The Bessler Wheel, mystery solved.

[Newton II]

No, the energies sum, not their absolute values.  If you link two weights by a massless rope over a frictionless pulley, then the total energy in the system is the sum of the GPEs of the two buckets, and that is a constant value:  raising one identically lowers the other and vice-versa.  Elevators use this to avoid expending unnecessary energy lifting the elevator car itself.  That does not change the energy that must be added to make an elevator car full of people go up, or the energy returned taking an elevator car full of people down.

The above process explains only 'action'.  Reaction is provided by bearing of frictionless pulley.   Whether to raise or lower the elevator,  the pulley over which elevator rope goes has to be supported on a strong bearing.  If not entire elevator would fall on the ground.

I think MScoffman got it right :

"The other thing is that "tension" is not a really a real force because a small amount of motion always accompanies it in the real world. That small amount of motion at very high levels of force still equals negative work being applied by a support. Unbalanced machines can produce a delayed -work reflection some of which might be re-collectable. Eventually repeating this causes the support material to fail under stress. So one could consider the materials ability to retain it's integrity as a kind of fuel.

What the proportion of tension results in the final tension and how much is energy based acceleration is in final tension determines how much energy is used to maintain it."

http://www.physics.hku.hk/~phys0607/lectures/chap04.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaction_(physics)

[MarkE]

The above process explains only 'action'.  Reaction is provided by bearing of frictionless pulley.   Whether to raise or lower the elevator,  the pulley over which elevator rope goes has to be supported on a strong bearing.  If not entire elevator would fall on the ground.

The pulley does not perform any work, and if it is massless and frictionless, no work is performed on it.  That is getting away from the issue.   The total energy in the system is the sum of the GPEs of the two weights.  When the GPE of one decreases, the best that one can do with an ideal system is identically increase the GPE of the other.  Introducing non-ideal behavior to the pulley loses energy to the pulley and means that it takes work to move the weights.

I think MScoffman got it right :

"The other thing is that "tension" is not a really a real force because a small amount of motion always accompanies it in the real world.

Tension is the differential force across an object, in this case the cable.  Tension does not require any motion.  Changing the tension across an elastic object will stretch that object.

That small amount of motion at very high levels of force still equals negative work being applied by a support.

We can choose to stipulate that the modulus of the material is infinite for simplicity.  If you want to take a real material into account, the deflection, or if the load is big enough: plastic deformation is work done on the support.  In this case the support would come closer to the ground, consuming GPE.

Unbalanced machines can produce a delayed -work reflection some of which might be re-collectable. Eventually repeating this causes the support material to fail under stress. So one could consider the materials ability to retain it's integrity as a kind of fuel.

Working an object can eventually cause the material to fail.  In the meantime, the process of working the material releases heat.

What the proportion of tension results in the final tension and how much is energy based acceleration is in final tension determines how much energy is used to maintain it."

http://www.physics.hku.hk/~phys0607/lectures/chap04.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaction_(physics)

[AB Hammer]

"Slide of hand???" 

Gravity wheels don't work and never have for the reasons that I stated.  You are free to believe otherwise, but will find yourself short of any example that supports such a belief.

Greetings MarkE

I used the slide of hand statement for you shifted back to the muscles when I thought we were past that. But I can see you are an absolutist which is a shame for I just say never say never.
How many attempts have there been to get energy from gravity alone? Maybe 50 to 100 thousand directions? But there are nearly an endless amount of combinations and possibilities to try. So! we haven't even truly scratched the surface. Now there are several old news articles that show what was believed to be perpetual wheels in the past and reports of the wheels working as well. I would like to see more people try to replicate those and quit doing the same old wheels that have been proved not to work and then claim to work.  Here is one of those wheels in the news paper. July 18 1897 The Salt Lake Herald.

[MarkE]

Greetings MarkE

I used the slide of hand statement for you shifted back to the muscles when I thought we were past that. But I can see you are an absolutist which is a shame for I just say never say never.
How many attempts have there been to get energy from gravity alone? Maybe 50 to 100 thousand directions? But there are nearly an endless amount of combinations and possibilities to try. So! we haven't even truly scratched the surface. Now there are several old news articles that show what was believed to be perpetual wheels in the past and reports of the wheels working as well. I would like to see more people try to replicate those and quit doing the same old wheels that have been proved not to work and then claim to work.  Here is one of those wheels in the news paper. July 18 1897 The Salt Lake Herald.

I am unfamiliar with any term:  "slide of hand".  Do you mean "sleight of hand"?

I am one who requires evidence commensurate with claims.  If one wishes to challenge extremely well evidenced science, then one needs extremely strong evidence.  It is sheer folly to attempt to rearrange the same pieces in different ways without first finding that there is at least some evidence that doing so will alter the behavior of at least one of the pieces.  Gravity is to the best of our knowledge a conservative field.  Absent evidence to the contrary, it is impossible to make a working gravity wheel.

[AB Hammer]

I am unfamiliar with any term:  "slide of hand".  Do you mean "sleight of hand"?

I am one who requires evidence commensurate with claims.  If one wishes to challenge extremely well evidenced science, then one needs extremely strong evidence.  It is sheer folly to attempt to rearrange the same pieces in different ways without first finding that there is at least some evidence that doing so will alter the behavior of at least one of the pieces.  Gravity is to the best of our knowledge a conservative field.  Absent evidence to the contrary, it is impossible to make a working gravity wheel.

MarkE

I have been enjoying reading these old news papers. Even Thomas Edison claimed a perpetual motion wheel. the Salt Lake Herald  March 26 1899

I loved the punch line. LOL