Good point.  It could be simply a narrow rod, as in the solenoid example, which moves a short distance to shift the weight.

my money is on the oak man ebing the first to succeed in his own right, variations are what make a good inventor, as for smokey, he is just on the site to stop people, as noted on the site no engineer has built and failed the accelerator,as for not being on the site, i do actually have a life, and during that time was actually building as i was told as usual the impossible, a 25 foot moblie home from the chasis up in 6 weeks for a deadline, no tools to start no preordered materials in fact had no idea i was even going to be doing it, all of my proffesional cabinetmaker and builder mates said it could barely be done in a factory fully equiped in that time, but i assure you i was on the road and kicking back on the chosen day (well one day later due to weather) blowin smoke just likes to rattle cages and put doubt in peoples minds. No true believer in overunity, (and that is this site last time i looked, )will quote newtons laws and calulations at the same time saying they can't be beaten, if you believe that why would you be here other than to keep it from happening???


Anyway, hi guys, well done on the theory,as i said before you are so close, the oak is the closest, because he didn't think about the math, simply about what he knew to be true physics. Newton was flogged by the wright brothers many years ago, but we simply accept that there are physics that will work together, the plane was simply wing shape, forcing air over one side faster than the other.

But you all still miss one basic component both in the physics and the math, so you need to keep going back to why satlellites don't fall, and no it is not because they are floating in space, they are too close to the earths gravity. gee wonder what Mr newton would make of that???

well i have work to do. in the mean time i want you to try an work out how a similar wheel and there is one (too hard for the home builder to get it out on mass) that is purly mechanical, you will know you are close if you do not have any proximatey to any of the older wheels from history yet you feel it will work, a good start point is the giant wheel in europe with the bottle springs, work out his simple fault and you will have the answer. he really did get it right he just doesn't know it yet, one tiny mistake.

Have fun

Archer, if we take a pinball machine and pull the plunger back to the end, so the steel ball will go up a 45 degrees ramp...
Do you say, that if we put the pinball machine 90 degrees and then pull the plunger and let it hit the steel ball, that if will fly to a lower height ?
As we put into the steel ball the same kick energy from the plunger it should go in either case the same height....

It will not travel as far, and the 45 has added friction, gravity, think of the satellite, thrust equals lift, so that much is true so why would the ball still make the top of the ramp at the same height with friction??? gravity.

Ok i will spell it out for you why the machine and the pinball work the way they do. gravity works just like a magnet, in fact in every aspect except repulsion in an identical manner now stop pissing around with Newton?s bullshit and go out into the real world and try this, even though you already know, do it again so it refreshes your memory.

take one magnet
take one pin now hold the pin above the magnet
now hold the pin in the same position 10mm to the side above it.
get it now???
the earth does to satellites what magnets do to pins they propel them forward as well as down
it really isn't rocket science, the earth has the same effect here also on items under momentum, the earth is not simply pulling down directly below the item, but in front of it as well the same as a magnet, in space the earth falls away from the object satellite here the object falls away from the earth in a horizontal motion. This was Newton?s and all earth science error there is gravitation pull in a full circle around an object. so one might say, ok then it must be back to square one if the side pull is equal. But Newton and man forgot the Wright brothers, this was all true but for the shape of a wing in front of them all the time, so too is one, well lets call it a tiny detail in physics called "the path of least resistance" this was never taken into account in any of the scientific tables for gravity and objects falling at an angle.

objects on a wheel excluding 3 and 9 o'clock are always falling on an angle, so too the pinball.

No matter the gravity no matter the weight no matter the water running downhill on a very steep angle, low velocity with great weight or pressure unbound will always take the path of least resistance.

so the gravity in front of a moving object has more pull than from any other side point in a circle.

if you need to prove that point simply get a large magnet and lightly toss another one in a forward motion on to it, it will never go sideways will it? even though the magnet pulls equally from all sides, the forward pull is greatest. film it in slow motion, the final and high speed movement accelerates the magnet when it hits field but not directly down, there is a forward motion to the acceleration, not the residue of the momentum, but added momentum in a forward motion faster than it was traveling, the magnetic field or gravity accelerates every component of the falling motion.

There is no equation for this in Newton to calculate forward propulsion by gravity on objects under momentum. Although i could be wrong and satellites are all faked on string

If that were even remotely the case, when you toss that magnet, instead of accelerating directly ONTO the other magnet increasing^2 as it approaches, it would instead accelerate passed the magnet and go into an orbit around it.

and, by the way, keeping a sattelite in orbit IS rocket science. Which is obviously why you dont understand it.

linear motion within the gravitational field does not change the force gravity has on the object. Which is why it is not regarded in the equation E = mgh.
linear motion with respect to the gravitational field, is only resisted by friction and inertia.

If that sattelite were not in motion, and did not have rockets keeping it moving and on the right path::
for instance, if you were to just stick the sattelite up there, perfectly still---

it would fall in an arc right towards the CENTER of the earth, it would not "go into orbit".

So.  What is the mechanism of transfering this counterweight from bottom-dead-center to the top of the wheel with LESS energy than  E = mgh ??  If it starts at the top, and falls to the bottom, you get back some of that from momentum, say it stops at around...  7:30? 8-o'clock??  How do you propose to get this weight from
8 o'clock up to 12-o'clock with less energy than it normally takes to physically put it there? thus keeping the wheel in motion

@sm0ky2
It is his show
Why not give him the time to present a working wheel in a video.
A video shows more then thousend words.
He will present a device,that can be rebuild from each handyman.
@Archer
In previous post you refer to a guy you named " Hans " .Do we know him?
How ever
I which you all sucsess  and  keep on good working

helmut

@ Helmut

Hans is a long time member and a great contributor to this forum.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not stopping the guy from showing his technology, if / when he ever decides to do so.

But i can't sit back and watch him misrepresent information like hes trying to do, because believe it or not, there are people out there reading what he's saying and actually believing that gravity magically propells a sattellite through space at 8000 m/s. which is complete b.s.

Quinn is either propegating false information on things he has no clue about, or hes intentionally misrepresenting the information to support his cause. Either way i have an obligation to say something about it.

Ok back to the real people, i will no longer respond to the class clown.

Ok this one is just for the guys on this site, as yet one i have yet to utilize.

I think we can all agree even those with basic understanding of power generation, that if i drop a 10 kg steel ball from 5 feet the weight/thrust generated at the preturn/impact point depending on your invention would create vast volumes of power useable or stored in capacitance. yes??

ever have someone make you hole onto one of those smnall hand turn generators and knock you on your ass? well you get the point. now how much power does it take to hold up via electromagnet such a weight??? well new technology as it happens and available to the public has electromagnets that can do this on 1.5 volts, yep not 12 volts or 24 or 240volt, 1.5 volts, and if you think that is something, the amps are only 2 x 1.5 aa batterties. want more?, they will hold over 200 pounds, now tell me electricity created from thrust is only equal to the power it would take to hold it!!!!

If you can't build something from that, you will never build anything (think smot) without magnets under any part of the track. an easy one for the school age and upward. perpetual motion machines are not rare, they are just well kept secrets ....  well until now anyway.