Please use this thread to post updates on real world replications and the discussion thereof.
The main thread is now suggested for general use only.
Thank you.
AZ
Thanks Aquariuz for creating separate threads.
@Dusty/Batgold's latest update (most will have seen this already)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jzaf_mmsUak
This earlier video of a smaller Abeling/@Dusty wheel gives nice insight of the powers at play (or at war) within such a wheel.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_pmdExy6xsQ
Most promising if you ask me, some perfections of the relative dimensions and shaped should do the trick, if anything ever will.
Any footage available of @Eisenficker2000's setups?
Quote from: Cloxxki on May 17, 2009, 09:47:31 AM
Thanks Aquariuz for creating separate threads.
@Dusty/Batgold's latest update (most will have seen this already)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jzaf_mmsUak
This earlier video of a smaller Abeling/@Dusty wheel gives nice insight of the powers at play (or at war) within such a wheel.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_pmdExy6xsQ
Most promising if you ask me, some perfections of the relative dimensions and shaped should do the trick, if anything ever will.
Any footage available of @Eisenficker2000's setups?
As far as I know Dusty is the only one building... Is Eisenficker2000 (Ironscrewer heheh) building too...?
Quote from: AquariuZ on May 17, 2009, 01:37:12 PM
As far as I know Dusty is the only one building... Is Eisenficker2000 (Ironscrewer heheh) building too...?
Too many posts, but I think (or dreamt) a desktop sized replication from him.
Time for the weekly update. I finished the ramps and as you will see in the videos I need to do more work on the ramps and see if I can reduce friction. I'm going to line the ramp surfaces with sheetmetal and also on the curved slots on the wheel. I'm optimistic that I will figure out a way to make this gravity wheel work, also I will report the bad with the good.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vdTJ9tqd4VA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4dxKPF_Yq6o
Dusty
Great work again Dusty!
Let us know when you're ready for specific suggestions of big changes in geometry and dimensions. So far, you've a really neat machine there!
Hay Dusty
After you have exhausted your attempts. get in touch with me.
Quote from: Dusty on May 19, 2009, 12:39:11 AM
Time for the weekly update. I finished the ramps and as you will see in the videos I need to do more work on the ramps and see if I can reduce friction. I'm going to line the ramp surfaces with sheetmetal and also on the curved slots on the wheel. I'm optimistic that I will figure out a way to make this gravity wheel work, also I will report the bad with the good.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vdTJ9tqd4VA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4dxKPF_Yq6o
Dusty
Poetry in motion, you are a true craftsman...
What do you think of my idea of attaching the dumbbell shafts to the axle with springs?
I am trying to model such a setup.
Your wheel is awesome!
Quote from: AB Hammer on May 19, 2009, 10:10:18 AM
Hay Dusty
After you have exhausted your attempts. get in touch with me.
Drinks? Pick you up at eight?
;D
Just wanted to pass on an observation from Dusty's latest video. The first video of the two before he changed the upper stand guide showed how a jam was occurring. In the first pic below you can see how the two surfaces that the rollers are hitting are almost parallel.
If smaller rollers were used or offset rollers then the weight rod would be at the black dot area and the two surfaces would not be parallel. This is also causing a significant difference in the intended location of the opposing weights as can be seen in the Sjack guiding stand picture or in Fig 4 of the patent. This difference could cause a loss of needed energy.
If you expand the Sjack guiding stand pic, note that at the 14.5 line (top center) you can reach close to parallel if you get to far out because of large rollers.
Regards, Larry
It took me a while to see the black dot. I'm going to concentrate on building larger track wheels. I can see where that would help getting away from the parallel merging area in the upper left quadrant.
There are two things I keep falling back on in my thinking of this wheel, Sjack Abeling says in that Youtube video, this wheel could have been invented two hundred years ago and when it runs it's not a question of whether it works or not, it is a question of how to harness the power.
If there is a secret to its operation I'm thinking it must be in the design of the dumbells.
Dusty
This thing can be hugely complicated when we have dumbells that are spinners by themselves. So many ways about it, like typical ones in the gym rolling on the bar, or rolling on the larger weight's outside. Either with our without bearings.
What if Abeling did a trick in the patent, like drawing a shape that won't ever work, for reasons he understands, but we don't and just follow him in. Like the orientation of the slot curves. Imagine how vastly different the dynamics would be with inverted slots, or simply straight ones point either forward, straight out, or back.
I like the idea of springs, but those to come in play would also suggest knowing when they could be compressed efficiently, and which timing of release would net a gain.
Knowing when to time spring action means you can vastly improve the dimensions of the wheel first.
@Dusty, You got a point there; If Abeling is not a "green dreamer" his secret should be in the weights.
