Sjack Abeling Gravity Wheel and the Worlds first Weight Power Plant

[Omnibus]

@eisenficker,

Indeed, the program to calculate the net torque at every position of the wheel can be written in Lisp or one of its dialects. I have found one element of such program which returns the exact lengths of selected segments so, if you send me several of the dxf's similar to the first one you posted such that can be used to represent a full rotation, I can do the calculations. I'd do the dxf's myself but unfortunately, I'm so inexperienced with AutoCAD that I may mess up the drawings which have to be done with great accuracy in order to consider the results based on them reliable.

[Cloxxki]

I am not convinced a spring is required. Should it turn out to be, then apparently the trick is not in torque, but rather in harnessing CF?
The afore suggested spring in the ramp could have a delayed release, triggered twice a revolution, just when the weight which compressed the spring at 6-8:00 has reached 11:00.
But really, if such a spring would work, why not use it instantly, and do away with the wheel slots completely? All you'd need is small pockets on the rims, and a ramp system ensuring hooking and unhooking. The slightest CF gotten from a spring, if overunity by itself, would launch the weight significantly higher up (due to behaviour of a vertically launched object), where it would only be lacking rim speed. Once hitting the spoke or wheel there, it's almost at the top already.

Or would you suggest using the spring load (immediately or delayed) towards the wheel itself? It could give the working weight an extra impuls and/or push the lifted weight a bit higher up, depending on whether the lifting weight is in contact with a wheel slot at the time of impulse.

[mondrasek]

The center of mass of the wheel and weights (guide ramps not included) in the sim I analyzed is directly below the axle.

I was wrong about this.  A few quick measurements of the locations of the weights at the equilibrium position found from the sim does show the CoG to the right of the axle, and not directly below it.  Another verification of WM2D!  But that is also as expected due to the guide ramps.  If one was to take a simple pendulum, and then push it to one side with a static ramp (similar to the guide ramps), it too would have a system CoG to the side of the pivot (axle) point.  It too would be in a state of equilibrium and would not move.  I believe that is the case with the equilibrium position of the Abeling wheel sim, no?  It is like Hans said that you must account for the energy to push the weights into those positions (not exact quote).

Thanks Hans!

@spinner, I sent you a PM a few weeks back when the site was changing.  Did you get it?  If not, no big deal.  If you do see it, please change "Turkey" to "Egypt".  I had my facts crossed.

M.

[Omnibus]

@mondrasek,

Quoting Hans is of no use. This is like quoting someone blabbering irresponsible gibberish. You are different from Hans because the argumentation you give is quantitative. You’re not right regarding your final conclusions which are swayed by the existing state of affairs (which is understandable) but other than that discussion with you is sensible. So, be rational and don't thank someone who clutters the forum with rubbish just because that rubbish seems to coincide with what your tendency for conclusions is and helps you rub the nose of an opponent. These are only emotions. Stick to the impassionate scientific methodology.

Regarding this:

If one was to take a simple pendulum, and then push it to one side with a static ramp (similar to the guide ramps), it too would have a system CoG to the side of the pivot (axle) point.  It too would be in a state of equilibrium and would not move.  I believe that is the case with the equilibrium position of the Abeling wheel sim, no?

No, it isn’t. With a pendulum the center of mass will swing from right to left and back until it settles right at the bottom (see attached). In Abeling’s case the center of mass persistently stays to the right of the axle at all positions of the wheel. That is a definitive proof that the wheel is a perpetuum mobile. How this effect can be made to predominate over the friction is a very difficult engineering problem which has to be tackled either by maximizing the perpetuum mobile effect by finding ways to minimize friction (minimizing what is meant when you said “must account for the energy to push the weights into those positions”). So, the situation is as follows â€" perpetuum mobile is conclusively proven to be real and what remains is work out the engineering side of it.

[Omnibus]

@mondrasek,

Wonder if you saw @eisenficker2000's analysis similar to yours. His is the correct one, however, and it makes my initial perpetuum mobile conclusion, based on the persistent mass-axle shift, conservative -- the perpetuum mobile effect is even greater than I initially thought.