Sjack Abeling Gravity Wheel and the Worlds first Weight Power Plant

[Omnibus]

Dar,

Note: @All, I decided before I started posting that I am not going to get into time wasting arguments here. If someone gives useful ideas (and everyone does) or clear answers as to why something won't work, that's great. Other than that, I'm just going to let useless remarks be and keep moving forward.

That's great. I'm all for that, unless someone gets really arrogant with his cluttering the forum.

So, now, as far as I can tell you're discarding Teflon and think polished steel will be fine. That may be so but how did you determine that? Just hunch isn't enough.

Also, what is that optimum combination of slot and track shapes whereby the contact areas will be the least? That's the main question. Everything else is beating around the bush.

[Cloxxki]

Thanks for your insights, Dar.

As you are a fresh mind to this discussion, and you've come up with a very interesting theory on what Abeling may be doing...do you also have a hunch which kind of source might be used for over-unity?
The way my mind works, if I know where to look for a solution, I find it quicker than when scanning at random. I've been blurred quite a bit due to all the ideas posted and thought up myself.
In the optimal execution of the drawings you proposed, where would the gain be coming from?

I still see a weight taking a short cut, but it's now "paused" to a greater extent than with the basic patent design, allowing the counterweight to store more energy and velocity in the wheel. But then, being slung from standstill at axle height, also seems to cost more energy that for instance in @Dusty's/Eisenficker200's solutions. If any, where would the gain be?

Quoting Abeling from memory: "If the weight would not be caugt by the rim, it would fly past it"? The wider weight path 0-5:00 you propose, then? It does seem like a way to harvest excess horizontal velocity gained from the sling, rather than just bumping into the rim.
I did play with ideas where the horizontal component at 0:00 would not be given up immediately, but (for free) allowed to gain a higher-torque position first.

Your design also perfectly offers the "one weight is pushing, the other pulling" idea via those smart connecting rods. Hard to imagine for me though, that 2 weights would be rising at the same time, while connected. That's how I see the drawing. I suppose it might work, as epicted, with multiple weights on the wheel, some of them in the waiting room, and some doing useful work at 3:00?

Too bad that your (as probably as any) ideas are so incompatible with the builds excuted by Dusty and Eisenficker2000, the matter of the protruding axles getting in the way. Seems like more like a totally new build that a conversion. If you're on the right track with what Abeling is doing, then perhaps his patent is offering his initial design he couldn't get to work?

Thanks,

[Cloxxki]

Dar,

That's great. I'm all for that, unless someone gets really arrogant with his cluttering the forum.

So, now, as far as I can tell you're discarding Teflon and think polished steel will be fine. That may be so but how did you determine that? Just hunch isn't enough.

Also, what is that optimum combination of slot and track shapes whereby the contact areas will be the least? That's the main question. Everything else is beating around the bush.

You have centuries of knownledge in railway and industrial engineering to answer your question, why in a rolling situation steel works best, and teflon ends up being used for sliding. I would easily be able to summarize in a few sentences, but your attitude towards other people's (the world's) view of facts makes me reluctant. You can figure this one one. Dar gave you all you need to know.

As for the shape/radius of the track, we could probably borrow from ball bearing technology here. The balls are of a smaller radius than the tracks (grooves) in which they roll. A relative detail, for which I'm quite sure the first page on google for ball bearing groove radius ratio (I did not try) would offer a fair bit of hints.
Friction only needs to be fought where we are sure we have a machine that, without friction, would accelerate continiously. Keeping rate of movement without friction constant, means a lost battle from the start. Good to update our engineering skills, but a disappointment to only then find out the validity of the design persued.

[Omnibus]

Thanks for your insights, Dar.

As you are a fresh mind to this discussion, and you've come up with a very interesting theory on what Abeling may be doing...do you also have a hunch which kind of source might be used for over-unity?
The way my mind works, if I know where to look for a solution, I find it quicker than when scanning at random. I've been blurred quite a bit due to all the ideas posted and thought up myself.
In the optimal execution of the drawings you proposed, where would the gain be coming from?

I still see a weight taking a short cut, but it's now "paused" to a greater extent than with the basic patent design, allowing the counterweight to store more energy and velocity in the wheel. But then, being slung from standstill at axle height, also seems to cost more energy that for instance in @Dusty's/Eisenficker200's solutions. If any, where would the gain be?

Quoting Abeling from memory: "If the weight would not be caugt by the rim, it would fly past it"? The wider weight path 0-5:00 you propose, then? It does seem like a way to harvest excess horizontal velocity gained from the sling, rather than just bumping into the rim.
I did play with ideas where the horizontal component at 0:00 would not be given up immediately, but (for free) allowed to gain a higher-torque position first.

Your design also perfectly offers the "one weight is pushing, the other pulling" idea via those smart connecting rods. Hard to imagine for me though, that 2 weights would be rising at the same time, while connected. That's how I see the drawing. I suppose it might work, as epicted, with multiple weights on the wheel, some of them in the waiting room, and some doing useful work at 3:00?

Too bad that your (as probably as any) ideas are so incompatible with the builds excuted by Dusty and Eisenficker2000, the matter of the protruding axles getting in the way. Seems like more like a totally new build that a conversion. If you're on the right track with what Abeling is doing, then perhaps his patent is offering his initial design he couldn't get to work?

Thanks,

This doesn't explain at all where the overunity comes from. No need for this kind of talk.

[Cloxxki]

This doesn't explain at all where the overunity comes from. No need for this kind of talk.

You may have mssed the question marks in my post, and that they were addressed mainly @Dar. I also don't know, and don't aim to explain which I yet do not comprehend. I will be looking for answers though.
With all due respect, your kind of talk on this topic seems to have contributed positively mainly to your post count. I won't claim to be the most useful poster on here, but I try to be self-critical.

To not let this be a quarrel-only post, some gravity wheel semi-on-topic info.
For people in for a mind cruncher, http://www.besslerwheel.com/murilo/index.html (Avalanchedrive) which was pasted here before, really got me awake just now. Seems to me a simple bicycle chain might do the trick as well. Perhaps every other link welded stuck in almost straight position. Trying to find out why it wouldn't work... Worth its own thread, but doesn't even seem to have one on Besslerwheel yet, or anymore. Can't be too hard to try...