Sjack Abeling Gravity Wheel and the Worlds first Weight Power Plant

[Omnibus]

@Cloxxki,

It has already been well understood how Abeling's wheel works.

On the one hand, now we know for sure that constructively there is a persistent discrepancy between the position of the center of mass vs the axis of rotation. Center of mass is always to the right of the axis of rotation for any angle of rotation of the wheel without exception. This is a given, a characteristic, set in stone, for this device which ensures persistent violation of the lever rule at all angles of rotation of the wheel. This is the answer as to why it works. That's on the one hand. That's the given.

On the other hand, there is friction which is not a given. Friction can be greater or lesser, depending on how skillfully one manufactures the wheel. By increasing friction (say, by introducing sand into the working chamber) one may make a perfectly functional internal combustion engine to stall. In the case of an overbalanced wheel, by decreasing friction through skillful mechanical solutions below the level of opposing the, call it, OU effect (due to the above set-in-stone characteristics) we may have a perfectly functioning Bessler (Abeling) Wheel. Simple as that.

Unfortunately, I don't think that anyone of those offering services here in this forum or anybody at least I know would be able to successfully solve the pivotal friction problem. This requires very special skills as well as well endowed infrastructure.

[Omnibus]

Also, don't worry about the useful work once you have the wheel of non-zero mass turning continuously on its own. That's the useful work. Let's have this and the developments and optimization will follow quickly. That's not an issue at this point.

[Cloxxki]

Omnibus, IMHO useful work is only there if there's either or both : resistance overcome, or acceleration. A rod spinning on a PM axle in a vacume chamber neither spins down nor does useful work. It just holds momentum.

In Abeling's wheel as we understand it, merely the position of a weight is not sufficient to prove overbalance-I'm afraid, due to the wonderful scissor-action which offers vast speed variances.

If someone could show that the Abeling wheel of a given geometry would offer back 103% of the energy needed to lift a weight from 6 to 12, that would be something to work with. We'd go for great mass, relatively low air drag, and the best low-friction roller/glider setup we can think of. 3% is a challenge I'd go for, in hopes to have 0.5% left to light a tiny LED from a huge wheel continiously spinning like mad.

The way you point out "proven" overbalance brings little new, I've come across dozens of other wheels that had this claim going for them.

Yes, the lower ramp relieves the upper weight from work to be done, but it also robs the upgoing weight from inertia needed to rise back to 12, matching rim speed no less.
I am not convinced that weight's path alone is sufficient in proving overbalance to bring continious motion until friction causes equilibrium speed. When the working lever+weight is longer, the other weight will be lifted, but less high than the other fell.

If someone shows me the math why Abeling's would work, I can devote serious time to a design to produce less friction than there is OU. I have multiple 3D engineers to my disposal in cas I have "something good". They've helped me out before with non-OU inventions, and I have some outstanding favors left.

[Omnibus]

@Cloxxki,

Omnibus, IMHO useful work is only there if there's either or both : resistance overcome, or acceleration. A rod spinning on a PM axle in a vacume chamber neither spins down nor does useful work. It just holds momentum.

A wheel spinning in vacuum only solves the air  drag problem. Contact fiction can never be eliminated fully. The OU effect due to the persistent violation of the lever rule would cause acceleration until it’s countered by the said friction. The problem we have is to reduce that contact friction to levels below the OU effect due to the persistent violation of the lever rule.

In Abeling's wheel as we understand it, merely the position of a weight is not sufficient to prove overbalance-I'm afraid, due to the wonderful scissor-action which offers vast speed variances.

Scissor action is exactly what that contact friction is. This is where the skills of the maker kick in â€" to decrease this and other contact friction effect below the OU effect.

The way you point out "proven" overbalance brings little new, I've come across dozens of other wheels that had this claim going for them.

What I said applies to all these overbalanced wheels. Some are more efficient constructively (the OU effect due to the persistent violation of the lever rule is greater) some are less. Even within a certain design some constructions are more efficient than others. This is where that special constructor has the decisive say.

Yes, the lower ramp relieves the upper weight from work to be done, but it also robs the upgoing weight from inertia needed to rise back to 12, matching rim speed no less.
I am not convinced that weight's path alone is sufficient in proving overbalance to bring continious motion until friction causes equilibrium speed. When the working lever+weight is longer, the other weight will be lifted, but less high than the other fell.

These are unnecessary worries once you can prove that at every rotation angle, purely constructively, there is always a non-zero (negative) torque, that is, that the lever rule is persistently violated. I’ve proved that conclusively. Find a way to decrease friction below the level of this OU effect and you’ll have a working wheel without a doubt.

[Cloxxki]

Omnibus, I've read numerous comments at your address regarding the way you chose to decide which system is OU and which isn't. I started with an open mind, but now for me the balance is tipping away from your views. You are starting the thinking process with the understanding that the OU effect is already there, and that just friction is too great to allow it to be noticed.
Scissor action really is a simple mass/velocity/pressure conversion, a friction-sensitive one at that. It's not OU by itself. Yes, when lubed well, a car riding over such a scissor might propel a simple dart past the sound barrier, but that's not OU per se.

Really, fighting friction has been on my mind for most of my life. I won't say I'm an expert, but I can "see" solutions. First a mathmatical explanation of a single-digit percentage of OU, then I'll propose a construction which will beat this number. If silly low friction is required to allow the Abeling whel to make it's second revolution after a good initial nudge, its not worth it. The design needs to be improved, or the time, effort and money should be put towards a cheap mass-produced windmill. Or, more efficient car engine systems that cut fuel consumption in half or better.

I SO WANT the Abeling wheel to work, but now that time has passed, I don't see it anymore. Please remember me why it will work. My naivity is wearing off, I find myself seeing why newly proposed design won't work quicker and quicker.