It is possible you misunderstood me. I wrote in the same cycle. Not at the same time as in exactly the same second - not that it matters. Let me elaborate.

For example: if each second one weight is removed from the left side, then each second one weight must be added to the left side so the device is balanced. Otherwise, one side would end up with all the weights or just broke. There can be any delay up to 1 second between the removal and addition of weights.

What it means is you only have to examine the work done by one weight... which is none (in ideal environment) or negative (when you account for friction). Or in other words you should not look at the static forces in play at any given time, because it will mislead you (which is what the "inventor" is probably counting on).

The weight that is moved from L to R only does work equal to the high force pushing it down multiplied by the short distance it has to travel (it's compressed height). At the same time the work required to lift the weight going from R to L is equal to the (small) force pushing it down multiplied by much longer distance to travel (it's extended height). Which means there is no work done.

You can look at it from another perspective. The left weight moves slowly for a long time while the right weight moves fast for a short time. Even intuitivelly you have to see it can't work. And when you put physics behind it, it will confirm your intuition. And if you don't believe in physics, well, try it yourself. Get an old bike, some string with weights and see how that works (the device is supposed to generate over 300W - that means it should work even with a very crude design and high friction). The proof is in my previous post .

I hope it is now as clear to you as it is to everyone else that tried it.

--- In chain-grav@yahoogroups.com, "John" <burns-john@...> wrote:
>
> --- In chain-grav@yahoogroups.com, "kanshimura" kanshimura@ wrote:
>
> > Anyway, the device moves one weight
> > from the bottom-left but at the same
> > time must move one weight to the upper-left
> > in each cycle. That alone should help you
> > realise it won't work.
>
> If a weight is removed and replaced at the same time you the left stack then you would be right. The spacing of the cogs teeth, size of cog wheels, etc, etc, can mean the top weight is placed on the stack on the left before the bottom weight is removed, meaning the left side is being constantly being made lighter then heavier.
>
> Have the links on the right "vertical", not acting as counter-weight levers.
>