Sjack Abeling Gravity Wheel and the Worlds first Weight Power Plant

[beastmastre]

Sorry people. I think my sine wave curve idea was a mistake. After thinking about it for a bit, I realized that a quarter of a true ellipse, plus a little extra for the second roller, will allow for more weight rotation (closer to 90 degrees) than the sine curve will.

I'm getting ready to start my wheel design again from scratch with this new slot and so I can optimize weight, roller, and track designs as much possible. But I'll try to sketch the guide track path from the old one for you to have a look at.

Dar

[Omnibus]

You may have mssed the question marks in my post, and that they were addressed mainly @Dar. I also don't know, and don't aim to explain which I yet do not comprehend. I will be looking for answers though.
With all due respect, your kind of talk on this topic seems to have contributed positively mainly to your post count. I won't claim to be the most useful poster on here, but I try to be self-critical.

To not let this be a quarrel-only post, some gravity wheel semi-on-topic info.
For people in for a mind cruncher, http://www.besslerwheel.com/murilo/index.html (Avalanchedrive) which was pasted here before, really got me awake just now. Seems to me a simple bicycle chain might do the trick as well. Perhaps every other link welded stuck in almost straight position. Trying to find out why it wouldn't work... Worth its own thread, but doesn't even seem to have one on Besslerwheel yet, or anymore. Can't be too hard to try...

Don't see how this is overunity either. I wonder if it was you who gave a link to that "cherry pit" idea. That was something interesting to discuss and see how it may be implemented. Since then, except for the torque studies and the mass center-axle discrepancy, I don't see anything useful for this discussion.

[Cloxxki]

I at one point proposed dual weight being connected by spings, loaded as one weight would sling outward at 6:00, the other remaining on the wheel, and the two then reconveigning near 12:00. No overunity there probably, just an idea to harvest some CF and cenvert it into climbing assistence.
I was not the first to come with the cherry pit idea, and the wording of it was new to me when I read it, although the principle of course wasn't, a fun occurance kids universally know to exist in low-friction, high-pressure environments. It's the wonderful thing about discussion forums. A stupid idea can spark a genious to invent something universally good. I've sat on both ends of the discussion, came up with boldwhich then ideas other turned into wonderful realities, and I've gone from acknowledging a threshold or "resistance" in contemporary design, reverse the logic and end up with a patent for it.
It doesn't matter much at which end of the table we sit, as long as both sides are properly occupied, and negativities across and along the table don't send potential contributors to another table, or isolation.

Individual minds such as Tesla and Bessler, who got things done on their own, are much rarer today despite higher level education and exploded world population. To get results, we'll need to find a way to cooperate, for one man cannot do it. Perhaps Abeling could, but we may not know for the next 300 years unless we act now.
If I'm the fool shooting of bold ideas which a greater minds or greater doer can turn into reality, I'll at least be a somewhat useful fool. You're spreading mostly negativity, what is your role on the path to over unity? Onlooker, opponent, inventor, cooperator?

Again a challenge to offer some on-topic input when trying to not ignore posts addressed to me on an off-topic manner.
I came across a study of the fastest way, in time, for a weight to travel down and forward. The shape of a loose string spanning the distance, being starting near vertically and ending near horizontally, was quicker due to the initial acceleration. I think this effect is nothing new, but may halp towards making the most use of weights and dynamics. If a weight can spend minimal time gaining maximum height, before making it to the "waiting room", the counter weight has more time and angular distance to do uninterfered work on the wheel.

[beastmastre]

Thanks for your insights, Dar.

As you are a fresh mind to this discussion, and you've come up with a very interesting theory on what Abeling may be doing...do you also have a hunch which kind of source might be used for over-unity?
The way my mind works, if I know where to look for a solution, I find it quicker than when scanning at random. I've been blurred quite a bit due to all the ideas posted and thought up myself.
In the optimal execution of the drawings you proposed, where would the gain be coming from?

I still see a weight taking a short cut, but it's now "paused" to a greater extent than with the basic patent design, allowing the counterweight to store more energy and velocity in the wheel. But then, being slung from standstill at axle height, also seems to cost more energy that for instance in @Dusty's/Eisenficker200's solutions. If any, where would the gain be?

Quoting Abeling from memory: "If the weight would not be caugt by the rim, it would fly past it"? The wider weight path 0-5:00 you propose, then? It does seem like a way to harvest excess horizontal velocity gained from the sling, rather than just bumping into the rim.
I did play with ideas where the horizontal component at 0:00 would not be given up immediately, but (for free) allowed to gain a higher-torque position first.

