Sjack Abeling Gravity Wheel and the Worlds first Weight Power Plant

[mondrasek]

@mondrasek,

Please take a look at the illustration below. It is not true that the calculation of torque in a) should be done differently than in b), as you imply. The mode of attachment of the ball to the arm makes no difference in calculating torque.

Please refere to your prevously posted diagram.  The force vector m1 is NOT perpendicular to the moment arm.  It must be projected on it.

In the glue case the mass is acting perpendicular to the moment arm.

It is not the mode of attachement.  It is the angle that the weight leans against the wheel.  In the glue case there can be no angle and so the force is applied perpendicular. 

Those two cases do in fact need to be calculated differently.

[mondrasek]

No, that's not the case. You're endowing the ball with additional structures which isn't the case. The ball is as given, no additional attachments and it is immaterial how it is attached to the arm to exert the particular force on the arm.

The other structures (the slots in our case) must be considered.  They are necessary in order to get the balls into the prescribed locations, the same as the guides are.  Remove them and you remove the ability for the balls to achieve the desired positions.

[Omnibus]

Please refere to your prevously posted diagram.  The force vector m1 is NOT perpendicular to the moment arm.  It must be projected on it.

In the glue case the mass is acting perpendicular to the moment arm.

It is not the mode of attachement.  It is the angle that the weight leans against the wheel.  In the glue case there can be no angle and so the force is applied perpendicular. 

Those two cases do in fact need to be calculated differently.

I'm pinpointing the mistake you're making. The two cases a) and b) calculate the torque in exactly the same way. It is not true that in the glue case force F is acting perpendicular to the arm. Only its component F sin(alpha) is, same as in case a). It is obvious from the picture. How can you say that F is perpendicular to the arm when it most obviously isn't?

[mondrasek]

I'm pinpointing the mistake you're making. The two cases a) and b) calculate the torque in exactly the same way. It is not true that in the glue case force F is acting perpendicular to the arm. Only its component F sin(alpha) is, same as in case a). It is obvious from the picture. How can you say that F is perpendicular to the arm when it most obviously isn't?

Sorry, I ment the mass' resultant force of F sin(alpha), the same as you understand.  But again, please note that m1 is NOT perpendicular to the arm.  And therefore CANNOT be applied as such.  It must first be projected normal to the arm.  A slightly differnt force than sin(alpha) will result.

[mondrasek]

Here is the results of the torque vector analysis at 25 degrees.  I figure if we do all 9 we should get a sine wave the crosses the zero around 19 degrees, the point of equilibrium.