Overunity.com Archives

It has been some time since Sjack Abeling was brought to the attention of this forum, and I would like to test the opinion of anyone interested in this particular topic to see what credibility Abeling has amongst you.

Thank you in advance for your vote.

AZ

No, not from what has been guessed so far. But it's possible he has come up with something other than ramps and slots, but that's so unlikely "Inclined to say no but need to see more evidence either way" is too wish washy a choice.

I think so, but I still have some reservations

Seeing a wheel do its thing from up close with my own eyes would bring me one category up.
Abeling's implicite ideas, so professionally exposed by this forum's members, to me seems like the most viable way to go about getting free energy from gravity, to date. I am less than satisfied with Abeling's and this forums explanations as to WHY this works. There must be something very fundamentally different, easily quantifyable, about Abeling's ideas if they make the difference between no-perpetuum mobile and yes-perpetuum mobile.
Abeling reporting on TV that his device needs to be constraited to prevent it from self-destructing after continious acceleration, is a most bold of statements, and coming from a man a he comes across, seems less than a lie at first glance. He seems secure enough, is not taking money from his website's visitors, and has a patent application in place. Time will tell, but some will not be prepared to wait, and just test the ideas best they can, with their own hands and minds.

Total Members Voted: 8
None so far chose : "Inclined to say no, but..."
You'd expect a bunch of scientists and FE sceptics to statistically pick this answer more often.

I give Sjack Abeling about the same amount of credibility as Archer Quinn.

Hans von Lieven

Sjack Abeling is doing nothing but trying to make an old design work that won't.

Quote from: AB Hammer on May 17, 2009, 10:57:02 AM
Sjack Abeling is doing nothing but trying to make an old design work that won't.

Interesting. Would this be valid as prior art to his patent application?
If so, the patent office should be made aware of it.
In the event that Abeling's design can be made to work, it IS open source?

Quote from: Cloxxki on May 17, 2009, 11:01:05 AM
Interesting. Would this be valid as prior art to his patent application?
If so, the patent office should be made aware of it.
In the event that Abeling's design can be made to work, it IS open source?

Yes it is prior art to his patent application. But I can't tell you how old but I believe it came from a older book about perpetual motion.

Quote from: AB Hammer on May 17, 2009, 11:09:21 AM

Please post the cover and bibliographical details on that book please? The roughest scans would be the best.

Yes it is prior art to his patent application. But I can't tell you how old but I believe it came from a older book about perpetual motion.

This might be significant for the future of free energy.
I grant anyone their patent, I've worked for the EPO even, and am now co-writer of one myself, but only when all rules are obeyed.
Surely Abeling and his patent attorney were not aware of this prior art, or perhaps they have reason to believe his invention adds to it significantly.
In any case, if specialists like yourself consider this picture a possible prior art, it is your moral duty to bring it to the attention of the patent office to consider in their investigation.
No-one should be allowed to patent something which has been previously published, be it with serious intensions or to redicule. Investigators unfortunately can only spend so much time on their work. They'll do their best, but at one point will have to call.
Especially if this forum's replicators come to the conclusion that indeed Abeling might have something here, this evidence could be vital for the future of the FE world.

Also, I must say I'm quite stuck by the simplicity shown in that drawing. One outer guide, and it seems to do nothing differently than Abeling's replication as Dusty is building it. More considered shapes and dimensions, but otherwise only more complicated.

If he has a working wheel, that non working wheel isn't prior art.

Let's see the working one, then work out what the kick is, and then see what prior art there may be.

I'm slightly worried by the base of that one though - It needs to be closer to the front of the machine.

Cloxxki

If it is so and the book is found then the patent would have been a big waste of money. But if it has enough differences then the patent can still be valid. 

But as stgpcm  pointed out
>>Let's see the working one, then work out what the kick is, and then see what prior art there may be.<<

The biggest fear I have is that it is a deal where other people get involve and they try to see what has been done and what they can do, and if they get a runner then the patent holder even though incomplete can take it and claim it. Before I would even try to build the Sjack Abeling device. I would have to have proof that it truly is already running. This we still don't have, just speculations and a paper for patent. If patented and a runner. Why is there no proof of its existence?

Quote from: stgpcm on May 17, 2009, 12:10:34 PM
If he has a working wheel, that non working wheel isn't prior art.

Let's see the working one, then work out what the kick is, and then see what prior art there may be.

I'm slightly worried by the base of that one though - It needs to be closer to the front of the machine.

The patent procedure requires a construction to be new and makeble. Hovering beams or weightless parts for instance, would run into objections.
Whether it works or not, for the patent office is less relevant. The applicant pays very good money, and is only making problems for itself to spend in on something unworthy of intellectual protection.