Your design also perfectly offers the "one weight is pushing, the other pulling" idea via those smart connecting rods. Hard to imagine for me though, that 2 weights would be rising at the same time, while connected. That's how I see the drawing. I suppose it might work, as epicted, with multiple weights on the wheel, some of them in the waiting room, and some doing useful work at 3:00?

Too bad that your (as probably as any) ideas are so incompatible with the builds excuted by Dusty and Eisenficker2000, the matter of the protruding axles getting in the way. Seems like more like a totally new build that a conversion. If you're on the right track with what Abeling is doing, then perhaps his patent is offering his initial design he couldn't get to work?

Thanks,

Okay, I'll try to reply to as much of that as I can. BTW, that Avalanche Drive is an interesting concept. Thanks for posting that.

I'm really not sure where overunity might come from and, honestly, not sure it's possible. But I like to think it is. I know a PPM is possible. The universe is a PPM. (my opinion) You might be able to build a mag-lev PPM in a vacuum chamber but how would get work out of it? I don't know if there could be a gain out of my system. I'm afraid that that trebuchet action might drain all the torque right back out of the system. But then if you center the weight back on the rollers, you're right back to the offset weight wheel that hasn't been shown to work yet. For all I know, my design might not be overunity at all but may work as a super-efficient water wheel that runs on a trickle of water rather than a torrent. Overunity is still the goal though.

So, how far should the weights be offset from the rollers? And, how close to the axle should the slot go? I'm constantly going over things like that and trying to build this thing in my head (a la Tesla) and doing revisions. I guess it kind of helps that I'm interested in almost everything and have a lot of trivia (like about train wheels) bouncing around in my skull. I'm a big fan of combining ideas to improve on something. That's why I think Abeling may have thought of combining the offset weight concept with the flipping arm idea. It wouldn't hurt my feelings at all if someone wanted to add a Bedini motor or @ABHammer's pendulum ratchet or that Avalanche Drive to my design. Whatever helps...

And I think that flipping arm part is where that excess velocity you mentioned comes in. When that weights trajectory is changed around that curve in the slot and the rollers impact the end of the slot. I think that should be the only impact in the system. That's why I would remove the corner of the hockey stick shape because it's an extra impact point.

Well, part of the reason for the rods is so the weight held in place by the guides at the bottom keeps the weight at the top locked into the end of the slot and prevents it from bouncing from that impact and taking energy out of the system. And, yes, the weight at the bottom, because the slot rollers are offset from the guide rollers would be doing useful work, because it is, in a sense, at 3:00 again and still applying CW torque on the wheel.

I don't think @Dusty's wheel is incompatible. The only real difference is that his new wheel has the semicircular slots. It may work just as well or better with his slots. His axle doesn't run between the wheels. (or didn't on the smaller wheel) And I've thought about this. The two wheels can still be connected at or near the rim with a crossbar. You just have to make sure the weight won't hit the bar as it travels. His may need a slightly different guide path than mine because of the semicircle slots.

Hey, @Dusty! Send me a diagram of your wheel. A scan of a drafting diagram or a dead on center picture of the wheel from the side and I'll try to work out the path. I have to rotate it in increments to plot it and take acceleration into account where the rollers move in the slot.

@Cloxxki, Abeling may have left specifics out of his patent in order to protect his "trade secret", with the hope that the patent would protect it well enough. If anyone here knows how long he might have for any revisions, let us know. I would suggest we look at his patent again, at that time, to see if he's made changes. heh He could end up taking our ideas and throwing them in there. Oh well...

Dar

[Cloxxki]

Thanks once more Dar, also for your modest approach.

So far, Abeling has presented a rather basic gravity wheel design. Who now, the patent office may feel it's not really innovative in design, and reject it for a grant.
As I understand (a little) patent law, Abeling may still amend his wording, yet not add new claims or substantial features. Omitting an offset weight flipping for instance, I as an investigator would consider pretty fundamental. If another guy would make the same machine, and found away around any of the innovative part Abeling DID mention, but incorperated his secret tricks, if would be open source, or even patentable.
Us posting significant features yet undisclosed in Abeling's application should, when someone goes to the Patent Office with it, reduce his chances to be granted a patent. You need to play by the rules. The design should be makeable, and working as advertised. If Abeling can't build a machine without the unclaimed features, those features are not for him to claim intellecual property for.

What about an alternative path for an offset weight? It comes down as Dar proposes, yet at 6:00 is manipulated to make a backwards summersault, landing quickly in the waiting room, and then a second sling to complete the circle. Less complicated action perhaps, but the timing of course will need to be right.