Why this remark? When I replay the Video from RTV Noord, the commentator explicitly mentions, states that the wheel, is running with special weights, that have been taken out ,to keep the design secret.
So as a last resort I think the secret must be in the weights...if there is a secret.....
@Dusty, @Eisenficker2000,
OK, here's an idea that conforms to both :
A- smart harnessing of power,
AND
B- something that could have been invented 200 years ago.
Inter-connected slots.
You've may have read or skipped my posts on "getting an advantage". I feel that's somehow what Abeling is doing.
Now what if we don't give up that advantage anymore?
The machine does exactly what @Dusty's machines do, works the way we understand it, BUT the weight gets to advance one slot each rotation, between 8:00 and 10:00 or so. There are like 12+ slots (to not make one slot too big a jump), and like 3 or 4 weights going around.
The phases of the action all shift a bit, the working weights might even get better leverage on the lifted weights, and the work on the rise is obviously gotten over with quicker.
THE SHORT CUT ONLY HELPS WHEN THE WEIGHT IS ABLE TO CASH IN THE ADVANTAGE.
When a weight "beats" it's original rim slot to 0:00, and cashes in that advantage, it will be able to do useful work sooner again.
A way to harness the advantage a ramp offers in unloading the wheel : placing the weight back higher up than where it's expected to go!
This could be done in many ways.
1) Dursty-style wheel : single weights, and the slots are inter-connected and shaped to slide a weight back towards the rim in another slot that where it can from.
2) Supposing the aforeproposed tandem weights, they could be connected by a spring rod. The back weight makes up some ground, and the spring doesn't get unload (restrained by vertical ramp) until the shot put phase, where the front weight also cashes in its step forward on the rim.
Does that make any sense at all?
Playing with some paper clippings now to simulate dumbbells attatched to the shaft via springs. It looks like it might work but need to try the other idea where opposite dumbbells are interconnected via springs (not via the axle).
In the latter you can get a clear ejection effect top left where the egg starts to shape to the right (10-11 o clock) and you will have a violent reaction of the top dumbell wanting to go right hard.
If I manage I will try my hand at a decent model in wm2d this weekend using the patent drawings as import (I know how to do this now, which is pretty neat).
Lot of work though but hey, look at Dusty... Respect.
AZ
Quote from: Cloxxki on May 21, 2009, 08:56:20 AM
@Dusty, @Eisenficker2000,
OK, here's an idea that conforms to both :
A- smart harnessing of power,
AND
B- something that could have been invented 200 years ago.
Inter-connected slots.
You've may have read or skipped my posts on "getting an advantage". I feel that's somehow what Abeling is doing.
Now what if we don't give up that advantage anymore?
The machine does exactly what @Dusty's machines do, works the way we understand it, BUT the weight gets to advance one slot each rotation, between 8:00 and 10:00 or so. There are like 12+ slots (to not make one slot too big a jump), and like 3 or 4 weights going around.
The phases of the action all shift a bit, the working weights might even get better leverage on the lifted weights, and the work on the rise is obviously gotten over with quicker.
THE SHORT CUT ONLY HELPS WHEN THE WEIGHT IS ABLE TO CASH IN THE ADVANTAGE.
When a weight "beats" it's original rim slot to 0:00, and cashes in that advantage, it will be able to do useful work sooner again.
A way to harness the advantage a ramp offers in unloading the wheel : placing the weight back higher up than where it's expected to go!
This could be done in many ways.
1) Dursty-style wheel : single weights, and the slots are inter-connected and shaped to slide a weight back towards the rim in another slot that where it can from.
2) Supposing the aforeproposed tandem weights, they could be connected by a spring rod. The back weight makes up some ground, and the spring doesn't get unload (restrained by vertical ramp) until the shot put phase, where the front weight also cashes in its step forward on the rim.
Does that make any sense at all?
Now this too crossed my mind a while back, but it does not fit the "D" diagram.
Still it must be investigated ofcourse
Just reading this again on his website:
"This new physical theory will explain how to generate energy by rotating two bodies with the same mass/weight."
Why does he specifically mention TWO WEIGHTS?
What could he possibly mean....
So close, yet so far away...
Two weights... Connected? Two weights make one dumbbell? I do not think so. I would regard a dumbbell as a single weight. so two dumbbells then...
Hmm.. Why two. They are connected?...
"Q: Where does the extra energy come from?
A: The weights are applied two by two: one weight is pushing/falling, the other one has to be lifted. Due to the invention of the dual lifting system , the falling/pushing weight will hardly be hindered by the weight that has to be lifted.
