Sjack Abeling Gravity Wheel and the Worlds first Weight Power Plant

[LarryC]

I am proposing a stand guide design for the hockey sticks based on information from the first three pics below and a Dusty observation.

The first picture is of the wheel from the movie. The stand guides did not seem of the same shape as in Fig 8. The patent had stated that the hockey stick design was in development so they probably just used the original oval until they could figure it out.

The second picture is at the beginning of the upper left stand. The stand appears to be rising at a 45 degree angle.

The third picture is at the top half of the upper left stand. It appears to be rising at a 70 degree angle with a slight outward bow.

The second and third picture seem to confirm the shape shown in the first picture.

Dusty had a jamming problem in the lower left when he tried the hockey stick with the stand guides from Fig 8. This was probably due to the acute angle with the hockey sticks and the lower guide.

So, based on this information a new design proposal is shown in red in the fourth picture, the lower left stand guide oval was expanded outward. The upper left guide was changed to reflect the 45 degree and then the 70 degree with a slight bow.

Sjack's logic behind these changes may have occurred as follows:

First: the lower left needed to expand outward to reduce the acute angle caused by the straight part of the hockey stick, which didn't occur with the curved radial guides.

Second: The curved radial guides against the stand guides in the upper left caused rapid acceleration. The hockey stick does not create the rapid acceleration against the same stand guides. So the 45 was needed to first move the weight inward, then the 70 could be used to create the rapid acceleration.

Any constructive comments appreciated.

Regards, Larry



 

[Omnibus]

I’ve missed @Dusty’s demonstration of his rig. Thought he still works on the details and hasn’t put them together yet. Where can this be seen:

Dusty had a jamming problem in the lower left when he tried the hockey stick with the stand guides from Fig 8. This was probably due to the acute angle with the hockey sticks and the lower guide.

The track you’re proposing is very interesting, probably shortening the steepest sections on the left-hand side. This has to be modeled with the AutoCAD vector decomposition. Could someone post the wheel and your track (as a polyline) post a dxf file of it? Then I’ll do the decomposition analysis.

I’m inclined to forgo the dumbbell approach and have the weights as spheres resting on the slot edges of two wheels. That will reduce the slot-sphere contact surface. The track, placed inbetween the two wheels can also be made with a sharp contact face. Probably I won’t be able to make a wheel larger than one of 30cm diameter at this moment. Exactly how the device should be manufactured an assembled is still not very clear so anyone who might want to comment on that is welcome to share ideas.

[Cloxxki]

On that patent picture Abeling is clearly showing forward pointing slots, by roughly 30 degree relative to the radial lines, as I've been feeling to be of significance worthy to test. Due to this inner-forward layout, the interaction with the upper guide is actually at roughly 90 degree. FAR from causing any parallel action.
The way I visualize such a setup, the weight will use it's potential to gain advantage on the wheel. Then, a very nearly "waiting room" situation comes into play, where the weights barely make vertical progress 8:00-11:00, and the counterweight 2:00-5:00 gets to make some good velocity. At 5:00, the lower weight transitions to the lower ramp as often discussed, with still good velocity. It is then up to the wheel to transfer energy (at the cost of wheel speed) to the upper weight. The work done 2:00-5:00 should suffice to get the upper weight out of the "waiting room" and slung towards the rim. Immediately, 12:00-2:00, the upper weight will be doing a bit of work while the lower is on the ramp, again, given a good positive input to the wheel.

I see several further improvement on the basic Abeling patent, but we first need to understand what is the preferred setup for that. Something as essential as slot layout cannot be ignored like that. It greatly affects the dynamic of the wheel. It's phases of acceleration, constant speed, and energy release. If yo do that all randomly, the chance of hitting the optimal situation is rather slim.
First, would any of you suggest that any changes in slot layout would only cancel themselves out? If so, I'm done discussing this, I am thoroughly convinced some serious efficiency is to be won there, and it's (and I mean the slot shape, not my post) all mostly ignored.

I've referred to the "open" slots of Abeling before. I believe these offer the weight to roll up the lower ramp without touching the wheel. That's the whole point of the ramp, right? It needs room to do its thing: convert horizontal velocity (at a high wheel speed) into maximum height (the single most scarse component in gravity wheels at the end of a rotation). Nothing is worth retarding or compromizong this velocity-height conversion.

I need a pile of wood and a carpenter's apprectice. ;-)

[pstroud]

Does anyone have a link to a full english conversion of the entire Abeling patent?  I have the partial conversion where 1 1/2 pages of the description were converted to engligh.  However, I need to see all of the text converted.

Thanks!
Preston

[overtaker]

Preston,  Are you going to build?