Sjack Abeling Gravity Wheel and the Worlds first Weight Power Plant

[Omnibus]

@modrasek,

Thanks for the analysis. Will have too look at it in a bit because it found me just in the process of writing a post which is sort of a continuation of the old “squeezed-cherry-stone” idea expressed here by @Cloxxki here http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=7150.1230

See? The two weights are attracting each other with the energy stored in the springs. The angle (like a surfer along the wind) converts this energy in "lift", rather than having it cancel out the two weights "chasing" each other vertically.

and in the link  @3decimal14 gave here http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=7150.1280.

The idea that it isn’t enough to consider that a body is at rest at a given spatial position in order to conclude what its behavior will be after being acted upon by a given force is interesting: The same applied force that would induce different displacement to that body (thus doing different work on the body) depending on whether or not the initial state of immobility of the body is due to static equilibrium or is due to two canceling equal but opposing forces acting on it.

Now, while the above is true we have to see how it can serve us in the aspect we’re discussing here. It will serve the goal we’re pursing in this thread if the forces in question exist naturally. If these forces are naturally existing then the energy which we expect to derive from the above (force over distance) would not come out of a pre-existing energy reservoir, which is exactly the goal this thread is all about.

It seems that the magic word for the achievement of the above goal is ‘constraints’.

Thus, if we let a weight go unobstructed from a given height h it will fall to the ground and when there all of its gravitational potential energy would’ve converted in equivalent amount into other energies (ultimately heat). If, however, that weight is attached to a string fixed to a pivot placed sideways at the same height h as the weight, two equal but opposing forces (centripetal-centrifugal) will be created which didn’t exist in the first instance.

Now, at this point we’re not asking how the weight has found itself at height h because there’s no evidence that it was only due to the energy of a pre-existing energy reservoir. We’ll see later where the energy to get the weight at height h came from and shouldn’t be assumed at this point that it came necessarily from a pre-existing energy reservoir. At this point we observe that the downward motion of the weight and the creation of the centripetal-centrifugal forces is due to the naturally existing force of gravity which isn’t derived from any pre-existing energy reservoir whatsoever.

Thus, so far we have the naturally existing opposing forces (centripetal-centrifugal) which the link @3decimal14 gave requires. We can now consider at once a device similar to that of Veljko Milkovic by which through spending of a very small amount of work, which if the weight is in static equilibrium would shift it at a very small distance, would in this case of “squeezed-cherry-pit” cause the creation of a force enough to restore the position of the weight at height h. We can keep doing this and in this way we will be creating excess energy discontinuously. The excess energy will be the difference between the gravitational potential energy of the object at height h and the energy necessary to move that same object when at static equilibrium. That’s all well and good. Discontinuous creation of excess energy in this way is another method of discontinuous excess energy creation in addition to the definitively proven way for its creation with the magnetic propulsor.

The question which arises now is can we find, constructively, constraints, which would substitute for the periodic external imparting of the small amount of energy, to cause the appearance of greater amount of energy and ensuring in this way continuous obtainment of excess energy? Is this what Abeling’s device is doing.


P.S. Stefan, while all that was said about the centrifugal force earlier is true I think @3decimal14 gave a link which adds a new interesting aspect to that discussion and may turn out to be useful in solving the problem of continuous obtainment of excess energy.

[Omnibus]

@mondrasek,

I agree with the general methodology of you analysis. I would point out, however, that the torque should be calculated with respect to the center of mass which doesn't coincide w/ the center of the wheel. It will affect both the arm and the perpendicular to it weight component. Also, it should take into account eventually that the center of mass changes its position at different positions of the spheres for the same slots and track.

So, now, what is needed is to have this implemented into a program which would make all these calculations automatically and would in this way promptly come up with the comparison of the left-hand and right hand torques for the different configurations. Further, it would be good to have an 'planning of experiment' optimization program to explore as to whether or not there can be a favorable configuration with a non-zero difference between these left and right-hand torques. That would really bring about an answer which may be considered rigorous enough for a conclusion in this matter. Wonder if there wouldn't be a way to write a script in AutoCAD to do at least the first set of calculations (save the optimization part). I'd prefer the script to be in SolidWorks rather than in AutoCAD because the former seems more user-friendly. Anyway, I think you've done a good job.

EDIT: Too bad wm2d isn't open source to try to do these calculations right there. Wonder if there wouldn't be other programs available that could do the job. How about that Slovenian Frame2D? Has anyone had any experience with it?

[mondrasek]

I would point out, however, that the torque should be calculated with respect to the center of mass which doesn't coincide w/ the center of the wheel.

What?  The wheel is balanced except for the wieghts which are not attached to it.  The weights push against the balanced wheel exactly as calculated.  Also, rotation of the wheel can only occur around the axle.  Why would you calculate a torque around any other place?

[Omnibus]

What?  The wheel is balanced except for the weights which are not attached to it.  The weights push against the balanced wheel exactly as calculated.  Also, rotation of the wheel can only occur around the axle.  Why would you calculate a torque around any other place?

Then, you have to take into account the mass inhomogeneity of the wheel itself. As for whether or not any construction will end up with a balanced wheel, that hasn't been resolved yet. I agree with the gist of your methodology, not with the generality of your conclusion. Like I said, it has to be explored further and I guess to write a program to efficiently do so won't be a problem for someone who does real programming (Fortran, C++, Assembler etc.) on a regular basis.

EDIT: Ignore the center of mass thing -- we're exploring an ideal wheel here which is perfectly symmetric and homogeneous. Friction is also ignored. And, you're right, rotation is about the pivot, not about anything else.

One thing needs explanation, though, and I worded it incorrectly implying that rotation should occur around something else, not the axis -- center of mass appears off center (of rotation) at all times, why should then there be an equilibrium position? Your calculations show equilibrium for your particular disposition of the parts.  How can that be reconciled with an off the axis (of rotation) center of mass, as is the case with the actual models?

[Omnibus]

One would expect that equilibrium behavior would be when axis of rotation coincides with the center of mass. If center of mass (even if the track is removed to exclude it from the calculation), however, is at all times off of the axis of rotation, as in the wm2d models at hand, then no equilibrium should be reached at any time. What is puzzling, though, is that center of mass is always to the right of the axis of rotation and yet the wheel spins CCW.

Of course, the correct calculation (as a methodology, not as a final conclusion at this point) is the way @mondrasek has done it and it very well may be that wm2d is simply not calculating correctly the center of mass. This may be one warning sign as to the applicability of wm2d. Because, if the position of center of mass were correctly calculated that (its persistently being off-center) in itself would be a proof for the workability of the studied machines.