Sjack Abeling Gravity Wheel and the Worlds first Weight Power Plant

[Omnibus]

@P=Motion,

The goal is not to conserve energy. Another way of seeing energy conserved is to observe the center of mass swaying from let to right of the axle and back until center of mass finds its equilibrium position below the axle -- potential energy had been transformed into kinetic and back and with friction it is finally lost equivalently to heat. That's what commonly happens with any construction we've observed so far. Here we're talking about a specific construction (which has probably existed but has been suppressed and therefore is not a matter of common knowledge) whereby the center of mass is permanently sideways to the axle at any position of the device thus making energy non-conserved. Just making slots longer or increasing the weight of the balls won't do any good in this respect.Like I said, I don't see how this making of energy non-conserved can occur without a ramp or without somehow maintaining the trajectory along which balls move such that the center of mass persistently stays sideways to the axle at any position of the arm.

Mind you also this, acceleration in this case is only due to the action of the force of gravity. The force of gravity will the greater (causing greater acceleration) the greater the potential energy of the ball is. Potential energy of the ball would be greater if there had been enough kinetic energy to endow it with that potential energy. The required kinetic energy cannot be supplied by anything else in this case but by spending potential energy. When potential energy is spent in this case part of it is also lost to heat so the kinetic energy obtained wil not be even enough to recover the potential energy it was derived from let alone be more than the initial potential energy. That's in this particular case.

We saw, however, that a given potential energy can give rise to varying accelerations (up to a point) but I don't see how this finding can be applicable in a construction such as this one, repeating the same symmetrical pattern.

[Omnibus]

@P-Motion,

Gravity is a force and therefore cannot be a source of energy. On the other hand, in the case of a tribuchet the source of energy is quite clear -- the gravitational potential energy of the triggering mechanism that has been preset by someone spending muscle energy to lift it up. There;s nothing unusual or fascinating about a tribuchet. It would have been fascinating if after the discharge the tribuchet recharges on its own without expending of external energy. That doesn't happen, however.

In our case we're looking for such continuous self-recharging and that would be possible by making a construction that would allow spontaneous deisplacement under the action of the force of gravity. The kinetic energy that would be observed would only be a result of such opportunistic construction. Everything starts with the gravitational potential energy which the wheel has to be able to restore time and time again all by itself. Kinetic energy, acceleration, are only results and they cannot exceed the corresponding, causing them, potential energy.

Like I said earlier, that brachistochrone idea seemed to hold some promise but because for every wheel construction everything repeats symmetrically there will always be a given amount of potential energy transferring into a given amount of kinetic energy and not into a different amount of kinetic energy (even in a case when a different path could ensure that different kinetic energy arises from the same potential energy difference).

[Omnibus]

The number of weights and the length of the slots in themselves will not change the picture and the wheel will be still a non-working wheel unless the weights are forced to travel along a path ensuring persistent violation of the lever rule, that is, the center of mass to be on one side of the axis of rotation for any position of the arms. That's mandatory, otherwise it won't work.

[Cloxxki]

Hi Jim,
With such long slots I fear your wheel will turn too fast, and stall, as it does now.
The weights take time to shift, thus also waste overbalance effect. Not sure how to cambat this, but 2 things come to mind:
- constant work being extracted
- more arms, to make the bursts of overbalance shorter. Still, a smooth constant load may be needed. Like a wooded saw tooth splashing around a tub of water.
This is 180º against the typical "fight the friction" mindset, I realize that.

Or, the start-stop action timing of the wheel should promote sliding or the weights. Decellerate top top speed as the slot on the right top hits level.
A longer slot will also see the weights sinking deeper, and having to be dragged up higher, I suppose?

Or, let your weight arms be un-fixed, and turning on a second layer wheel, with freewheel action. Gain advantage, and haul it in.

The discussion seems to have moved far away from Abeling's understood approach though, and more into the general Bessler ideas category. Jim's designs seem to have the weights supported by the wheel at all times, Abeling has them exit the wheel for the main part of the lifting portion. Weight provide their own lift as much as they can, and are helped over the edge only by their opposities.

[Omnibus]

@P-Motion,

The loss of balance, unbalancing or, as you call it overbalancing, has to occur in the same direction at every position of the arms (the wheel). Whether or not that's the case may be seen in a simple way if we had the exact drawing of the device in WM2D. The hard way to find out that's not the case is by making it. Seems to me it's better to shorten that effort and not spend too much tme in manufacturing variants that won't work. Why rely on hunch when we have such good tools to do the job of figuring out what will work? WM2D may be inapplicable in many ways, as seen already, but it is excellent for finding out what the disposition of center of mass is with respect to the axis of rotation.