Sjack Abeling Gravity Wheel and the Worlds first Weight Power Plant

[mondrasek]

Firstly, if we're talking about ideal devices whereby the friction is zero and only the construction and gravity are at play, I think we have definitively proven such devices are working. That you can't deny.

I most certainly do deny that!  Not one of the devices that you say are "working" is not something that I can understand as an aberration due to the iterative nature of the software and "not best method" modeling.  Having a model wiggle around in a virtual environment with large interferences and time steps being allowed does not prove the device works.  It proves an ignorant approach to the use of the simulation tool.  Dismissing and failing to follow the proper methodology as I have described repeatedly does not mean there is any hope left for simulated designs that show absolutely no forceful tendency to accelerate or produce usable torque.  My interpretation of such evidence is that the design does not work, not that we need to play around with the software further.

As for fluid dynamics, while it's true that it's more complex to model such systems there are certain firmly established laws and approaches which make the outcome physically predictable even prior to actual lab experiments in fluid dynamics too. Engineers use every day Stokes' law or Nusselt and Reynolds numbers, let alone the empirical formulae, to name a few in constructing their reactors on paper, the way civil engineers apply their set in stone mechanical formulae. Indeed, approximations are made but they are all within the framework of known, predictive physical laws. The approximations are to find out what, say, the coefficients in a formula describing a concrete physical situation are but are hardly yielding anything new in terms of new mechanical or physical laws. If something is found out in this way that contradicts the established laws of physics then it is counted as a discovery and not as just an engineering solution of a problem. This happens very rarely and is a noticeable event, not just a routine everyday engineering work.

I stand behind my earlier statements.  Many of the equations that govern fluid dynamics are not solveable to an exact value.  This is due to the fact that fluids are made of many tiny particles and we cannot calculate the exact reactions to known forces of each particle simultaneously.  Several methods are commonly used to approximate the solutions with varying degrees of accuracy.  Real world testing is sometimes used to update the best approximations to use under specific conditions.  So a comparison between the simulations used to model fluid dynamics and the simulations used to model basic mechanics differ in this respect.  The proper methodology for achieving coorelations between those sims and the real world therefore also differ.

[mondrasek]

@mondrasek,

Speaking of simulations, were you able to take a look at @Jubjub's 3D simulation using 3ds Max reactor? Your input would be very valuable.

No.  I have not used 3ds Max reactor.  And so far I am not interested in exploring further anything that has been presented where that tool would be necessary.  I am learning the answers to any questions that I have about those sims through the posts of others including yourself.

[rlortie]

I will not debate with omni on this simulation issue.

I will say that it is my opinion; accidental discoveries through hands on research is more likely than any conclusion using simulations which still can not be deemed 'objective' until utilized...They are limited  on programs running mechanics and physics  as accepted fact and leave little chance of an accident recognized by the empirical builder.

For an example; I and a working partner were working on a ramp design when a temporary wire strap holding the ramp broke. The end result was discovery of a leverage system capable of producing over 260 degrees of + torque out of one levered weight. A simulation to my knowledge could never achieve this.

I too am beginning to have stronger  doubts about Sjack's claims. We have heard nothing from him or anyone he is allegedly associated with. Even Dusty seems to have gone quiet.

In the meantime as time permits I will continue with my design that achieves the same performance without the use of stationary ramps and slotted disks.

@Dusty

I am very impressed with your hands on trials and tribulation. You are a very empirical builder (my type of guy) showing the  aptitude that it will take to vindicate Bessler. If you ever wish to have private communication with some one to bounce ideas off of I offer my services, I am not a believer in 'free sourcing' until after a certified patent pending is issued.

Ralph Lortie
   

[Omnibus]

@mondrasek,

Dismissing and failing to follow the proper methodology as I have described repeatedly does not mean there is any hope left for simulated designs that show absolutely no forceful tendency to accelerate or produce usable torque.

This is what I’m questioning. I would in no way dismiss a proper methodology. However, I need more to be convinced that decreasing the time step, let alone setting up air resistance to non-zero is indeed the proper methodology and not just seeking ways to prove the device is non-working. What if setting up lower thresholds for the iterations leads to desynchronizing the calculations that are supposed to be simultaneous and worsens the outcome? I don’t know. There may be reason, as I said before, for these threshold to be set up at what their defaults values are, and not lower. This I don’t know either. Further, why would one device work and another, similar device with slightly changed track won’t work, despite the same small threshold set up for both? So far these questions have not been addressed and all that has been given as a counter argument are devices containing known flaws (such as, for instance, rigid joints set on Optimized). No, the answer to whether or not ideal devices are non-working still isn’t clear cut, to say the least, let alone that an ideal device with an initially imparted energy should go on indefinitely which doesn’t seem to be the case with the correctly constructed (without rigid joints on Optimized, for instance) non-working devices set at low thresholds.  More is needed.

One sure way would be to prove analytically that equations describing such devices cannot have solutions leading to their indefinite functioning. This is a very involved, non-trivial task, however, up to only highly trained mathematicians and/or theoretical physicists versed in solving such problems. With these simulations we're trying to find a shortcut but, as I said, I'm still not sure we've found it.

[Omnibus]

@rlortie,

What we're doing here has nothing to do with a discovery but with finding a proper engineering solution of something proved to be possible in a discontinuous way. Engineering solutions are not scientific discoveries.