In the top left of the system the weight is accelerated (like with shot put). The weight is moving faster than the system, and as the system catches the weight it is propelled forward. The path of the weights in the system is determined up front so the weights are always in a fixed position relative to each other and that will reduce the drag of the lifted weight on the falling/pushing weight. The system will start rotating from any position. Extra force is generated in the lower left of the system and on top it is transferred to the system itself, generating the extra energy. If the system would fail to catch the propelled weight, the weight would be ejected from the system with force."
It is almost like a riddle... Who will be the first to interpret it correctly?
If the dumbbells are connected in pairs... How? If not a spring maybe a bar?
But that cannot be because the distance between the pairs varies as one of the set travels around the egg on the lower side.... It must be a connector which varies its lenghts. Like a spring....
Just thinking out loud here.............
HMMMMMM
Dusty, you have such a nice setup, could you please indulge me and connect a pair of opposite dumbbells with a spring on their axles and see what happens?
If you do not have a spring maybe some rubber band? Or anything elastic. NYLON STOCKING
Slowly turn the wheel by hand and see what happens?
It must be something like this.
(he thinks wishfully)
I just realized: you need full eggs as shown in patent fig 8 for that to work so I guess this cannot be tested.
Darned. OK wm2d it is for now.
Dusty,
Thanks again for the new video updates. Greatly appreciated!!!!
You are doing a great job in your replication and I look forward to each new update. Keep up the great work!
If I was not so tied up in my current gravity prime mover project, I would be replicating the Abeling wheel too.
Nice job!!!
thanks!
Preston
Quote from: AquariuZ on May 21, 2009, 07:08:15 PM
Just reading this again on his website:
"This new physical theory will explain how to generate energy by rotating two bodies with the same mass/weight."
Why does he specifically mention TWO WEIGHTS?
What could he possibly mean....
So close, yet so far away...
Two weights... Connected? Two weights make one dumbbell? I do not think so. I would regard a dumbbell as a single weight. so two dumbbells then...
Hmm.. Why two. They are connected?...
"Q: Where does the extra energy come from?
A: The weights are applied two by two: one weight is pushing/falling, the other one has to be lifted. Due to the invention of the dual lifting system , the falling/pushing weight will hardly be hindered by the weight that has to be lifted.
In the top left of the system the weight is accelerated (like with shot put). The weight is moving faster than the system, and as the system catches the weight it is propelled forward. The path of the weights in the system is determined up front so the weights are always in a fixed position relative to each other and that will reduce the drag of the lifted weight on the falling/pushing weight. The system will start rotating from any position. Extra force is generated in the lower left of the system and on top it is transferred to the system itself, generating the extra energy. If the system would fail to catch the propelled weight, the weight would be ejected from the system with force."
It is almost like a riddle... Who will be the first to interpret it correctly?
If the dumbbells are connected in pairs... How? If not a spring maybe a bar?
But that cannot be because the distance between the pairs varies as one of the set travels around the egg on the lower side.... It must be a connector which varies its lenghts. Like a spring....
Just thinking out loud here.............
HMMMMMM
maybe
Would one of you please respond to my suggestion that the weight in the left half is allowed/enabled to advance on the wheel? To the inside on a slot as we know it, perhaps past a revolving lock, and back out another slot, having it end up further on the rim.
Supposing this works, you get rid of the left hand weights quicker, at least in terms of radial distance/time. Weights are more to the right by definition now.
The lower ramp picks up the weight at 6:00, but places it back slightly up. To cash in the advantage gained. When this works, there is no way around it, you have more weight working than being lifted. The path is preferable as well, close to the egg shape.
Thank you.
Furthermore,
Abeling seems to ephasize the number of bodies as 2. Perhaps more weights would disrupt the harmonic action he discovered or devised. That one NEEDS that extreme start-stop action in the wheel, and more weight would only smooth that out in an unpreferable way.
I would think will be worth to really investigate the phases the wheel goes through with a few different slot types. Analyse the inter-acting of the bodies. When one it on the ramp, how does that effect the other, and the wheel it may or may not at that time be attached to?
@AquariuZ:
Would you be able to identify a phase where a spring could be "efficiently" loaded, and another where it could be released (in part enacting a member the system), to only net a gain in energy? Else, I have a feeling the spring route will be one of the many commendable attempts we've seen over the centuries.
The member outside the wheel could be a ratcheting parallel wheel. When the spring is allowed to unload, it has something to press off against. The hard part in my view will be to load the spring in a way that takes less energy from the rest of the system than is being stored.
Cloxxi, working on it right now to see what forces are involved.
Your own idea merits more investigation, but like I said it does not seem to fit the "D" Abeling is showing.
IMAGES can no longer be seen in the forum, anyone else have this problem?
