Sjack Abeling Gravity Wheel and the Worlds first Weight Power Plant

[Dusty]

I've been working on many tests.  One test was adding more weight on the dumbells.  I added 5 lbs. on each and it made no difference.  The wheel came to the exact stopping point as with the original 5 lb dumbell weight.  Then I took off all the weight, left just the shaft and bearings only and it came to almost the same spot within 1/2".  The wheel spun slightly faster with the extra 5 lbs and slower with just the basic weight of 2.5 lbs.

Then I tested different slopes on the lower ramp and that didn't make much difference.  I also tried taking out all the bearings and in place I made up a nylon sleeve which fit loosely over the dumbell shaft, that was just no good.  So bearings seem to be the ticket.  It's hard to explain all this without a video but from what I see I will need to make a much larger wheel and have all eight weights in place.  The only slow down right now is I had to order more bearings and they will be here in a few days.

The slots in the wheel are angled, not direct towards the shaft.  I also need to change the hockey stick shape to hold the dumbell more at the 12:30 position so it won't fall back out.

So, I'm having fun. That's what it is all about, right?  I love engineering and tackling a problem.  I'd be fun to see some simulations showing wheel movement with a small wheel as compared to a very large wheel with the purpose of seeing the leverage factor of the outer weight.  I'm thinking this thing might have a minimum diameter wheel to work according to the amount of leverage that is produced, with all eight weights. Right now with just two weights I'm missing out on the extra helpful leverage of the missing six weights.  I'm not sure if my thinking is correct on that idea but I'm going to try it and see what happens.  Besides it will just be that much closer to the original.

Dusty

Edit to add five videos

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fNbsCAkQiv8&feature=channel_page
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wW_djFz0OZw&feature=channel_page
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ts0TLn_2tPE&feature=channel_page
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D-jpZ3vm45w&feature=channel_page
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9G5jDZsLxc0&feature=channel_page

[AquariuZ]

I've been working on many tests.  One test was adding more weight on the dumbells.  I added 5 lbs. on each and it made no difference.  The wheel came to the exact stopping point as with the original 5 lb dumbell weight.  Then I took off all the weight, left just the shaft and bearings only and it came to almost the same spot within 1/2".  The wheel spun slightly faster with the extra 5 lbs and slower with just the basic weight of 2.5 lbs.

Then I tested different slopes on the lower ramp and that didn't make much difference.  I also tried taking out all the bearings and in place I made up a nylon sleeve which fit loosely over the dumbell shaft, that was just no good.  So bearings seem to be the ticket.  It's hard to explain all this without a video but from what I see I will need to make a much larger wheel and have all eight weights in place.  The only slow down right now is I had to order more bearings and they will be here in a few days.

The slots in the wheel are angled, not direct towards the shaft.  I also need to change the hockey stick shape to hold the dumbell more at the 12:30 position so it won't fall back out.

So, I'm having fun. That's what it is all about, right?  I love engineering and tackling a problem.  I'd be fun to see some simulations showing wheel movement with a small wheel as compared to a very large wheel with the purpose of seeing the leverage factor of the outer weight.  I'm thinking this thing might have a minimum diameter wheel to work according to the amount of leverage that is produced, with all eight weights. Right now with just two weights I'm missing out on the extra helpful leverage of the missing six weights.  I'm not sure if my thinking is correct on that idea but I'm going to try it and see what happens.  Besides it will just be that much closer to the original.

Dusty

Hi Dusty, is there a way for you to post a picture of your wheel so I can create a model? I am interested in the exact location of the hockey sticks

Thanks for all your efforts!

[AquariuZ]

Sjack Abeling is about to publish his new physical theory*.

This new physical theory will explain how to generate energy by rotating two bodies with the same mass/weight. The weight of the bodies together with ... (intentionally omitted) and the rotational velocity determine the amount of energy that can be generated.

The new physical theory explains the working of the Weight Power Plant ("Gewicht Energie Centrale") developed by Sjack Abeling. In this plant, the mass of the bodies is controlled in such a way that from a complete standstill to a rotation of 180 degrees, 80% more energy is generated than required to propel the system itself. The only source of energy required is the earth's gravity...

* Alas we had to postpone publication several times because of legal issues. Please check back soon!

We all get what we wish for it seems. Let´s hope it will be days and not months....

AZ

[Omnibus]

@mondrasek,

Integration errors are indeed an issue in principle. However, you cannot deny the non-physicality of the slow motion when the accuracy is increased in the problem at hand (not in the last example you gave). Let alone that suddenly elimination of constraints starts to occur with that increased accuracy. Thus, when we observe the example at hand, not other examples, we encounter problems with increasing the accuracy of integration. This may be due to the concurrent calculations which by themselves may be of high accuracy but taken as a whole, because of other issues such as wrong sequence in solving the various parts of the problem, cause even greater deterioration of the final outcome than the less accurate but faster calculations otherwise. This is one possible way of explaining it. Maybe there are other reasons, but the fact that the outcome when increasing the accuracy in our case (not in other cases) is non-physical seems evident.

[Omnibus]

Incorrect. When calculating torque in a system such as this the only thing of relevance is the distance between the centre of gravity of the individual weight to the fulcrum measured along the x-axis. The centre of gravity of the entire device is a resultant of all masses present.

The whole idea of having the weights run on a excenter is as old as the hills. There are hundreds of variations that have been tried, none if them have worked for very obvious reasons.

You can use all kinds of fancy mathematics to show that there is a surplus like that idiot that wrote the paper for Milkovic. In the end only the correct mathematical procedure will give correct results.

Hans von Lieven

The system center of mass changes its position (that part is demonstrable at once) which makes your way of determination the inequality with a fixed vertical inapplicable.

As for fancy mathematics, it isn't outside of what is known as laws of classical mechanics. The only problem is to have it applied correctly.  That's what's needed and that would significantly shorten the  trial and error efforts. This is the way to demonstrate why something will or will not work, not by just pronouncing that it won't work for very obvious reasons. There are subtleties in these matters which may remain undiscovered for a long time as happens with any discovery. Before a discovery is made many centuries have passed without it being known but that isn't a basis to discard the discovery. Lack of prior knowledge of a phenomenon isn't at all an argument in discussing its validity.