Sjack Abeling Gravity Wheel and the Worlds first Weight Power Plant

[hartiberlin]

Nobody seems to have noticed another patent, from 2004, which I uploaded earlier. The idea seems practically the same as Abeling's. Here it is again (see attached)

Wonder what will happen if someone calls the guy and asks for a demonstration? Bet you he's gonna be nowhere to be found. It's kinda weird Sjack Abeling isn't so much reclusive (I, for one, spoke personally with him, as I reported here, to no avail).You may recall about a year or two ago there was a discussion here on these matters -- USPTO issuing perpetuum mobile patents which they claim isn't their job to refute. Their understanding is that if the patent is no good it will simply die out and if someone is so much interested in voiding such non-working patents, the only recourse it to go through the court system.

Interesting patent, but I wonder,
if the friction on the walls will not kill all the effects again ?

But maybe worth a try in WM2D.

Regards, Stefan.

P.S. I am almost much convinced now, that the Abeling wheel
does not work as drawn in his patent.
Just moving weights on elliptical pathes in a wheel just does not work.

There must be still something else, like 90 degrees weight pulling
or something simular to the Milkovic pendulum, etc...
But just an overbalanced wheel with just pure weights going up and
down in circles or elliptical pathes, just does not work.

[Omnibus]

OK, here it is. There are no rigid joints here (see attached) but @mondrasek explained that the problem was due to the spring. Somehow the calculations get out of sequence. To take care of this (and the inevitable losses in the spring) one turns on air resistance. I mentioned that at that time and now Hans also noted that this is inconsistent with an experiment in vacuum. Anyway, that seems to be a problem, although what @mondrasek explained makes sense. Seems that losses should be accounted for differently and the "out of sequence" problem should be amended by changing the algorithm probably.

EDIT: Changed the anchors w/ double pins. No joy either.

[Cherryman]

OK, here it is. There are no rigid joints here (see attached) but @mondrasek explained that the problem was due to the spring. Somehow the calculations get out of sequence. To take care of this (and the inevitable losses in the spring) one turns on air resistance. I mentioned that at that time and now Hans also noted that this is inconsistent with an experiment in vacuum. Anyway, that seems to be a problem, although what @mondrasek explained makes sense. Seems that losses should be accounted for differently and the "out of sequence" problem should be amended by changing the algorithm probably.

EDIT: Changed the anchors w/ double pins. No joy either.

[hartiberlin]

OK, here it is. There are no rigid joints here (see attached) but @mondrasek explained that the problem was due to the spring. Somehow the calculations get out of sequence. To take care of this (and the inevitable losses in the spring) one turns on air resistance. I mentioned that at that time and now Hans also noted that this is inconsistent with an experiment in vacuum. Anyway, that seems to be a problem, although what @mondrasek explained makes sense. Seems that losses should be accounted for differently and the "out of sequence" problem should be amended by changing the algorithm probably.

EDIT: Changed the anchors w/ double pins. No joy either.

Yes, seems to be another error,
also at frame 1463 the right ball falls through the blue see-saw bar,
as if it would be not there...
Strange error...

[mrsean2k]

I see that I am in good company is proposing a gravitational wind that is blowing steadily downwards. None other than that canonised scientific saint, Newton himself. 

"Remarkably, Newton himself does not seem to have ruled out the possibility of a perpetual motion machine. It is a little known fact that in his early notebooks under the heading "Quaestiones"[sic] Newton speculates that gravity (heaviness) is caused by the descent of a subtle matter which strikes all bodies and carries them down. "Whither ye rays of gravity may bee stopped by reflecting or refracting ye, if so a perpetual motion may bee made one of these two ways." Adjacent to these words, Newton added two sketches of perpetual motion powered by the "flux of the gravitational stream".

Frank,

I posted this on the Steorn forum (bar a few spelling corrections and elaborations) in reponse to your repeat of this post. Could you try to enlighten me?

==================================

One thing puzzles me about this view though Frank.

If I accept for a moment that there *is* a gravitational "wind" of some kind, I still don't understand how *any* of the devices proposed would make use of this.

The orientation of these rotational devices is all vertical, not horizontal, i.e. the blades are edge on, not face-on into the wind. I think in the case of a windmill for instance this would result in no movement?


I suppose if I was to take a device like this:

http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/museum/arab-t.gif

and apply an *actual* wind-force directly from above - using a large fan for instance - it would turn CCW as the surface area presented by the arms on the LHS of the wheel is larger than that on the RHS.

Other objections aside (I don't need to be saved by being reminded how "mad" this idea is considered, thanks) is my interpretation of your analogy just too literal? Is surface area presented the wrong analogy. i.e it doesn't rely on force per unit area / volume providing a displacement at right-angles to the "wind" itself?