Do you see what I see???

[gyulasun]

Hi Raj,

Thanks for your answers.  I wonder what is your take on the diameter ratio of the wheels?  I 'feel' the small wheel may have a maximum OD of half of that of the big wheel.   
rgds,  Gyula

[Raj Balkee]

Hello again Gyula,
Initially, the diameter of the smaller wheel (rotable on its fixed axle) is half the diameter of the inside rim of the larger wheel, so as to make the magnet at the 10.30 o'clock position on the larger wheel to come right on top of the magnet at the 9 o'clock position on the smaller wheel when both magnets pass the 12 o'clock position on the smaller wheel.
But things can be made easier by lining magnets throughout the whole of circumference of both wheels. Then the difference in diameters of the wheel will only affect the torque that the larger will provide to the smaller wheel, which will then affect the rpm and power output of the device.
I hope you can see what I can see.
Regards.
Raj

[gyulasun]

Ok,  and one more thing: why did you give title for your drawing: Gravity Engine?  Why not: Permanent Magnet Motor?

[giantkiller]

This design is on a horizontal plane on a vertical axis. The magnets are at 90 degrees to each other.
The Hamel design overcame the sticky point by adding in a horizontal axis that rotates on a center point which enabled a precessional wobble. The offset in your design was accomplished in the Hamel design by the inner ring entering and leaving the horizontal plane in a sine wave fashion during rotation.

One of the David Hamel devices shot up into the skies never to be seen again.
The next step after turning a mechanical output is to turn the fields and not bog the operation with frictional losses.
This is where the real promise is. Your device is well named.
The virtual side of the device should spin at an astronimical rate compared to a metal axle.

[Raj Balkee]

Well Gyula,
I am working on Perpetual Motion Machine and Gravity wheel concepts for many many years, in fact since my university days in UK. I must have made hundreds of drawings of different concepts on and off during these years.
In the end, I came to think that gravity alone won't make a wheel turn continuously, because I came to think that gravity force acts only vertically to the earth surface and only one direction, i.e downward.
I came to think that in order to make a wheel turn on a horizontal axle, we need at least forces acting in two directions: vertically and horizontally.
I tried to incorporate other type of forces with gravity in my new designs, like springs, elastiic bands, and magnets.
About six months ago, I came up with a new design that I thought looks good. I posted it on Besslerwheel .com in last december for the first time. It got mixed views.
Just to make this design, which I have named Universal Gravity Wheel, better I added the concept of using magnet in the design to add horizontal force to the wheel in the design.
I was overwhelmed by my partial test of my UGW device. It looked very good to me.
I posted on Besslerwheel.com.
You can view it there if you want to.
I was politely told that since my device uses magnets, I was on the wrong forum and that I should try OverUnity.com. Since then,I have improved on my UGW and now, I have named it Automatic Gravity Engine.
But what's in a name? The device that counts. Doesn't it?
Raj