When the 90° mass is at 6 o’clock it is stopped as it touches the ground and the 270° mass is moving twice as fast as the center of mass of the wheel. Momentum is conserved but energy is not.
I'm not sure if that answers my Q from yesterday: "The wheel stops at 06:00 and the attached mass (the weight) is detached or disconnected from the wheel and this weight continues its movement..."? (paraphrased)
About the actual transfer and 'rope' idea, I was wondering if it was possible to let the falling mass (attached weight) roll down the incline plane of the wheel and at the same time stay at the exact same spot relative to the 'attachment' point on the wheel...?
A fusee came to my mind - as mentioned by Jim .
Or perhaps another 'return' path of the rope...
It's difficult to explain in english...maybe I should just make a drawing
regards
ruggero ;-)
Contradictions do not exist.
Whenever you think you are facing a contradiction, check your premises.
You will find that one of them is wrong. - Ayn Rand -
I don't quite follow the english translation, but i'm fairly sure that any engine that uses bouyancy is doomed to fail. Simply because the force of bouyancy comes directly from the fall of the heavier fluid around the bouyant mass, squeezing the bouyant mass upwards. It simply reverses the situation of a heavy mass falling downwards in a lighter density fluid, and replaces it with a light mass falling upwards in a heavier density fluid. The catch is always that the COG of heavier mass has to fall lower - and therefore you end up running out of mass from above - and it requires energy to return the mass to the higher position.
You can't change the mass of any float. You can change it's density - but only by changing it's volume. To change it's volume, you have to displace fluid - which leads you right back to having to raise mass in order to keep it working.
I got excited about bouyancy a while back - and if there was any possible way to make it supply free energy, I would have found it. As a result, i'm convinced that all the patents for free energy engines based on bouyancy are non-runners. The more complex they are, the harder it is to spot the fundamental flaw - but sooner or later you still have to raise the fluid back up. Unless you are in an open system such as the sea, where tidal or thermal cycles can provide the energy you need.
greendoor is correct about buoyancy in my experience. Have a look at the enclosed invention, which looks like a simpler version of the invention you show, particularly on its page 2. There are many buoyancy inventions that work the same. The Chinese have a number of them.
Not to be a downer Mikhail but "simple arithmetic" has been proven time and time again to not be a good substitute for an actual build. There are countless examples of individuals claiming to have devices that work on paper that do not work in reality...
That, which wants to see the device actually functioning will make a prototype.
That, which does not want to make a prototype, it is necessary that it learns how to calculate.
I would not build models, I abandoned these engine, they are in the public domain = open source = free.
You are correct, the invention I showed doesn't work. I reread the invention you showed and to my eyes it seems to be exactly the same kind of invention, i.e. doesn't work either.
I note in your invention's description it says the invention was not tested in calculation or in building a prototype. That well may be the problem. I once thought the invention I showed work as well. It was this discussion board that showed me I was wrong. With luck I'm wrong about yours.
The fundamental principle appears to be based on changing the volume of the float. The complexity can be reduced to a very simple experiment. Push a empy plastic bottle into a swimming pool. It will require some force to do this - because you are lifting the level of the entire pool by small (but significant) amount.
Once immersed, the bottle has bouyancy - or "force of Archimedes" if you will. That force is supplied by gravity, acting on the mass of water in the pool. The water wants to "fall down" around the empty bottle, and because there is less mass in the bottle, the force of gravity acting to pull it down is less than the force of gravity acting to pull the water down around it - so it experiences the differential of force in an upward direction.
If you arranged a wheel of these plastic bottles - with equal numbers on the ascending side as the descenting side, the forces will all be balanced and no movement will occur.
Your design is attempting to overbalance the wheel by changing the volume of these bottles. But you can't expand a bottle without lifting all the water in the pool. And if you allow the air to escape from the bottle, you can reduce the volume by allowing the water to crush the bottle. In doing so, the level of water in the pool drops.
So any bouyancy design that trys to change the volume of a float is doomed to fail. This is just another version of an overbalanced wheel that cannot work.
I had a look at your math for 01 11357 and I'd like to say it doesn't make any sense, but the truth is I'm just too lazy to wade through it. I think greendoor's description of why buoyancy devices won't work is very lucid and explains why they won't work very well.
I remain convinced your invention's collapsing feature is the same collapsing that takes place in US Patent 3,412,482 shown above.
