Sjack Abeling Gravity Wheel and the Worlds first Weight Power Plant

[Cloxxki]

Sjaak had allang al een filmpje op youtube moeten gooien van zijn draaiende machine, al was het alleen maar om de schijn van een hoax te doen kortsluiten.
Jammer dat ie niets werkelijks van zich laat horen.
Hij heeft het ei van Columbus gevonden volgens mij maar hij wil er graag het maximum uitslepen wat hem niet gaat lukken de PTB kennende.

Waarom iets "mooie energie" noemen, en dan gaan voor de makkelijkste verzilvering? Als de man echt omhoog zit kan ik het me voorstellen. Maar heeft hij wel de juiste mensen om zich heen verzameld?
Als hij een patent pending heeft, kan hij net zo goed een werkend apparaat tonen, om meer aandacht te krijgen, en buitenlandse investeerders geinteresseerd te krijgen.
Als blijkt dat zijn ontwerp echt werkt, ga ik meteen aan de slag met een ander ontwerp op hetzelfde principe, en ga ik grote press papiers aanbieden die lekker onverstoorbaar doorgaan, jaren lang. Al verdien je er weinig mee, je bouwt wel een bedrijf op, het is dan als elk bedrijf, en die kunnen groot worden.

Kunnen wij als NL uitvinders iets doen? Ik vertrouw ENECO toch minder met dat patent dan mijzelf...

[Omnibus]

@mondrasek,

The slots change the angle that the weights lean against the wheel.  So the angle of the slots may cause more of the weight to lean against the guides which are attached to the Earth.  The component that is pressing against the guides/Earth we agree can not cause rotation.  So the resultant force that *can* cause rotation is dependant on the angle of the slots.  You are not taking this into account.

That’s incorrect.

The torque-generating force can only be derivable from the given weight. No surface this given weight might be in contact with can generate more mass (respectively weight) than the given circular weight. Therefore, for a given circular weight and a given length of the arm the resulting toque in the presence of surfaces the observed weight is contact with can only be less than the torque when such surfaces are absent and never greater than the torque in absence of touching surfaces.

The mistake that guides can somehow generate somehow more mass is at the bottom of your misunderstanding and you have to correct this.

[Omnibus]

@mondrasek,

Don't speak for @eisenficker2000. There's no way that he would agree that mass can be generated when such isn't there. And, never mind instructors. Discuss this with me and be reasonable.

[Omnibus]

Yes this is without friction.

This is the answer found by people that build the wheel.

This is the answer wm2d gives you.

But you disagree with my static analysis?

OK, I'll do a dynamic analysis.

I will assume, as you believe, the system would rotate clockwise, I'll rotate the system one degree from angle a=29.5 to angle a=30.5. I will call the height of the pivot P

for the top weight, due to the inertialess catch (or the shape of the slot) the distance from the hub is constant. cos (a) is height/distance, so height = P + cos(a)/1

I'm adding, because the weight is above the Pivot

for the bottom weight, the vertical guide keeps the horizontal distance of the center of the mass from the hub a constant (in this case 0.45m), so the height of the mass is determined by tan(a) = 0.45/height, so height = P - 0.45/tan(a)

I'm (EDIT:typo) subtracting because the weight is below the Pivot

travelling from 29.5 to 30.5 degrees, the difference in height of the top weight would be END - START
(P + cos(30.5)) - (P + cos(29.5)),
= cos(30.5) - cos(29.5)

the difference in height of the lower weight would be
(P - 0.45/tan(30.5)) - (P - 0.45/tan(29.5)),
= 0.45 . (1/tan(29.5) - 1/tan(30.5))

at this point, I need to use my five figure tables, or a calculator. For speeds sake, I'll use a calculator

the difference in height for the top weight is

cos(30.5) - cos(29.5)
= 0.86162916044152574545106204815061 - 0.87035569593989968041595026212419
(quick check, the end is higher than the start... yes)
= -0.0087265354983739349648882139735844
(quick check, the object has got lower... yes)

the difference in height for the bottom weight is
0.45 . (1/tan(29.5) - 1/tan(30.5))
= 0.45 . (1/0.5657727781877700776025887010584 - 1/0.58904501642055107438483608526909 - )
= 0.45 . (1.7674940162428909073599175537677 - 1.6976631193260889100263622699454)
(quick check - START (P - 1/tan(29.5) is further below the pivot than END (P - 1/tan(20.5)... yes)
= 0.45 . 0.069830896916801997333555283822369
= 0.031423903612560898800099877720066
(quick check, the weight has gone up)

so turning clockwise the top weight has converted ~0.0087 potential energy into kinetic energy, to give to the system, and the bottom weight has taken ~0.0314 kinetic energy from the system to convert into potential energy. so turning the system clockwise has caused a LOSS of kinetic energy. So... the system would not actually accelerate clockwise, it would accelerate counter clockwise.

I told you where your mistake is and you don't need to beat around the bush trying to prove the unprovable. A given weight can only give rise to a gien torque when unobstructed. When obstructed the torque can only be less and never more that what it was when unobstructed.

Learn this once and for all and don't try to finagle. It's just a waste of forum resources.

[Omnibus]

Nice work stgpc,

You don't need all that though to see that such a device cannot work.

In any gravity device you have a weight that drops from say A to B and is supposed to do work on the way down. In order to re-start the cycle the weight has to be returned to A.

Now, the most efficient way we know of doing this is to lift it straight up as in an Atwood machine. There you have only minor friction losses in the bearing of the pulley.

The next best way is to roll it up an inclined plane. Here you have the same losses in the bearing plus the friction between the plane and the rolling weight.

One of the worst ways to lift the weight is via a scissor mechanism as proposed. Here you have the forces between the wheel and the ramp acting against each other, preventing the weight to rotate to minimise friction and in fact acting as a brake. It needs a lot of energy to overcome this, energy that simply is not there.

These forces, though very really present, do not show up if you only look at the centre of gravity and torque generated by the individual weights.

Simple as that. See diagram.

Hans von Lieven
                       

This is inapplicable in the present analysis where friction is absent. In absence of friction the machine in question is a perpetuum mobile. What will happen when friction is present is another story and the first thing which has to be considered is the reality of perpetuum mobile which can only be achieved with certain very special constructions. These constructions may not provide the best conditions for the lowest friction but the are perpetuum mobile in the limit which other constructions with more favorable (less friction) are not. Therefore, in no way should the fact that certain constructions appear to be friction deprived should be an argument against the principle possibility of producing a practical perpetuum mobile. Like I said, however, discussing this is furthe down the line. At this moment @mondrasek and @stgpcm cannot figure out even the simplest case -- in lack of friction. Thus, that has to be resolved first.