Sjack Abeling Gravity Wheel and the Worlds first Weight Power Plant

[Omnibus]

@mondrasek,

Using “air resistance” to model behavior of springs in vacuum still sounds like workaround, unless “air resistance” is just used as a figure of speech and turning it on in fact means turning on in the model the inevitable internal resistance in real springs. But then, what would it be if real air resistance is needed to be turned on. Does it mean that in addition to the “air resistance” used to mimic the internal resistance of a real spring one should add additional air resistance. This is a workaround in my book.

As for collisions, the only physically realistic result in @AquariuZ’ model was obtained by Stefan when he set it to 0, that is, modeling ideally non-elastic collision. Results with elastic collisions, not even ideally elastic (1), gave funny results. So, the program has to be used very carefully with collisions, again with workarounds, it seems.

The rigid joints. I think the problem was fixed by changing Optimized to Measurable in Properties. Forgot who suggested it. This was one of the most useful little tips, resolving a lot of confusion here. Otherwise, the points you make about sims are quite correct.

I didn’t get the gyro part of your posting, though. Why divert attention to that? It is indeed a very interesting phenomenon to investigate, but separately, I think. A spinning gyro requires spending of energy while here we’re interested in producing energy without spending any. So, investigating gyros makes the same sense as investigating centrifugal forces. These may have cursory importance here because the certain amount of energy spent for them (for spinning the gyro or for the force that has CF as a reaction) may reshuffle the parts of the construction favorably so more energy be produced as a result. This is the only role of discussing gyros or CF here although at this moment I don’t see any use for them in optimizing the device. The problems with the device at hand seem to be elsewhere.

[mondrasek]

Using “air resistance” to model behavior of springs in vacuum still sounds like workaround, unless “air resistance” is just used as a figure of speech and turning it on in fact means turning on in the model the inevitable internal resistance in real springs. But then, what would it be if real air resistance is needed to be turned on. Does it mean that in addition to the “air resistance” used to mimic the internal resistance of a real spring one should add additional air resistance. This is a workaround in my book.

I said, using dampeners and/or air resistance makes the behaiour of modeled spings more realistic and fixes the ill effects of siming with ideal (impossible) springs.  You may notice that springs with built in dampeners are one of the building elements in WM2D and could be used instead of ideal springs.  Turning on air resistance is a way to apply a global dampening effect without having to work with the dampening characteristics of individual springs.  So you can call either a workaround.  I call it proper engineering.

As for collisions, the only physically realistic result in @AquariuZ’ model was obtained by Stefan when he set it to 0, that is, modeling ideally non-elastic collision. Results with elastic collisions, not even ideally elastic (1), gave funny results. So, the program has to be used very carefully with collisions, again with workarounds, it seems.

Proper material properties, including elasticity, and small time step and integration error give proper collision results.

I didn’t get the gyro part of your posting, though. Why divert attention to that? It is indeed a very interesting phenomenon to investigate, but separately, I think. A spinning gyro requires spending of energy while here we’re interested in producing energy without spending any. So, investigating gyros makes the same sense as investigating centrifugal forces. These may have cursory importance here because the certain amount of energy spent for them (for spinning the gyro or for the force that has CF as a reaction) may reshuffle the parts of the construction favorably so more energy be produced as a result. This is the only role of discussing gyros or CF here although at this moment I don’t see any use for them in optimizing the device. The problems with the device at hand seem to be elsewhere.

Because it fits with the rest of the "facts".  Let's start with the web page:

This new physical theory will explain how to generate energy by rotating two bodies with the same mass/weight. The weight of the bodies together with ... (intentionally omitted) and the rotational velocity determine the amount of energy that can be generated.

Now replace (intentionally omitted) with Gyrospopic Effects.

I do not propose that the gyros are to be spun up by external forces.  They should be spun up by the device as the device turns, storing some of the gravitational potential energy of the weights at the top of the wheel as it is converted to kinetic energy through falling.

Gyroscopes add an element not yet considered by this forum.  It is an effect where the reaction force is not opposite in direction.  It also fits easily into the patent design and would not need to be disclosed to secure a patent on a working device.  It could be the "hidden" item some are looking for.  So that is why I bring it up here.  I wonder if it could be a way to have the weights move through the prescribed path without absorbing all of the energy of the wheel on the raising side.

What's your idea?

[Omnibus]

@mondrasek,

See, I don’t buy this “new theory” thing but your idea makes sense intuitively, I think. I say intuitively because I don’t see exactly how it will work putting it in concrete terms.

My idea, which doesn’t exclude gyro effects of the type you mention, if plausible, is that all is overlooked classical mechanics and what we need to do is find the conditions whereby the rule for a balanced lever will be persistently violated. I wonder if you know of a mathematician dealing with mechanics who might help us in the analytical part of solving such a problem. First, finding out whether or not that’s at all possible. We already have two somewhat well defined mathematical problems â€" this one and the one presented here in a gif by the Japanese guy at the beginning of the thread (forgot what his handle was). If we resort to only trial and error modeling with wm2d we won’t get too far. What is needed is a bit, and probably more than a bit, of a scientific approach. Someone to help in writing the Lagrangian of the system and then helping in solving it for various conditions. Someone did a similar analysis of the Milkovic contraption (can’t find the paper right now) by writing the equations governing the device when activated on its one side, obtaining the analytical expression for the response on the other side. Unfortunately, he didn’t finish the analysis by observing it in a reverse direction. Something similar has to be done here to see first whether or not there would be realistic analytical solutions of that purported motor or generator of free energy or whatever one may wanna call it. This  will give us a clue as to what direction the construction efforts should go.

[Omnibus]

@mondrasek,

Here is an idea of what needs to be done: http://www.veljkomilkovic.com/Images/Mathematical_analisys_Tosic_english.pdf. This is analysis of the Veljko Milkovic machine. I'm not endorsing the analysis, let alone the machine itself may not even be original. As Hans pointed out it may be a take on Constantinesco's ideas. This, however, has to be studied more which isn't the purpose of our current efforts. I'm citing this link just as a rough idea as to what should be done regarding the current project.

[i_ron]

. As Hans pointed out it may be a take on Constantinesco's ideas.

I have had some experience with Veljko Milkovic’s pendulum and have studied Constantinesco’s work. I don’t think Han’s references to these gentlemen are correct and should not be repeated willie nillie. 

It would be more correct to just say that Constantinesco, Milkovic and Würth’s field of endeavor are related, without the put down implied in Han’s remarks.

Ron