http://www.mooieenergie.nl/en/

[John Collins]

This link was posted on my blog yesterday. It reminds me of another one that was advertised as imminent but I have not seen anything else about it. Does anyone know anything about
http://www.mooieenergie.nl/en/. .

JC

[Furcurequs]

Hey John,

That's Sjack Abeling's website.

Mooie Energie (Beautiful Energy) is a website of Abeling Beheer BV, The Netherlands.

He went public with some claims around 2009, it seems, but has been mostly silent since.

Here's some of the old threads:



http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewt ... ck+abeling

http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewt ... ck+abeling

http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewt ... ck+abeling

http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewt ... ck+abeling

http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewt ... ck+abeling

[John Collins]

Thanks mate, I knew it looked familiar. So nothing to worry about!

JC

[Oystein]

That's correct!

I see no reason why Abelings principle should start working now.

[sequeen]

I also cannot see any possibility to run.

SK

[Furcurequs]

In looking over the revamped website, it seems they are now claiming a new pneumatic/hydraulic design that may only be a little over two years old and with which they've supposedly only recently been successful. The following was from their January 2018 newsletter.

More than 750 days ago we had a major breakthrough with a new invention. And last month we achieved our goal: We can transform gravity into a driving force; 100% kinetic energy, generated from the quadratic acceleration of weights in our “AirGravityMill�, driving a generator.

The “AirGravityMill� is a 100% closed pneumatic/hydraulic system and therefore does not require special permits.

Of course, what happened to their old design? We've seen this sort of thing before, though. Someone with a website and bold claims and little to nothing else.

[ovaron]

Abeling is a braggart, he has nothing, just hot air. In an older video he claims that his only problem is not to build a runner, but to stop the wheel again.
His design doesn't work, the picture on his website is a joke. Nothing to worry about, John.
I wish you to introduce the first runner to the public, you really deserve it.

[MrVibrating]

I suspect they've found the same principle i've discovered - they mention a small amount of conserved input energy, being an effective cause of a gain in energy from gravity.


It must be made absolutely clear to everyone that a gain in mechanical energy is only possible via an effective violation of Newton's 3rd law. This is an absolutely fundamental fact, and cannot be swept under the rug - if we have an effective mechanical CoE violation, then we also, necessarily, have a corresponding effective CoM violation that is causing it.

As such, i am clearly demonstrating this CoM violation, in a direct causal relationship with the energy gain, and place an absolute priority on insulating Earth from the stray momentum in any prospective energy-generating application.

I can assure everyone that gravity's role in this gain principle is utterly trivial and incidental - review my data-dump in the Community Buzz forum and you'll see the interaction being performed with gravity disabled, and a generic 9.81 N force being applied to the 'weight', which could thus be applied via any force at all.

Obviously, gravity is the most ubiquitous and accessible force around us, and also the most confounding to apply to mechanical OU - meeting all outward appearances of the mythical 'gravity mill'. This is doubtless part of the reason Bessler applied it this way, and the same assumptions apply with regard to Sjack Abeling's device.

It cannot be stressed emphatically enough that this is mechanical OU, not energy-from-gravity.

The momentum gain is sourced from whatever the applied force - gravity, EM force, springs, or even just inertial force ('G-force' from accelerating or rotating).

The energy gain is sourced from the Higgs field that is responsible for endowing matter with inertia.

Intuitively, one might suspect i have those back to front, but there is no mistake. It is what it is.

A machine that size, with the power densities being alluded to, is going to be sinking massive amounts of momentum to Earth.

In the experiment i'm currently demonstrating, 37 J of GPE is transformed seamlessly into 24 J of KE, plus another 48 J of PE loaded into a spring or similar store. So 72 J of mechanical work, from 37 J of GPE. This energy gain is accompanied by - and dependent upon - a 1.4 meter drop in the zero-momentum frame between Earth and the rising and falling weight. This is the exact, polar opposite of 'sustainable energy'.

This new energy gradient can be harnessed in relative safety, by replacing gravity with centrifugal 'G-force' in a horizontally-rotating drum, and applying two gain mechanisms 180° opposite one another, causing their net radial momenta to self-cancel.

Proceeding with a 'gravity wheel' design, without conclusively eliminating the net momentum necessarily being applied to Earth, is utterly unconscionable. This is not some excitable Chicken Licken parody - mechanical OU using gravity definitely necessitates applying excess momentum, from gravity, to Earth.

