Sjack Abeling Gravity Wheel and the Worlds first Weight Power Plant

[Omnibus]

@mondrasek,

Now, this is with track shifted to the right. Everything else the same. This time won't work either way -- both at 0.01m and 0.0001m integration error. The integration error message again popping up at the same place for both thresholds.

EDIT: Just tried it w/ track shifted in the opposite direction -- to the left. Doesn't work at both thresholds here too. So, why is it that at one particular position of the track it works at 0.01m integration accuracy while at any other position of the track it won't work? Could it be that a position for 0.0001m integration accuracy can be found where it will work as well? Is this a matter only of optimization?

Will be interesting to see what Stefan will come up with when he has the chance to apply his idea for two wheels offset by 30 degrees, connected with a shaft.

[mondrasek]

Omni,

Well, that sim is a bit of a beast and will take some time on my humble work computer.  But right off the bat it definitely looks like a problem with too large a time step and integration error.  You should notice two things:  1)  Some of the balls are spinnning when they should not, and 2) the balls are interfering with the walls of the slots and ramps very much visually (the program even complains of that with and error for me).  These are due to an interference error that the sim is likely trying to resolve by turning the wheel (the wrong way even).  Both are symptoms of an iterative "resonance" in the calculations.

I'll check it out more tomorrow, but for starters I would say simplify the model first!  This is a symetric design and can be tested with only two slots and two balls 180 degrees apart.  Adding the other slots is wasting CPU cycles and adds nothing to the sim.  It would only add additional torque to the output (2 x slot pairs = 2 x output, 4 x slot pairs = 4 x output) if it exists.  No reason to have the extra slots in the sim.  Not for a symetric system.  Once the sim is slimmed down to it's base elements we can probably crank up the accuracy with less errors and still maintain some more realistic playback speeds.  Just erasing all but two balls may be enough.

I'm off for now.  Should be back in the morning, EST.

[Omnibus]

See, the question is why this iterative "resonance" is favorable at only one particular disposition of the same elements and all the rest the same? As for the turning of the balls when they shouldn't, it's also observed with 0.0001m integration error.

I'm reluctant to decrease the set of elements because that particular set may be the one that brings about the essence of the effect. Also, introducing external torque to substitute for the missing elements doesn't seem to me as an acceptable approach. I'd rather play with the parameters and compare different placements of the same elements. We have to see if the program can handle that, otherwise we should just drop it because the conclusions we draw by using it, either way, will be unreliable.

[Cloxxki]

@Dusty:
Did you on your current wheel ever try to give the wheel a really good starting jerk, to see if the system would overcome its lack of first turn efficiency? Seems that the slow moving weight generate relatively his friction. Until you confirm, who know, perhaps with a bit more weight and a good jerk, you have a motor!

@All: skip the rest of this post if you're not into looking ahead.

Dusty's machine will work next time, I'm pretty sure. Abeling has cracked the code, be it the same as Bessler's or not. After this there will be new versions of similar concept as well I'm sure.

The math works out, right?
The weight in the hockey stick hook provided work of, say, 100cm.
As the weight exits the wheel at 0cm height, is has even on the first rotation suffient velocity to roll up to 60cm or so until the wheel picks it up again.
The other weight then does that work, and there's energy to spare for friction and acceleration (of the wheel I mean).

I envision within a year, we'll have build contests to make the fastest spinning/most efficient/silent Abeling's Wheel, working with a resticted weight or height. Desktop toy size, perhaps? And we'll see slow-motion vids of the most spectacular self-destructions.
There's the patent infringement, but perhaps if you only build it for yourself, and only one unique machine, it might be OK.

What about permanent magnets for weights, to do away with surface and bearing friction on the machine? :-) That might actually be an idea for the large scale versions too. The weights could become more and more banana-shaped. Or skateboards as mentioned, if you will.

Abeling can now come forth with his working machine, as I'm pretty sure Dusty will be very close to it when get gets his next version up.

[Dusty]

Hi,

I see it's time for a little update.  I've been working on building the six foot wheels.  I've added a couple attachments just to see the size of the new wheels.  I have a bunch of work to do in cutting the slots and cutting up the frame and making it larger.  I'm working on it every day as time allows. 

I do read every post and would like to thank everyone who offered ideas and support, you know who you are!  Thank you very much. 

Dusty