Hi All,
        Apparently, my file is too big to 'post', but if you like, I'll send it to you as an attachment to an email.
It's about a design for an overbalancing wheel.
You might be pleasantly surprised!

SPANG.

If you make it a .jpg file it should be just fine. If not just resize it a bit. Many will not ask you for a picture, for security reasons.

What will you do IF:
MIBs
are specially
sitting in front of data-lines to
this "anonymous" companies ??
So the can fish  all the mist interessantly messages !!

What you will di, if tis "anonymous" companies that offer to
"transvert" you datas are FOUND  (easest) by MIB´s or
other
specially services, that can sell your scrips.


I think to do such business.
Possibly an good buisiness
Pese

I think it would be wise of me, to give you all some
reason to contact me with your private email addresses
----------- in order for me to add my notes etc.., as an
attachment. As I've said before, 'don't be shy' ---------
after all, you have EVERYTHING to gain ----------------
NOTHING to lose!

The main thing to remember is this; The design I've come
up with ----------- ALREADY overbalances!  It's just a
simple matter of KEEPING it overbalanced.
I've tentatively come up with a mechanism, to do just that
but It needs improving.  I'm hoping, that this information
will be enough to make you 'get in touch' with me.
GOOD LUCK to you all.

SPANG   (BILL).

@ Low-Q: Do you or anyone you know have a math formulae That proves the impossibility of a gravity driven wheel? Im talking about using weights and gravity in a wheel.

@ Low-Q: Do you or anyone you know have a math formulae That proves the impossibility of a gravity driven wheel? Im talking about using weights and gravity in a wheel.

If you one day discover that a stone falls back to the ground in a greater speed than what you applied to it when throwing the stone in the air, you would have the proof that says gravity wheels will work.

Anyways. The simplest equation should be this:
Total potential energy in a gravity wheel = (mass x altitude) + (mass x (-altitude) = 0.
An example: (1kg x 1m up) + (1kg x 1m down) = 0. You gain potential energy when lifting 1kg 1m up. Letting the same 1kg travel 1m down, and the 1kg are back to its initial point. At the end of the cycle there will not be any excess energy. It could likely just stayed at the same level all the time. Zero excess energy in any case. A weight which is following a rim with a given radius, will move up the same distance as it moves down. Why should this wheel work?

Any mass preserves its weight unless the gravity suddenly change. Gravity are conservative, not changing, therfor mass will allways preserve its weight. To make a gravity wheel work, the gravity must apply less force on the weights on their way up, and gravity must apply more force on the weights on their way down. If gravity doesn't change at all, no work can be carried out by a gravity wheel. The proof are very simple, but people just don't want to listen. What I write down here is meaningless - a waste of time, work for nothing. It will not change peoples beliefs. People must fail in order to learn. For some people, failing over, and over, and over again is not enough to proove them wrong.

What makes people blind to understand why gravity wheels cannot work, is the path of the weights, its complexity, the appearently overbalanced configuration - which to the eye proofs a working machine. What most people forgets, is the time and velocity factor that applies to an object that is altering its path through a complete cycle, or is not following a circular path, or is not having a constant velocity during one complete cycle. The velocity change also affects the torque. Less velocity, greater torque - energy (velocity x torque) are conserved in both sides of the wheel. Therfor it will not work.

Vidar

So where is a picture or any video ?

Many thanks in advance.

Low-Q: forgot to ask, how much static weight it would take to get the same result in both cases?

So, Low -Q: To make a long story short you have NO PROOF, just because it hasnt been done before is NOT proof. If I have a 4 lb. hammer head and let fall 10 feet, how flat will it smash a .4834 dia lead ball? Now take the same hammer head and  fix a 5 foot lever to it. We will now let it fall the same 10 ft. in height but make it take a longer path, 181 degrees to be exact and again it will impact a .4834 lead ball, how flat will the lead ball be now?

The hammer head will hit the ball with the same velocity, given that the lever does not provide air drag or any counterweight. However, if the lever are initially perfectly verical, the lever will never start to fall due to equal balance on each side. You mention 181 degrees. If the initial is vertical upwards, the impact will occour 1 degree beyond the very bottom. Anyways, no matter what path an object is taking; Falling down 10 feet will result in the very same kinetic energy, but time and acceleration factors will differ. Bottom line: The lead ball will deform equally in any case, given that the hammer head hits it with the same surface, and where the lead ball cannot go anywhere.

Also, deformation will depend on the materials properties. Hitting a lead ball extemely fast with a lighter object, might cause the lead to melt due to heat, and deform differently than hitting it with the same kinetic energy provided by a very heavy object very slow. The same as with a bullet from a gun. It will penetrate the body, but the sum of thousands of water droplets, equal to the total kinetic energy in the bullet, will not be able to penetrate the body.
Deformation is a complex thing that we cannot determine by simple equations.

Regarding the proof: I gave it to you. The simple equation - allmost like 1-1=0. The proof also lays in the conservative gravity. If gravity are the "engine", but it does not do anything, the "engine" will ofcourse not provide any energy.

Vidar.