Sjack Abeling Gravity Wheel and the Worlds first Weight Power Plant

[Omnibus]

Yes, you said that, unfortunately, that doesn't make it true,

Look at that component vector.  It is also acting on the guide - it is no longer acting away, or tangentially from it. You need to re-resolve it against the guide. Otherwise your maths is wrong.

Your net torque is a result of your incorrect maths, and is not the source of the free energy in Abeling's wheel.

You have no proof your maths is right. I have reached the same result for my maths with three entirely separate methods of calculation, backed up by real world observations of those that have attempted to replicate the machine.

That's incorrect. I already explained why.

[Omnibus]

One puzzling effect in WM2D simulation is the opposite sense of rotation to what it should be as a result of the torques created by the weights. Here is an illustration of a similar inherent problem in AutoCAD.

The first drawing below shows the decomposition of the weight vector (Red) into the components which finally yield to the component (Cyan) normal to the radial segment â€" the product of that normal component and the radial segment is the torque created by the weight at the illustrated position. The sense of the component (Cyan) is as expected.

The second drawing shows the same decomposition of that same weight vector (Red) made over the slightly modified ellipse line. As seen the sense of the component (Cyan) is opposite to what it should be â€" ostensibly causing torque in the reverse direction.

This is some inherent problem in AutoCAD on a deeper level of its programming which should be known when assessing specifically the sense of the torque. This problem doesn’t affect the magnitude of the torque. This problem exists in the widely used AutoCAD and it very well may be that the same problem is present in much less popular WM2D.

Since, as I mentioned, the magnitude of that indicidual torque, respectively, the magnitude of the net torque (which is the result of the summing up of the 8 individual torques) is correct what is to be emphasized is the mere fact of the persistent non-zero torque causing infinite rotation rather than the sense of that rotation.

It is unfortunate, of course, to turn this study in a study of the flaws in computer programs which are supposed to be only tool and not the center of research activity. Now that we know that flaw we should go ahead and never bother about the sense of rotation and should only focus on the evident persistent non-zero value of the net torque at any position of the wheel which, together with the persistent center of mass-axle discrepancy, is the definitive proof that perpetuum mobile is real.

[stgpcm]

That's incorrect. I already explained why.

no, it's correct, I already explained why.

[stgpcm]

Omnibus, You claim my calculation is wrong, because you assert the force developed on the system can't exceed the force due to gravity. I admit, that does seem to be "common sense". That doesn't stop the assertion being false

Using your principle the primitive machine "wedge" doesn't work.

We can no longer split rock with a wedge, because the force developed by the wedge sideways "can't" exceed the force put in by the operator.

Using your principle the primitive machine "screw" no longer works. We can no longer use jack to lift a car, because the force developed by the screw "can't" exceed the force put in by the operator.

By all means continue to do your calculations, they're an interesting mental exercise, but my third, 4 weight wheel, and just about every failed wheel before it "works" according to your constructions.

Your incorrect maths are not what makes Abelings wheel work.

[Omnibus]

no, it's correct, I already explained why.

No, you didn't. Arrogance is no argument.