Sjack Abeling Gravity Wheel and the Worlds first Weight Power Plant

[Cloxxki]

One person or two, will you stop it please?

@Omnibus, work on the highest torque shape you can come up with, that it buildable. Friction can be overcome. Abeling likes (fibre)glass, why not look into that? Think big rollers, or multiple rollers. Inline skates are faster with more wheels spreading the load, due to the elasticity of the tires ramping up with load. A cart like weight on 4 wheel might track better than a dumbell, and roll better too. In sports, I know speed/friction a trade-off between weight, size, and count. Here, weight is what we want, and all we need is the lowest friction. We can use many large rollers, if we want. Next thing to consider, do we want the weight in the rollers, or between it on the cart?

@stgpcm, your calculation talents exceed mine to understand them. However, I can with some excersize "visualize" movements in space, and start to understand powers at play. Please enlighten me, on or of-board, on your Abeling related model, and what it is you think Abeling is overseeing (or intensionally omitting from the patent)
On another forum I read about having weight first build up speed to increase their mass, and only then allow them to do work. Do you like my proposal to maximize speed upon release at Abeling's 5-6:00, and get some serious height overcome before the slots carry the weight up the past bit, and sling it back outside?

[Omnibus]

@Cloxxki,

It appears that if ways are found to decrease friction the shape of slots and track isn't of crucial importance for demonstrating a working device which is the goal now. Once it's demonstrated practically there will be further developments to make it more efficient.

I have no data at hand to judge for whether glass or fiberglass would be the best material. I'm mentioning Teflon but there may be other better materials. It would be interesting to hear somebody with more experience in this respect.

Also, I'm not sure that more weights would be better in view of increased friction when more. The heavier weights the better, however.

As for "weight first build up speed to increase their mass, and only then allow them to do work" that was already commented. That buldup would be only at the expense of the gravitational potential energy at the top and there's no gain in that. Observe the functioning of this wheel at very low speed to avoid distractions with centrifugal forces when thinking about this device.

[stgpcm]

Check reply 25 at  http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=7472.msg183041#msg183041. Does anyone else see the resemblance?

absolutely not - I've read what you said, and done my best to explain the principles involved - the exact opposite of the person you are likening me two.

While talking about skeet throwers is tangential to the topic, discussing whether centrifugal force is real or not is quite important when discussing whether centrifugal force is the cause of the imbalance in the wheel.

But, on that matter, a simple thought experiment.

You are sat in a car, and it accelerates. You feel yourself being "pushed back" into your seat. What is the force pushing you back? The answer is there is no force pushing you back - you are feeling the car push your forwards, and you feel your momentum being changed. You might call the force you perceive inertia, but it isn't a real force.

The car turns left, You feel yourself being pushed against the right side of the car. What is the force pushing you right? Similarly there is no force pushing you right, you are feeling the car push you left (centripetally), and you feel your momentum being changed. You might call the force you perceive centrifugal force, or you might be consistent and call it inertia again, but it still isn't a real force

[Omnibus]

absolutely not - I've read what you said, and done my best to explain the principles involved - the exact opposite of the person you are likening me two.

While talking about skeet throwers is tangential to the topic, discussing whether centrifugal force is real or not is quite important when discussing whether centrifugal force is the cause of the imbalance in the wheel.

But, on that matter, a simple thought experiment.

You are sat in a car, and it accelerates. You feel yourself being "pushed back" into your seat. What is the force pushing you back? The answer is there is no force pushing you back - you are feeling the car push your forwards, and you feel your momentum being changed. You might call the force you perceive inertia, but it isn't a real force.

The car turns left, You feel yourself being pushed against the right side of the car. What is the force pushing you right? Similarly there is no force pushing you right, you are feeling the car push you left (centripetally), and you feel your momentum being changed. You might call the force you perceive centrifugal force, or you might be consistent and call it inertia again, but it still isn't a real force

This observation has nothing to do with the effects we're discussing here. It was explained at length why earlier in the thread and it's a waste of time to get back into that discussion.

[stgpcm]

on your Abeling related model, and what it is you think Abeling is overseeing (or intensionally omitting from the patent)

That's the thing, I can't imagine what he is omitting, which is why I'm keen we find out what it is. What I am fairly sure of is it isn't the torque construction Omnibus is using, because that is wrong (as evinced by wheels that turn anticlockwise when he predicts clockwise). His continued insistence that it is down to the torques as he calculated them is distracting people from looking into the real reason.

On another forum I read about having weight first build up speed to increase their mass, and only then allow them to do work. Do you like my proposal to maximize speed upon release at Abeling's 5-6:00, and get some serious height overcome before the slots carry the weight up the past bit, and sling it back outside?

Unfortunately, I doubt that is the answer - using momentum to lift the waits means that you have to put the momentum in elsewhere, which means the part of the force increasing the weight's momentum isn't available to the system - so it cancels out, unless you can find some way to make sure that it doesn't.

EDIT: to fix broken (quote) (/quote)