If Abeling's wheel works, and his application is granted on the basis of being a new construction, we would have the right to replicate the maching in the old picture and try to get it to work as well. Abeling would have no ground to object to us, unless he would be willing to withdraw his patent. In any case, the construction shown on the old drawing can now be freely used, at least when it's at least 20 years old and not otherwize claimed by its original inventor or fiction author/artist.

So, when Abeling's machine proves to work, I'm looking into this prior art as a way to make my own, something open source which in fact it already is. Every idea ever openly presented or too long ago claimed, is now open source. Our job is to put all the failures to good use. Today we have ceramic bearing, magnetical levitation, and large vacuum chambers. We have low friction as a weapon against ancient inventors.

Quote from: AB Hammer on May 17, 2009, 12:23:13 PM
Cloxxki



But as stgpcm  pointed out
>>Let's see the working one, then work out what the kick is, and then see what prior art there may be.<<

The biggest fear I have is that it is a deal where other people get involve and they try to see what has been done and what they can do, and if they get a runner then the patent holder even though incomplete can take it and claim it. Before I would even try to build the Sjack Abeling device. I would have to have proof that it truly is already running. This we still don't have, just speculations and a paper for patent. If patented and a runner. Why is there no proof of its existence?

> If it is so and the book is found then the patent would have been a big waste of
> money. But if it has enough differences then the patent can still be valid. 
So far I'm with you (I'm not a native English speaker as you will have noticed).
Abeling may get his patent, but not the sole right to a gravity wheel. The open source community has a prior art in hand to use as a guide when trying to make Abeling's invention obsolete, or at least find a non-patent protected alternative.
Who knows, Abeling may have read the same book, done some calculations we can only dream about, and then figured out a specific patentable setup. In that case, he's the smartest man alive. If both ideas work when properly executed, he's the second smartest man ever, likely the only alive judging from the image art style.

For the rest, the language barrier is preventing me from understanding your point. As long as we stick to solutions from prior art, and stay away from those features in Abeling's applications we consider "not new", we are safe, and Abeling has little to complain about. He's been an inspirator for sure, but not one with any rights.
If I were to come up with a working alternative, I'd approach the man to seek his input. He'll have to know I will get there anyway, but his input may be benificial for the world. His investors have less of a security, but still a head start in having Abeling's calculations making their machinery run the best.
Before energy prices take a tumble, first we'll see increased investments and employment from these devices. People will be using such free energy long before we're able to buy it from power companies.
If we're to belief all accounts, many are already powering their houses from such generators, just keeping it low key.

The 13th vote is in                        cat

Quote from: powercat on May 17, 2009, 12:59:09 PM
The 13th vote is in                        cat

So complicated that no-one will ever try to understand, let alone copy it? A small generator (or engine?) for such a monster machine.

I do not think that previous is the same as the patent, check Fig. 8. I still feel the missing element are springs that connect pairs of weights and create the shot put effect in the upper left corner.

I voted: need more evidence

Quote from: powercat on May 17, 2009, 12:59:09 PM
The 13th vote is in                        cat

This picture: What, Who, Where, Results?

Quote from: AquariuZ on May 17, 2009, 02:02:05 PM
This picture: What, Who, Where, Results?

Hi AquariuZ
It is an old one
There was a website, gone now,it is where I got the picture
It worked on  compresed air ???
   I think it was in India inventor
I cann't remember much more but it didn't work

cat

@AquariuZ:
Springs of course press as hard back as do press forward. Would you propose using a "locked" position in the rise column to lose less on the back end than is won on the front? And would the second weight then be dragged along?
I may be mis-understanding oyu, but it sure is interesting.

I've done some sketching, based on non-connected weight, and found that the slot configuation can make vital differences in how the weights and wheel behave.
My current understanding is, that a flow can be devised, where velocities, heights and potentials all work in harmony. It's a game of phases and their counter-phase. Getting the most from the lower ramp. For instance: high release velocity at start of bottom ramp. The wheel can't help past this point, and IMHO shouldn't. Just let the weight roll on on its own some. To get optimal velocity at the lowest point, the counter weight will better not be taking too much energy from the wheel at that moment. So either it's just being slammed in its hook, or it's at least not draining energy from the lower weight anymore.
Next idea that's becoming more persistent in my mind, is that the "shot put" action might have to come from the wheel's inertia, not from the other weight. The wheel may need to have some positive mass to it. In case of 8 weight, perhaps this factor will be less of a problem.
HOWEVER if I would be correct, that we need optimal speed at the lowest point, then Abeling's explanation makes sence : "2 weights, one doing the work to raise the other", or something along that line. In a system of 1 wheel and 2 weights, when on it off the hweel, the other weight and the wheel together can do some serious work for a period of time, thus for a number of degrees. The speed variance that we see with just 2 weights MAY be what's making this possible to begin with. The wheel's weight vs. that of the dumbells may need to be very well balanced to get the desired effect.