Like the previous post, if you click on the image it says "Error". The image is not shown by default anymore. Most likely an error in SMF. I just sent a message to stefan.
@AquariuZ,
Thanks for thinking with me.
Actually, the way I see it, the shape and function of the wheel slots would dramatically change, while the D shape of the weight's path would remain 100% intact, along with the placement of the ramps.
Where does it say the weight has to return to the same hook on the wheel by 0:00-1:00 which it left around 5:00-6:00? The "D" or flattened oval path I feel needs to remain the basis.
Yes, pics are requiring moderation or something it seems.
In my last post in this thread (#9), I brought up the parallel problem which caused a jam in Rusty's machine. Rusty posted he would concentrate on building larger track wheels. I wasn't sure that this would help as the roller size would still cause a larger than the designed acceleration at some point in the upper left.
So, first I graphed out what would happen with smaller rollers. This helped some, but it would be impractical due to the decrease in main weight rod size and added heat and friction with smaller rollers.
The best solution would be to have the weight at the intersection of the stand guides and the radial guides as shown in Fig 4. No parallel problem and no larger than designed acceleration.
The attachment shows a Sjack weight design proposal which meets the intersection criteria in all areas and allows for appropriate sized rollers.
The bottom of the orange rollers would ride on the external guide stands.
The top of the yellow rollers would ride on the carriers radial guides.
The blue rollers allow the weight to freewheel, as any attempt to turn would be a waste of energy. The orange/yellow rollers would flip around on every turn.
The side of the purple plates would be a good place to have a glass coating as they would slide against the guide edges to keep them aligned.
Regards, Larry
To prevent the parallel problem, would it not suffice to have a significantly wider radius on the slot than on the upper ramp where the two interact?
Quote from: Cloxxki on May 23, 2009, 08:13:10 PM
To prevent the parallel problem, would it not suffice to have a significantly wider radius on the slot than on the upper ramp where the two interact?
Sorry Cloxxki, from my layouts of a wider radius on the slot it would only seems to have the same parallel problem futher down the path.
But since you've asked this question, it would seem that I have not explained my previous post sufficiently. I will try to come up with some better graphics to explain how it works.
Please review what I have shown, it will keep the weight right at the intersection of the stand guide and the radial guide in all positions.
Regards, Larry
Quote from: LarryC on May 23, 2009, 09:47:14 PM
Sorry Cloxxki, from my layouts of a wider radius on the slot it would only seems to have the same parallel problem futher down the path.
But since you've asked this question, it would seem that I have not explained my previous post sufficiently. I will try to come up with some better graphics to explain how it works.
Please review what I have shown, it will keep the weight right at the intersection of the stand guide and the radial guide in all positions.
Regards, Larry
Thanks Larry,
I have an idea where you're going with your idea, it's quite smart. Yet, to the point where I understand it, the parallel problem would only in part be prevented.
Abeling wrote that if the weight would not be "caught" by the [end of the slot] wheel, it would fly off diagonally. Hitting the rim at 1:00 or so we gathered.
With slots that approximate the shape (and direction) of the upper guide, we get exactly the claimed acceleration action. However, when the two approximate to much, it creates the parallel problem (endlessly great acceleration required for the weight to pass, wheel nearly stops turning, friction does the rest, I suppose).
The way I'm seeing it, Dusty's almost half-circle slots, pointing so sharply clockwise at their end near the rim, on a clockwise turning wheel, cause most of this problem. Is there a need that we have established for the slot to have that shape, apart from Abeling's patent using that schematic shape?
This forward pointing shape makes it super easy for the lower ramp to pick the weight out of the slot, but possibly that's also not the desired action. Unless the design goal was for the weight a 6:00 to grind to a halt, get behind radially and than make up all ground, plus excess velocity, at 1:00. I commend that idea, but don't think it's the way. Use energy and direction when you have it, don't slowly drain it before it's taken away.
I propose to first going back to a hockey stick shape (straighter lines) on the slots, and work from there. Perhaps even use a locking mechanism to hold the weight near the rim, when the repsective shapes don't provide for that at lower wheel speeds.
Furthermore, I dear Dusty's slot shape at present fails to take real advantage from the lower ramp's action. Near the axle (where we seem to agree we want to be), we get little or no radial advantage over the rim-side position of the same slot.
And, I'll echo here my suggestion made elsewhere: the slots on wheel to be inter-linked. The interface with the lower ramp does what we understand it to do, but in stead of the weight sliding back the same slot, it "takes a left" and cashes in a bit of radial advantage. This last idea is the bet I can come up without springs and fixed slots. In the end, both work in a similar way. The springs would aim to net some excess speed at 1:00, the inter-connected slots would enforce radial advantage (passing the left side faster than the wheel, the lower ramp aiding to do so efficiently) while hoping the wheel will manage to complete this rotation and the next.
