I'm glad to see you've discovered the device's balancing point...

No,The machine is supposed to be immersed in water so as to loose its balance. The machine I have posted aims to show the principle by which permanent imbalance can be achieved. More is explained in the analysis. I was posting it immediately after the pictures but was interrupted by a power black-out; the very thing I am fighting.

so, below is the analysis which aims to prove imbalance created by the use of the principle.To avoid complexity of the explanation, I have not included the calculations to determine the energy. The energy equivalents are only estimates based upon the imbalance. The conventional formulas for calculating Kinetic energy are not applicable here directly due to the numerous movements of different parts of the machine. I have a way to simplify the machine into a rigid equivalent 'imaginary 'structure for the purpose of getting it's kinetic energy, unless someone suggests another way. I will share this some other time.Note that the diagrams in the analysis could not be displayed and one may need to check them out from the downloads, until I formulates some for this forum.

**ANALYSIS OF THE MAIN FORCES**

ACTING ON THE WHEEL (FREE WHEEL)This study is aimed at revealing the main forces acting on the free wheel which eventually cause motion on the Free wheel. Practically due to the fact that the wheel partly moves in water, the total resultant forces are many including water resistance, friction as well as up thrust. This study however does not focus on them. It is expected that the wheel design seeks to reduce these forces as much as possible. This study focuses on the main forces which are responsible for both the clockwise and anti-clockwise moments on the wheel which are:-

A) Imbalance force

B) Pedal force

A) IMBALANCE FORCE Figures fw. 1 and fw. 3 show the movement of the weights as seen from the side of the wheel as it rotates. The drawings show 16 different weight positions as a single weight moves in one complete revolution of the wheel.

The lever (r) is joined to the big arm (R) through a joint (S) so that as the wheel rotates, (r) revolves about the joint (S) at the same angular velocity but in a plane which is 90° to the wheel’s plane of rotation. This means that as the wheel rotates in the anti – clockwise direction the weight in position 1 moves in a direction 90° to the paper i.e. either ‘out’ of the paper or ‘into’ the paper.

The perpendicular distance of r (perpendicular distance of weight from (s)) will be r cos θ where θ is the angle of rotation from the weight position 1. If the wheel had 16 weights each mounted on a lever(r) and positioned as shown in the diagram fw.3, then if it is made to rotate, each weight assumes the position of the fore-running weight and thus the weights will always be positioned as shown despite the rotation.

The arrangement has achieved two important things:-

a) The weights descending are positioned further from fulcrum (f) and the weights ascending are positioned closer to fulcrum (f) and thereby creating imbalance.

b) Unlike most perpetual motion wheels suggested, the number of weights distributed on the left hand side and on the right hand side of the point of rotation are equal in number and thus the imbalance is still maintained by this arrangement (side view arrangement).

This arrangement however, comes with a price which as we will see later balances out the wheel and this price is the pedal force.

B) THE PEDALING (Pedal) FORCE The introduction of a second plane of rotation on the wheel results in some side-ways weight displacement which can be seen by a front view of the wheel. This causes the ‘pedal’ force. This force result from the mass of the weights acting at 900 from the wheels plane of rotation as the weight revolves about fulcrum (s).

As seen from figures fw2 and fw4, the pedal force will be at a maximum at weight positions 5 and 13 and reduce to zero at positions 1 and 9.

If the laws of conservation of energy are to be retained then the wheel should be balanced. The ONLY possible explanation is that the imbalance reveled on figure fw3 and fw1 (side view) is cancelled by the pedaling force shown in figures fw2 and fw4.

NB. All of the pedaling force is contributing to the clockwise moment.

Taking each plane as a balance lever machine the weights act in pairs i.e. weight on position 1 acts with weight on position 9. Consequently weight 2 acts with weight 10, and weight 5 with weight 13 etc. In this case it will be discovered that the weights on the horizontal i.e. positions 16 through 2 and 8 through 10 have more imbalance force in them then pedal force.

NB. Compare figure fw1 and fw2 or fw3 and fw4 to see this.

However, weights 12 through 14 and 4 through 6 have more of the pedal force then imbalance force. As such, the weights on vertical plane contribute more to pedal force and thus the clockwise moment - but the weights on horizontal plane contribute more to the imbalance force and thus anti – clockwise moment.

**Creating force to move the wheel**If weights with equal density to water such as water bottles, are used and the wheels submerged into water at the level show, then the force that will be ‘canceled’ by the submerged weights will be the pedal force (or more of it than the imbalance force) and thus, force will be created to cause motion on the wheel.

COMPLICATION IN CREATING CONSTANT IMBALANCEIn ideal situations and to get as much power as possible from the wheel, then all the weights in positions 12 through 14 and 4 through 6 should be ‘cancelled’ or negated in some way.

Because of the ellipse shape of the path of the weights, achieving this is tricky. To find the best way, we need to look at several outstanding factors of the Free wheel arrangement.

a) Both the ‘Imbalance’ and ‘Pedal’ forces can be increased by either or both of the following:-

Increasing the mass of the weight used

Decreasing the ratio of the length of the lever (r) to the arm (R).

Increasing the small (gear) radius (please see note below)

N/B. If the difference between r and R is increased then the weights will tend to move closer to their usual circular path (shown by the dotted) line and both the ‘imbalance’ and ‘pedal’ forces will be reduced. However it will be easier to cancel out the pedal force. This is because it will be easier to ‘capture’ the weights inside water through positions 4 and 6. It will also be easier to design a railing to ‘support’ the weight through position 13 to (almost) 15. Refer of fig Fw. 3. Ideally the distance of weight through x should be in water and the distance y not in water.

If r:R is 2 : 5 i.e figures fw.3 and fw.4 then at least we will be able to ‘capture’ distance w in water which is a good achievement. Unfortunately a bit of y is also captured in water(it shouldn’t be) and a portion of x (from position 6 to 7) is not in water (it should be).

Even though so far I have not designed the railing to support the weight from position 14 to 15. This is possible and will contribute some more to the energy to rotate the wheel.

Considering that r: R is 4: 5 (figure fw.1 and fw. 2) there is more ‘pedal’ and ‘imbalance’ force created but unfortunately much less of distance x is ‘captured’ in water and at the same time all of distance y is in water (again,it shouldn’t be).

The water level may be in either of the two levels shown.

Move experimentation needs to be done to find out the best dimensions of r and R to be used for optimum energy and efficiency.

N/B. The ‘small wheel’ is the gear attached to the (r) and which transmits the ‘pedal’ force to the wheel. It is shown in the technical drawings and prototype pictures.

**EXPERIMENTS RESULTS**An experimental prototype with Four weights was made to test the forces acting on the wheel

The ratio of r: R was 1: 2.

The wheels measurements were as follows:

R = 25cm

r = 12.5 cm

Mass of weight = 500g

Small wheel radius = 4.25cm

The lower weight was removed to cause the effect of negating as when it is immersed in water. The results were as follows:

a) The wheel attained enough force to rotate when three weights are placed in position 1, 9 and 13 each, and also in positions 2, 10 and 14 each. These two positions are significant as they can be achieved by emerging the wheel in water to negate the lower weight.

However, position 15, 7 and 12 had a balance effect with no motion either clockwise or anticlockwise. This is likely due to the small wheel radius which is quite too small as compared to r thus causing a bigger pedaling force on the weights.

b) Weights on the vertical plane exhibited clockwise moment e.g. if two weights are mounted in positions 13 and 5 each, they would move in the clockwise direction until they reach positions 3 and 11.

c) Weights on the horizontal plane exhibited anticlockwise moment as expected. If two weights are placed in positions 16 and 8 each, they would move in the anticlockwise direction until they reach position 3 and 11.

d) Two weights placed on position 15 and 7 each exhibited a balanced state with no motion in either direction.

e) A single weight placed in position 5 exhibited clockwise moment and moved at least to position 4 and if r is closer to R, the weight moved beyond 4 and closer to 3.

These experiment results reveal that the principle used to cause imbalance and pedal forces are successful. More can however be done to improve on the working of the wheel.