Sjack Abeling Gravity Wheel and the Worlds first Weight Power Plant

[Cloxxki]

EDIT : seems I was thinking only 4 pages ahead of you guys, although you have no reason to believe other than my honest Dutch word for it. Page 39, my idea was introduced by @AquariuZ. I'll just flatter myself having come up with it without seeing any animations or 'Tube vids :-)
Being exposed to so much info over a span of days may distort the mind? I'm now reading on to see if you've debunked this idea. Abeling really told more than he should have, I think. Co-operating minds can be stronger than one.

Another Dutch guy here.

I've read up to page 35 so far. have seen no similations or other external media due to limited access.

Before I forget it though:
Pics I've seen so far, present from the side view of the wheel, a point-centered weight.
I tend to think that there is more "slinging" involved. Add a stick to your weights, and at the end another weight. The extra weights on the right side is free (narrower to fall through rim) to take a wide circel, up to 5 o'clock or so, taking advantage of the range offered (obviously). After 5, it interacts differently with the ramps than the weight on the other end of the stick. It turns from "pulling" to "pushing". Near 12 o'clock, it is resticted freedom, forced to take a "low" path with more velocity.
I'm a physics rookie (school dropout) need to learn similations etc, plus read another 90 pages.

Please someone spend one sentence to tell me I'm wrong and it's been patented already without ever proven results.
If you don't understand, aweful sketching attached!

2 weights, connecting by stock (rod?).
One takes a wider swing 12-5 o'clock, and tends turns into pushing 7-12.

Seems the outer weights has some additional centrifuginal energy with no-where to go.

Thanks!

J

[mondrasek]

We also need @mondrasek's expertise in this. Where has he gone? Hans too. @AquariuZ, Stefan, @einsenficker2000, @ruggero.

I'm still here, when work and life (weekends) are not priority.  I just have not seen where I can add or assist with current activities.  The sims, while interesting, showed the non-runner many expected once the patent was revealed (minus sims with modeling/sim errors).  And Dusty's build is also acting as expected.  So I am of the mind that Abeling doesn't "have it", or he has yet to reveal and/or us discover some other feature of the design.  I am following this thread to see if anyone comes up with that or any other new ideas.

[rlortie]

Wouldn't a smoother curve transition between weight-in-slot trajectory and ramp trajectory eliminate any possible back torque?ruggero 

A few years ago, I fabricated a flexible telescoping ramp test bed apperatus. I could change the ramp making it larger and smaller in all directions shapes.

Test after test was made and the results recorded using a very light lever assembly running on low friction bearings and roller blade wheels as idlers riding the ramp. The balanced disk that the weights were mounted on acted as a flywheel.

All testing ended in the same results; close but no cigar! Adding more levers and weights was more a hindrance than an augment.

Ralph

[Omnibus]

Well, we could do it in 2D by putting 2 wheel side by side and using a gear to combine them
and have one wheel "weight phase shifted".

So a DXF would be good.
Regards, Stefan.

That's very interesting if it can be done. This will allow us to compare the two types of simulation -- the wm2d with the 3ds max reactor. Do you think you can apply your idea on these two sims (see attached). It's interesting to see what the effect on the sense of rotation your idea will have on these two sims. The slotted rotors aren't of the same type as @Jubjub's but seem to work just as well. Maybe if you can do it with these rotors we can just replace them later with @Jubjub's.

As for 3ds max reactor, I'm still having trouble figuring out the exact physical situation. As expected wm2d is somewhat simple to handle in that respect -- mass is straightforwardly given in kg, dimensions in meters etc. Also, in wm2d one can adjust both static and dynamic (kinetic) friction. In reactor the provision is only friction with no qualification. There are other things, however, which have to be adjusted too which have to be understood better.

One may also think, am I not emphasizing too much on the friction. If one wants to prevent any motor from functioning one may do that by tempering with friction. Where's the limit in our case in this respect? Do we want to prove that such device can function in principle or we want to satisfy the critics by setting up such conditions as to make it non-working which, as I said, can be arranged literally for any motor whatsoever.

[i_ron]

I'm now reading on to see if you've debunked this idea. Abeling really told more than he should have, I think. Co-operating minds can be stronger than one.[/b]

Another Dutch guy here.

I've read up to page 35 so far. have seen no similations or other external media due to limited access.


Thanks!

J

cloxxki,

Welcome to our humble list!

Good to see your ideas although I don't think this is a working
concept yet. It is similar to many where weights are allowed
to fly out on one side of the wheel.

But hopefully with some feedback from the list you can
adjust your thoughts to come closer to what Abeling said...

The weights could be connected somehow with a rod, but
any scheme I have thought of has complications. The distance
between the weights changes as the wheel rotates for example.

What was interesting on the first picture of Abeling's wheel
was the (to me) seeming repetition of two kinds of slots?

But keep your posts coming!  It shouldn't take long to read the
posts if you filter out all the simulation posts. Key posts of suggested importance are those of Dusty's replication.

Kind regards,

Ron