Overunity.com Archives is Temporarily on Read Mode Only!



Free Energy will change the World - Free Energy will stop Climate Change - Free Energy will give us hope
and we will not surrender until free energy will be enabled all over the world, to power planes, cars, ships and trains.
Free energy will help the poor to become independent of needing expensive fuels.
So all in all Free energy will bring far more peace to the world than any other invention has already brought to the world.
Those beautiful words were written by Stefan Hartmann/Owner/Admin at overunity.com
Unfortunately now, Stefan Hartmann is very ill and He needs our help
Stefan wanted that I have all these massive data to get it back online
even being as ill as Stefan is, he transferred all databases and folders
that without his help, this Forum Archives would have never been published here
so, please, as the Webmaster and Creator of these Archives, I am asking that you help him
by making a donation on the Paypal Button above.
You can visit us or register at my main site at:
Overunity Machines Forum



Sjack Abeling Gravity Wheel and the Worlds first Weight Power Plant

Started by AquariuZ, April 03, 2009, 01:17:07 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 61 Guests are viewing this topic.

mondrasek

@eisenficker2000,

This model is much more difficult for me to do correct vector diagrams on than the earlier one of the sim that I did.  In that earlier one I was calculating the vectors on spherical weight where the guide and slots were in contact with the OD of the sphere and the correct vector angles were obvious.  When we look at your analysis where we holding the weights at their CoG, the angle of the slots becomes much less obvious.  I looked at it several times and had convinced myself that your method was correct for that ideal case each time.  It was only when Omni's analysis of the complete 45 degrees of rotation gave unexpected results that I was able to realize how we were missing the angle of the slots.  And in my recent exchanges with Omni it is ever more clear to me how tricky this case is.  And that is why I love gravity wheel concepts.  Though they seem so simple, there is a lot to be learned in order to understand them.

I am still curious why this design will keel if supported at the CoG of the weights.  I believe it would be due to either 1) energy input to the system when the guides are installed (similar to why the CoG of the system is not coincident with the axle), or b) due to the fact that there are two different angles in the slot, or c) something I have yet to learn or consider.

M.

eisenficker2000

@Mondrasek Yes, the vectors are much more complex and confusing in the end..

I wonder what the effect is of curved slots, like Dusty is using.. And no too much work to calculate their effects.

I am trying to make a simple computer animated model (in VB). One weight only, but the geometry of the track makes it already challenging. Let alone to get all the vectors and their geometry. And I am already leaving out the dynamic part....


Omnibus

I think you should not now try to twist the whole thing every which way to appear you're right. You now understand @eisenficker2000's method is the correct one. Let's move on.

Omnibus

Quote from: eisenficker2000 on May 16, 2009, 06:07:01 PM
@Mondrasek Yes, the vectors are much more complex and confusing in the end..

I wonder what the effect is of curved slots, like Dusty is using.. And no too much work to calculate their effects.

I am trying to make a simple computer animated model (in VB). One weight only, but the geometry of the track makes it already challenging. Let alone to get all the vectors and their geometry. And I am already leaving out the dynamic part....

The dynamic part should, of course, be left out. The wheel may be made to turn very slowly (to avoid talk about centrifugal and centripetal force) and yet make full turns which is the gist of the phenomenon.

Now that we have definitive proof for the reality of the phenomenon, optimization is in order, indeed.

i_ron

Quote from: Omnibus on May 16, 2009, 06:45:27 PM

Now that we have definitive proof for the reality of the phenomenon, optimization is in order, indeed.

No definite proof has been shown... only mistakes in math.

Ron