Sjack Abeling Gravity Wheel and the Worlds first Weight Power Plant

[AquariuZ]

@Stefan

Thanks for the tip about the rigid joints (Now he tells me!) 

I totally agree Abeling is hiding something, because at best you have a very low loss construction like one of the models I posted earlier. Not overunity. The construction as presented in the patent is not new and disproven on several occaisions over the years, same goes for the 2004 patent which Omnibus posted. Interesting as it is, friction kills it.

@Hans

Trial and error is the way to go, the theory can be defined later I totally agree. Tesla would strongly disagree, but he built his devices in his head and tested them before putting a single thing to paper. Edison was more a trial and error engineer hence the two could not stand each other.

If Tesla had a decent way to simulate models back in the day, who knows we would probably be terraforming our third planet by now.

@Omnibus, in the original KADweird just set the mass of the blue rod to 1 KG. The problem is that the dimensions of the rod are around 150 meters by 20 meters and it has a mass of less than a gram. Hence "impossible" because there is no such material. That, combined with the for me new discovery of the rigid joint factor will explain away most of the erratic behaviour. Pity about the joints.

@Cherryman: in your model you have a tiny opening in the ring structure through which the balls fly out. If you move the polygon opening to another location where the spheres cannot get to it the spheres will probably be stopped correctly.

AZ

[mondrasek]

Here is a self starter, we had a discussion about it I believe a year ago..

There are more out there, I cannot explain this one, it is an unbalanced huge construction.

WM2D is calculating the effects of forces on each model piece one at a time.  The analysis is sequential and iterative.  So it looks at the initial conditions of part #1 and calculates where it should move to by the end of the selected time step and what speed and direction while be the result of this iteration.  It then looks at part #2 and does the same.  But what position of part #1 should influence the calculations on part #2?  The position and speed of part #1 at the beginning of the iteration or the one just calculated as the result of this iteration?  Neither.  The results need to be calculated simultaneously, and this the computer cannot do.  To get the best possible approximation you want the time step and integration error for the sim to be as small as possible.  As the time step and integration errors approach zero (get very very small) the sim should approach reality (in theory).

Look at the time step (Animation Step) and Integration Error in this sim.  They are at .25 s and 1.627 meters respectively.  The defaults for these values are .05 s and .010 meters.  So they have both been made purposely larger to introduce more error?  Of course the result is a poor approximation of reality.  Set them back to default or lower (better) and this accelerating wheel does not accelerate.

It is easy to cheat the software.  That is why I advise using the smallest time step and integration errors that you can stand while designing.  The closer you get to what appears to be a desired effect, the smaller you should make these numbers.  Big values are only useful for gross and quick approximations like testing two similar concepts (like small slot profile changes) to see quickly if one idea is better than another.

M.

[AquariuZ]

BTW: Whatever happened to Bob and his piston gravity wheel? That one looked really promising.

Was it/he buried?

Was it ever modeled?

[AquariuZ]

Look at the time step (Animation Step) and Integration Error in this sim.  They are at .25 s and 1.627 meters respectively.  The defaults for these values are .05 s and .010 meters.  So they have both been made purposely larger to introduce more error?  Of course the result is a poor approximation of reality.  Set them back to default or lower (better) and this accelerating wheel does not accelerate.

Even better! See previous.

It is so easy to mis tweak, I think niente (author) may have hoaxed this particular model on purpose just to ruffle some feathers.....

The more tweakable things the better, but wm2d lacks a single real world switch which normalizes all variables to real world settings including air, gravity and integrator settings...

[Cherryman]

New simulation about the Abeling wheel from the
ab-az-cm-2.wm2d file.

I removed the motor and applied just a force onto the wheel for 400 frames to speed it up.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rM8SmU9pjcI

But also this does not work.
Just elliptical pathes in a wheel do not work to get a gravity wheel working.

This animation has a force applied for the first 400 frames, to help speed it up.
After the 400 frames it must work by itsself and you see, how it slows down and then stops

I tried several of those designs, but it lacks the "extra" to give it additional force..

Same principal, little different look but that doesn't matter.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nSaKQEn0Wwc&feature=channel_page

The one i did found most promising was this one:

Notice how the ball fly's UP the ramp due to its own speed. On that moment the ball goes up the ramp, it is faster and detaches itself from the spoke..   So the wheel is not bothered by the ball in the upmovement.. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GBygA2vOHx4&feature=channel