Sjack Abeling Gravity Wheel REAL World Replications

[alfilmx]

Just reading this again on his website:

"This new physical theory will explain how to generate energy by rotating two bodies with the same mass/weight."

Why does he specifically mention TWO WEIGHTS?

What could he possibly mean....

So close, yet so far away...

Two weights... Connected? Two weights make one dumbbell? I do not think so. I would regard a dumbbell as a single weight. so two dumbbells then...


Hmm.. Why two. They are connected?...

"Q: Where does the extra energy come from?
A: The weights are applied two by two: one weight is pushing/falling, the other one has to be lifted. Due to the invention of the dual lifting system , the falling/pushing weight will hardly be hindered by the weight that has to be lifted.
In the top left of the system the weight is accelerated (like with shot put). The weight is moving faster than the system, and as the system catches the weight it is propelled forward. The path of the weights in the system is determined up front so the weights are always in a fixed position relative to each other and that will reduce the drag of the lifted weight on the falling/pushing weight. The system will start rotating from any position. Extra force is generated in the lower left of the system and on top it is transferred to the system itself, generating the extra energy. If the system would fail to catch the propelled weight, the weight would be ejected from the system with force."

It is almost like a riddle... Who will be the first to interpret it correctly?

If the dumbbells are connected in pairs... How? If not a spring maybe a bar?

But that cannot be because the distance between the pairs varies as one of the set travels around the egg on the lower side.... It must be a connector which varies its lenghts. Like a spring....

Just thinking out loud here.............


HMMMMMM

maybe

[Cloxxki]

Would one of you please respond to my suggestion that the weight in the left half is allowed/enabled to advance on the wheel? To the inside on a slot as we know it, perhaps past a revolving lock, and back out another slot, having it end up further on the rim.
Supposing this works, you get rid of the left hand weights quicker, at least in terms of radial distance/time. Weights are more to the right by definition now.
The lower ramp picks up the weight at 6:00, but places it back slightly up. To cash in the advantage gained. When this works, there is no way around it, you have more weight working than being lifted. The path is preferable as well, close to the egg shape.
Thank you.

Furthermore,
Abeling seems to ephasize the number of bodies as 2. Perhaps more weights would disrupt the harmonic action he discovered or devised. That one NEEDS that extreme start-stop action in the wheel, and more weight would only smooth that out in an unpreferable way.
I would think will be worth to really investigate the phases the wheel goes through with a few different slot types. Analyse the inter-acting of the bodies. When one it on the ramp, how does that effect the other, and the wheel it may or may not at that time be attached to?

@AquariuZ:
Would you be able to identify a phase where a spring could be "efficiently" loaded, and another where it could be released (in part enacting a member the system), to only net a gain in energy? Else, I have a feeling the spring route will be one of the many commendable attempts we've seen over the centuries.
The member outside the wheel could be a ratcheting parallel wheel. When the spring is allowed to unload, it has something to press off against. The hard part in my view will be to load the spring in a way that takes less energy from the rest of the system than is being stored.

[AquariuZ]

Cloxxi, working on it right now to see what forces are involved.

Your own idea merits more investigation, but like I said it does not seem to fit the "D" Abeling is showing.

IMAGES can no longer be seen in the forum, anyone else have this problem?

Like the previous post, if you click on the image it says "Error". The image is not shown by default anymore. Most likely an error in SMF. I just sent a message to stefan.

[Cloxxki]

@AquariuZ,
Thanks for thinking with me.
Actually, the way I see it, the shape and function of the wheel slots would dramatically change, while the D shape of the weight's path would remain 100% intact, along with the placement of the ramps.

Where does it say the weight has to return to the same hook on the wheel by 0:00-1:00 which it left around 5:00-6:00? The "D" or flattened oval path I feel needs to remain the basis.

Yes, pics are requiring moderation or something it seems.

[LarryC]

In my last post in this thread (#9), I brought up the parallel problem which caused a jam in Rusty's machine. Rusty posted he would concentrate on building larger track wheels. I wasn't sure that this would help as the roller size would still cause a larger than the designed acceleration at some point in the upper left.

So, first I graphed out what would happen with smaller rollers. This helped some, but it would be impractical due to the decrease in main weight rod size and added heat and friction with smaller rollers.

The best solution would be to have the weight at the intersection of the stand guides and the radial guides as shown in Fig 4. No parallel problem and no larger than designed acceleration. 

The attachment shows a Sjack weight design proposal which meets the intersection criteria in all areas and allows for appropriate sized rollers.

The bottom of the orange rollers would ride on the external guide stands.

The top of the yellow rollers would ride on the carriers radial guides.

The blue rollers allow the weight to freewheel, as any attempt to turn would be a waste of energy. The orange/yellow rollers would flip around on every turn.

The side of the purple plates would be a good place to have a glass coating as they would slide against the guide edges to keep them aligned.

Regards, Larry