Oh, about phases. The timing of fases will be hugely different for a Dusty-style thin part-of-circle slots, versus "spokes", and let along "offset spokes".
My sketches and visualizations seem to now point out that we want the 6-8:00 weight to get BEHIND. The getting behind saves serious energy, allows the wheel to store that, and release it when the slot has the raising weight play catch up, aided by a counter weight in optimum pulling phase, and a wheel ready to give a nice nudge in the back.
(The "getting behind" feature would totally complement my idea of pivoting rods. I proposed a setup before, where a pivoting rod, at roughly 75% of it's length, the weight being at the very end, would allow the weight to comply to the circle, and catch back up when so required to. Weight would not really be "off" the wheel, just not taking energy from it on the first part of the upswing. If the rod IS a spring, or incorperates one, there's some more explosive energy to be stored and put to good use.)


Anyway,
Short : the slots might need to start at 0-3-6-9:00, and at the hub be well off-center, CCW (back). The part of circle shape is nice, gives dramatic slinging at the top, but may be "over the top". And, get the timing wrong, and it will just fall apart.

I wish I had the skills to draw and simulate this like you guys.

Regarding the weights, I'd suggest using roller around the bearingss to achieve greater diameter. Slot will need to be wider too. Friction will be greatly reduced. Much less spinning and bouncing. Bearings themselves will work more efficiently, too.

I am changing my vote to a full Yes BTW

Quote from: AquariuZ on May 20, 2009, 06:21:40 AM
I am changing my vote to a full Yes BTW

Interesting. Which new insight or data has made you upgrade your vote?
Perhaps the people picking one of the top 2 options could get together to work on getting the very most viable setup? As Dusty said, take the best from the best ideas, and merge into one design.
If we can find consensus one WHAT would be making it to work, we could try to come with a solution that was not yet sold to the energy suppliers.
I have access to a top-notch milling/CNC shop if preliminary tests and simulations are preferable, I could perhaps have a simple proto done. Could good design and precision make up for scale?

I believe Abeling thought he had found a way to harvest Gravity for energy production like he says.  His tests lead him to exactly what Dusty and Eisenficker2000 have built.  And to the conclusion that all he needed to do now was to lower the friction and it would run.  That is why friction minimizing ideas are brought up in his patent.

Now I think he realizes it will not work and he may be trying to evade the embarrassment by stating he is selling the patent to others.

Still, I hope there is some undisclosed portion that does make it work.  I am confident it cannot work only as described in the patent.

I also do not believe any power company that purchased a way to make energy from gravity would suppress it.  There is too much money to be made by making and selling the machines and the electricity.  They would just be able to take over the market.  The power grid and the new generators would still need to be manufactured and maintained.  They would be able to charge for that as well as whatever they wanted for the electricity for quite a long time.  This would be an easy way to get mega-rich in a very short time.  What for profit company wouldn't jump at that?  Why suppress and grind along making relatively small profits over a long time when you can become mega rich in a very short time?

M.

Quote from: mondrasek on May 20, 2009, 09:56:38 AM
I believe Abeling thought he had found a way to harvest Gravity for energy production like he says.  His tests lead him to exactly what Dusty and Eisenficker2000 have built.  And to the conclusion that all he needed to do now was to lower the friction and it would run.  That is why friction minimizing ideas are brought up in his patent.

Now I think he realizes it will not work and he may be trying to evade the embarrassment by stating he is selling the patent to others.

Still, I hope there is some undisclosed portion that does make it work.  I am confident it cannot work only as described in the patent.

I also do not believe any power company that purchased a way to make energy from gravity would suppress it.  There is too much money to be made by making and selling the machines and the electricity.  They would just be able to take over the market.  The power grid and the new generators would still need to be manufactured and maintained.  They would be able to charge for that as well as whatever they wanted for the electricity for quite a long time.  This would be an easy way to get mega-rich in a very short time.  What for profit company wouldn't jump at that?  Why suppress and grind along making relatively small profits over a long time when you can become mega rich in a very short time?

M.

Good Point. If ENECO would hold the global patent for a true overunity PPM, they'd gradually take over the Dutch market with it, and sell licences to far away other companies, which don't affect their market. Big money for sure, even if it would turn out to be "expensive" energy compared to windmills. Lease out power machine to remote locations, etc.
Perhaps indeed he sees now that his machine will never run as-is, but that would imply him having lied on TV camera. Dusty's replication is great work, but much more can be gotten from it.

