Sjack Abeling Gravity Wheel and the Worlds first Weight Power Plant

[TinselKoala]

@OC: the main error is the usual one in these cases: Your device is a looping device. That is, there is no difference in states, that would make it run at all. Sure, if you are clever and can reduce all losses to zero, and give it a spin, then it will spin and continue to do so, running on the initial spin. But it won't accelerate, because there is NO DIFFERENCE in states t1, t2, t3....etc.
In for example a water wheel, there is mass flow through the system, so the states t1, t2, etc. are different (less water in the upstream reservoir, etc) , but in all pure gravity wheels or magnet wheels there is no mass flow or energy flow through the system. No reservoir is being depleted; nothing is flowing, once the whole loop is considered.
Gravity does not flow! It's like a road. We casually speak of a road "going" somewhere, just as we casually assume that gravity is some kind of literal flux or force. But it doesn't, and it isn't. Masses "flow" along gravity from regions of high potential to regions of low potential. And it takes work to reverse that mass flow--just as much work as you get from the original "downstream" flow.

So your proposed design is something like this one, but with a ramp off the wheel to raise the weights back up to strike the spokes or chamber walls...?

[Cloxxki]

@Oscar: your blade spring drawing is a work of art. it intrigues me. Perhaps the way a spring ramps up its resisance, and how maximum distance between weights is managed can create a "wave" of sorts goign through the weights, between which there is always a positive amount of spring load.

Central question might be : can a weight both load a spring AND turn a wheel at the same time? Or can we "play" with the 2nd and 3rd derivatives of velocity, loading the spring versus unloading it?

Also, should/can we gain advantage from the back weight being pressed back at a non-wheel member as it shot puts the fore weight up and over 12:00?

@0c:
I like the idea of the axle bearing the weight of the rising weight, but fail to see how it could be raised over 12:00 with sufficient speed.
If we'd regard the wheel a certain non-self-starter, with a high starting speed, we'll have to think of it in an entirely different way. Also, centrifugal forces will be a great factor, even in the upper 2 quadrants.
Earlier in this thread of the non-proportional charateristics related to velocity and acceleration. If gain can be harvested by breaking apart or cheating height, speed and distance....

[0c]

So your proposed design is something like this one, but with a ramp off the wheel to raise the weights back up to strike the spokes or chamber walls...?

Pretty much. I think you'll agree that if there was a continuous supply of weights that would enter the wheel at the hub to one side, and as they reached BDC, they would exit the wheel, there would be continuous rotation as long as the supply of weights was maintained, a waterwheel effect. My concept would simply recycle the weights that leave the wheel at the bottom and continuously feed them back in above the hub, using their own momentum to get them there.

There is a speed difference between the rim of the wheel and the hub. There will be a certain RPM where the speed of a weight departing from the wheel at the bottom will have enough momentum to carry it through a ramp or chute back up to a height above the hub and still be moving faster than the inner part of the wheel. If it rejoins the wheel at that point, impacting one of the rotating spokes, it will transfer momentum back to the wheel. It can then be accelerated downwards and towards the rim by gravity and centrifugal force and will exit at the bottom again to repeat the cycle.

Some questions to ponder:

1) Is there a wheel rotational velocity where a weight at the rim, departing at the bottom, will have sufficient momentum to carry it back up above the axle and still be moving faster than the inner portion of the wheel?
2) If the weight is travelling faster than the inner portion of the wheel and impacts it in the desired direction of rotation, will the wheel gain any momentum from the impact?
3) If there are never any weights on one side of the wheel, what is there to oppose continued rotation (other than friction and air resistance)?

In the animation you linked, imagine there are no weights on the left side, that some invisible mechanism is removing the weights at the 6:00 and inserting them at 12:01. The only problem is getting the weights back up, maintaining enough momentum to give the wheel a push in the right direction. Can this be done?

OC

[Cloxxki]

@OC:
Answer to your last question:
When the speed fails to stabilize, or even falls.

Getting a wheel to produce several revolutions as you propose already exist in real life, and is likely part of many a manufacturing process. However, without external force added, speed drops. No big surprise.
Important is that the weight, when doing work to the wheel, gets more done than it loses via the vertical component of its roll up the ramp/shut arrangement. This way it keeps exiting the wheel at increasing speeds, ensuring perpetuum mobile.
As a simple wheel with both sides equally loaded, and perfectly symmetrical and rigidly interconnected weight paths already turn continuosly when friction is taken out of the equasion, I too feel (dream) there should be a way to more efficiently reach the top. Like a shorter route, or one that manages to harvest centrifugal force as added propellents. Positive asymmetry. Speed fluctuations used to our advantage, selective springs which only add to movement, and don'tfeed from it, all has been thought of before, but certainly not been used (proved) to work as intended.

I like the idea that a weight is fed back into the wheel at 12:00 at exactly the speed it's expected to per the typical laws of phisycs, just a bit ahead of time by taking the shortcut closer along the hub. Work done is the same, but more weight are on the work-side as that side takes more time to complete. As weights on the up side aren't on the wheel, their quicker decelleration (same decelleration nominally, in a shorter time) is not noticed by the wheel in the form of drag.

[X00013]

Lost 4 wordz, clip showz last 15 degree getting the better, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gvHlalYOnlM