First, I really admire the work that is being done here.

But I am have a bit of difficulty understanding where the torque will come from.

I did this experiment. 
I created a lever by using a 6 foot board and placing the fulcrum in the center and balance a 1 gallon can (11 lbs) of paint on each end.
Under one end I placed a scale to measure the weight (force of gravity) when one end becomes unbalanced.   I then added a 3 pound can to that side checked the scale.   The scales showed 3 pounds ..... not 14 (3 plus 11).  This seems logical to me since the weight of one can of paint is balancing out the weight of the other.  Thus only the 3 pounds would show on the scales.  Weight is the measurement of the force of gravity of an object (on earth).

My understanding is a wheel is like a lever.  Thus if you unbalance a wheel -  only the weight that is applied to make it unbalanced would be measurable output.  The analogy of the water turbine/generator at a local waterfall and getting enough torque by adding 900Kg to each side and simply using only 100Kg to get a total of one ton of torque does not compute in my little brain.   So maybe I am missing something... back to the garage for more experiments. 

My next experiement is to get out my old torque wrench.   Maybe I can placed it in a vice and clamped it down.   How best to attach it to a wheel and add weights is leaving me thinking ... More later if I can get this figured out.


Bill 

CAP doesn't sound like the fellow that ran the ?ton ferrous wheel would agree with you[earlier post]  Chet

On a 2nd note:

My dad IS a rocket scientist than has BUILT and DESIGNED satelites currently in orbit.

The notion that the gravity of the earth provides acceleration to a satelite in a 'static' orbit is sheer nonsense.  The only way acceleration is imparted is as the orbit decays.

To maintain orbit is a careful balance.  Too far out, gravity is insufficient, resulting in it flinging out to space.  Too close, the orbit decays too quickly, causing it to fall to earth.  Just right, and the orbit will decay very slowly with each revolution requiring minimal energy input from the rockets to maintain the proper height to keep it in orbit.

The point is - the orbit WILL decay with each revolution requiring additional energy input from the system to maintain orbit.  It is NOT receiving 'free acceleration' energy from the gravity of the earth!

CH

to the see saw and paint cans guy.

Now that "is" the right question. what you have just described is the Newton classic, what you see is misleading, and you see what Mr. spinner and all his mates see, classical training in Newtonian law.

why they are all wrong is simple, and the guys especially on here are beginning to see why something feels wrong. For me it was easy as i only see logic puzzles.

What does Newtonian law miss??

The tourque at the axel has changed, the torque is the power to drive bigger and bigger generators.

If you want to see the other difference its easy. go down to a local park, take your paint tins, and your 3 pound weight, now have some friend to help you first lay on the ground under one end of the see saw, and have some one place the cans on each end until balanced and then place the weight on the end you are under, the impact you feel is the 3 pounds falling. now put the see saw up in the air and add the weight, feel any different?? it should, you see to start at 9 o?clock is worthless a small weight against the friction, but from around 2.30 or the top of a see saw it is a little different.

where Newton followers go wrong is they think you have to change the weight you add to increase momentum, momentum is not torque or power, (turn you bicycle upside down and spin the wheel, tons of momentum there not quite nuclear reactor power though is it?)

now get your four friends to sit 2 on each end and when lying down under it get the 5th friend to give the outside person above you the 3 pound weight, the see saw will move and you will feel a bump not much more than the paint tin for all that weight, and why experiments never usually go any further, for all Newtonian physics shows wheel function in the equations of balance. now get some to hold your friends up with the 3 pound weight and let them go, trust me this will hurt.

if you think that is a good example. think about this, many of the devices over the years used pendulums as they seem like a good source or converter of energy, perhaps in the back of all minds is a small spluttering logic computer for the see saw and the wheel are also pendulums with trapped inertia.


I first saw anomolies in a glass of water, take a glass fill it to a line, empty and pour it back into the glass and take a slow look at the glass, the water does not sit equally in the glass, the meniscus proves this, cohesion, at what point is electricity passing through a wire at any given resistance becoming a heater?

At what point is momentum a singular??? When Galileo (not Newton) first theorized that an object traveling with no force acting against it would travel forever, if in space or a vacuum no item has a weight but has been propelled, the momentum is a singular.

What am I getting at you ask?, the expression there is a fine line does not apply in physics teachings, they teach there is a line. There is ?no? line, the application determines the line as with resistance wire and so on.

