Sjack Abeling Gravity Wheel and the Worlds first Weight Power Plant

[Cloxxki]

A weight going fast in enough to in theory and zero resistance just reach 12 0'clock on it's rolling up a ramp, will cover the first half of the height much quicker than the wheel.

Example :
5m tall wheel
10m/s rim speed.
The weight could gain 5m vertically in 1.0 second and then stall.
The first half to axle height however, it would cover in less than half the time then on the wheel.
The wheel takes 0.39s, the ramp 0.29s plus losses.
The difference comes from the exponential nature of acceleration. This leads me to think that the wheel will be more efficient as speed increases.

Abeling seems to use this <0.1s gained (at axle heaight) as stored energy to sling the weight back onto the rim with speed to spare, bumping the rim.

I am SO hoping that this is IT...
Abeling in the video did say his finding it quite simple and logical, it could have been invented 200 years before. And perhaps it even was...

Brain fart, let me know if its worth its own thread.
-Weights on rods, a central axle.
-1/4 rod length from outside, a joint that folds the rod old full revolution between 6 and 12. The weight takes the inside path. 2 ways about this: with and against the rotation of the wheel. The fluent line seems logical Between 6 and 9, rods could even be disengaged freewheeling up on their own power if need be. The rod's folding action would be complete at 12 o'clock. This could be either with great or with low velocity, depending in the joint's chosen rotation direction.

At 9, the weight would have saved the machine torque but also already match the 9 o'clock rim by speed and direction despite sitting at half the rod length from the axle. Has such a system been simulated before that you know of? I've never done one.

I've seen some Bessler related pictures of some sort of joints, were those explained or proven to not work?

[3decimal14]

Very interesting things on this matter at this site:

From: http://magnetism.otc.co.nz/Flywheel.htm (Flywheel)
"We must first recognize that in a "sling shot" or a rock twirling system, if we put a small amount of accelerating energy into the final turn, the rock gains over unity energy."

/Tommy

[Omnibus]

Very interesting things on this matter at this site:

From: http://magnetism.otc.co.nz/Flywheel.htm (Flywheel)
"We must first recognize that in a "sling shot" or a rock twirling system, if we put a small amount of accelerating energy into the final turn, the rock gains over unity energy."

/Tommy

No, so far there's no evidence to that. Why should we recognize such a thing? There's no end to the confusion on this matter.

This is an interesting observation, though, that needs attention:

... when opposing forces meet they do not cancel. Even though a net zero energy may be present, both forces are still very much present.  You cannot just add them together get zero and then forget about them for the offset force interaction. Thus a 90 degree force redirecting both will be shifting this higher energy off centered on two sides of the balance, and now each side must be observed before summing the result.

and the text under the diagram:

Vector addition
Diagram of vetor addition

Resulting force is the sum of all the vectors of acceleration present. The red lines are after the first step of this process where we add each opposing force one at a time to the offset force at 90 degrees to find the resultant equivalent vector of energy. This means that the resulting offset force will be the sum of both resulting forces. If the two are equal then there is a doubling of the deflected energy. The vector tangent to the wheel must have its length doubled. As long as this vector model is true, the circle will be in an over unity state, drawing energy from the time domain [higher density compression area] and placing it into the motional vector of the wheel.

Here C and c are the two forces equal in magnitude but opposite in direction, while a is the 90 degree offset force. How this translates into a practical overunity device is still unclear, however.

[i_ron]

It is a balanced wheel. 

When one looks at the patent drawing and sees the right hand
weight twice the distance out from the axle, one immediately
assumes the logic that this will power the wheel.

What is not immediately obvious though is the simple fact that
the outside weight will travel 100% while the inner weight will
only travel 50% of that same distance. Thus at all points in
the Abeling wheel as the ratio changes from 2.375:1 to 1:1
the wheel is fairly well balanced in the dynamic mode.

Thus the patent as drawn will not work.

Ron

Do I need to clarify that? Take a teeter totter with the two
weights as at 3:00 and 9:00 and 2:1, while the right hand weight drops 1 meter the left hand weight will only rise .5 meter.

Yet in the time period that the Abeling right hand weight
goes from 12:00 to 6:00 so does the left hand weight have
to travel from 6:00 to 12:00 so it's motion has to be geared
up 2:1 to achieve this, as compared to the TT.

Still not well written... but I hope you catch my drift... it is
no surprise then that wm2d didn't know which way to rotate
the wheel...

[Obelix]

Hello,

What did you think of this one ?