Sjack Abeling Gravity Wheel and the Worlds first Weight Power Plant

[Omnibus]

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.
[qquote]
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.

No, nothing prdicts CCW motion. That's a flaw in WM2D and you're trying to adjust to that with obviously flawed arguments. Net torque calculations are the answer. Also, like I said, the role of centrifugal forces is a side issue. 

[stgpcm]

My best guess at the moment is a slight sling-shot effect due to the Earth's rotation.

Such a device would be a call for a visit from the MIB, because converting the Earth's rotation to energy, is the same thing as building a machine to slow the rotation of the Earth, which you might instead call a doomsday device.

But without seeing a working wheel, it is difficult to know exactly what is going on, and as I said, I lack the imagination to think of one myself.

[Cloxxki]

@stgpcm
I agree with you that @Omnibus' low-speed torque calculation may be sending him off-track to getting what Abeling has discovered. As I see it, even if we only have 1 wheel position from where it will accelerate (like Dusty's first Abeling replication), that would be most agreeable, as long as the thing keeps going. I would even accept a system that has a take-off velocity above which the "trick" is out-weighing the dragging or even directly counter-acting forces at lower speeds.
@Dusty's wheel also turns backwards from given positions. Friction does not turn wheels, unfortunately. The imbalance is not a constant, and it doesn't have to be.

Earth's rotation... Do you mean that a member shot up at an angle would, on earth, show an asymmetrical parabole? That would be significant indeed, but perhaps a small power only? Are measurement anomolies known along such lines?

Staying within conventional science, I think it's worth to try and calculate how high we can get a weight to roll up a ramp before the (near-axole) slot catches up. The amount of energy required to get it all the way over 12:00 and up to rim speed compared to freed while on the wheel towards the next release point below.
And then, see what is preferable: letting the weight gain initial radial advantage on wheel, or putting all energy back into the wheel right at 6:00? My gut is telling me the former. Use the speed, and the great vertical height covered by a vertically moving weight in the early (higher speed) stages versus the later ones. At low speed, making up 1cm vertically costs the same amount of energy/torque/prayers, be it down below or way up (considering gravity a constant through the height of the system that is).

Back to Earth's rotation. To consider this a power to tap into, or as a hint to what we can build ourselves? I've suggested before a horizontally placed "Abeling wheel", at the rim of a centrifuge. More pull, and directed to a point, not parallel. Making up some horizontal ground "on top" (nearer to centre of centrifuge), a possible root to imbalance of a system?

[Omnibus]

Gut feeling won’t resolve this problem. Especially when there’s obviously nothing leading one to think there’s tapping into something such as Earth’s rotation. This is just talk. For a successful outcome efforts should be based on solid scientific ground, an example of which is the torque approach as well as the observation for the sustained stay sideways of the mass center vs. the axle.

As for Abeling’s device, it is based on a well known concept and that he has discovered anything in that connection is out of the question. The most which he has achieved, if at all, is that he has found a way to make a working device. This isn’t a small achievement but isn’t a discovery. Of course, it still remains to be seen whether or not he has really made such device â€" he hasn’t demonstrated it yet. His bold move should also be noted, similar to the courage Stefan has shown in establishing this forum.

[Cloxxki]

Gut feeling won’t resolve this problem. Especially when there’s obviously nothing leading one to think there’s tapping into something such as Earth’s rotation. This is just talk. For a successful outcome efforts should be based on solid scientific ground, an example of which is the torque approach as well as the observation for the sustained stay sideways of the mass center vs. the axle.

As for Abeling’s device, it is based on a well known concept and that he has discovered anything in that connection is out of the question. The most which he has achieved, if at all, is that he has found a way to make a working device. This isn’t a small achievement but isn’t a discovery. Of course, it still remains to be seen whether or not he has really made such device â€" he hasn’t demonstrated it yet. His bold move should also be noted, similar to the courage Stefan has shown in establishing this forum.

Of course, just talk. But at least it's not talk on how to calculate. The pure torque approach I'm sure has been tried by many people smarter than us, or even smarter than Abeling.
If he's found a detail that other missed, where to look for it?

Some ideas how he might be getting the most from a weight that is not part of the rim on it's way up.
A) The weight is allowed some level of freedom of movement in its way up. Either to:
  - advancing or delaying the energy consumption
  - using accelerations/decellerations effiently
  - cashing in on radial advancement between 6:00-9:00? Or slipping back less 9-11:00 to net a gain?
  - smart oscillations of rim speed positive pushing weight "over the edge", higher starting speed up ramp, slow rim speed during ramp, and then great power from counter weight to complete the half cycle?

B) Any other approaches he might be keeping from us?
  - CF harvesting, moving ramps?
  - eccentric axles, weight, slots?
  - springs and/or ratchets in the weights?

If only we had something nicer than WM2D to methodically try some basic concepts against each other...