Combining the solution i've found with knowledge of what it's actually doing to Earth's resting momentum state, we should consider giving "Mooie Energie" a serious run for their money...

[MrVibrating]

Note how they allude to a "quadratic acceleration" - as in, "an acceleration that squares".

It is of course trivial that accelerations resulting from any constant force such as gravity square with time and distance. It would thus seem like technobabble in that context - why not just say "gravitational acceleration"?

Unless it in fact referred to some other quadratic acceleration, facilitated by the weight drop..

Note that in the gain principle i'm demonstrating, the 'free' negative work gradient - the actual form of 'the gain' itself - is the integral of centrifugal force times diameter for a mass radially-translating at constant velocity in an accelerating rotating reference frame.. whatever causes that angular acceleration is the input force and thus 'input energy', and the negative workload involved in preventing the further radial acceleration of the rotor mass forms the substance of the energy gained.

This energy gradient is shaped by the increasing angular inertia and centrifugal force with increasing radius - MoI is mass * radius^2, and CF/CP force is mass * velocity^2 / radius.

This seems a good fit for the 'quadratic acceleration' claim..

Note also the claim that:

"The working masses in the mill are set in motion with a small amount of external energy, activating the MDS systems. The ‘law of conservation of energy’ will make sure that approximately the same amount of energy remains in the mill for the next rotation."

This too seems to match the principle i'm showing - since the exploit is precisely the negative workload involved in keeping the radial translation speed constant, against the influence of CF force trying to speed it up, this radial KE is necessarily fully conserved, and so available for re-use by a subsequent cycle.

In my case it's 32 J - so, 2 J less than the 34 J gain margin - hence we could even afford to just waste it all to friction; we'd still have 2 Watts free mechanical power, plus 32 W of free heat.. Obviously that would be dumb when we can just bounce it off of a spring or recycle it in some other way, but this seems too close a match to be mere coincidence..

It is only the time-varying angular inertia of the 'ice-skater' effect that makes this feat possible, due to constancy of rest mass under all other forms of mechanical interaction.

It has to be this conserved radial KE of the varying MoI that they're referring to - it's not really an 'input energy' since it's necessarily conserved, rather than being converted into some other form of work or energy - you can just add another 32 J to each side of the efficiency equation, with no effect on the result, since its 'efficiency of conversion' from 32 J of radial KE to.. 32 J of radial KE, is 100%. The 'interaction efficiency' thus only concerns the ratio of mechanical work done in relation to the GPE input.

Bottom line i think is that if genuine, they have to be looking at the same interaction... the 'alternative options' are just too constrained, and the noted consistencies too fundamental to the gain principle..

[Andyb]

Dam, i wish someone would solve it ,then i could get on with building them and promoting them i feel built to do this, . and be very happy, so i am sad that yet again its a no go.Nuts.

[MrVibrating]

LOL it's solved, Andy. You're just not seeing what's right in front of you..

[eccentrically1]

lol

[sequeen]

Who solved? Mr. V?

[Furcurequs]

I've found what appears to be the international patent application for Sjack Abeling's latest stuff. It's different from his prior design.


Here's a clickable link to Abeling's website:

http://www.mooieenergie.nl/en/

Here's the patent application on Google Patents:

"Improved flywheel and device for rotating a shaft provided with the flywheel by means of gravitational force"

https://patents.google.com/patent/WO201 ... us+abeling

Here's a link to the pdf file:

https://patentimages.storage.googleapis ... 9472A1.pdf

Here are some more patents by Jacobus Johanne Abeling (who we know as Sjack Abeling). This lists both his first and his latest gravity wheel designs and some other things that seem to be unrelated.

https://patents.google.com/?inventor=ja ... us+abeling

The attachments are from screen shots of the drawings in the pdf file.

It appears he is using hydraulic, pneumatic or electrical actuators - and states that they require an external energy input - to shift levered weights on a flywheel. He seems to be claiming excess energy from gravity, though I don't see much in the way of a scientific explanation as to how that energy is supposedly derived.

I'm not sure if the pictures we've seen from the website match what the patent drawings show or not. Maybe I can make out an air tank and pneumatic actuators in the website photos, but if they are real, it all looks kind of big, messy and complicated.

Anyway, feel free to copy this post and the following to any other Abeling threads.

[Furcurequs]

The last drawing.