Sjack Abeling Gravity Wheel and the Worlds first Weight Power Plant

[Omnibus]

Enclosed the Autocad drawing (as zipped dxf) and its constructed vectors to calculate the torques.

Thanks for the file. Have you any idea how these calculations can be automated?

[rlortie]

Omni,

You have been debating the issues of WM2D for quite some time now. By arguing with Ron your up against a brick wall and wasting a productive builders valued time.

You could have built four of them by now and objectively proved that it will not work!

AEVector's depiction makes it so simple to see that it is fruitless is so obvious I do not understand why this cannot be seen.  You are attempting to lift five weight with the leverage of three, calculate the combined leverage ratio and you will find that you are always attempting to lift more than falling and the leverage will never be  there.

The longer the leverage the less mass you have to lift with and more to lift.

Take away the ramps which in this case are nothing more than a drag and you have Bessler's first MT drawings which has been proven time and time again will not work.

Ralph

[Omnibus]

Omni,

You have been debating the issues of WM2D for quite some time now. By arguing with Ron your up against a brick wall and wasting a productive builders valued time.

You could have built four of them by now and objectively proved that it will not work!

AEVector's depiction makes it so simple to see that it is fruitless is so obvious I do not understand why this cannot be seen.  You are attempting to lift five weight with the leverage of three, calculate the combined leverage ratio and you will find that you are always attempting to lift more than falling and the leverage will never be  there.

The longer the leverage the less mass you have to lift with and more to lift.

Take away the ramps which in this case are nothing more than a drag and you have Bessler's first MT drawings which has been proven time and time again will not work.

Ralph

Like I said, this is not the correct way to prove whether or not the discussed wheel is a perpetuum mobile. The correct scientifically rigorous way is to observe how the center of mass and the axis of rotation relate to each other. It is proved beyond doubt that the wheel in question maintains persistently the sideways position of the mass center with respect to the axis of rotation. This is a categorical proof that the wheel  in question is a perpetuum mobile (that is, that it does work). As I mentioned, this is the easy and convenient and yet rigorous way to prove it's a perpetuum mobile. Another, lengthier way, is to apply the method @eisenficker2000 has applied. The latter, if correctly done, will prove the same thing as the method based on mass center-axle coincidence, namely, that we're dealing with a perpetuum mobile. The important thing here is that even if we are unable to manufacture such a wheel (due to the lack of engineering and mechanical skills) the reality of perpetuum mobile has been proven beyond doubt and that's the important conclusion from the discussion in this thread.

[rlortie]

Omni,

you wrote;

(due to the lack of engineering and mechanical skills)

That has got to be the most lame duck excuse I have ever heard.  I presume you are referring to yourself as I am sure Dusty, Ron and I consider it an insult.

Just what is it that we lack in skills to build this thing? Speaking for myself, Although I have the skills and resources I will not attempt to build it as I know it will not work. I believe that Dusty will objectively prove this. Of course you can always come back and  say 'He did not try this or that"...

I am out of here!

Ralph

[Omnibus]

Omni,

you wrote;
That has got to be the most lame duck excuse I have ever heard.  I presume you are referring to yourself as I am sure Dusty, Ron and I consider it an insult.

Just what is it that we lack in skills to build this thing? Speaking for myself, Although I have the skills and resources I will not attempt to build it as I know it will not work. I believe that Dusty will objectively prove this. Of course you can always come back and  say 'He did not try this or that"...

I am out of here!

Ralph

Don't try to tell me that if you can't make a working device then it proves there can never be a working device because you're so skilled that if it were possible to make such then you would've certainly made it. The opposite is true. It is proved beyond doubt that such device is real and if the device you've made doesn't work blame it on yourself, your skills and infrastructure you use, never mind how great you personally think they are.