Sjack Abeling Gravity Wheel and the Worlds first Weight Power Plant

[Omnibus]

The equilibrium I am seeing in WM2D is what I also confirmed with my vector analysis.  Good old Statics 101.

Good old Statics101 is right. That's the way to go. Like I said, however, you have to correct your calculations and have them the way @eisenficker2000's are. Mind, you, the results from these calculations must be the same as that from the mass-center observations. Otherwise good old Statics 101 goes out the window.

[Omnibus]

Thanks for the files, @eisenficker2000. Will have to see how I can handle them now -- like I said, due to lack of experience with AutoCAD placing the vectors on their proper place is a challenge for me but I have to do it so I have to figure out what the most efficient way to that is.

[i_ron]

deleted, RP

[hansvonlieven]

@All,

Criteria such as persistent mass-axle discrepancy and persistent negative torque calculated for all positions of the wheel comprising a full circle are definitive scientific criteria for the reality of perpetuum mobile. These criteria categorically point to Abeling's device being such. To substitute them with blabber about skillful engineers is ludicrous. Anybody who talks like that and provides no precise argumentation in scientific terms should be ignored outright.

A bit funny that you are the only one that sees this.

Hans von Lieven

[Omnibus]

@eisenficker2000 and @mondrasek,

These are the results from the wheel shifted at 20 degrees CW compared to first @eisenficker2000’s wheel (unlike @eisenficker I’m counting the spheres CW starting from the top one; notation -- same as @eisenficker2000’s):

1. 0.070m    -0.094N    -0.0066Nm
2. 0.070m    -0.250N    -0.0175Nm
3. 0.070m    -0.253N    -0.0177Nm
4. 0.067m    -0.084N    -0.0057Nm
5. 0.044m   +0.162N    +0.0071Nm
6. 0.032m   +0.247N    +0.0079Nm
7. 0.034m   +0.253N    +0.0086Nm
8. 0.054m   +0.203N    +0.0110Nm

Net Torque = -0.0129Nm

Recall that @eisenficker2000 obtained for the net torque the value -0.0088522Nm. It is seen, that the calculated torque stays practically the same (it’s even higher this time but I’m not rubbing it because @mondrasek expected it to be lower). As expected, the above result is very well in concert with the mass-axle observation of this kind of wheel.

P.S. Please see attached also the jpg of the drawing with the arms and the normal vectors drawn in Cyan.