictionless as possible.  Then, viola, in my mind it seems like it would work, unless it balances somewhere.  My only concern is the energy required to move the weight inwards would stop the already low torque of the wheel from moving.  Do you think this idea is worth pursuing sometime or has it already been done?

[PulsedPower]

Here we go again, this is the 2nd gravity wheel I have posted on in a day, actually the one you describe is very similar to one I analysed about 20 years ago, that particular idea used an eccentric to move the weight closer to the shaft on the up motion. First off gravity doesn't care less about motion orthogonal (horizontal) to it's axis of action so the side to side motion of the weight can be neglected in this analysis, the weight always starts at the same place as it finishes which in a system with constant force regardless of position means no net work is done. For example take a 2kg weight with a 1m fall top to bottom, going up the weight rises 1m needing a work of 2kg x 9.81N/ms x -1m = -19.62 J to raise the weight the weight falling back to the bottom which is also 1m (it is impossible for it to be anything else) gives work of 2kg x 9.81N/ms x 1m = 19.62 J exactly the same as that required to raise the weight.

Just to be clear on why the distance the weight rises is exactly the same as the distance the weight falls if it were otherwise the weight would start rising or falling with each rotation of the wheel and leave the wheel perimter. Still not convinced, draw a 1ft circle and mark the top and bottom Draw a line though those points representing the vertical motion on a real wheel. Lets say the weight rises 11" but falls 12" in this situation assuming it were mechanically possible the wheel will spin. Now measure 11" from the bottom of the wheel along the vertical line you drew and mark that point then measure 12" down from that point and mark that point, it will be 1" outside the wheel. imagine that for every rotation of the wheel the weight would end up 1" further below the wheel. This can be made to work in practice, wind a cable around the outside of a wheel with the weight attached, as long as there is cable left and space for the weight to fall the wheel will spin and be capable for producing work the only problem is that there is no way of getting the weight back to the top without putting in a similar amount of work

With gravity it is only motion in the vertical plane which can produce work

[mapsrg]

Linear movement along tracks is too slow and has too much friction...tried it

[Onevoice]

There is another way. What if your weight was not solid. Lets say it is a liquid in a small tube that can slosh back and forth. You could try radiating out from the center of the wheel or other angles too. Yes, this has been tied before too, but how now about if it is not water but say a ferrofliud instead. You could use fixed magnets on your stator that will change the position of the fluid as the wheel spins. you can get the input power from the falling fluid on one side, mitigate the negative energy of the rising fluid on the other and do it all without any loss due to friction. The only problem will be using the fluid and magnets in such a way that you can minimize the magnetic attraction\repulsion on the fluid. Search around for water wheel contraptions.

[Gearhead]

I Then, viola, in my mind it seems like it would work, unless it balances somewhere.  My only concern is the energy required to move the weight inwards would stop the already low torque of the wheel from moving.  Do you think this idea is worth pursuing sometime or has it already been done?

For hundreds of years people have been trying this.  Intuitively it seems that there is more torque with the weight farther from the center on one side than the other.  It is not what is happening at the sides that is so much more important than what is happening at the top and bottom of this arrangement.   The weight must be lifted.  This cancels any increase of torque at the sides.
Another way to look at it is that if the weight drops 1 foot it must also be lifted 1 foot to complete the cycle.  This means zero increase in energy.
Another way to look at it is that if a number of weights are doing this around the wheel there will be more weights ascending than descending.  Do a drawing with eight or ten spokes and count the weights on each side of the center.
In order for a gravity wheel to work there must be another principle than overbalance to be successful.