Sjack Abeling Gravity Wheel and the Worlds first Weight Power Plant

[stgpcm]

@stgpcm
As I see it, even if we only have 1 wheel position from where it will accelerate (like Dusty's first Abeling replication), that would be most agreeable, as long as the thing keeps going.

absoIutely - I've said as much myself. The advantage of a system which is always positive is you don't have to work out whether the pluses outweigh the negatives - but as you can always add more radial symmetry, you can usually remove the negative rotation -

A one bucket simplistic water wheel will get it's "trick" from the point the bucket fills at 12:00 to where it empties at 03:00. from 3:00 to 6:00, the bucket will accelerate under it's own weight, and from 6:00 to 12:00, the system will decelerate as it brings the wheel back to 12:00. Despite this having negative torque from 06:00 to 12:00, once started, this system will go indefinitely.

If we say put 5 buckets on the wheel, then at all points the torque will be positive, making it much easier to say it will just keep on. going

I would even accept a system that has a take-off velocity above which the "trick" is out-weighing the dragging or even directly counter-acting forces at lower speeds.

Me too.

@Dusty's wheel also turns backwards from given positions. Friction does not turn wheels, unfortunately.

The sad thing is Omnibus's method is so very nearly correct - he simply needs to produce the force due to gravity along the direction of movement, instead of resolving it against it. But his decision that the force due to the interactions can't exceed the force due to gravity has blinded him to that.

Earth's rotation... Do you mean that a member shot up at an angle would, on earth, show an asymmetrical parabole? That would be significant indeed, but perhaps a small power only? Are measurement anomolies known along such lines?

I would expect the forces to be exceedingly slight, but if Abeling has managed to capture them in a powerful way then energy can be produced, but at the cost of the Earth's rotational inertia. Admittedly, there is a lot of it, but I fear the consequences.
I was more thinking the center of mass of the weight was offset from it's point of interaction with the wheel - i.e. the bar of the dumbell went through the rim rather than the center

Back to Earth's rotation. To consider this a power to tap into, or as a hint to what we can build ourselves? I've suggested before a horizontally placed "Abeling wheel", at the rim of a centrifuge. More pull, and directed to a point, not parallel. Making up some horizontal ground "on top" (nearer to centre of centrifuge), a possible root to imbalance of a system?

If it was that effect, then yes, you may be able use a centrifuge, except I would expect the centrifuge to be slowed by the energy being captured by the Abeling wheel, and I would expect that energy to match (except for losses) the energy you would need to keep the centrifuge at the same speed. But the "trick" might make this not the case.

(I say may because the direction of gravity converges towards the centre of the Earth, but the direction of pseudo-gravity diverges from the centre of the centrifuge - this may make a difference, but probably not).

[Cloxxki]

Good stuff stgpcm, thanks for the elaborate reply.

Another thing to consider in a strong centrifuge setup is to perhaps explore 3-dimensional movement. Simplistically, a 90 degree flipped Abeling wheel mounted to the centrifuge. If any effect on the centrifuge spinning this way, it might even be useful?
Then, the Abeling's wheel might spin in sync, but at 90 degrees with the centrifuge.

My one brain cell is hurting, the other itchy.

I hereby suggest a law to prohibit tapping into earth's rotational energy. People are bound to break it shortly after it's put in place, though. Then, digging a deep hole, pouring water in it and collecting the steam might be a lot easier. Good or bad for global warming?

I drew up some wheels where the weights got outside the rim on one side. All the leverage, none of the actual lifting going on is what I got. It's speed we need. Nothing gets done slowly.

[stgpcm]

@Cloxxki,

I disagree. The torque approach, obvious as it seems, hasn’t been applied before. If you think it has, give a reference or a link. This is the first place such analysis has been made and that’s the basis of a solid scientific approach to find the solution of that problem.

This is the first place your incorrect torque analysis has been used, because it gives demonstrably wrong results. The wheels people have invested time in to build, based on your analysis showing they would always rotate forwards, they builders have found when they have built them, in some places they rotate backwards.

Now, by thisyou are deciding that the device isn’t a self-starter which is contrary to the torque analysis.

the incorrect torque analysis

We have â€" AutoCAD.

yes, you do. But you tell AutoCAD which vectors to draw - and you don't account for the centripetal vector.

[beastmastre]

Yay! I finally made it through all the posts.

Hi, everyone. My name is Dar. I’ve been trying to catch up on this thread for days. I’ve been to the site before checking out various things like HHO engines and such. But I just joined recently because I feel that I have something to contribute to this particular discussion. I actually saw the Bob Kostoff video first and then Dusty’s videos, then PESwiki, and found my way back to the OU forum and this thread.

Now, like I said, I have some ideas to contribute. But, before I get to them I feel the need some of my own opinions out in the open. I’m not here to start a fight or get into that of anyone else. I just may wish to express something from a point of view that hadn’t been considered. And if you don’t agree. I’m perfectly willing to ‘agree to disagree’. I just don’t want to get caught up in space & time wasting debates. I can get wordy enough, as it is.

First, I think that everyone that has posted, so far, has brought up some good ideas. Okay, so maybe some designs won’t work but I believe that everyone has, at least, touched on something that may be useful in the long run.

I find it sad that so much time has been spent debating things like whether or not Centrifugal Force is an actual force. Or Inertia, etc.. Can’t we just agree that these things are observable and measurable effects and move on?

I believe that wm2d, although useful for some things, is flawed. This just seems obvious to me when you can see that the weights transfer too much kinetic energy to the wheels upon initial impact when the sims are started.

I think that the definition of the over-balanced wheel PPM should be revised, just a little, from the center of mass being offset from the axis of the wheels rotation to the center of mass being offset from the fulcrum of the systems rotation. I think this is why the simple OB wheel designs don’t work. When you get the weights to follow a path to one side, the focal point of their revolutions shifts to the other side of the center of mass from the axis of the wheel and when you combine it all together, the focal points merge at the center of mass, hence a balanced wheel. I don’t know if this effect could ever be overcome in any OB wheel but I would like to hope so. I think it would require a much more complex system. And I think Abeling designed a more complex system than he has let on.

I think that even if a well designed system may eventually grind to a halt that it may be possible that you could get a lot more energy out of it than it took to get it running. What if Bessler had actually built a really, really efficient pendulum clock device that even he couldn’t tell was slowing down? What if all it might take to keep getting lots of energy out of a wheel was a guy walking in once a year to push the pendulum back to the top of it’s swing? Isn’t that still overunity, more work out than in?

What I’ve been working on is trying to figure out Abelings wheel from the clues & questions he left for us in the video. With a bit of detective work, I think we can reverse engineer what’s missing or perhaps even find a better system. I’ll explain more in the next post & include some images.

Thanks  - Dar

[Jubjub]

Yes!
No!
Yes!
No!
Yes!
No!
Yes!
No!