Roll on the 20th June

[helmut]

Helmut  sounds very good LOTS of power   MY head is spinning can't sit still    Grandma's not going to freeze this winter elec heat      Chet

@Chet
Keep cool.And dont do any false dicision. I think you buy your Grandma a electricial sheed for the bed
She will love you for that.
What we have discussed until now is without any proofe. Keep in mind,that in short time we will see
first Wheels for demonstration.
Than we can calculate on the objekt and compare the Math with the
real output. First you have to calculate your own real needs. My calculation tells me,that
a output from about 2000Watt/hour would be usefull at home,5000Watt would be best.
But energy management  is importand too.

helmut

[xbww]

@sm0ky2

I do not have any specific designs for a lever just yet. It is hard for me to believe that this concept has not been attempted before. For you veterans out there, have you ever seen anything similar to this (specifically, three spokes with shifting weights attached at both ends)?

[ramset]

Helmut    Grandma says she wants 3500 watts   AND an electric blanket   Chet  PS certainly a great time to be alive  have a good night

[zerotensor]

for instance, if you were to take a wheel, and mount a radial-plate on its outer edge, with a weight on it.
and the proportion of this weight were very small compared to the total mass of the wheel.
[but large enough to move the wheel freely]
and arranged  such that the plate when it reaches 6-o'clock were to strike a rod- that activates a Dynamo

a small fraction of the energy produced by this Dynamo, could then fire a solenoid or electromagnet to lift the weight back to the top.

leaving an enormous ammount of excess energy
i think this is what archer is trying to show us.

OK, I'll... explain... this... very... slowly...

As per your example, consider a uniform disk of mass M = 1000 kg, radius R = 9.8 meters.
We let a m = 1kg mass mounted to the edge of the disk fall from near the top of the wheel to the bottom, falling a total of h = 9.8 * 2  = 19.6 meters  (that's a mighty big wheel).

The gravitational potential energy of the falling mass is converted into the kinetic energy of the wheel.  Your calculation was off by a factor of 2, (you forgot to double the radius), but still in the ballpark:

E = m g h = 1 * 9.8 * 19.6 = 192 Joules.

Assume that this entire energy goes into spinning the disk.

For our uniform disk, the moment of inertia is 1/2 * M * R^2 = 500 * ( 9.8 )^2 = 48020 kg m^2

We can calculate the angular velocity increase of the disk by rearranging the equation E = 1/2 ( I ) omega^2, thusly:

omega = Sqrt [ 2 E / I] = Sqrt [ 2 * 192 / 48020] = 0.09 radians per second = 1.71 rpm.

The wheel turns slowly, (about 1.7 times as fast as a second-hand on a clock).  The energy of the flywheel can be recovered, but you won't get more out than you put in to the system by elevating the drive mass, at least, according to classical mechanics.  I have done variants of this kind of experiment when I was in college (using a falling mass to drive the rotation of various rings and disks).  The experiments agreed nicely with the theory.

What happens when we add magnets and coils and moving masses and whatnot to the device?  Well, that is more complicated, and, however skeptical I may be, I am looking forward to seeing the results for Archer's wheel.

[sm0ky2]

@ Zero,

i was using 9.8m as my Diameter.

the radius thus would have been 4.9,  in either case, the imbalance of the vertically mounted wheel, does not have the same inertial resistance as a flat wheel, with a weighted string tied to a pulley. One set-up utilizes leverage,  whereas the other utilizes only gravitational force.

you can actually see this exact set-up in a few pendulum-impact-hammers, that use a massive fly-wheel for momentum gain.