Sjack Abeling Gravity Wheel and the Worlds first Weight Power Plant

[Cloxxki]

To all but mainly Dusty

Here is an alternative ramp set up. Larry was close but IMO he missed 2 main aspects. At the top it would be flat or dipped as shown in my lines. At the bottom the lower weights will not be a lifting problem until the 7:00 mark eliminating the lifting from 4:30 on and all the downward weight on the ramps but the angular momentum in place. This means that 2 weights will be much less negative effect out of the equation until the 7:00 mark were hopefully has enough speed to kick the lift. Or as Preston said shot put it upwards, from our phone conversation.

@AB:
Your reasoning implies that lifting forces are directed to the 5:00 weight as it goes on the ramp. fromt hat point of view, a delayed ramp transition seems a good proposal to get phasing better aligned.
However, if a weight by 5:00 or so is really "on its own" to transfer horizontal volecity in to vertical trajectory closely past or even through the wheel's axle, the weight is litterally "off the wheel". The wheel will during this freewheeling action of the lower ramp us it's inertia to nudge the top weight over the top, with a slot geometry enforced shot put acceleration.
Once the top weight is past 12:00, and strats to do useful work on the wheel, the lower weight is done transferring speed into height, and has little speed, albeit all vertically, left, and is picked back up by the slots. Now, the 1:00 weight doesn't yet have the angle to fully drive the wheel, it's mostly leaning on the axle still, not transfering much energy yet. But, as the lower weight, around 8-9:00 is near to the axle, this is not yet an issue, they forces eroughly even out, not wheel speed is lost. As the working weights "gets stronger", the lifted one is working its way back to the rim, demanding more help. The working weight has like 4-5 "hours" time to do the work of 3 hours worth of lifting. This might be where the over unity comes from, if anywhere.

If the 2 weights are rod-connected, the lower one doesn't come up as high, but the upper one gets a direct push over the top. Imagine a rod that can be extended as far as needed, but has a stop preventing it to become shorter than a given length, causing the lower weight to "bump" it. After the impact, the lower weight at 6-7:00 or so carries the speed that the upper had before. I think an alternative slot shape might enable the same kind of action, but taking bumping energy from the weheel rather than the bottom weight.
Should the upper weight rod-pull the lower up further, should this energy exchange go through the slots?

Just some ideas.

[pstroud]

Cloxxki,

There is more benefit here than just the bumping / shotput rapid acceleration through a connecitng rod.  During the shot-put action caused by the bottom weight rolling across the 5-6:30 horozontal section, we are transferring a significant portion of opposing opposit weight onto the ramp as well.  This removes sinificant weight from the 9-12 section of the wheel, which in turn gives the 1-5 oclock section more torque.

In my opinion, this is may be the secret to this wheel's success.

Dusty, I'm busy with another wheel replication right now so I do not have the free time to re-focus on building a test replica of this.  However, I would suggest you try this with 2 opposing weights and report the findings back to the forum.  the connecting rod will need a gap at the attachment of the weight axle to give flexibility for the oval pattern of the weights flow.  This gap at the connection point will allow the rod to only kick into action during the shot-put lifting and sort of disappear afterwards.

Preston Stroud

[LarryC]

The connecting rod theory is interesting, but I'm not sure it can be done as there are several challenges.

In the first picture all the weights and opposing weights are connected. At the top positions you can see how the rod would have to cross over the center axle. Not a real big problem as the axle could be just connected to each carrier. The other problem is the length of the rod would need to vary as Pos 15 to 7 is 83 MM and Pos 14 to 4 is 67 MM. Varying and pushing?

In the second pic the first set of radial arrows to the left points out bracing bolts in between the slots, the second set of arrows show inner bracing (?), which appear to be behind the inner edge of the slot. The third arrow point out the center axle shaft in the outer support stand. These multiple inner bracing presents further problems with the rods being able to slide across the axle center.

The third pic shows the head of a bolt at the position of the first set of bracing in the second picture.

The fourth pic shows the center plate with the center axle being able to turn as it is not supported by the center plate. It's dull gray color and the bright bolts above is the indicators I used to point it out in the first picture.

This does bring up an interesting point. Why have the bracing so far in when bracing on the outer edge would be better at stopping any wobbling? Adds support to the weight rotating theory.

Regards, Larry   

PS: Cloxxki and pstroud, you may have solves some of these issues. Not sure, but it would help others to understand your ideas, if you could attach some pictures. Thanks.

[Cloxxki]

@Larry,
Various options come to mind for the axle-rod interferrence issue.
- 4 weight in stead of two., no axle interference
- C-shaped rods! :-)

About the variable length. Do you mean due to the oval shape?
The design could be made such, that right when the shot put action is desired, the 2 weight will be forced to be at minimal distance from each other. Mind you, the upper weigh much have a wider slot to allow to be show out of trajectory. Or, the slot/weight trajectory will need to be meticulously plotted, to make an absolute perfect fit. Clearance seems an easier way about this.
If the rod is made up from male and female ends, they would slide over each otherwith low friction. Allowing for extention as far as needed to round the wheel, but with a stop to initiate shot put right when the weight get close together.

As I am seeing the push rods now:
- push only to create shot put action
- no pull, rods extent freely as needed
- lifting of weights between 6:00 and being shot put, is done by the wheel and perhaps in part due speed->height conversion.

My biggest concern with the pushing rod is the lower weight using all potential, and being dependant on the wheel and the rod push to gain any further height.

Then, what I ten to forget: when during one phase forces all balance out and there is no over unity , the wheel of course still continues to rotate. This is good, as long as we don't get stuck in that phase.

[LarryC]

@Cloxxki,
The no pull, only push would help, but it still seems like the rod would intersect with the bracing even with curves. But checking into the rod theory has shown me another important change.

@All,

The first picture shows Fig. 8 with the hockey stick angle changed and my previous guide changes. Now it has a smooth, no pinch lift all the way from 5:00 to 10:30. Almost the same as the curved radial guides in Fig. 4.

The second picture shows the wheel from the movie. Flip it on its side so that the gray center axle is on top (print out is best). Measure the distance from the gray center axle to the top and bottom of the wheel and see that they are equal.

Now, notice the angle of the hockey sticks coming out. They are not offset to the front side of the center and angled to the back side of the center as shown in Fig. 8, but are offset to the back side of the center and come outward almost perpendicular to the wheel tangent.

Regards, Larry