Changing the shape of the slots could do much more than just reduce the parallel action. And this parallel action comes down to what I addressed in one of my first posts here: does Dusty's first replication perhaps have TOO MUCH of a good thing, being that extreme acceleration? How much is enough, how much it too much? Dusty found in his second replication the answer to what is too much. I now also doubt the basic shape and layout of the slots vs. what they are meant to do. There will be multiple ways about it, places to store and unleash potential. Maybe even multiple solutions will "work", but maybe also the whole reason Abelin's idea works, is by getting it all just right. We're taking advantage here of a slightly shorter route around a wheel, there's not much of a margin to play with, it has to be just right to attain overunity.
If we're to do anything on such a design, we'll have to be able to really argument it. I've not yet sen strong argumentation for the part-of-circle slot shape, although I'll give it that it's easy to model and replicate, should it happen to work. The wished for acceleration action near the rim is very much there. But, that only comes to use when the weight makes it that far. Making i that far seems to require (near?) frictionless execution.
Hope this was sufficiently on-topic. Looking forward to your thought.
Regards,
J
@Cloxxki,
Attached is a layout showing the positions of the offset roller design (orange/yellow) as opposed to the in line roller design (red).
The bottom positions are at Fig 4 labels of 5, 6, 6.5, 7 and 8. The opposite weight at top is 13, 14, 14.5, 15 and 0 in the same order.
The weight is at the center of the orange/yellow. I did not show the red when it was under the orange/yellow. Note how it starts to pinch out at 14 due to the space restriction imposed by the two curves. Even further at 14.5 and 15, where they get close to the parallel zones.
The orange/yellow rollers stay tangent to their surfaces at all intersections and no position has a parallel intersection. The orange/yellow angle to each other is just a guess. Will need to test for actuals.
Actually, I'm glad you asked the questions. I can see now where this design allows CF to sling the weights out at higher rpm's, where the in line rollers were restricting CF due to the pinching. May need to up my vote.
At the right side is a small test piece with just one of the offsets. I used the predrilled holes in the Steel Tec bar so the rollers are not at the optimum position.
Regards, Larry
Thank you for the elaborate explanation and drawing Larry. My brain is still trying to get to working temperature after joining these forums a few weeks ago, others will surely understand them instantly, while I'll need to sleep on it.
In the mean time,
I did some very rough pen sketching on a train ride today, and have now pretty much given up on the curved slots as drawn up above. What I want to see modelled or even made is straight slots with a minimalist hook on the rim side. The axle side of the slot points forward, by roughly 35 degrees. Centre of weight is consistently in the right upper quadrant this way. Logically, due to inner path 6-12:00 also meaning an advantage of the weight when closer to the rim. It all being upward 6-12:00, the advantage is height. The weight spend very little time in the lower 30% of the left side of the wheel. A weight going up should not be used to push a heavier wheel whih is turning nicely already.
Weights in my proposal waste no radial time to gain some good height, before they get to ~30% of counterweight's rim speed, which is the speed in the rising column when placed at 30% between axle and rim.
The straight slots should offer plenty of a shot put action sitting at that angle and working on a curved upper inner ramp. And in stead of a parallel problem, it looking pretty much T shaped up there. The final nudge over the top BTW in my sketch was done by the wheel's weight, not the counter weight, as that just rolled up the lower ramp (closer to 5:00 than to 6:00 perhaps?). This is possibly a good thing I now realize while writing this, as this will slow down the wheel, allowing the lower weight to make up some radial distance. The wheel then catches up nicely due to only the 1:00> weight being on the wheel for as long as the lower one is still outrunning it's slot, or barely holding it. When one weight hits 3:00, the other is already past 9:00, and much closer to the axle. 3:00-5:00 there will see good acceleration, and right after 11:00-12:00 the wheel's flywheel will be drained a bit to nudge over the top weight.
I feel quite strongly now my proposal of forward pointing straight slots has a better chance at completing a rotation than the dimensions proposed to and put in reality by @dusty. The curved slots presented seem to just feather the weight down in the valley, wasting momentum, making it a long way up to 12:00. Slots will need to be argumented before builder's valuable time and energy are used on testin them.
Sorry, this may not have been the right thread for this. But I do seek assistance/guidance from more capable modellers and replicators to work with me on alternative layouts of the same wheel as proposed by me, hopefully improved by others. I've been pressing for such radial advantage to possibly be vital since my first posts, but have seen little arguments sending back to the drawing board on that, and I've received little support or guidance in my ideas. All simulations I'd seen have been back pointing. I'd like to hear 2 valid reasons to use such a layout. Abeling's patent mosaic sending us that direction, to me, is not valid, the man wants to patent a secret.
