This is my first time here. I spent a couple of minutes looking at the wheel!
My conclusion: Energy in must be greater than energy out. The technology of this time was to crude to achieve the constant state of motion. Take the little duck that sticks his dead into a glass of water, thru capillary action water is drawn to the base and moves on a piviting axil. Then thu evaporitation returns to its original head in the glass. Factors evaporation rate, liquid viscosity etc. Now if you get my drift. substute the energy loss with solor, wind, vave energy (free from mother earth) and you can sustain the constant motion. You must excuse my spelling, only made it out of high school. But did manage to work an all the Appollo and Earth resources projects at NASA. We went over many of these ideas to support the man space mission in the 70's and 80's. Well I'll be watching and see what this expands into.
PS....Correct look at the principal not the mechanics. The wheel is much to complicated to overcome energy loss.
New idea
Moderator: scott
re: New idea
Jan, I have seen your site and am interested in your ideas, but unfortunatly I can't test them because of their complexity and my limited resources. Of course I mean relatively complex, it's a simple device in theory, but I have a hard time drawing a self consistent blue print to analyse it theoretically, let alone make one, due to the necessary interaction and synchonization it requires of its parts.
et, I can't tell if you are talking to me or Jan. Now not to be offensive, but your understanding of a dipping duck is incorrect and coupled with the fact that you claim to have only finished high school but to have been employed by NASA anyway makes me question your sanity. I stress that I don't want you to take that the wrong way, this is merely my first impression based on one lone post and partially on the similarity of your post to posts of other people I know to have been crazy. You end up talking to a lot of nuts in this line of research, one can't be too careful in trying to spot them early on.
et, I can't tell if you are talking to me or Jan. Now not to be offensive, but your understanding of a dipping duck is incorrect and coupled with the fact that you claim to have only finished high school but to have been employed by NASA anyway makes me question your sanity. I stress that I don't want you to take that the wrong way, this is merely my first impression based on one lone post and partially on the similarity of your post to posts of other people I know to have been crazy. You end up talking to a lot of nuts in this line of research, one can't be too careful in trying to spot them early on.
Disclaimer: I reserve the right not to know what I'm talking about and not to mention this possibility in my posts. This disclaimer also applies to sentences I claim are quotes from anybody, including me.