2012

Lets say the small wheel's weight starts to drop, picking up speed, passes the point of equilibrium, and starts to slow down until the formerly-larger-now-smaller wheel's capacity to over power it stops it all together, and takes over in the reverse direction.

 

Due to friction, the weight will not get all the way down to its fullest potential, lets say, it makes it 99% of the way there because its very very efficient. The other weight is now 99% of the full height that the initial one was, and it will only drop 99% of that value - roughly 98% of the total possible distance. This will continue until the machine comes to rest in the dead center - at equilibrium.

 

What I think you failed to consider, is that speed is only being gained during the first half of the free-fall while one wheel is smaller than the other - as soon as they pass equal size at the half way point and it gradually slows.

 

It needs every last possible iota of energy to get the other end back up to it's original position - making harvesting energy impossible and friction it's "slow death" into equilibrium.

 

It is a clever adaption of the pendulum though - just less efficient and, still not a perpetual motion machine.

The weight of each weight remains constant regardless of the length of the cord. It's not a pendulum. It's not a seesaw. One side has more torque than the other and so one side will continually decend until it has gone down all the way. Gravity is a constant. Then the switch occurs and the process reverses. No weight needs to be lifted when the switch occurs.

Oh none of the information shared by the links is wrong.

But those principals have to be taken in context.

I thought you physicists would enjoy examining this sort of thing and stretching your brains a little. I'm convinced that no one has looked at this beyond the title. You say it's wrong because you believe it's wrong and that's the only reason you give.

Friction is not an issue with this design. It will either move and work as a perpetual motion device or it wont move at all.

Maybe I should post it on 4chan, they might get a kick out if it.

This has nothing to do with conserving energy or ignoring friction. This design is based on torque. The fact that gravity and matter exist completely contradicts the second law of thermodynamics.

Here's the type of perpetual motion machine that relies on there being no friction. They're different.

That's a great regurgitation of theory but what's wrong with the design?

You can't say that it's wrong because Newton was right because if it's right then Newton was wrong, right?

So I came up with this at work.

Who wants to explain why it can't work?