Idea based on Abeling's patent (workaround)

[Cloxxki]

Hi gang,

Today I've been thinking of gravity wheel setup that would depends on smart switches, allowing and disallowing rotating or expanding rods to move past certain points at given moments of a cycle. The switches would use nergy, but allow for greater nett gains in power output than a switch-less system.
From that, I can with the idea that a wheel (or weight) might control whether it brakes or releases. "Smart weights"?

I understand Abeling uses the momentum a weight carries at 6:00 exiting a wheel horizontally, to have it gain back height with the wheel having to work for it.
The weight enters the wheel upwards somewhere between 8:00 and 10:00, so the weight on the downward side of the wheel has 6 hours distance to lift the upwards weight another 2-4 hours. After deduction of friction, a nett gain in energy in the wheels should be established.

Abeling has an incredibly nifty system of ramps and scissors, it seems. And he has a patent that seems to have good merit. If there is prior at, then Bessler kept it to himself in the time before combustion engines.

My idea was to do away with the ramps housed within the diameter of the wheel, Abeling's egg shaped weight path, and the almost straight vertical lift path, as well as the shot put acceleration inherent of his solution.

I have as you'll see two wheels. At least 2 weights on each wheel.
Weights enter the wheels at ca 3:00 and 9:00 (upwards) respectively, and exist at 6:00. Basic ramps start horizontally, and take the wheels to the entry point with the least amount of abrubt direction changes.
The length of the ramps are essential, to get the timing right. I am suggesting a ramp length corresponing with the distance the weight can travel in half a wheel revolution's time. This would give us 5 or 10 weights, I drew the 10 options. Imagine the odd weights could be left out for simplicity.

The challenge with my suggestion is to devise a grab-and-release system, either in the wheels or in the weights themselves.
The moment a weight hits the wheel, it should be securely clamped by a fixed spot on a rotating wheel. Let's first look at the possibility of side flanges.
My working idea is having pressure sensors all around the wheels, on the bottom of a bicycle rim shaped valley. The neighboring flang plate sections should respond immidately upon sensing the wheel's presence, and then let go at 6:00, for instance triggered by a feeler hitting the trigger pole just at 6:00.
Obviously, this grab-and-release system will demand electical power.
However, the required external battery or (loaded spring in alternative system) for the admittedly complicated start-up procedure, could be taken away as the wheels would easily be able to keep an internal battery or other electical device sufficiently charged.

Both wheels would be in slightly different planes (off vertical) to allow the ramps to pass each other.

For now, I mentally use metal balls for weights, where maybe flatbed roller ramps and long+narrow shapes might be easier.

Alternative grab-and-release system : spring loaded side plates between whicht he weight wedges itself. Mechanical release (only of the filled rim portion) again via a trigger at 6:00.

I see various other complications which I trust you'll be pointing me to.
One is, depending on the wit of the construction, possibly limited operating speed. The grab-and-release system will need to be very advanced to be both efficient and capable of higher speeds.
That said, a smart startup procedure or weight feed system might allow to get quite a bit of weight rolling through a single two-wheel system. Who knows, work up to 20 weights, grab-ad-release system permitting?

The generator running off the wheel's axles would need to keep rpm's in the range where the ramp length properly corresponds with optimal wheel entry.

Looking forward to hearing your comments so far, and hope to inspire you to come up with better systems yet.

Once such a system is totally figured out, a gravity power machine consist of 2 opposing "coils" of wheels, with ramps running each way in between. The weight exiting the last wheel would need to be able to travel to the entry of the first wheel over a longer distance. It would have less inertia left when entering at 9:00, but should still have enough.
Ultimately, with smart weights that remain a minimal distance to the one in front, the system could be topped off with them. Individual electonics controlling the grab and release.

[Cloxxki]

Edited : added cart/ramp/wheel interface picture and related text.

Other approach:
Why let the wheel drag up a weight for that last part, if we could have the weight drop-in at the backside of the wheel?
Perhaps to work aorund Abeling's ramp and wheel patent, the ramp may actually be way around the wheel, but for now let's complicate it that much.

I edited the original sketch so the difference is more obvious.

Weights roll up the ramp. To manage this, the wheel WILL need a start-up speed. Let's say roughly 20% greater than the terminal speed of a weight when dropped off the highest point of the ramp.

When a weight drops into the wheel, the wheel will lose around 80% of the momentum which the weight is about to put in. Does that make sence?
So although the drop-in reduces the speed of the wheel some, it will more than make up for that.

As a weight during each connected 1/4 circel is adding energy to the wheel no matter how fast it's already spinning, my simple logic tells me that the weights would be accelerating until friction ramps up, or nergy is taken away at the wheel axles.

The most complicated part will be the rail paths and especially the "zipper" where a weight is guided into the wheel, where by default the wheel's speed is greater than the weight's. Abeling's solution is to gradually re-accelerate that weight with the curved slot's action over the top ramp (at least we think it to work that way).

