Roll on the 20th June

[maw2432]

First, I really admire the work that is being done here.

But I am have a bit of difficulty understanding where the torque will come from.

I did this experiment. 
I created a lever by using a 6 foot board and placing the fulcrum in the center and balance a 1 gallon can (11 lbs) of paint on each end.
Under one end I placed a scale to measure the weight (force of gravity) when one end becomes unbalanced.   I then added a 3 pound can to that side checked the scale.   The scales showed 3 pounds ..... not 14 (3 plus 11).  This seems logical to me since the weight of one can of paint is balancing out the weight of the other.  Thus only the 3 pounds would show on the scales.  Weight is the measurement of the force of gravity of an object (on earth).

My understanding is a wheel is like a lever.  Thus if you unbalance a wheel -  only the weight that is applied to make it unbalanced would be measurable output.  The analogy of the water turbine/generator at a local waterfall and getting enough torque by adding 900Kg to each side and simply using only 100Kg to get a total of one ton of torque does not compute in my little brain.   So maybe I am missing something... back to the garage for more experiments. 

My next experiement is to get out my old torque wrench.   Maybe I can placed it in a vice and clamped it down.   How best to attach it to a wheel and add weights is leaving me thinking ... More later if I can get this figured out.


Bill 

[capthook]

Thus if you unbalance a wheel -  only the weight that is applied to make it unbalanced would be measurable output. The analogy of the water turbine/generator at a local waterfall and getting enough torque by adding 900Kg to each side and simply using only 100Kg to get a total of one ton of torque does not compute   Bill 

One of the most coherent posts in this thread.  You are correct - a balanced 1,000 kg wheel that is put out of balance with a 1 kg weight will only offer 1 kg of 'energy potential'.

As such, to realize any real production, the weight transfer must be a large, rather than small one.  Thereby, the device as thus far presented to this point would seem unable to produce energy in large quantities without a serious upsizing of the transfer weights.  Scaling to larger weight for more output can be difficult as more weight transfer requires more energy input.

The claims presented of powering your house by utilizing the transfer of a small weight is highly unlikely.  As such, the OU claims may be as well.

Interesting thread, and though skeptical, I look forward to the possibility of a working device.

Best of luck,

CH

[ramset]

CAP doesn't sound like the fellow that ran the ?ton ferrous wheel would agree with you[earlier post]  Chet

[1234aware]

A couple of corrections and it should be noted that this is coming from someone who is constantly looking to second guess the "laws" of physics.

1) Magnetic force is related to the square of the distance separating the magnets.
When pulling two magnets apart they are together in the limit where the distance goes to zero the attractive force goes to max. When pushing two magnets of opposite polarity together you will not see max repulsive force until they are also together. That is why it is hard to separate the compressive strength of the material from the max repulsive force of the magnets (Fr = Fa still holds). Yes if a 200Kg material can be pulled by a magnet it can also be pushed. Said another way if it can be pulled while maintaining the magnet 2 feet away the it can be pushed while holding the magnet 2 feet away.

2) The Earth is at the center of a satellites orbit causing a constant "falling" gravitational force countered by the angular velocity of the satellite or "centripetal" force. Unfortunately just like a high power fan on a boat pushing a sail on the same boat creates no outside motive force. A device contained inside the Earths gravitational field creates no net energy from gravity alone. One can use gravity to create energy such as has been noted with hydro dams, wind power, wave power, oil and gas (yes even "evil" oil and gas are the result of gravity), and every other form of energy except nuclear but it is not net energy. Usually it is the sun or some other external energy causing a disruption that then we can take advantage of through gravity.

Now onto gravity wheels....basically I have no doubt that tricky combination of permanent magnets (stored energy) and falling objects (weights on a lever) can be used to make a machine that can produce net energy. It only makes sense if you have a way of lifting the weights that only scavenges a piece of the released energy and you use a stored energy source to keep things rolling you can capture the excess as "free" power. The interesting part for me is can you scale it up to make huge power and what are the real costs compared to something like hydro or wind.

So all in all I say go for it and good luck....

[capthook]

On a 2nd note:

My dad IS a rocket scientist than has BUILT and DESIGNED satelites currently in orbit.

The notion that the gravity of the earth provides acceleration to a satelite in a 'static' orbit is sheer nonsense.  The only way acceleration is imparted is as the orbit decays.

To maintain orbit is a careful balance.  Too far out, gravity is insufficient, resulting in it flinging out to space.  Too close, the orbit decays too quickly, causing it to fall to earth.  Just right, and the orbit will decay very slowly with each revolution requiring minimal energy input from the rockets to maintain the proper height to keep it in orbit.

The point is - the orbit WILL decay with each revolution requiring additional energy input from the system to maintain orbit.  It is NOT receiving 'free acceleration' energy from the gravity of the earth!

CH