A torque and/or vector analysis of forward pointing (well wider near the hook rim, mind you) might offer interesting differences from building as by Dusty and @Eisenficker2000. If this http://www.videospider.tv/Videos/Detail/952838927.aspx animation could be altered to have slots per my specifications, I would be most grateful. If it runs worse, I promise humility and reduced post counts. It if runs better, I will perhaps require fewer post to make my points :-)
Thank you for your patience (one of my lesser talents), but please do consider for a few minutes my proposals, in case they may save this group weeks in getting to the bottom of Abeling's claim.
Let's crack this code!
J
@Cloxxki,
I do not wish to say too much here as this is a thread for real world applications. But, if an inventor patents, then what he described in the patent must be as stated. If not then anyone discovering his deception can submit a new patent with the correct information and override his patent.
Now if he leaves anything out, like the design of the weight supporting structure to keep it a secret, then he is taking a chance that it will not be discovered before he comes out with a working machine an a updated patent. Even if someone else does he still has the rights to the original design, but not to the weight supporting structure.
In Sjack patent he stated that the hockey stick approach was in development. The drawings showed the original stand guide design that was used with the radial guides. It is very apparent that the stand guides would be different for the hockey sticks as oppose to the radial guides. Just study the video carefully and you will see it is different.
Regards, Larry
Thanks Larry,
I saw several slot types in that video, on of them being wide enough to grant the weight freedom of movement as it rolls of the lower ramp. He likely perfected upon anything he showed there, or he had been presenting a working machine, though still.
I was thinking along the same lines. Our "alternatives" are now public. Perhaps if he is planning to sell out to the utility companies to shelf the design, as a citizen we could object te design for not working as advertised, or even not-new. All he needs to do is show a machine that does, without substantial additions or amendments to drawings. Also, his design seems to be most similar to prior art, possibly making it little more than a continuation upon open source technology. No patent to be granted, just (other)plans to be sold and shelved. Just for us to find out how he dunnit, hopefully one of the solutions posed here, not conforming to the application document.
Someone may need to step forward and object to the claims in the patent. Unfortunately, that can get expensive unless you're able to represent yourself.
The picture is of a full size template for the stand guide and the radial guide. The offset roller assembly is shown at the intersection of the two surfaces. This is how it looked from a hand held test run which had no parallel problems. It sill has a pinch effect.
The other gray roller is to show the expected position of an in line roller near parallel surfaces for the same intersection.
The second picture is of the offset roller. Since it is not a full assembly, the extended metal bars were used to keep it on the two surfaces while testing.
This only solves the parallel lockup problem, it does not seem to make it a runner, so I won't be building yet. But, I will be trying some other designs for the weight assembly based on observations from the movie.
Regards, Larry
Hi, @All.
First, I'd like to say that, @Dusty, you're the man! Your work is fantastic.
I've just recently caught up on all the posts in the general thread and have posted some ideas that I'd also like to put forward here for real world modeling. They include some stuff that @Dusty's already touched on and have some similarities to @LarryC's new stuff (I like it) as well. Here are my first two posts -
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=7150.msg183418#msg183418
and
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=7150.msg183590#msg183590
There's more coming as well. I've come up with a slot design that's kind of a cross between the hockey stick and the semi-circular design. It looks more like a Field Hockey stick at the moment but I'm going to refine it to what is essentially a quarter of a sine waveform. I also think that Abelings "D" and egg paths are generalized in the patent, and that the straight part of the "D" is actually a kind of "S" curve also with trigonometric curves. I'm working on an rough image in Painter X (which is kind of like Photoshop) where I can rotate and reposition layers so I can plot the guide path.
Please, check out what I've posted so far and give feedback.
Thanks - Dar
Please view this post of mine in the general thread - http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=7150.msg183618#msg183618
I'm posting to this thread as well because I'd like to see this modeled but I don't think this could be done easily in low end 3d, let alone 2d, sims. Unfortunately, I don't have access to a shop. I'd be willing to help pay for parts if someone is interested in building it.
Dar
I don't have a shop (also, I'm in The Netherlands), but would be willing to spend some night and weekends helping someone out where I can (as a personal DJ even if that helps). I do have relationships with a local top notch CNC facility. If a good design (preferably avoiding Abeling's claims) is proposed or modeled, I could have a buddy Solidworks it to great precision, and then perhaps have it prototyped (yet working) at small scale.
Greetings Larry, Closski, and welcome to the forum Beastmaster.
