Built by Alan Wenbourne in January 2007
This model demonstrates why unbalanced gravity wheel type PMM’s do not work!
On 10 May 2008 Ross Birch wrote:
I have in development a gravity wheel that should work. Nothing new, just things that are in practice in other areas put into a new application. I will return home from my Middle East work in eight weeks to find a pile of bits delivered from the water jet cutter man for me to put together and see if my model is correct. The key is understanding that they are not perpetual motion wheels, it is a converter of force from gravity to torque that has a by product of causing rotation. You must separate the axis of balance from the axis of rotation. Simply having a wheel with bits on that flap about will not work as just like an ice skater as a mass goes inward the speed increases but as a mass goes outward it slows down again. So you must look at all the effects and cancel them out from both sides. I am from the Dover area so maybe if it works I will bring it along to show everyone.
On 11 May 2008 Alan Wenbourne wrote:
Dear Ross, Unfortunately we may not get to see your device because either:- a) it won’t work, or:- b) if it does, you should not show or divulge the idea to anyone until you have protected your intellectual property (IP). I think the former is more likely; however, if the event of the latter, you could potentially become the most famous and richest person in the world! Converting gravity to rotation is easy, but unless the potential energy can be re-gained for free, it does not produce perpetual motion (PM). Your ice skater analogy does not apply, since centripetal force (CP) is a function of the square of velocity and gravity wheels rely on static imbalance, not dynamic energy. Also, CP energy is more effective in devices with a vertical axis of rotation than those with horizontal axes. If a mass-moment analysis of a gravity wheel is conducted over one complete cycle of operation, the result will prove static balance, hence no PM. This is a tedious and time consuming procedure, which I chose to avoid by making a model to prove the point, you will no doubt discover the same. Regards, Alan Wenbourne.