Overunity.com Archives is Temporarily on Read Mode Only!



Free Energy will change the World - Free Energy will stop Climate Change - Free Energy will give us hope
and we will not surrender until free energy will be enabled all over the world, to power planes, cars, ships and trains.
Free energy will help the poor to become independent of needing expensive fuels.
So all in all Free energy will bring far more peace to the world than any other invention has already brought to the world.
Those beautiful words were written by Stefan Hartmann/Owner/Admin at overunity.com
Unfortunately now, Stefan Hartmann is very ill and He needs our help
Stefan wanted that I have all these massive data to get it back online
even being as ill as Stefan is, he transferred all databases and folders
that without his help, this Forum Archives would have never been published here
so, please, as the Webmaster and Creator of these Archives, I am asking that you help him
by making a donation on the Paypal Button above.
You can visit us or register at my main site at:
Overunity Machines Forum



Sjack Abeling Gravity Wheel and the Worlds first Weight Power Plant

Started by AquariuZ, April 03, 2009, 01:17:07 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 89 Guests are viewing this topic.

Omnibus

Hi Hans,

Rigid joints on 'Measurable' and air-resistance on 'Low speed' (after all, despite vacuum, there are internal losses, as @mondrasek emphasized on several occasions), ignoring the non-physical weight of the ball holder, and all is well and good. (see attached).

X00013

@ Hans, valid point point about the yoyo. Its all connected. If only you could find a video about a build researching gravity induced cf forces.   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E2LxSGlLvL8

i_ron

Quote from: noonespecial on April 16, 2009, 07:34:18 PM
My question is with regard to the above is: After the weight develops it potential energy prior to the 6:00 position, isn't most (if not all) of that potential energy alledgedly transferred to the wheel in the form of kinetic energy? Also, as the weights travel in toward the center from 6:00 to 9:00 they lose acceleration. With regard to both of these points, how is it that there is any energy left to create any forward momentum beyond the 9:00 point, let alone any centrifugal acceleration?

Regards,
Charlie

Charlie,

I am glad you have come around to agreeing with me.  It is hard to follow mondrasek in the above as he (they) were mixing in gyros. But the basic statement as to 6:00 to 9:00 in Abeling's wheel is that
once started up the ramp the weight, because it is having it's orbit made smaller, will increase its
velocity. This will drive the wheel in this 6:00 to 9:00 position.

But as I suggested before, there is no centrifugal sling effect between 9:00 and 12:00, (as you now
ask). If there were, the weights would fly out at 10:00 and beyond, right? They don't. Witness the
ramp changes from an outside ramp at 9:00 to an inside ramp so as the weight won't FALL into
the the axle end of the slot.

The unbalance drives the wheel in the 2:00 to 5:00 position, the 'orbit change' drives the wheel in the
6:00 to 9:00 position and the wheel uses these two forces to lift the weights from 9:00 to 12:00.

Ron




Omnibus

@All,

In a slight, what may may seem as, support of @mondrasek's gyroscope conjecture. Does anyone recall the controversy started with the paper by Hayasaka H. and Takeuchi S., Phys.Rev.Lett., 63, 2701-2704 (1989) and its suspiciously fast "debunking", at that not even using the same setup (Fuller J.E. et al, Phys.Rev.Lett., 64, 825-826 (1990); Quinn T.J. and Picard A., Nature, 732-735 (1990))? Hayasaka and Takeuchi claimed experimental mass reduction in spinning gyroscopes for one sense of rotation. One should note, however, that even if such effect were real it isn't likely to be applicable in our case where the induced spinning can hardly be of a magnitude for the above mass reduction effect, even if real, to be detectable.

AquariuZ

Quote from: Omnibus on April 17, 2009, 12:47:12 AM
@All,

In a slight, what may may seem as, support of @mondrasek's gyroscope conjecture. Does anyone recall the controversy started with the paper by Hayasaka H. and Takeuchi S., Phys.Rev.Lett., 63, 2701-2704 (1989) and its suspiciously fast "debunking", at that not even using the same setup (Fuller J.E. et al, Phys.Rev.Lett., 64, 825-826 (1990); Quinn T.J. and Picard A., Nature, 732-735 (1990))? Hayasaka and Takeuchi claimed experimental mass reduction in spinning gyroscopes for one sense of rotation. One should note, however, that even if such effect were real it isn't likely to be applicable in our case where the induced spinning can hardly be of a magnitude for the above mass reduction effect, even if real, to be detectable.

YES

This does ring a bell, thanks for posting the details about this.  Again all the more interesting when taking all factors into account .

I am currently working on the initial "egg" model to see if I can find the optimal configuration where hopefully we should see something extraordinary. Note I do not expect to see any Hayasaka / Takeuchi mass reduction effect in a model. I do however expect to see "something" in a correct real world setup.

But hopefully modeling can be used in finding this setup including the correct paths the weights need to travel to achieve the imbalance which will accelerate the carrier.