Sjack Abeling Gravity Wheel and the Worlds first Weight Power Plant

[Omnibus]

This is just bunk.  When I use WM2D with the methodology that I have described over and over, the simulation act exactly like a pendulum.  And it does settle to a position of zero motion while still having the center of mass to the right of the axle.  A static torque vector analysis at this settled position corroborates zero net torque due to the weights, ie a state of equilibrium.  You choose to ignore the proper use of WM2D, the results of the sim, and the corroborating torque analysis.  Instead you have moved on to eisenficker2000 model, abandoning the original sim all together.

Your assertion that WM2D cannot be used correctly for anything other than a calculator for the center of mass is based on your ignorance and outright dismissile of how to use that program.  I accept that you do not trust WM2D, and so I support your efforts to make an analysis tool that you do trust.

The latest results indicate that wm2d has to be abandoned for simulation studies in the case at hand. It was clear that is has to be abandoned even from the persistent mass-axle discrepancy which wm2d calculates and which is in conflict with the rotation simulation by wm2d. Any methodology applied to the intrinsically flawed program won't do any good. The fact that the conclusions from the sim using wm2d are flawed is confirmed by the latest direct calculations of the net torque which all prove to be negative (for your simulation to be correct half of these torques have to be of the opposite sign). Torque calculations, done correctly, are explicit and cannot be questioned, while wm2d are hidden and one can only deceive himself that he's applying a correct methodology. Like I said there's no correct methodology when using an intrinsically flawed program. The direct method of proving the device in question is a perpetuum mobile is to observe a persistent discrepancy in the position of mass center vs. axle (which is really the case) and also to observe constancy of the non-zero net torque sign for all positions of the wheel (which is also the case). These are the scientific criteria. Everything else is just self-delusion.

[mondrasek]

For any who are interested, here is a short video of the sim that has been abandoned.  It shows the pendulum motion that is exhibited when the simulation is allowed to run under near ideal conditions with only low air resistance.  It eventually settles and stops.  Vector analysis of the torque applied to the wheel by each weight at the stopped location summed to ~zero as expected.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XwYlWzu98QM

Please note this is NOT a simulation of the eisenficker2000 CAD model that is currently being evaluated.  No sim of that model has been shown that I know of.

[Omnibus]

@eisenficker2000 and @mondrasek,

Here are the first results of this study (see attached). Further on these calculations have to be done with a Lisp program not only to increase the accuracy but to shorten the time of getting the results thus enabling the optimization endeavor. There are a number of methods of optimization and, I guess, @mondrasek being in the field of robotics is familiar with many of them, say the method of planning the experiment and the like. As seen, at no position of the wheel is there any other value of the torques but in the negative. This is a clear indication that we're dealing with a perpetuum mobile. As I said many times over, that this is a perpetuum mobile was confirmed by another easier observation, namely the persistent positioning of the center of mass sideways to the right of the axis of rotation.

If it were a pendulum or a wheel finding its equilibrium the center of mass must be observed to shift to and fro form right to left and back, finally settling on the perpendicular drawn through the axis of rotation. Any simulation that would show that the wheel under discussion reaches equilibrium is in error in view of the above persistent discrepancy.

Here we have an independent direct confirmation (not by using a black-box type sim software) of the perpetuum mobile character of Abeling's wheel. A wheel which exhibits inevitable negative torque at any of its positions, as the wheel we're studying, must be a perpetuum mobile. Further, of course it's necessary to assess how the friction can be lowered to the extent that this wheel would become a fact of practice. However, this is only a practical matter and has nothing to do with the categorical proof that a wheel of this kind is indeed a perpetuum mobile.

As for the figure I'm showing below, I was concerned with a peculiarity which occurred between 20 and 30 degree shift of the wheel. It began to look as if there might be a special point in the diagram of zero torque. As I said before, even if there were such a point it wouldn't have overturned the conclusion for perpetuum mobile but would've only shown that at that point the wheel isn't a self-starter. Appearance of such a point in the diagram would've been very interesting also because no such occurrence is observed in the mass-axle discrepancy.  Therefore, I asked @eisenficker to post drawings with positions of the wheel within this region if interest. As see from the figure there is no such point and the spread of the points is only due to systematic errors during the procedures leading to establishing their values.

These results are of high scientific interest and therefore this study has to be vigorously pursued. Now the Lisp stage is in the agenda and I wonder how one can learn it the fastest. Does anyone have any experince with that language?

[Omnibus]

The region where an ostensible torque maximum (appears as a minimum in the figure bu the higher the absolute value of the negative number, the grater the desired torque) is observed sould also be studied by carrying out calculations on more frames inbetween. It would be interesting if indeed there are more favorable regions in this four times repeating pattern during each individual turn. It very well may be that the pattern in question is just due to my initial inexperience of handling the AutoCAD calculations. Notice, the more experienced I got, the more the points reach a plateau (the right-hand side of te plot). These are, of course, details.

EDIT: Well, I don't know. Someone may argue that there's a clear upward (appear downward in the plot) tendency from higher to lower angles. This detail has to be studied more.

[mondrasek]

Well crap Omni!  We've botched the analysis.  I should have noticed this before.  We are not taking into account the angle of the slots!  The weight vectors should not be projected perpendicularly to the the guide contact point vectors.  That perpendicular line needs to be replaced with one that is perpendicular to the *slot* at the point where the weight resides.  I did this with my analysis of the (now abandoned) sim because I was working with forces acting on the outside of the ball weights.  But in this case, where we are analyzing an ideal situation where the weights act upon the wheel exactly at their center, I did not notice this.

I should have followed my first instincts and earlier statements.  The only reason I found a settling point in that sim was because of the slop in the slots relative to the ball diameter and (now I realize) the fact that the weights (or weight axles in this case) have non-zero dimensions as well.  In this idealized case where we are taking the mass effects from the center (axle with zero diameter) we should have a torque of zero in all degrees of rotation.  But we do need to take into account how the weights are supported into those positions.  And that includes the slot angles that we have been neglecting.

Sorry for missing this.  I'll check it out further in the morning.

M.