I have an idea for the weights.
Two skateboard like carts, 2x4 wheels facing each other (the ramp could be a monorail wedged in between), and the front/rear connecting rods being placed right between the axles.
To allow smooth transitions, and this is cool: the ramp could feature a half screwdriver, turning the weight cart upside down. Wheel/bearings can happy keep spinning, even when the rods or frame are resting on the inside of the wheel.
The wheel (2 plates being on the outside of the cart) could support the cart on pins ejected before entry. Release would be by retraction of the pins at 6:00. A challenge to get low-friction in operation, but not undoable.

In this idea, it seem that as long as there are multiple weights driving the wheel at any given times, the wheel itself does not need signicant mass. Greater mass would reduce (de)acceleration effects each time a weight is inserted, but in the end it would just be added bearing and even air resistance.

The magnitude of energy to be tapped from such a device, if at all workable, I could not calculate, I would have to re-learn the formulas I never bothered for, or come up with my own.

Your verdict:
Plausible or flawed?

[Cloxxki]

NOne of those will work (of course).

However, I've got sketches now of the following :

Rods, equal length each end of the central axle to which they attach. Far ends have weight.
One of the rods ends has a telescopic feature, allowing the weight to be pulled out and in.
The "left" (lift) side of of the axle sees ramps JUST like @Dusty used in his recent Abeling replication. Effectively, turning the left side into an ellips, half the width of its height.
In stead of the telescopic feature, at ~1/4 distance between weight and axle, a bearing joint could allow the rod to fold as the weight hits the ramp. This solution bring in strong unbalance: the weight will delay and catch back up relative to its opposing weight. This effect could add to, or brake the effect. I would like the top weight to be a bit past 12 when the bottom is at 6, and that's entirely possible, plus tuneable.
The joint would either have a sticky put in fully entended position, or a clever small counter weight.
Nice about ramps is that you can really create any elliptical shap you like, especially when applying the folding/telescoping feature to both ends of the rod, and adding ramps on the right side of the axle.
Any ill effects of dead spots might be fought by adding more such rods out of phase.

This idea I really like a lot. Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be a gallery of proven to not work systems.

Thanks for telling me why it won't work! :-)

J

[0c]

My idea was to do away with the ramps housed within the diameter of the wheel, Abeling's egg shaped weight path, and the almost straight vertical lift path, as well as the shot put acceleration inherent of his solution.

I have as you'll see two wheels. At least 2 weights on each wheel.
Weights enter the wheels at ca 3:00 and 9:00 (upwards) respectively, and exist at 6:00. Basic ramps start horizontally, and take the wheels to the entry point with the least amount of abrubt direction changes.
The length of the ramps are essential, to get the timing right. I am suggesting a ramp length corresponing with the distance the weight can travel in half a wheel revolution's time. This would give us 5 or 10 weights, I drew the 10 options. Imagine the odd weights could be left out for simplicity.
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=7427.0;attach=33567

I love it! It's basically like the one I suggested:
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=7150.msg174032#msg174032

EXCEPT, I only used one wheel with weights doubling back on a single ramp, where you have 2 wheels exchanging weights with each other.

Nice thinking!

(You should probably reduce the distance the weight needs to travel by moving the wheels closer, maybe even overlapping one in front of the other. Have the weight enter the destination wheel using a catchers mitt or funnel rig at each sector, near the hub.)

[Cloxxki]

Hi 0c,

I've since given on this idea. I can't possibly do the math or simulation (found wm2d needs my money to look at others', which is just buggers).
My gut is telling me, that in your image and probaly also mine, the wheels will just not reach the speed required for the weight to make it up high enough.
You need serious speed to back back up a wheel. This requires speeds where just a hex shaped roller would just stay put on the inside diameter of the wheel from pure CF. I can't see just falling weight reach these speed when a big wheel is holding them up.
And, the weights entering on top would have the height, but miss the speed, and would need to be brought back up to speed again. Hey, if someone can make the simulation to look well, let's get building! I will settle for a manually started PPM flashing balls over tracks just fine.

There have been wheels suggested with curved "slices" around the hub, a weight in each. I saw a post today where it was suggested to bring that idea down from 8 to 3 ball. I would also like to try some alternative slice shapes, and spacers in between them. It will work, unless someone tell why it won't, or we fail to getting a build to work.

In other threads I'm not concentrating on a sytem of rods balanced at the axle, weights on the ends, just not balanced. One big ramp containing the rod could "draw" the ideal oval calculated all over the web. Weights could be guided to turn excess torque into a bit of time advantage, and a bit of momentum. Using a selectively folding rod might be of good help. Very much like Abeling, just without the "wheel", and without "scissors". Just a weight following whichever ramp blocks the way to the round circel. Seems we can tune this idea to the point where all the time, the weight balance is on the right.
More and more I get the feeling that "the" solution is allowing the weight to (de-)accelerate as it pleases 6-12:00), exactly when it suits us, and use that to gain an advantage.
If I knew the ideal situation, I would probably come up with a conceptual solution for it.