Sjack Abeling's Gravity Wheel.

[Fcdriver]

Using a calculator before building would have helped with this device! The weight difference was not enough, the inner lift is fine but the outer distance is not enough. A 1 to 4 ratio is the least that would allow rotation. The outer distance would have to be 4 times the inner distance from center. The inch lbs of torque to lift vs the inch lbs of the power stoke. The size of the weights limit the inner distance, then the outer distance has to be increased. Why was this built?

[rlortie]

Fcdriver,

It has been quite some time since I have posted on this forum, but to your above response, I could not pass up!

To increase leverage, you must increase diameter of wheel. This is referred to as the "height for width" syndrome. The farther you extend the descending weights the less number you have delivering useful downward torque or leverage.

No matter the size or number of weights, you are always attempting to pick up more concentrated weight on the ascent that the descent will offer torque for.

I do not believe you will find any builder that will not agree with me. Abeling's design is not only a joke it is a farce; and has been ever since he first proposed it. Even the utility company that he stated was backing him is a fraud, you cannot find it listed anywhere on the internet.

Ralph

[3decimal14]

Looking at fig 6 in this:
http://freenrg.info/Sjack_Abeling/Paten ... lation.htm

From 5 a clock in wheel i see that weight if smoothly forced inwards th center of wheel. Does this not create a torc in the wheels center?

[rlortie]

3decimal14

Yes! unfortunately it is counter-torque! lifting and pushing the weights towards axle, concentrating their combined weight. This adds up to more weight and friction than you have leverage to lift.

If this design worked, it would have been in commercial use years ago!

Ralph

[Fcdriver]

Fcdriver,

It has been quite some time since I have posted on this forum, but to your above response, I could not pass up!

To increase leverage, you must increase diameter of wheel. This is referred to as the "height for width" syndrome. The farther you extend the descending weights the less number you have delivering useful downward torque or leverage.

No matter the size or number of weights, you are always attempting to pick up more concentrated weight on the ascent that the descent will offer torque for.

I do not believe you will find any builder that will not agree with me. Abeling's design is not only a joke it is a farce; and has been ever since he first proposed it. Even the utility company that he stated was backing him is a fraud, you cannot find it listed anywhere on the internet.

Ralph

There goes the problem, people keep thinking it's about the lifting and dropping of the weight, but it's the pushing out at 2:00 and the returning at 4:00. Imbalance does not have to be 180 degrees, but only brief. Bessler's wheel turned freely back and forth, meaning balanced. If imbalanced it would be brief impulses of imbalance, not long strokes.

[AB Hammer]

There goes the problem, people keep thinking it's about the lifting and dropping of the weight, but it's the pushing out at 2:00 and the returning at 4:00. Imbalance does not have to be 180 degrees, but only brief. Bessler's wheel turned freely back and forth, meaning balanced. If imbalanced it would be brief impulses of imbalance, not long strokes.

Fcdriver

Yes and no but you are seeing what has to be seen. In a wheel at 60rpm you have 1 second to make all actions. This seemingly takes short pulses. Now in a wheel running at 30rpm of course you have 2 seconds to make all actions in a wheel. All in and out, or up and down actions are happening at the same time. So when designing you have to have this view in mind. The one wheel I had running at 60rpm was not making full actions but short pulses but would not have much to pull from except the impact on my thumb searching for the clicking sound. This happened when I grabbed the stand to pull it out and found the click the hard way.

[3decimal14]

The weight is falling and have momentum. Think of a ball in a wire moving around a pole, getting closer and closer to center.

[quote="rlortie"]
Yes! unfortunately it is counter-torque! lifting and pushing the weights towards axle, concentrating their combined weight. This adds up to more weight and friction than you have leverage to lift.

If this design worked, it would have been in commercial use years ago!

Ralph[/quote]