Sjack Abeling Gravity Wheel and the Worlds first Weight Power Plant

[mondrasek]

@Mondrasek: Nice results, so what bring  all 9 positions? 

If I understand what Omni is trying to do, he is aiming towards a program that will calculate these forces at every angle of rotation.  If he has this, I predict it will show a position where there is no torque.  This is what I believe I have found using the WM2D sim.

It should also be possible to find it by drawing and calculating in AutoCAD like we have been doing, in an iterative fashion.  We would have to move the wheel in the predicted direction some amount until the direction reverses (or does not as Omni supports).  Then we would move back at a smaller step and so on until we find the zero point or become convinced that one does or does not exist.  I'm not inclined to do that many iterations.  Hopefully Omni's programming will do this for us or someone with more patience will do the manual method to our mutual satisfaction.

Those "Errors" were due to the fact that the axles of the weights are 3 mm in diameter and the slots are 4 mm wide. So yes it is easier to move them to  the centerlines to simplify the model.

I completely understand.  The model was still correct for what you built.  I just needed to "idealize" it for the boring analysis.  I also learned some neat things along the way.  Actually, our idealized model in the analysis cannot actually be built (that I know of).  We are assuming that the reaction force of the weights on the wheel act at at a point where the center of the weight touches the wheel.  Actually it is the outside of the axle that touches the wheel and this point is not at the same distance from the main axle due to the shape of the slots and guides. 

Your build looked great!

M.

[Omnibus]

@mondrasek,

If he has this, I predict it will show a position where there is no torque.  This is what I believe I have found using the WM2D sim.

On the contrary, wm2d, if used correctly, that is, only as a calculator of the center of mass, conclusively proves this is a perpetuum mobile -- unlike a pendulum whereby the center of mass shifts form right to left and back until finding itself on the vertical drawn from the axle to the ground, in our case the center of mass is persistently sideways to the right of the axle. There cannot be any more categorical proof than this for perpetuum mobile and we don't even need to do anything else to convince ourselves.

We're doing torque calculations, in addition to the above, and they show results in harmony with the above. The results conclusively prove that at no position this wheel will ever show zero net torque. I still have a couple of frames to calculate and will post the final results of the torque measurements. They have to be perfected, a program in Lisp has to be written for the purposes of optimization but the main question is answered -- yes, perpetuum mobile is real. This is a 'yes' or 'no' question and it has categorically been answered in the positive.

We know about the categorical proof for the discontinuous production of excess energy. Now we already have a definitive proof for the continuous production of excess energy. All that remains are optimization efforts and putting it together as a working machine which isn't a trivial job at all, even more so than the non-trivial engineering of complex machines such as watches, cars or even spaceships. We know spaceships are real and can be made but can our small enthusiastic group here build one? I'm not expecting an answer.

[LarryC]

I did a new analysis of the wheel at 0 degrees rotation.  Interesting thing here is that the weight at 12 o'clock is in transition between the circular and elliptical path.  So it either had zero net torque value or a small CCW one.  Results are:

1. 0.0700000m   +0.071373N    +0.0049961Nm
2. 0.0700000m    -0.190919N    -0.0133643Nm
3. 0.0700000m    -0.270000N    -0.0189000Nm
4. 0.0700000m    -0.190919N    -0.0133643Nm
5. 0.0552271m   +0.106415N    +0.0058770Nm
6. 0.0359726m   +0.215966N    +0.0077689Nm
7. 0.0317787m   +0.261549N    +0.0083117Nm
8. 0.0422302m   +0.230257N    +0.0097238Nm

Net Torque with #1 on circle = -0.0139472Nm --> Wheel starts Clockwise
Net Torque with #1 on ellipse = -0.0089511Nm --> Wheel starts Clockwise

Okay, if you guys are going to use this model. Please check Fig 8 in the patent first. Print the pdf out, it is not distorted like in the PDF viewer.  The angle of the hockey sticks are to the left of center (10 degrees or more), not slightly to the right as shown in your current model.

However, I don't expect this change it to help much, as the patent and the inventor has stated that the top left impact is what makes the machine a runner. As long as this important fact is ignored then no amount of modeling will show a runner.

I don't know if it is a runner or not, but at least give it a chance by adding that impact analysis.

Regards, Larry 

[Omnibus]

@eisenficker2000,

Would it be possible to post four more screens between Wheel20 and Wheel30 (possibly 22, 24, 26 and 28)? As far as I can see there's a minimum forming there (after going through a maximum) which needs to be studied. Thanks.

Of course, such fluctuation is to be expected, as seen from the mass-axle discrepancy which, although persistently to the right is not at steady-state. We need to know its fine structure, however.

[Omnibus]

@All

I should correct this, to avoid possible confusion in some. The observed slight variations in the now famous criterion for a device to be considered a perpetuum mobile (the persistent one-side axle-center of mass discrepancy), are not fluctuations. Fluctuations are the result of randomness which isn’t the case here. Said variations are set in stone characteristic “fingerprints” for each given construction of a perpetuum mobile and are one of those features which will help us optimize the device for maximum output.

I should also mention that the torque minimum I’m talking about doesn’t go through zero torque so any hopes that that minimum might be the answer why the device isn’t a perpetuum mobile are in vain. This can be seen at once from the center of mass discrepancy which is persistently sideways and at no position of the wheel are the axle and mass center observed to coincide or lie on a vertical line.