Sjack Abeling Gravity Wheel and the Worlds first Weight Power Plant

[stgpcm]

now, and here's the kicker. lets calculate what torque you would have to apply in order to do those amounts of work.

Bear in mind that we only have an approximation of the work being done. to get accurate figures would have look at the limit cases of (cos(30+delta) - cos(30-delta)) and (0.45 . (1/tan(30-delta) - 1/tan(30+delta))

That said, work done by applying a torque "t" through "s" radians =

t . s

and to convert "a" degrees to radians  is
a . PI/180

the work done by rotating the top weight through 1 degree at my statically calculated torque of 0.5 =

(work done is the conversion of potential energy to kinetic energy)

t . a . PI/180
= 0.5 . 1 . PI/180
= PI/360
= 0.0087266462599716478846184538424431

that's within .00127% of the value calculated dynamically



the work done by rotating the bottom weight through 1 degree at my statically calculated torque of 1.8 =

(work done is the conversion of potential energy to kinetic energy)

t . a . PI/180
= 1.8 . 1 . PI/180
= PI/100
= 0.031415926535897932384626433832795

that's within 0.0254% of the value calculated dynamically.

as the lower weight is moving faster, the conditions upon it are changing more quickly, making the approximation more unreliable - but here it is less than 3 parts in 10 thousand, so I'm content.

[hansvonlieven]

Nice work stgpc,

You don't need all that though to see that such a device cannot work.

In any gravity device you have a weight that drops from say A to B and is supposed to do work on the way down. In order to re-start the cycle the weight has to be returned to A.

Now, the most efficient way we know of doing this is to lift it straight up as in an Atwood machine. There you have only minor friction losses in the bearing of the pulley.

The next best way is to roll it up an inclined plane. Here you have the same losses in the bearing plus the friction between the plane and the rolling weight.

One of the worst ways to lift the weight is via a scissor mechanism as proposed. Here you have the forces between the wheel and the ramp acting against each other, preventing the weight to rotate to minimise friction and in fact acting as a brake. It needs a lot of energy to overcome this, energy that simply is not there.

These forces, though very really present, do not show up if you only look at the centre of gravity and torque generated by the individual weights.

Simple as that. See diagram.

Hans von Lieven
                         

[i_ron]

Yes this is without friction.

This is the answer found by people that build the wheel.

This is the answer wm2d gives you.

So... the system would not actually accelerate clockwise, it would accelerate counter clockwise.

Absolutely amazing your easy flow of math here! I am in awe.

Now the next question is... will it continue to accelerate?

What a strange twist of fate if this does turn CCW.
Thank you for taking the time to explain this.

Ron

[Tink]

Hans, you are right.
Flying machines heavier then air can't fly and the earth is still flat.
If you really think Sjack's machine can't work then tell us why not, follow the rules of science!!!!

[stgpcm]

Nice work stgpc,

You don't need all that though to see that such a device cannot work.


Hansvon Lieven

Ah, but simply saying that excludes a potential twist no one has yet thought of. Which I firmly hope exists - I don't believe in perpetual motion per se, but that there are ways of tapping free and currently unknown energy sources - a traditional water wheel leads to the hydro-electric turbine, as a method of capturing the suns thermal output - giving free energy

I'm interested in making sure we have the tools to analyse these devices to find the twist that powers them, because once you have the twist you can refine it.

Much the approach Omnibus has, I think.