Sjack Abeling Gravity Wheel and the Worlds first Weight Power Plant

[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.

Ominbus, please get over yourself.  The post I made was a retraction of an erroneous statement.  In finding my error I was also presented with the situation of the CoG not being where I expected.  I found the answer as to why in the explanation by Hans.  And I thanked him for having posted that information.  Nothing more.

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.

I can't follow how your model is relevant.  By attaching the weights to the wheel and removing the guides, the wheel acts like a pendulum, yes.  But the only way to persistently achieve a CoG to the right of the axle at all degrees of rotation of the wheel is to have both the guides in place and the weights free in the slots.  And when this is done the wheel finds equilibrium in the form of zero torque and therefore zero rotation while maintaining the condition of CoG to the right of the axle.  That is exactly what I achieve with my pendulum analogy when I push it to one side with a guide.

If one were to take any system of symmetrically arrayed weights on a wheel, allow them some freedom for displacement (mount them on the ends of springs for example) and then lean it against something on one side so that the balls on that side are pushed towards the axle, you get the same thing.  A wheel with a CoG persistently to one side of the wheel.  At all angles of rotation.  This is not definitive proof that a wheel is a perpetuum mobile.

[Cloxxki]

Should in such centre of gravity/mass analysis the amount of average weight resting on the ramp be excluded? That portion is not affecting the wheel's balance in that position.
But when they are again interacting with the wheel, they may either be taking extra energy from it, or adding more to it, dependant on slot/weight interface timing.

If Dusty's small radius slots and lower ramp geometry work out well, I have good faith that the thing will keep spinning. However, going to 8 weights, I wonder whether this will mean that it will start up easier, or rather harder.

[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.

Okay Omnibus.  I took a look.  Eisenficker2000 appears to have calculated correctly.  Unfortunately he drew his weights with one at 3 o'clock.  This is not the equilibrium position of the wheel like I analyzed.  So his wheel is out of balance, just like a pendulum pushed to one side.  So of course he found a torque.  If he rotates his weights in the direction of his calculated torque and does his vectors again he will find he has less torque.  Eventually he could find the equilibrium position using this method.  I used WM2D for that.

[mondrasek]

Should in such centre of gravity/mass analysis the amount of average weight resting on the ramp be excluded? That portion is not affecting the wheel's balance in that position.
But when they are again interacting with the wheel, they may either be taking extra energy from it, or adding more to it, dependant on slot/weight interface timing.

That is exactly why we are using vectors.  We are calculating the force due to the weight on both the guides as well as the wheel slots.  Only the force on the wheel slots actually turns the wheel.  So you are correct and we are excluding the force of the weight on the ramps.

An interesting thing to note is that the force on the wheel is actually greater than the weight of the weights at some times on the left of the wheel where the "cherry pit" type squeezing is going on.

[eisenficker2000]

@Omnibus  9 X Dxf(zipped) 5 degree steps, as requested