I like the twist I am seeing in this. I have also played with some similar twist with tracking but not for that basic design. But in this basic design it still has some negatives that tend to fight back hard. So good luck.
The first pic below is of the foot shaped bottom of the hockey stick. A likeness to a heel, instep, and toe can be seen. Various shapes of this design can be seen on the wheel. At first I thought that some addition piece would be inserted, but after my previous testing I can see another concept. Also, the gap between the stand guide and the carrier seemed larger then needed for just a separating washer, so possibly a weight.
The second pic is of a possible design that takes advantage of the foot shape to send the impact into the toe. Please excuse the rough drawing, but I wanted to pass this concept on before I went out this morning.
The purple is the stand guide, blue is the radial guide, orange is the radial roller, red is the stand roller and black is the weight.
The accelerated weight assembly would come off the stand guide and be forced to pendulum (low loss of energy) around the heel by the radial roller, by the time it passes over the instep hump, the weight would be pointed towards the center of the toe. The impact into the toe would produce the rotational energy.
I will be doing some testing with just that section of the machine to confirm this effect. Also, I believe the weight now shown on the stand roller rod, may need more adjustments.
Regards, Larry
Addition: I think the purple stand guide should be higher up, bringing it closer to the heel.
Well apart from reading some threads, I have tried out some suggestions: A rubber band between the weights...not a succes.
Taking out the "hump" from the top part ellips, showed promising results.
Changing the slots to two halve circles/moons, also made a difference.
The change of the hump and slots resulted in the "scissor" action and gives an increase in speed at the 11 to 13 o clock, creating an impulse in the right direction, clockwise. The lowering of the "hump" ,the high bump at 12o clock, resulted in a lot less ccw reaction and more clockwise. At higher speeds the scissor effect works great, at lower speeds..a lockup occurs sometimes.
All just with manual pushing around...
I can try to get some pictures showing the effect of the changes I made.
As for teflon and watchmaking skills. The friction is not the biggest problem, it is the geometry I found out.
And yes I am looking for a way to find out what Abeling did with his weights and guides.
I have been looking at Jan Rutkowski's gravity wheel. I like the idea of "keeping" some weights in "the waiting room", ready to be launched when it is "their turn"
I hope we get to the stuff, I am afraid Abeling never found, to get something running!
Quote from: eisenficker2000 on May 30, 2009, 05:52:51 PM
Well apart from reading some threads, I have tried out some suggestions: A rubber band between the weights...not a succes.
Taking out the "hump" from the top part ellips, showed promising results.
Changing the slots to two halve circles/moons, also made a difference.
The change of the hump and slots resulted in the "scissor" action and gives an increase in speed at the 11 to 13 o clock, creating an impulse in the right direction, clockwise. The lowering of the "hump" ,the high bump at 12o clock, resulted in a lot less ccw reaction and more clockwise. At higher speeds the scissor effect works great, at lower speeds..a lockup occurs sometimes.
All just with manual pushing around...
I can try to get some pictures showing the effect of the changes I made.
As for teflon and watchmaking skills. The friction is not the biggest problem, it is the geometry I found out.
And yes I am looking for a way to find out what Abeling did with his weights and guides.
I have been looking at Jan Rutkowski's gravity wheel. I like the idea of "keeping" some weights in "the waiting room", ready to be launched when it is "their turn"
I hope we get to the stuff, I am afraid Abeling never found, to get something running!
Thanks for the information, all observations help even if they work or not.
Have you tried the offset roller design yet?
Regards Larry
Thanks for the update Eisenficker. Glad to hear the hump and slots changes made for differences.
Before you go as complicated as Dar's idea (which I'd love to see in action by the way), perhaps changing the slots to wider ones, with a short hook, and the axle side of the slots advancing radially could bring some further differences in result to offer greater insight in how these weight want to/are able to move.
Perhaps that in the "waiting room", the weights could do even more if so considered convenient: a more spiral initiated sling, for instance. Put some extra work into the wheel before taking it right back in the sling.
I accidentially stumbled across a folding linkage rod design (right in half 6-12:00) resulting in a perfect D shape. Too perfect, wit would require enhancements. The lower ramp is part of the folding rod, and also the waiting room and the sling are also present, but in a different timing. Lots is possible, and can be created simply even.
The wheel without the "hump"...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GT9C9xptMdY&feature=channel
Quote from: eisenficker2000 on May 31, 2009, 06:30:59 PM
The wheel without the "hump"...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GT9C9xptMdY&feature=channel
Very nice work Eisenficker2000!
