Sjack Abeling Gravity Wheel and the Worlds first Weight Power Plant

[Omnibus]

Any torque-generating force for a given weight F and a given arm L can only be derived from the given weight F and from nothing else. Any calculation showing that for that F and L there can be a torque greater than FL is in error.

[stgpcm]

Any torque-generating force for a given weight F and a given arm L can only be derived from the given weight F and from nothing else. Any calculation showing that for that F and L there can be a torque greater than FL is in error.

Sorry, that only applies if there is no interaction with anything else.

In this case the am and weight are interacting with an inclined plane, and so you need to account for that. failing to account for other interactions in the system is the souce of your error, which has lead you to potentially mistakenly claim you have proved this is a perpetuum mobile.

If your method of calculation is correct,  the four weight system I have presented is a perpetuum mobile.

To deny it, you need to deny your maths - my analysis using your maths shows a varying, yet always net CW torque

Alternately, you could show I have incorrectly applied your maths by demonstrating just one position in which your maths shows a net CCW torque.

[Cloxxki]

If we break apart Abeling's design to the core:
- Weight on left side takes short cut.
- In a frictionless system, a weight on the rim would have made a lateral (out to 9:00) on top of the vertical movement.
- Said lateral movement is now taken out, and brought back only at the very top (acceleration)
- The surplus in lateral potential goes towards increased friction (zero to something) PLUS the impact of the weight in the slot at 1:00.
- When the added friction is low enough, the weight has a net lateral potential on top of the rim speed when reaching 12:00/1:00.

Making it work is of course the hard part.

[mondrasek]

@mondrasek,

Don't speak for @eisenficker2000. There's no way that he would agree that mass can be generated when such isn't there. And, never mind instructors. Discuss this with me and be reasonable.

No one has said that mass can be generated.  I only said that eisenficker2000 also realized the factor that was being overlooked in the analysis and agrees that the correct way must take into account the angle of the slots.  You can reread that starting here:  http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=7150.msg179252#msg179252

No reason for you to put words in anyone's mouth.

Here is another way to look at it that might help you understand.

[Omnibus]

Like I said, any torque-generating force for a given weight F and a given arm L can only be derived from the given weight F and from nothing else. No interactions, walls, slots, guides, whatever can be the generator of said torque. Any calculation showing that for that F and L there can be a torque greater than FL is in error. This is the error both of you @mondrasek and @stgpcm make. You shouldn't try to put words in @eisenficker2000's mouth. I have never seen him agree that anything else but the weight in question is the torque-generating factor, which is obviously the case.