Sjack Abeling Gravity Wheel and the Worlds first Weight Power Plant

[Omnibus]

For those who are trying to replicate the device. The weights have to be of as greater a mass as possible. For the same length of the arms the net torque increases almost twice by two times greater mass. Of course, there should be some optimum weight because of the increased friction.

Also, as known, the form of the track is crucial. For given slots and weight switching from elliptic to a non-symmetrical track (guide) almost doubles the net torque. The closer the left-hand side of the track to the axle and the more close to a perpendicular tack the better (the higher the net torque). No wonder even Abeling's logo contains that idea.

Now that we know this device can work, we have to turn our attention to friction. First, choice of materials deserves consideration. What comes to mind is teflon. @Dusty's rig is too big for that but maybe @eisenficker2000 can try making the guides out of teflon. Better yet is to find Handbooks with friction data, maybe even carry out special experiments to determine how different materials behave when rubbed against each other. I'm sure there must be published studies on that matter and a literary survey to find prior studies would be advisable. I'll be traveling and won't be able to do it right now but sometime later I'll try to do it.

Some of the above is intuitive but it can be demonstrated numerically and in some more concrete terms which I'll do at some later time.

[mondrasek]

Sorry for failing to correctly explain myself. You are correct that the discrepancy between Omnibus's maths and wm2d (and the real world) is down to an angle. I believe you fixed on the angle of the physical slot in relation to direction of gravity, because that made sense visually, and gave results that looked about right

The angle that actually matters (for calculating the torque)  is the angle between the direction of motion* of the weight, and the radius that runs from the pivot.

Where the your slot constrains the weight to a motion that is purely radial this is exactly the same.

This is shown in your diagram More vectors for OB.JPG

The component that formed torque you found in both of the top and middle diagram was 10.

the middle and bottom diagrams both have the slot so the force is at 135 degrees to gravity, but you calculate a different force for the lower diagram - because the angle between the radius and the direction of travel of the weight is now at around 5 degrees. Unfortunately, the diagonal vector you've constructed shows the original error of failing to account for the radial component of that second vector calculation - which is why you show a lower torque than you would if the guide wasn't there

In the middle diagram you also found the force on the slot was 10.root(2) (the diagonal), the lateral component of that force (10 right) was transferred through the fabric of the wheel, as strain, to the hub, and so into the frame. The lateral force on the wheel (10 left), is passed (as the direction of the perpendicular there's no nasty resultants) into the guide, which is bolted to the frame. The frame manfully absorbs 20 units of force as strain.

Basically, vector triangles (or parallelograms) are a great way to work with forces BUT every time you split one force into two, you have to say what happens to both parts. In the normal case, you are splitting the vector into two parts, one direction of which works against the earth and so can be discarded.

*yes, in a static system there is no motion, but if it were to move, you know the direction the weight would move in. It's just another limit case.

Right, I thought this was the intent of your post.  I just wasn't 100% clear.

Yep, the angle that is important is the angle of the guides and the slots relative to the angle of the moment arm.  I never intended to imply that I meant the angle of the slot to the vector of gravity should be the focus.  Sorry if I was unclear.

Also, sorry I have been unable to answer your PM.  The site seems to be messed up.  I cannot respond or send a new PM to you at the moment.  I will do so as soon as it allows.

M.

[Omnibus]

@mondrasek,

the angle that is important is the angle of the guides and the slots relative to the angle of the moment arm.

Finally you understood it but only half way.

Only the angle of the tangent to the guide with respect to the vector of  gravity is important. Because of that angle the torque can never be greater than the product of the arm’s length L and the weight in absence of guides.

The angle of the slot relative to the moment arm is unimportant.

The difference in the behavior of a ball sitting at a given position on a slot is only due to whether or not there is a guide. In the presence of guide that same ball sitting at the same point on the slot will cause lower torque than the same ball at the same point of the slot in absence of a guide (or when the guide is perpendicular).

The above applies when there are no additional constructive obstructions (obstructions due to friction are not treated in this analysis) as is the case with the wheel at hand.

[mondrasek]

The angle of the slot relative to the moment arm is unimportant.

The difference in the behavior of a ball sitting at a given position on a slot is only due to whether or not there is a guide. In the presence of guide that same ball sitting at the same point on the slot will cause lower torque than the same ball at the same point of the slot in absence of a guide (or when the guide is perpendicular).

Absolutely not the case.  The only way the ball can achieve the position being analyzed is to ride on the guides and the slots.  BOTH have an angle relative to the angle of the moment arm that need to be taken into consideration.

If you think otherwise, please show a design where the balls can achieve the same locations on slots with the *same* angle as the moment arm and the current guide geometry.

You keep drawing vectors from the weight vector normal to the moment arm.  The balls are NOT resting on a surface that is the same as the moment arm.  They are resting on a surface with the angle of the slots which is different than the angle of the moment arms.

[Omnibus]

@mondrasek,

You keep drawing vectors from the weight vector normal to the moment arm.

I'm posting for the second time how I'm drawing weight vector and it is obvious that I'm not drawing vectors from the weight vector normal to the moment arm. You should acknowledge at once that you're wrong. Otherwise it's just an irrational exchange.

The balls are NOT resting on a surface that is the same as the moment arm.  They are resting on a surface with the angle of the slots which is different than the angle of the moment arms.

The ball and the slot are one. I already explained why the way the ball is attached to the system to be rotated has no impact on the magnitude and sign of the torque. The only thing that has a bearing on the magnitude and the sign of the torque is the distance from the center of mass to the axle and the vector normal to that distance, derived from the weight. As I've said many times already, the product of this distance (arm) and the normal can never be greater than that product in absence of guides.