If you could change one set of slot to allow radial advancement of the weight when riding the bottom ramp, I bet you'd get it even closer. I cannot give you elaborate torque or vector calculations to verify this assumption, though. It just makes sence to me to make as much height as possible, as early on as possible, and not give that up to the wheel too easily.
With the wheel being so small (I erroneously types slow on Youtube), it's easy to think you've got too little weight moving there. I'm sure you've tried both adding to the moving weight and the wheel already?
Keep it up, you'll get there some day. A table sized model would be most vital to spread the word. Your setup looks like it would be easy+affordable to replicate, or produce in series for distribution. Let's hope we'll need these properties soon.
J
The kinetic effects in the wheel, with up to 6 "Weights" in the waiting room left. A bit similar to Abeling his explanation on the white board.
It demonstrates the wheel is a bit too small to get some "falling" speeds that count. The geometry off the ellipse is not correct, it is too thick/wide.
After some experimenting with seesaws and weights I say bye to Abelings slotted wheel for the moment.
Hoping Dusty will get positive results!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e6V9K9aHVbY&feature=channel
Larry C
All
ttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZRPMZQAPQ50&feature=channel_page
Chet
Quote from: ramset on June 02, 2009, 07:31:36 AM
ttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZRPMZQAPQ50&feature=channel_page
Chet
Thanks Chet, Interesting.
@Builders,
I used a hand drawn grid and data points from my spreadsheet to layout the template of the upper left guide for the offset roller design that I previously shown.
Today, I found some free and low cost software at download.cnet.com which will expand a picture, break it up into pages and then you can tape/glue to a poster or cardboard to easily create a template. Just search on poster print.
An example from ProPoster is shown below.
Regards, Larry
Below is a print out example from the Posteriza software which is free from download.cnet.com.
I took this image from the Fig 7-8 photo in http://freenrg.info/Sjack_Abeling/Patent/Html/ and cropped it with Posteriza down to just Fig 8. A good paper trimmer is very handy with cutting the print out.
Seems very accurate.
Regards, Larry
Good day to everyone.
So this is my first post and I will make it short and sweet.
Read complete tread on Abeling wheel.
LIKE TO THINK THAT IS POSSIBLE TO GET IT TO WORK.
Of course the key as I see it are the ramps that lightens the weights on ascending side.
But we don’t want same to happen on descending side of wheel.
So then rigid interconnection is not recommended, and gets more complicated.
Before I say more, I would appreciate if someone could in simple words to explain to me about acceleration from 10 to 13;00, THAT HAS HAPPENED IN ONE OF “Dusty†7 videos , that unfortunately have been removed , before I had chance to see it
(what it was owned to?)
Thank you very much, and best luck to all
Quote from: LarryC on June 02, 2009, 05:18:17 PM
@Builders,
REVIEW OF THE SJACK ABELING WHEEL:
I'VE FOUND ONE RECENT CLAIM OF A WORKING FREE ENERGY WHEEL:
This example may be based on a fairly workable theory, I'm not sure because normally I'm skeptical of vertical wheels. However, this one attempts to make clever use of support and I believe two points of balance, which seems it may make it exceptional. The video seems to show more momentum than normal, but maybe it is not a case of good design, but just a case of an extremely good fulcrum. I'm not saying this necessarily works, although I have seen some partial results with things this clever in a similar class such as mounting a projecting box to the center beam with weights cycling around it. Whatever the case this is an exceptional rendition of something far better, although very similar looking, to the truly average design.
EXCELLENT VIDEO, BEST AVAILABLE I KNOW OF ON THE ABELING WHEEL: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TPClcSEko4I (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TPClcSEko4I)
I believe the device has a second point of balance slightly above and ahead of the wheel. This is meant to allow the far weights to pull the lower weights using their leverage advantage. It is a bit like a very tall car, that begins to tilt over, but with a high point of balance. The weight above the point of balance, with sufficient leverage, can bring the lower weights upward and inward using the fact that they are supported by a third and fourth fixed element. It is virtually unique because it works like a very tall car that is balanced in the middle, with two or more points of balance. It is not a typical Da Vinci wheel. I do not have first hand evidence with this one, but I would leave the benefit of the doubt with whoever is best at honestly trying it, which we should assume is the person showing us the video unless we have evidence that it is motor-powered. I am not sure of the motor theory. Anyway, from what I see here, this is more energy that vertical wheels normally have, in my estimation, which is at least a pretty good sign, given further evidence.
---Review originally by Nathan Larkin Coppedge @ https://www.quora.com/q/nathancoppedgeblog/Conventional-Wheels (https://www.quora.com/q/nathancoppedgeblog/Conventional-Wheels)
Extensive materials on perpetual motion also linked there
As far as the wheel with a box, there is a video of it here: