[JLindgaard (OP)]

 It is well known that scientists have said that if a weight drops 1m, it can only lift another weight 1m.
This video clearly demonstrates that work can be factored as torque.

The weight that is dropping obviously travels less than π1m/2 while the weight being lifted travels further
than, oops, because its radius decreases by a factor of 50cm/90 º so its average radius is .75m,
π.75m/2 is less than π1m/2
π.75/2 = 1.178 while π1m/2 = 1.571

 Since Russia has cut off energy to Europe, it will be interesting to see the reaction when I finish my build.
A Dr. Jaaski at Utrecht university (rare book librarian) and a Dr. Poschl (atmospheric chemistry and physics)
know I am almost finished with my build. And Dr, Poschl is also aware of my experiment. I help to realize
Saxony, Germany's history and as a gesture of goodwill he might help me with my experiment.
 And I am aware that scientists do not support any work that I am pursuing. As for my video, unless someone
can explain why the video is a hoax, it proves that one weight dropping can lift another weight higher. And scientists
claim that is not possible. Yet the math Bessler would have known shows an excess of torque can be generated.
The math shows that 25% of the torque the weight that drops is excess torque. The build is close to those values.
 And this is because resistance increases entropy. Except in this instance it increases momentum by negating
the centripetal force of the weight being rotated (lifted) upward.

[Bored chemist]

If you could eliminate the friction you would only need to consider height.
It doesn't matter that the rim of wheel is longer than the diameter.
It's only the perpendicular height that matters.

You just don't seem to have grasped the basics.

[Bored chemist]

. As for my video, unless someone
can explain why the video is a hoax, it proves that one weight dropping can lift another weight higher

Your video does not show that.

[JLindgaard (OP)]

 If this works I will tell Europe that bored chemist said that I have sinned and have fallen short of the glory of God.
My Father who art in thenakedscientists.com give us this day our daily bread and let us forgive those who are ignorant and know not the perfect science.
 And bored chemist, why I compare you to a stalker. The video clearly shows over 90º of rotation and you say it doesn't show that. You are calling me a liar and a fraud. Others have made that claim as well saying someone proved it in the late 19th century. And since someone who didn't actually consider the math I am using, I say they got it wrong but people will defend science even when science is wrong. And I say you are a stalker and I will not post in here anymore because you've proven that science has become a religion. I guess you'll need to find someone else to stalk.

[Origin]

 If this works I will tell Europe that bored chemist said that I have sinned and have fallen short of the glory of God.

No, just tell everyone you were wrong.

[JLindgaard (OP)]

 bored chemist was actually teaching me how to get it to work. He noticed "specific issues" which would prevent it from functioning. And the video clearly shows that a weight was lifted higher than another weight fell. This violates
work = mass times distance. And people have always told be that science will not allow me to calculate potential
torque/counter torque  as "a cos ø" within the context of πr/2.
 This means that r cos(x) ø - r cos(90 - x) ø * 9.81m/s. That is how potential acceleration (there will be some resistance) for every degree, minute or second can be calculated. Leibniz was a witness at Bessler's trial when Bessler was charged with being a fraud. Myself, the stupid fool that I am considered Leibniz to be credible.
https://arxiv.org/abs/1301.3097
 And if I want to enjoy anything that I do, I'll need to do it offline. Apparently most people haven't lived in 2 different countries and have spoken 2 different languages. I think that gives me an advantage when considering a perspective other than my own.

p.s., the radius of the weight rotating upward would obviously have some type of f(x) = because the retraction disc would allow for a constant rate of change in the radius as that weight is lifted via rotation.

[evan_au]

Lifting One Weight Higher Than Another Drops

This is well known - it is called a pulley. You can achieve the same effect with a lever.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechanical_advantage

However, what the video is trying to show is that you can achieve mechanical advantage using the same weights.
- This violates the principle of conservation of energy.

The device in the video intends to show a perpetual motion machine, with weights falling down providing the leverage to lift other (equal) weights up.
- It is significant that the device in the video only rotates a quarter turn before it stops and reverses.
- The fact that it produces noise shows that it is losing energy
- More interesting would be a video with the device rotating a full circle, and the speed increasing over time.

[Kryptid]

The video clearly shows over 90º of rotation and you say it doesn't show that.

Why not a full 360 degrees? What keeps it from working?

[Bored chemist]

B and A.jpg (183.59 kB . 1893x729 - viewed 1659 times)OK, let's have a look at what happens in the video.
Here are some "before and after" pictures.
One weight falls from A to B which, on my screen is from 12.5 cm to about 2 cm
The other rises from C to D which, on my screen is from 0.5 cm to about 8 cm
So, one falls about 10.5 cm and, in doing so, raises the other by about 7.5cm

it proves that one weight dropping can lift another weight higher.

Not unless 7.5 is bigger than 10.5

[Bored chemist]

If this works 

It still won't.

I will tell Europe that bored chemist said that I have sinned and have fallen short of the glory of God.

How do you plan to contact Europe?
Also, given that I'm a staunch atheist, the only ones who might recognise "bored chemist" will know you are deluded or lying.

[alancalverd]

Bring me a working model. Serious investors waiting.

[The Spoon]

If this works I will tell Europe that bored chemist said that I have sinned and have fallen short of the glory of God.
My Father who art in thenakedscientists.com give us this day our daily bread and let us forgive those who are ignorant and know not the perfect science.
 And bored chemist, why I compare you to a stalker. The video clearly shows over 90º of rotation and you say it doesn't show that. You are calling me a liar and a fraud. Others have made that claim as well saying someone proved it in the late 19th century. And since someone who didn't actually consider the math I am using, I say they got it wrong but people will defend science even when science is wrong. And I say you are a stalker and I will not post in here anymore because you've proven that science has become a religion. I guess you'll need to find someone else to stalk.

The only thing you appear to be capable of demonstrating, like many of the delusional people who post their brain farts in this section is a profound lack of understanding of science. Not only specific knowledge of particular fields, but a nonsensical idea that 'science' is a body of people who preside over and control knowledge in a unified manner. You also appear to demonstrate paranoia along with self pity and think we should cut you some slack because you are a veteran.

[JLindgaard (OP)]

 The change I am making in the display model https://photos.app.goo.gl/mLQ537B18JuUkzeCA is that it will have this assembly https://photos.app.goo.gl/MgRF4dZWohTqdgka9

 When the arm is rotating downward, a part will strike a dowel causing everything to move outward. I am letting the stain dry for the modified capstans that will allow me to rig the outside of the wheel. That will make the frame stronger.
 With the assembly in the 2nd image, the piece of wood with 2 slots will catch a "tab". That will hold the retraction line in place. And when that weight wheel is kicked out, it will release the "tab" for the opposing weight.
 I do have holes drilled so I can somewhat lubricate all bushings and bearings. With the axle bearing, it might take loosening the bolts that will hold the hub to the axle so the axle can be slid out of the bearings. I am using radial bearings which now I think was a mistake.

 @Bored chemist, watch the last 5 seconds of the video. What you showed is when I used axle grease. The last 5 seconds shows where I lubricated everything with brake fluid. Brake fluid might actually have more viscosity than 5 wt motor oil.

 Just an FYI, this build works (my own research suggests it will) and I think I'll have friends in Europe.
@evan_au, from everything Bessler wrote, there will be a limit to its acceleration. With something like this, moment of inertia would cost f = ma and then as a weight accelerates with gravity, its acceleration will be limited. Above the level of the axle it could be said to be cancelled out by the other weight above the axle so no acceleration due to gravity.
 Then it is the potential in difference between both weights below the axle (this might be able to be advanced as with the timing of a car's engine), energy lost to friction and to f = ma. And for it to generate electricity, markets are determined by cost per kWh. Wind turbines, solar farms and wind turbines all come with a cost.

[JLindgaard (OP)]

@alancalverd, this cannot be patented unless I claim I am the inventor. I am saying that I am reproducing someone else's work.

[Kryptid]

Just an FYI, this build works

Then why does it stop instead of keep going?

[JLindgaard (OP)]

 With the 2 supports that hold the retraction disc, above the right one is a dark object. That is a c-clamp holding the line securely in place. With my new build, when the weight wheel moves outward it will release that line.

[JLindgaard (OP)]

 This is Dr. Jaski; https://uu.academia.edu/BartJaski
 And Bessler's original book; https://www.uu.nl/en/special-collections/collections/early-printed-books/scientific-works/das-triumphirende-perpetuum-mobile-orffyreanum-by-johann-bessler
 It's digital version; https://objects.library.uu.nl/reader/index.php?obj=1874-206158&lan=en&_ga=2.172428714.880806695.1594795323-938448423.1594186832#page//24/83/12/24831284496948047699702573152743842009.jpg/mode/1up

 This is Dr. Poschl; https://www.mpic.de/3785120/profile-poeschl
 I became acquainted with Dr. Poschl when I submitted a question to https://www.egu.eu/
Dr. Poschl is an editor and after exchanging a couple of emails I knew I had work that I needed to do. And along with Bessler's Wheel, over the last few years, it is what I've spent my time pursuing.

 And both Dr. Jaski and Dr. Poschl know that my Father from Norway lived under the 3rd Reich. Today things are different, right? Politics is still politics. And a working wheel might offer some relief as far as energy is considered. Then a toxic concept might become just another feat of engineering.

p.s., with Dr. Jaski, my interest was doing a show at his university with Bessler's original book. In a sense that would've been Bessler saying Uf Da!.

[Kryptid]

And a working wheel might offer some relief as far as energy is considered.

It would, but Noether's theorem won't allow it to work.

[Kartazion]

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Perpetual_motion_machines

[JLindgaard (OP)]

@Kryptid, I can only say that I consider Leibniz to be a credible source. Historical records shows
that he supported Bessler.
 And I know with a working wheel, a lot of people will be interested in how much energy it might generate. Because of my research I'll probably be asked to explain the theory to engineers. Europe needs energy. And if I know Bessler's Wheel then do I understand its theory? That would allow for engineers to do modeling based on what they know of mass/structures and friction.
 Someone did design the Eye of London. What if something had 1/2 of its diameter? And yet I'd
only be the messenger and not the inventor.

p.s., I read a lot of these research papers. Knowing what modeling is accurate and then when it is always off as it is with CH2O, what should I think?
https://www.academia.edu/30281588/Atmospheric_Chemistry_and_Physics_Interactive_chemistry_in_the_Laboratoire_de_M%C3%A9t%C3%A9orologie_Dynamique_general_circulation_model_model_description_and_impact_analysis_of_biogenic_hydrocarbons_on_tropospheric_chemistry?email_work_card=view-paper

 And then there's this;
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2001JD000722

 What do you think? It's what I receive in my inbox. Could you imagine creating a model from hundreds of research papers? Kind of why I think I figured out Bessler's Wheel.