Maximum Theoretical Power from Unbalanced Wheel

[utilitarian]

2. Since I'm sure this has been tried many times... what is the flaw in the theory?

Here is the simplest way I can put it.  You are just adjusting degrees of leverage.  Do you think there is any energy to be gained via a lever?  Clearly there is not.  While you can lift one ball using another of the same weight, by extending one ball farther from the fulcrum, the price you pay for this lift is that the ball being lifted does not rise as far as the other ball falls.

So that is all your wheel is, a series of levers.  At each step (each lever), there is no advantage, no overunity.  So you cannot add them up into one device and hope to achieve an energy gain.

[Low-Q]

I must agree after thinking about it a bit I now can see intuitively that as I originally drew (or hansvonlieven's illustration above) is in balance as the system is broken down into two seperate systems, one being the wheel itself which is balanced, and two, the chain which is balanced as well... the fact that it is half on a wheel is just an illusion.

Now lets have a more in depth look into the classic unbalanced wheel, where we force the wheel to be unbalanced via differing torque. (see illustration attached).  To clarify, each spoke has a weight on it, on the way down is at its maximum radius (max leverage) and on the way up the radius shortens (less leverage).  Theoretically the balls take the same amount of energy to go up as it does to go down, so in our frictionless thought experiment the device will spin effortlessly.  However the 'MAGIC' comes into play in this model when we compare the distance from the axis for each matched pair of weights... thus a spinning motion is created on the wheel.

So my questions now are:
1. Have I accurately summed up the essence of the unbalanced wheel theory?
2. Since I'm sure this has been tried many times... what is the flaw in the theory?
3. If it works what is the optimal theoretical path for the weights to take giving the max power?

That theory is a classical mistake. In your 2. question: The theory isn't complete. There isn't more torque in one side of a classical overbalanced wheel. It can't because all weights is allways starting and ending at the same hight. The difference is the space between the weights, the distance from center, and TIME it takes to lift it up. Using these three factors in the theory, the sum will allways be 0. TIME is the most forgotten factor in such wheels.

[Flyboy]

That theory is a classical mistake. In your 2. question: The theory isn't complete. There isn't more torque in one side of a classical overbalanced wheel. It can't because all weights is allways starting and ending at the same hight. The difference is the space between the weights, the distance from center, and TIME it takes to lift it up. Using these three factors in the theory, the sum will allways be 0. TIME is the most forgotten factor in such wheels.

Thank you both for the replies, but while I'm sure the reason this wheel does not work is clear to you, your explanation has left me no closer to understanding the 'flaw' as I was unable to follow your logic (sorry if I'm not as sharp as most  ).

if we simplify it more by breaking the system down further to just two spokes with one weight each directly opposite each other (forming a diagonal line that passes through the axis)

1. if you stop the wheel at any point and do a vector analysis of the forces you quickly see that torque on the wheel exists.  Intuitively we can see the wheel will want to spin.

2. Vertical speed is varying constantly on both size in opposite quantities... as on increases, the other slows down and visa versa. yet the sum total of all accelerations (positive and negative) equal the other side resulting in weight reach top at same time the other weight reaches the bottom.  We can safely assume that the wheel is capable of storing any momentary energy gains and losses in the form of kinetic energy (momentum) thus at the end of each half revelation (180°) we net zero gain or loss of energy.

3.  As the weight begins its upward climb the radius is shortened causing the wheel's spin to increase.  This is due to the weight wanting to maintain it's velocity, but due to shorter radius it must slow down.  Similarly as it passes half way up, the radius increases causing wheel to slow, due to the weight needing to speed up its velocity as the radius increases.  These two effects should exactly balance each other.

4. Energy required to shorten radius of weight should equal the energy released as the radius lengthens. these should also equal.

5. ...I must have missed something because point 1 is out of balance causing wheel to spin, while points 2-4 are all balanced leaving point 1 unchecked...  As I mentioned earlier, we know this system does not work because others have tried it over and over...  So what is countering the unbalanced force in point 1?

The classic theory is that the EXACT same amount of energy gained from the descending weight is used to bring the weight back up... they claim the "MAGIC" in in creating usable torque in the wheel due to the cleaver setup causing the wheel to naturally spin.

[stgpcm]

as a static set up your wheel will rotate  90 degrees clockwise.

The "magic" that's missing is the bit that makes the weights move.

The weights in the right hand side are static, so there is no change in energy there.

The weights in the bottom left quarter of the wheel are moving toward the hub.

The weights in the top left quarter of the wheel are moving away from the hub

To move a weight in the bottom left of the wheel towards the hub, you need to move it right, and upwards - moving it right is fine, but upwards takes energy.

To omve a weight in the top left quarter away from the hub, you need to move it left, and upwards. moving left is fine, but upwards takes energy.

[Flyboy]

as a static set up your wheel will rotate  90 degrees clockwise.
...
The weights in the bottom left quarter of the wheel are moving toward the hub.

The weights in the top left quarter of the wheel are moving away from the hub

To move a weight in the bottom left of the wheel towards the hub, you need to move it right, and upwards - moving it right is fine, but upwards takes energy.

To omve a weight in the top left quarter away from the hub, you need to move it left, and upwards. moving left is fine, but upwards takes energy.

I think I covered this before... the distance the weight drops is equal to the distance the weight rises...  Same energy difference on both sides... so I agree energy is needed to raise the weight but should equal the energy gained from the dropping of the weight... this leaves point one still out of balance, with the wheel constantly wanting to rotate 90° clockwise.

Its frustrating that everyone else can see why this model does not work... but I'm still seeing viable model.