Sjack Abeling Gravity Wheel and the Worlds first Weight Power Plant

[Ken the Great]

YAWN!!!

It is quite a simple task to realize that a gravity wheel is possible.

Assumptions based on math not relevant to whats actually happening inside the wheel are irrelevant. Shall we go back to before Newton and use those ideas the main stream called science? It seems to me that's what some people are trying to do.

If someone needs to use algebra to calculate the actual solution to any given problem, but then refuses any type of math except simple addition, the solution will not be forthcoming.

The arrangement of the weights is simple, closer to the axle on the ascending side, furthest from the axle on the descending side.
This isn't really an issue for debate. The question that seems to keep arising is how to shift the weights from the perimeter to the axle without using all of the power generated by the falling weights on the descending side.

The solution is simple, "geometry".  If you try to lift the weight and move the weight to the axle at the same time with any device you can think of, the power output will be zero.

Bessler tells us in a round about way that the lifting of the weight is not a desired design of the apparatus that shifts the weight to the axle. REMOVE the lifting aspect of the apparatus that shifts the weight to the axle.

Geometry!!!

I will give a clue on here. The apparatus that shifts the weights to the axle must constantly be in motion or it will not work. If you discover the actual design, but make the shifting apparatus stationary, your output will be zero.

I have sent a design to AB Hammer to let him look at it, and if he has time to build a prototype. I have no time to build anything at the moment. The earliest I could even try would be the middle of next year.

The constant motion of all of the parts of the interior of the wheel is what causes it to stay in motion, and it has nothing to do with this imaginary force people call centrifugal force.

Take a string tie a weight to the end and spin it, let go of the string and the weight goes in a straight line in the exact direction it was heading when you let go of the string. Objects go in a straight line, unless an outside force acts upon them. The string is acting on the straight line force of the weight, causing the weight to change direction. However it is simple straight line force. I do not believe in the tooth fairy nor this imaginary force they call centrifugal force.

It is a waste of time.

Can you lift a 500 pound barrel that's sitting on its side?  Probably not.
But I bet almost every single one of you could roll it, ( or push it sideways)
(((CLUE)))))

Bessler told the world this. Stop worrying about lifting, worry about shifting.
If you can successfully shift the weight, the lift automatically happens.

So do you shift the weight at the 6 o'clock position? Or would that be lifting?
What about the 7 o'clock position? 8 o'clock? 9 o'clock?

The geometry of the levers determine the position one can start shifting the weight to the axle, whether it is 7, 8 or 9 o'clock. If you shift the weight at 9 o'clock the output will be almost zero.

So the shifting of the weight must occur between 6 and 9 o'clock.
The weight does not need to shift the entire way at 7 o'clock but simply START shifting.  (((CLUE)))

Now take your genius and design the geometry to cause this to happen.
Another clue, geometry includes the Taniyama-Shimura conjecture.
Which if I remember right has been proven to be true in recent years.

If your geometry only includes squares triangles and trapezoids, you will not be successful.

I have no doubt whatsoever that my design will work. It can't help but work.
When you calculate the power needed to shift the weights, combined with the lifting of the weights near the axle, and subtract it from the power generated from the falling weights, you have excess left over.

And the power is actually more than enough to overcome any friction that might be occurring in the bearings and such etc.
Of course the more you reduce the friction the higher the output, but to get the wheel to spin by itself, without a load, friction is not an issue.

The Abeling wheel right now is nothing more than someone's claim.
What is puzzling to me is that this person has made a video of NO DEVICE.
The wheels shown might be leftovers of non-working prototypes.
I hope if it is real, and that the design will be shared with the world.

30,000 RPM from an overbalanced wheel? I am sorry but I doubt that.
1 rpm is plenty if it is an unstoppable 1 rpm.

If someone came up to you and said, " I have discovered the cure for cancer!!!! But when you ask questions, they simply say they cannot discuss it.
Would you blindly believe them?

I WON"T!!


Put your thinking caps on.


Make fun of me if you want to, just don't steal my socks!!!

[Omnibus]

@Ken the Great,

I don't know what to make of your post. Can there be anything more important than building a working overbalanced wheel that would require postponing it till the middle of next year?

[Cloxxki]

Ken, I'm intrigued by your shifting vs. lifting.

So a simple example, the barrel. It's string at 6:00. I can give it a push, to almost tip over. The center of mass has been lifted, a bit.

Could you perhaps show a piece of geometry here, to demonstrate a relatively low-effrot shift that brings good lift?

I truly believe that if on simple principle is found, proven, and understood, dozens of design categories will in no-time be made to work. Perhaps even a high-rpm one. The way I see rpms in overbalanced wheels : good overbalance, but only a little bit put to work. Low friction then allowing it to spin up. Torque would be pretty low I suppose, but it would look cool for sure.

Please share your ideas, which seem to have good merit, with more than just AB Hammer. If you are into open source like this forum, make use of he many eager brains and hands of a whole forum! Your only real task to humanity it to bring your ideas out so that all the people who can contribute to it, actually understand your vision.

Looking forward to hear more!

Regards,
J

[Omnibus]

@Cloxxki,

@Ken the Great says that friction is not the issue but until he comes up with something clever, similar to the "cherry pit" idea but one that can be applied in an OBW, we are still with the Sjack Abeling one which we know is viable but where the friction is the real issue. I think no group that has offered assistance here and in other forums can compare to what Swiss watchmakers can do. In terms of fine mechanics they are unbeatable and that can be seen any time upon inspection of those stores offering Patek Philippe and Vacheron Constantin. What we need to do is get in touch with those fine watchmakers, where the secrets of making fine mechanics are passed from father to son, and try to convince them in the viability and the significance of putting efforts into building OBW having the lowest possible friction.

[Cloxxki]

@Omnibus
While I respect watch makers as much as you do, my limited knowledge of watch mechanics is that most is simple wheels and gears. For a gravity wheel, it may get more "complicated".

First, before an all-out effort is initiated to make a low-friction Abeling replication as this forum understands it, should we not for ourselves explain HOW it works, where the gain comes from? I can see the action of it, through Batgold's youtube video's expecially, but I don't see the science of the gain. Or, I may have lost it over time. If there is a gain, we should be able to calculate how much there is, before friction.

I think that a serious effort from some builders could do better than watch makers. Vital will be to first have an exact drawing of how it's going to be, then all the parts can be optimized for low friction. Even for air drag. Then, if we're confident, we could ignore air drag and rent a vacume chamber of appropriate size for the ultimate test run, if also air drag needs to be taken out to have some gain left. If it comes that far, needing zero air friction, we better be very sure how much net gain we're trying to tap into here.
Elimination psysical friction (like magnet tracks) and air drag (vacume chamber), how much gain is there? If one understands WHY it will work, getting the math for it should not be much harder? Are we working with millijoules of gain per revolution of a man-sized wheel, or with 20% of all inertia?

I've said this before : a gravity wheel that needs zero friction to have a shot at turning continiously, will never be able to do any useful work. Friction brings heat mostly, and heat is very useful indeed if you live here (worst/best winter, let alone december, since I can remember).