I lack the math experience, but think that the shot put action in the left upper quadrant (weight moving outward along a wheel slot) may unleash a potential in lateral velocity. Little is needed to go a long way. If that's not the driving principle (if any), it's the ability to get more height in a short radial distance, without taking energy from the wheel. Velocity lost doesn't hurt so near the axle, and CF might help a hand making it out to the rim again at 0:00.

Oh, the uncertainty!!

Come on people. Ever heard of the 7 families? Illuminati?

Nothing can be done unless you distance yourself from their grid.

There are no nations nor countries, there are just corporations who own EVERYTHING, including politicians, media & yes utilities.

Worldwide that is.

Do you really think some local ENECO joker will be allowed to introduce a non-approved technology?

Come on.

STATEMENT FROM SJACK ABELING:

Beste lezers,

Uit de reakties van vele bezoekers van onze site blijkt dat u zich grote zorgen maakt dat de uitvinding die wij hebben gedaan en alle kennis die inmiddels is vergaard zal verdwijnen door bijvoorbeeld overname, omkoping of machtsmisbruik van de diverse industrieën of landen.

Meer informatie verstrekken?
We krijgen de vraag om meer gedetailleerde informatie te verstrekken, dit als "beveiliging" zodat ook in de meest fantasierijke scenario's de uitvinding behouden blijft. Maar het delen van informatie over een dergelijk revolutionair systeem leidt voor ons uiteindelijk alleen maar tot enorme problemen.

Doelstelling
Wees gerust: niets zal ons er toe kunnen verleiden om het door ons ontwikkelde systeem te laten verdwijnen. We zijn er namelijk van overtuigd dat ons systeem de mogelijkheid heeft om het energie probleem van onze planeet en onze kinderen op verantwoorde wijze op te lossen. Onze doelstelling is daarom duidelijk: uiteindelijk zullen we onze uitvinding inzetten om energie te produceren!

Samenwerking?
We werken er hard aan om binnen drie jaar een commercieel verantwoord systeem of product te produceren. Dat kunnen we niet alleen, maar Mooie Energie zal alléén samenwerken en overeenkomsten aangaan met bedrijven die hetzelfde uitgangspunt hebben!

Sjack Abeling


TRANSLATION:


Newsletter May 27, 2009

Dear readers,

The reactions of many visitors to our site indicates that you are very worried that the invention which we have done and all knowledge that has been collected for example, will disappear over corruption or abuse of the various industries or countries.

We have the demand for more detailed information, as a "security" so that even in the most imaginative scenarios the invention is preserved. But the sharing of information on such a revolutionary system in the end only leads to enormous problems.

Objective
Do not worry: noone will be able to seduce us for the system developed by us to disappear. We are convinced that our system has the possibility of solving the energy problem of our planet and our children in a responsible manner. Our objective is clear: ultimately, we will use our invention to produce energy!

Cooperation?
We work hard to within three years make a commercialy sound system and product to produce.  We cannot do that alone but Mooie energie will only cooperate and enter into agreements with companies that have the same vision!

Sjack Abeling


It looks like our little "campaign" brought a reaction. Still not the one we all hoped (disclosure). Thanks all, you know who you are...

And let me be blunt: WHAT IF SOMEONE DECIDES YOU NEED TO HAVE AN ACCIDENT SJACK? Think about it. You can call all of us crazy but you must take into account the numerous deaths of inventors like Stanley Meyer & Jan Sloot in the last 30 years. Even though this is the Netherlands.

AZ

I most certainly hope he has a good arrangement with his attorney regarding disclosure, making his accident unnecessary even to those who'd benefit from it. Of course it would be much better to have Sjack spreading the word a bit more convincingly. Get his patent sorted, and then show the world what he's got.

Seems we're going to wait, wait, and wait some more. Unless we figure it out ourselves, come up with something better, and spread good drawings.

Name me a big construction deal line that was not breached, at least in Holland. We've been building railroads for centuries, and here in Holland we add years to our schedules and billions to our budgets to make simply dead-straight out and back tracks.

Also, I hope scale will not be a deciding factor for Abeling's principle to work. Small scale opens up affordable and efficient means to distribute the "word". Shipping prototypes to the likes of Greenpeace, Al Gore, green political parties, etc.

If you want a company with true green intensions, I'm afraid you'll need to build that company yourself. Name me 3 companies that can be trusted, in sight of huge money and power?

Let's get our hands dirty and make this principle work, what ever it is

Any Dutchies open to attend a brain storming session on neutral terrain, over some good Belgian beers?

Here is an update: http://www.mooieenergie.nl/en/ (http://www.mooieenergie.nl/en/)

Quote from: AB Hammer on May 17, 2009, 10:57:02 AM
Sjack Abeling is doing nothing but trying to make an old design work that won't.

There is a significant difference.


Abeling is allowing the weights to free fall around
the semi circle which generates 3rd derivative energy.