Whilst many people believe push is equal to pull it is not, get someone to stand behind you and without saying when, push you in the back, do you notice the energy displacement through you body as your head rocks back, now keep you body stiff and do it again is if you were a solid object, you still feel the effect of the object you trying to disperse the energy in more than one direction, pull has a different effect.

G Force proves this, an object in a rotational or forward accelerator will try to flatten, an object being pulled with equal force will try to lengthen.
The flaw in general physics is using the expression there is an equal or opposite reaction, can I say there is a different reaction??? Is that not still true??? So now that I have free thought to examine different reactions, I can then think freely to examine what I can do with each different reaction without having the equal or opposite thought process entering my head, ok here is an action or reaction, what can I do with this.

Go back to the 1.5 volt magnet that can lift 200 pounds yet not push 200 pounds under the same circumstances. So there is not an equal or opposite reaction to everything. Again it is not that the field produced is not the same, it is the flatten or stretch effect, each different with different shapes and abilities.


If you want stupid simple, take a piece of gum and flatten it with a one pound weight, now take an equal piece of gum and apply one pound pull or stretch to it, the flat piece will slide under a door whilst the stretched piece will go through the keyhole. Mans mistake with Newton was simple, depending on what is done with each action even in a fixed environment can give very different outcomes.

An example, some water pumps pump by pressure some by volume or mechanics, but hey volume equals weight right???, A pond that pumps water to the top in order to run a water wheel to power the pump can work because volume equals weight, equals torque on the turbine equals power that is equal to the weight, until!!! ?less friction? means it won?t turn. What about heat to water to steam to condenser, nope the heat required to produce the vapor is still equal to the power, Ahhh one day maybe we?ll invent a heavy liquid, heavy like gold, maybe we?ll name it after a planet and that problem will be solved. Would that work goes up the cry??? I don?t know never tried it, but I thought of it and that is the difference, if you don?t go out and squash some gum occasionally you won?t know what is real and what is just poor teaching. There are no equal or opposites, there is only different (funny thing the women on the planet have been saying it for years)

That was the right question, everyone keeping going for down versus up equals momentum, I don?t need momentum I need torque, and that is the different reaction that is not equal or opposite to the added or shifted weight, it was always there at the dam wall just waiting for that tipping weight of water whatever the load for that size generator to break the friction point may be.

as for guys on the 1 kg on a ton wheel only being ikg energy potential, can you catch a ten pound medice ball? good now put one at the top of a ferris wheel connected to a hdyro dam sized generatorand stand at the bottom and step in front of that carriage not facing it, shouldn't hurt you at all it's only ten pound, you are indeed correct !!!! ya you win hoorahhh woop woop woop, but now put your ten pound ball on the kiddie ferris wheel and see if it can turn the same turbine, sick of explaining that basic flaw in newtonian crap. that is the real world jack like it or not.

just a quick note. we really need to stop saying laws of physics, i obey the laws of physics, i just don't agree that newton knew what they were. and most of whta is quoted is newtonian.

as for the guy whose fater is a rocket scientist, if garvity and being pulled down at 30,000 miles an hour is not acceleration on an object, then i don't know what is. I must be so so dumb

just a quick note. we really need to stop saying laws of physics...

being pulled down at 30,000 miles an hour...

Hi Archer:

I'm not trying to rain on your parade - and I give you massive credit for what you are attempting to do.

The 'laws' of physics have been broken in the past and will be broken in the future.  The 'law' is really just a 'best guess' as we understand the process at this time.

And as I stated: The only way acceleration is imparted is as the orbit decays.

You seem to believe that a satellite will stay in orbit forever without additional energy being provided. (ie. the rockets).  This is incorrect.  As are some of your other theories.

I won't clutter up this thread with additional points as I have said my piece.

For sure, I wish you the best of success and your work is to be applauded.

CH

Archer any of us who have ever built something that works  knows it can be scaled up at least in this context [gravity ]anyway how much weight do you think we'll end up with here  Chet

ok i will tell you the ring pole magnet setup was the power sorce for the orignal wheel, althoughey they were rings, i realised that produced presure or lift that was free, then taking into account the large european wheel that used the springs in the bottles, i saw his error was friction, the interaction with the springs was friction a was the pop when released to shift the weight a massive loss of power from the spring to nothing.wher the ring pole suspension pressure had none

if you understand what the top washer/arm and upper magnet can never do, you will understand why the machine can never balance, turn the wheel by hand once and it cannot rebalance.

if you can't get that between guys who do this everyday, then perhaps my efforts for mankind are wasted.

although i will not confirm it until then, you should get this before the 20th.

this is my last post until then. You don't need luck so i won't wish it.