Sjack Abeling Gravity Wheel and the Worlds first Weight Power Plant

[i_ron]

@i_ron,

I strongly disagree. The simulation posts are the most important in this thread.

omni,

Not to me. The simulation posts take up most of this list, yet
the conclusions drawn, that are meaningful, could be summed
up in one short post.

Simulations in the aircraft industry are de rigor, a way of life.
But they have repeatedly flown sensor'ed planes and fine tuned the program to reflect the actual event to the point
that now the program can predict actual behavior (under
most conditions). Where is that here? You are taking an off
the shelve 2D program that has never seen a gravity wheel
before and asking it to preform miracles. You are using the wrong type of program on the wrong type of computer also. An analog computer would render this interaction with the most realism.

The bottom line is... Abeling developed this in a cut and try
approach, we should be able to (with a few more hints) do
the same.

Mind you the sim talk has been enlightening... I feel that I
could almost run the program now myself....lol

Take Care,

Ron

[Cloxxki]

Sailing up against gravital wind, using stored graviblablah 

Also, to eisenficker2000: WHAT IF THE WEIGHTS ARE CONNECTED VIA A BAR PAIRING THEM IN 2 X 2

Sorry for the rookie speak, I hardly completed highschool despite confirmed 3-digit and then some IQ.
I referred to this earlier today. Didn't read past page 70 or so, and just got home with an idea.
The "outer" weight is connected to the inner weight via the above rod. BUT is it a spring that can lengthen beyond its set optimal minimum. The first part may be without building much tension at all.
The inner weight nicely follows Abeling's patent, 0 to 6 o'clock along inner diameter of the outside of the wheel. The outer weight is slung around.

Sailing against gravity.
At 6 o'clock or slightly after, I suppose the spring rod's length will be maximum, stored energy maximum.
Now, the 2 weights, thanks to the smart ramps, are lined up horizontally, at the bottom of their projected ramps paths which are both "aiming" for 12 o'clock, thus getting closer as they climb up.
Thanks to the shallow angle of the approximating trajectories of the respective weights, make that the kickback from the spring (getting smaller, accelerates both weights up. As the spring hit its "stop", the two "collide" and one is shot-putted out over the 1 o'clock mark, the cycle repeating itself.

See? The two weights are attracting each other with the energy stored in the springs. The angle (like a surfer along the wind)converts this energy in "lift", rather than having it cancel out the two weights "chasing" each other vertically.

I thought in this direction before, "letting the weights be free and restricted when it suits us". Only when I was bugging a friend over this problem, I came up with the part of the two attracting each other upwards. Much like that grease nut shooting from our fingers, but the fingers being the benificiairies of the effect.

Please debunk this before I go to sleep?

Thanks,

J

[Cloxxki]

(Edited, I added some explanations)

OK, I suck at this:

Weights connected by pull-spring. Neutral when weights are at minimal distance. May not even engage until some distance has been established, offering the outer weight a wider trajectory.
Aweful sketch, lacking a scanner to do a horrible one.

Over unity or not, does this use stored centrifugal forced for vertical acceleration?

Obviously, in such a setup, you'll want the weights to roll even so smoothly over the inner and other faces of the wheel, and it's neighbouring ramps. Perhaps the outer weight must engage both the outer wheel and outer ramp with a smooth running bearing rather than rolling right over it, and during its sling it will not gather rotation proportion to its "air speed". Landing on the underside of the wheel without a bearing in between, would cause rotational friction. The inner weight could be a rolling wheel, its outer force should keep it rolling along neatly, if not at varying velocity. I think its diameter as interacting with wheel and ramp should not be too small, for both contant speed friction and preventing slippage during the velocity changes.

In my sketch, without the guiding sleeves in the wheel for the weight, you'll see an abrubt bend onto the ramp for the inner weight.
Restricting its leftward should nett it (in a frictionlessworld) to travel vertically to just as high as it started. In a real world, it would not make it.
BUT, the outer weight swinging a wider trajectoy, from a partially loading spring, will be decellating as well, but not without lengthening (charging) the spring. When the transitions are done right, the outweight will also in the perfect world now have enough to make it back all the way up. But, the spring is not contracting again, causing the two weights to be attracted to each other faster than their restricted sloped collision trajectories, resulting in additional upward energy to become available to both.

I have not yet figured out whether, if this at would work, we'd want the weights to swap places now. This would not only make the guidance more complicated, but also might created some counter effective vectors.
If I'm not mistaken, the outer weight is as I sketched now always travelling faster than the inner weight.

Now I didn't read the patent too thoroughly, and as said before I have seen zero youtube vids or simulation, but I think that although Abeling did not specify the relationship between the weights, my sketch seems to be in line with his statements.

Please debunk me now, it's 1:57AM.

Thanks,

[Cloxxki]

124 pages in 4 weeks, but not one post overnight from the newer side of the Atlantic? Must be a really reply-unworthy idea then... Anyone in Europe, please?
I'll have to fill this space with something more useful later, sorry for the bump.

[Omnibus]

@i_ron,

Simulations in the aircraft industry are de rigor, a way of life.
But they have repeatedly flown sensor'ed planes and fine tuned the program to reflect the actual event to the point
that now the program can predict actual behavior (under
most conditions). Where is that here?

This is a very limited understanding of what simulations are. Simulations we’re talking about are based on classical mechanics and it isn’t true that classical mechanics only predicts the behavior of bodies first flown with sensors on.  Classical mechanics can predict the trajectory of a stone thrown at given initial conditions before having been thrown repeatedly with sensors attached to it to fine tune the equations to reflect the actual event. Similarly, classical mechanics can predict the behavior of more complex systems such as a gravity wheel before experimenting with an actual wheel. Therefore, the question

Where is that here?

is irrelevant, as long as the classical mechanics equations are applied correctly. In other words you may question the model, the way the equations of classical mechanics are applied to make the predictions but not question the fact that classical mechanics, correctly applied, can predict the behavior of mechanical systems before an actual laboratory experiment. The latter is a pessimistic view about the predictive strength of classical mechanics which can be demonstrated to be incorrect at once (recall the example with the trajectory of the stone) using the discrete mathematics of the available computers, at that. This will also save us from the wrong impression that realism can only be brought about by analog computers.