Roll on the 20th June

[neptune]

assuming that this design works in its original form, there is an obvious simple modification, that will easily improve its efficiency. Generators have losses, and so do electromagnets. Imagine that each cylindrical weight has a pin, sticking out at right angles to its longitudinal axis at its mid point.. This pin protrudes through a slot in the tube  and is parallel to the axle. At the 7 0clock point, this pin engages a stationary cam to move the weighted rod assembly. This eliminates the need for the Emag and its power source. The pin has a roller bearing on it to reduce friction. Actually 3 cams would be needed due to the different paths followed by the 3 tubes, The principle remains the same. Somebody prove me wrong...

[am1ll3r]

Hello All,

Here is a quick animation (a crappy one but one none the less) of what I think is going on. I have included only one tube, rod, & magnet for ease of a quick animation. The bottom magnet is the electro magnet. Its like a hamster running in one of those round hamster cages. The main wheel being the cage and the rods, tubes and magnets the hamster running up the one side spinning the wheel.
... I think I'll make a better animation if time permits.

[Rusty_Springs]

Hi Craigy
I don't know where there comming from Craigy attracting magnets get stronger the closer they come to each other but the same it said for repelling magnet they also get stronger the closer they come to each other but what they say don't matter much when a simple experiment shows you the truth, in my way of thinking if attraction was stronger wouldn't it start attracting in before repeling can repel, wouldn't there be a difference in the distance marks of the two options but theres not do the experiment and show me where I'm wrong.
I think these are the same types of people that say you can't biuld a magnetic gate yet I have made 2 or say magnets don't do work yet I have moves a toy car over a distance just using permanent magnets.
I beleave what I see before I beleave what someone writes or says.
Take Care Craigy
Graham

[xbww]

@am1ll3r

I agree with your animation except the magnets at the top and bottom are on an arc that follows the path of the outer edge of the circle.

@netpune

I had mentioned a lever rather than a magnet the other day. My guess is that the wheel will be moving at a slow RPM and even a very well designed cam system with a bearing would provide enough resistance to stop it. But, I would definitely give it a try.

Here is my question....I have asked it before. Will the wheel produce enough power to pulse the electromagnet?  If someone would answer that then the game is over (or maybe feasible). Also, if you know that answer, then where can one purchase an electromagnet for testing?

[badassdjbynight]

assuming that this design works in its original form, there is an obvious simple modification, that will easily improve its efficiency. Generators have losses, and so do electromagnets. Imagine that each cylindrical weight has a pin, sticking out at right angles to its longitudinal axis at its mid point.. This pin protrudes through a slot in the tube  and is parallel to the axle. At the 7 0clock point, this pin engages a stationary cam to move the weighted rod assembly. This eliminates the need for the Emag and its power source. The pin has a roller bearing on it to reduce friction. Actually 3 cams would be needed due to the different paths followed by the 3 tubes, The principle remains the same. Somebody prove me wrong...

Because there is no external force being emitted by the cam.  The cam is just a fancy way to move the weight up - but even with gears and pully's and levers the weight is not going to move up without some force being used to push it.  To move the weight up you have to overcome gravity on the "left" side of the wheel.  Archer is suggesting using a magnet to push the weight up and overcome that gravity.  It doesn't have to be an E-magnet - could just be a perm magnet as described above.  "Prove you wrong?"  I think the onus is on you to prove yourself right.

http://www.surphzup.com/gpage.html

Archer.. I know I'm probably dense.  But I don't see in that page how you are proving Newton wrong.  I still don't understand why you NEED to show newton was wrong for your wheel to work.  A wind turbine or a water wheel doesn't prove newton is wrong yet it can be a free energy source.  Solar power doesn't prove Newton was wrong either.

from wiki..
Newton's First Law (also known as the Law of Inertia) states that an object at rest tends to stay at rest and that an object in uniform motion tends to stay in uniform motion unless acted upon by a net external force.

It's a fairly vague law actually because of the words "tends to."  The idea of a gold scale is to have very low friction.  If you put a small enough weight on one side, say a hair, it would probably not lean that way because it wouldn't be enough to overcome the friction in the device.

For Newtonians say the increased weight on the centre axel (and these scales also have no bearings) would prevent small weights from making the left side go down due to fiction, as the load increases so does the increase weight to break balance to one side.

HUH?

"HUH??" is right.  There is a certain part of the weight on the one side that translates into friction on the axel, but not much.  I'm not sure any "newtonian" (as you call us) would argue that the scale would lean the other way.  Which law of physics are you referring to?

Newton's second law has something to do with a force being converted into speed and acceleration.  Which would more describe the rate at which your wheel rotates.

Newton's Third Law states that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.  A force is not an action.  The magnet pushing another magnet is an action.  The opposite reaction is that the 2nd magnet moves.  Not all objects have equal and opposite forces within them or applied to them or everything in the universe would float and be unmovable.

Oh and Archer you're absolutely NOT a nutjob!  You are a brilliant engineer.  Your "toy" design is very interesting and I'd love to see someone here make it and post up a video.  I do, however, wish that you would actually draw your design of the "toy" and post it here before someone else comes up with it and calls it THEIR device.