Sjack Abeling Gravity Wheel and the Worlds first Weight Power Plant

[hansvonlieven]

@ stgpcm,

You sound like a man that has "been there, done that". Welcome brother. 

Hans

[mondrasek]

Here is a sim in WM2D of the case that I illustrated here:  http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=7150.msg180738#msg180738

I have place the weight sphere on a wheel above a ramp at 45 degrees (also attached to the wheel) and a guide block at 20 degrees that is fixed to the background.  On the opposite side I have also attached a ramp (so the two ramps balance and create zero torque).  I then attached an identical weight sphere on the opposite side.  But this weight sphere is moved out 1.572 times further from the axle than the weight sphere simply supported by the ramp and guide block.  This extra distance is to compensate for the increased torque imparted to the wheel by the simply supported ball as calculated in the above referenced diagram.  The system is in balance.  This shows that the angle of the ramp (slots) and angle of the guide blocks do result in a force on the wheel that creates a torque greater than just the weight of the wheel times the length of the moment arm.

Omni, I understand you take issue with the use of WM2D, but it is the only tool that I have readily available.  Hopefully someone can mock up a real world test and post a video which we would all find more suitable.

Stgpcm, I guess I did not fully understand your explanation where you said Omni was correct for this aspect of mechanics.  But please take a look at this and let me know if I am doing something wrong.

Thanks,

M.

[Omnibus]

@mondrasek,

I see where might be the problem in this discussion. It is being diverted into examples which do not illustrate the problem at hand.  Why do you even bother to post this (both the link and the wm2d)? The wheel we're discussing doesn't have such obstructions and the torques are presenting themselves in their natural state, without obstructions. In our problem, the only thing that affects the torque is the forced change of path and length of arm, causing torque's decrease from its natural state without the induced changes of path. In your wm2d example not only have you placed an obstruction but you have also fixed the length of the arm. That doesn't illustrate what's being discussed here.

[mondrasek]

@mondrasek,

I see where might be the problem in this discussion. It is being diverted into examples which do not illustrate the problem at hand.  Why do you even bother to post this (both the link and the wm2d)? The wheel we're discussing doesn't have such obstructions and the torques are presenting themselves in their natural state, without obstructions. In our problem, the only thing that affects the torque is the forced change of path and length of arm, causing torque's decrease from its natural state without the induced changes of path. In your wm2d example not only have you placed an obstruction but you have also fixed the length of the arm. That doesn't illustrate what's being discussed here.

It shows that both the angle of the ramps and the slots do in fact need to be included in the calculations for static torque.  It also shows that the static torque can be greater than just the weight x moment arm.  These are things that you have said are not true.

The "obstruction" are illustrative of the angle of the slots (by use of the ramp fixed to the wheel) and the angle of the guides (angled block not fixed to the wheel).  The weight between them does not have a fixed arm.  The fixed weight on the other side is used to show clearly that more torque is generated on the left than weight x moment arm.

[Omnibus]

@mondrasek,

Don't play with words. It is known what we mean here by arm. It is not

The weight between them does not have a fixed arm.

The weight between them does have a fixed arm relative to the axle.

This is also not so:

The "obstruction" are illustrative of the angle of the slots (by use of the ramp fixed to the wheel) and the angle of the guides (angled block not fixed to the wheel).

The ball on the left is always leaning against the guide in our case and is never obstructed from above, as you show it. In our case the torques are always in their natural state as torques, without additional obstruction. The only difference, in our case, is that the guides direct the motion differently which causes the driving torque-causing vector to be always less than the torque-vector if the direction were retained to be that of the weight without the guide.

You can always obstruct the motion with an additional force but that's not part of the torque. Again, the ball we're observing has no such obstructions but only guides changing the direction and length of arm. Nothing to do with ypur example.