Sjack Abeling Gravity Wheel and the Worlds first Weight Power Plant

[eisenficker2000]

@Omnibus : The wheel from 20 til 30 degrees in increments of 2 degrees in AutoCad format, with "simplified/centered" weights. AutoCad format to prevent curves from being broken up.

[eisenficker2000]

For those who would like to do some calculating. My "improved" wheel design, that is more close to Abeling's presentation.

Drawing as zipped dxf.

[Omnibus]

Thank you @eisenficker2000. The positions between Wheel20 and Wheel25 are especially important.

@mondrasek, for the wheel not to be a perpetuum mobile and to behave as a pendulum, half of the net torques have to be of a sign opposite to the net torques of the other half. It isn't enough only to have a zero torque at a given position of the wheel. Zero net torque at a given position of the wheel only means that it's not a self-starter at that position.

[mondrasek]

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.

This is just bunk.  When I use WM2D with the methodology that I have described over and over, the simulation act exactly like a pendulum.  And it does settle to a position of zero motion while still having the center of mass to the right of the axle.  A static torque vector analysis at this settled position corroborates zero net torque due to the weights, ie a state of equilibrium.  You choose to ignore the proper use of WM2D, the results of the sim, and the corroborating torque analysis.  Instead you have moved on to eisenficker2000 model, abandoning the original sim all together.

Your assertion that WM2D cannot be used correctly for anything other than a calculator for the center of mass is based on your ignorance and outright dismissile of how to use that program.  I accept that you do not trust WM2D, and so I support your efforts to make an analysis tool that you do trust.

[Cloxxki]

Have I missed a discussion on the geometry of the wheel slots?

To consider:
- Curve radius, if choosing to use a constant curve at all
- Radial placement of inner and outer ends vs the axle (slot pairs). All in line would seem unwise.
- Width on each point along the slot to offer weight max or minimum freedom, anticipating rpm variances

It seem to me, that for the (over)balance of the wheel, slot geometry is quite significant. A lot to do wrong here, and I suppose there will be optimums for various reasons:
- maximum overunity on self-start, getting it to go
- efficiency needed at low or high speed?
- velocity/torque variances through a rotation (constant drive needed?)

To start, I would suggest making sure the axle-end of a slot (lifting) be placed more forward compared to the outer end (working mode). The weights would be forced/allowed to take a radial advantage.
Without that advantage, the weight on the lower ramps will just be passing most if its impulse over to the wheel before it reaches axle height, left to hope of getting enough in return to be able to get back "on schedule".
If the ramps are the "key" to get this design to work, then at least get the most of these ramps.

Just some thoughts. Please tell me if I'm missing something.