Sjack Abeling Gravity Wheel and the Worlds first Weight Power Plant

[Cloxxki]

That's correct. That's something @Cloxxki has a problem understanding but he should.

Understanding the basics (which I do as described) is something else than getting the most out of it, using basic laws of nature to your advantage. That separates the (supposed) PPM inventors from the school teachers and wannabes. I intend to, if there is a way to obtain overunity, be in the group making it happen rather than the one reading about it in the latest edition school book.

Alright then, having established that increasing radius along a spoke of a weight asks for a speed reduction of the wheel, the opposite should also be true. Forcing the weight inside, also speeds it up. Providing that slots allow for this speeding, gaining advantage, what could this extra speed (vertically) be used for? Gaining lots of height in a short time, while letting go or speed relative to the rim.

I propose setting some key features of the wheel, such as offering the weight at 6:00 to carry greater speed than the average of the wheel, the wheel then slowing down for the portion that the weight is rolling its way op the bottom ramp, gaining great advantage. The working weight on the other side of the wheel would have many "hours" to lift the first weight up and over the 0:00 point, with surplus erergy being put into and used up by the wheel to bring the upper weight outward and onto the rim hook.

Of course, all fanatasy until somehow proven. But I'm naive, a man going on TV saying he has a self-destricting gravity power plant, I believe a bit in that until I find proof he's a fraud. If we take the factor of trust out of this world, things just fall apart. We just can't go blind on it.

[Omnibus]

This is a useless post.  Sorry, but I had to say it.

Agreed. @Cloxxki should've known these things from the get go.

[mondrasek]

Alright then, having established that increasing radius along a spoke of a weight asks for a speed reduction of the wheel, the opposite should also be true. Forcing the weight inside, also speeds it up.

You are correct here.  But look closely at your last statement:  Forcing the weight inside, also speeds it up.  A Force must be applied in order to move the weights towards the axle.  When a skater pulls his arms and legs in and speeds up, that skater is doing work by pulling.  That's the catch 22 here.

So it takes energy to pull/push weights toward the axle.  But you get an acceleration of the wheel.  You loose that same energy when the weight is allowed to move back out.  And the wheel slows down again.  Without friction or other losses, these things balance exactly.  At least for all constructions that we know of. 

Bessler may have had a way of constructing something that used these known phenomenon in an unbalanced way.  Or maybe it came from a different known phenomenon or an unknown one?

[Cloxxki]

You are correct here.  But look closely at your last statement:  Forcing the weight inside, also speeds it up.  A Force must be applied in order to move the weights towards the axle.  When a skater pulls his arms and legs in and speeds up, that skater is doing work by pulling.  That's the catch 22 here.

So it takes energy to pull/push weights toward the axle.  But you get an acceleration of the wheel.  You loose that same energy when the weight is allowed to move back out.  And the wheel slows down again.  Without friction or other losses, these things balance exactly.  At least for all constructions that we know of. 

Bessler may have had a way of constructing something that used these known phenomenon in an unbalanced way.  Or maybe it came from a different known phenomenon or an unknown one?

Indeed.
But, the wheel only slows down if you use the wheel to speed up radially. The ramp is offering a means to convert purely horizontal momentum at 6:00 into vertical. When we visually a radially spoked wheel, the weight will pass spokes "get ahead". If the exit speed at 6:00 is sufficient, it could make it all the way up to 0:00, but would a lacking amount of radial speed, being due right. A second ramp could come into place. Anyways, velocity lost along the rim was traded for getting to 0:00 sooner. But, are these equal?
I keep coming back to a logically occuring stuttering action where exit of the weight would be at top speed, and re-entry at minimum speed, to get the most out of the "launch". What else could be making this work, if anything?

[stgpcm]

mondrasek, Omnibus is correct in this aspect of mechanics, the angle of the slot in  contact with the weight does not alter the torque on the wheel.

It does increase the force applied by the slot, but the increase is only in the radial component of the force, not the rotational component, and so doesn't alter the torque. This increase in radial force increases the reaction force the force the ball is subject to from the guide, and will in a live system increase friction, making the wheel harder to turn. a slot perpendicular to the radius at the point it contacts the weight will simply have no resultant torque whatsoever, and has fallen off the wheel.

the angle between the guide and the radius of wheel (not the slot) on the other hand has the effect you and I describe.