Sjack Abeling Gravity Wheel and the Worlds first Weight Power Plant

[Cloxxki]

@Cloxxki,

Since you're into programming, if I understood you correctly, and are willing to help, could you write a script in AutoCAD to calculate automatically the torques @eisenficker2000 is talking about for various positions of the wheel?

I'm sorry, I'm utterly uneducated. when I brag about cracking codes, it's regarding mechanical solutions to equasions that have not been made to work, or getting those that work much better.
I lack any kind of technical vocabulary, but working with those who know established formulae behind what I'm visualizing/hunching, I would gladly spend my time at exploring possibilities.
If Abeling's idea works, there will be an optimal geometry, and we can calculate it. If it works, I expect the optimum expect the optimum to be quite different from the ideal torgue egg. Note Abeling's most vertical climbing path. I think it's there for other reasons than we can quantify at this stage.

[Cloxxki]

I'll say it more firmly this time:

Looking at torque alone is a waste of energy (pun intended), when weights don't follow a constant speed, neither radially nor excentrically. On top of this, weights are not even PART of the (un)balanced wheel for a moment around 6-8:00!

I'll offer an extreme case. I like extreme cases to visualize/emphasize effects at work.

The 12-6 wheel has weight to the rim. Boucy balls. Rim speed equal to the speed a ball would reach when free falling from 12:00 to 6:00.
At 6:00, the balls hit a firm barrier. Forward speed is 98% converted in vertical speed, while the ball is off the wheel. The ball enters the wheel at 11:55 height, in total standstill. Now the wheel need to transfer again 95% back into the ball, starting out fully horizontally.
Other option: ball bounces, but is grabbed in a low-friction baseball glove at 9:00 height, near the axle. Ball has HEAPS of vertical inertia left, more than half. Most (due to lower spoke speed near the rim) is transferred to the wheel. Second time in one revolution that the ball is driving the wheel.
Now the wheel needs to:
1-Lift the ball near the axle from 9:00 to 12:00
2-Initiate horizontal speed (CF may do a part of that "for free"), up till the point where after 12:00 the ball matches the rim's speed.
Would 1) and 2) equal the work done 12:00-6:00 and AT 9:00?
Dusty's machine doesn't send balls flying, it has weight going from push to pull more than one per rotation.

I'll again emphasize my understanding that wider wheel slots are required to prevent the ball at 5-8:00 be hindered in its verticall acceleration out side the wheel. It needs to gain height first, and then smoothly be picked up by the slots (spokes) when their respective vertical speeds at a given height match.
Dusty's wheel is not self-starting: it requires one weight to be at 1:00 to from there build up momentum for the the work on the counter-acting ball. I don't rule out that an additional push is required to get the wheel to get out of balance : getting the lower weight to build up sufficient momentum to unload the wheel long and far enough to store energy for the jolt over 11:00-1:00.

The drawings offered by Abeling and this forum's knowledgeable members are showing many weights on the left. They do not show their respective effect on the wheel. The very bottom ones are not part of the wheel, and the next up is likely PUSHING the wheel. Torque that!

[Alexioco]

Yes I know, there is always that black box factor that makes it all work. The hallmark of every scam merchant! Perhaps he has found a way to manufacture Cavorite. 

Hans von Lieven

lol sounds funny, time will tell i suppose, wish he would hurry up and publish this new theory though, if he is a fraud, then i dnt see the point in it cause after awhile somone will find out its fake...

Alex

[AquariuZ]

Springs guys... There must be a spring mechanism in there somewhere for it to work...

Bessler wheel had at least one spring (reading Collins´ book)

Spring -> Store -> Eject -> Launch

[Omnibus]

@All,

Criteria such as persistent mass-axle discrepancy and persistent negative torque calculated for all positions of the wheel comprising a full circle are definitive scientific criteria for the reality of perpetuum mobile. These criteria categorically point to Abeling's device being such. To substitute them with blabber about skillful engineers is ludicrous. Anybody who talks like that and provides no precise argumentation in scientific terms should be ignored outright.