Sjack Abeling Gravity Wheel and the Worlds first Weight Power Plant

[stgpcm]

And with 8 weights... a nice piece of art, machinery and modeling.
Is it a matter of scale? It would for me be the only explanation, last resort , for giving Abeling the benefit of the doubt.

The video showed slots numbered 1, 16 and 15, which implies 16 weights, so the discrepancy could be here - although I don't think so.

It would be nice, for completeness, for someone to waste their time building a 16 slot version.

[spinner]

@stgpcm,

You are the one wasting everyone time claiming that your model is a perpetuum mobile which it isn't. As for moving CW in absence of friction, it will, and it's for you to say until what position, if you've studied the discussion so far and have understood it.

Congrat's, Omni! Is this your 500'th or 600'th post in this very thread?

I just wander, will you ever be capable of listening to what other people say? Except those few opinions which are beneficial to your program?

I mean, it's noble to stick with your own opinions and beliefs, but, eventually (sooner or later) anyone would understood that the rest of the people can think (and have a more appropriate/valid/ answers), too.

I admire all the people who tried to explain all the (obvious) problems to you, o, mighty robot!
No wander that in many debates/ forums people were starting to call you "OmniBot"!
It seems that you are the only Earthling not capable of thinking at least a bit differently... Like you have been preprogrammed before....?

Gee, I never saw anyone who would persist in his (faulty) opinions without any kind of valid proof for so long.... "Perpetual motion has been proved without a doubt..."  How many concepts, again? I lost count years ago...
I swear I read this sentence of yours at least 3000 times....

What Perpetual motion, please? Where is "theoretical science" saying that? Ah, you're not from Earth?
Theoretical science says (!!!) that "gravitational PM's" are impossible... (I'm sure you know all the reasons why...)

So, if you want to prove the opposite "without a doubt", you need to build a solid proof of a concept device, all by your very self... (you don't want to do it right now?)
That's beyond your capabilities, eh? You're a theoretical scientist, right? I know, I know...
Trapped in a human body...

You miss each and every good post... Poor Mondrasek, he will need a long rest now (after a very patient conversation with you...)

Like I said early on, you can start with understanding the force parallelograms (torque component force under known conditions (static gravity force to wheel torque evaluations), )
Yeah, I allways "wanted to sound scientific"...

Then, the dynamic evaluation comes (it's quite different world...)


When you will prove your version (that Abeling wheel is constantly OOB CW and it starts to spin in that direction for more than 360 degrees ALL by it's own, we will discuss it further).
(The real "what would happened" scenario was presented to you a few times by some of us members)...

Oh, yes, you don't believe anyone... And, you shouldn't!
So, prove it, please!
You need some time? Just tell us how long.
Shall we meet here, say, in six months? Maybe a year, or more? How long, just say?

I do hope I'll look like a total idiot then....

P.S.
As you're a newbee, a few hints to you...

-You can always use the basic physics knowledge. (historical knowledge, methods, procedures, prescriptions, "laws",...)
or,
-Start with a sincere understanding of prof. Simanek pages... (yes, the one you dismissed as .......). That's for a good start.
-Check out the history wrt. to gravity perpetual motion claims... I'm sure you'll find hundreds similar (if not almost the same) concepts... Ah, you need to check back all the way to the 18 century (for documented sources).... Yes, wheels, weights, ramps and eternal unbalance....

[i_ron]

There are now three threads on Abeling.

One for modelling in the REAL world
One for modelling in the virtual world
One for general discussion and updates (old one)

In addition I have added a poll to test sentiments.

You can either ignore that and keep to this thread, or post the relevant discussion in the new threads.

Up to you.

AZ

Good to see you back AZ,  mylow is in my opinion a very clever scam... but it is entertaining to see the belief pour
forth, eh? 

You have identified a problem with this list but failed to put
a name to it. Omnibot, if you were to remove all his posts and all the answers refuting his posts this list would only be what,
ten pages long? By failing to name the disrupter and deal with
this in the proper way you have merely diluted the problem,
not solved it. His recent bout of rudeness and disruption
should have been adequate grounds to take the necessary
step.

But it is your list and I will abide your decision.

Regards,

Ron

PS: can you post the addy for the new lists, please

[Omnibus]

@Cloxxkki,

If you are so certain, come up with an over-torque design, and build it would less than the maximum friction to get it to run.

That's exactly what I'm repeating over and over again. Now that perpetuum mobile has been proven real we have to put efforts on determining what the right conditions, sizes, construction, materials etc. would be to have the perpetuum mobile effect overwhelm forces of friction. This optimization should be done prior to actual building the machine. Of course, I'm admiring the work done by @Dusty and @eisenficker2000 in their effort to build the machine from scratch. However, a lot of effoer and money can be saved by exploring the optimization patterns first theoretically.

And, by the way, I'm not here to encourage anybody or to build friendships. I'm looking for the truth and most of the posts here (excluding @mondrasek's and @eisenficker2000's and probably one or two others, @Dusty's, of course) are completely useless in this respect.

[Omnibus]

Omni you are a liar.

You tell people you have proof of the possibility of what you rave on about but what you say is already proved, was a paper by a fool with obvious flaws.

You then try and shift the blame to me for your stupidity and bare faced misrepresentation to the good people here.

You do not listen and are so arrogant as to suggest to me that you are mentally unhinged.

I could safely say that you are a poorly educated wannabe.

Stop wasting everyones time with your unsupported and childish claims.

You are claiming a device that produces energy from nothing.

Not from zero point, just plain nothing. You are by all counts stupid to believe that something can ouput power without there being a source.

Why do you push onto good people your pseudo science.

Grow up.

This post is ignored.