Sjack Abeling's Gravity Wheel.

[greendoor]

This place loves animated graphics. Woohaa - look at it run! But practically all animated graphics never show that energy input is required to make it run.

I'm too lazy to make animated graphics - I prefer to ramble on in the hope of inpiration striking. Annoying I suppose.

One of my first rants over a year ago when I came here was a similar idea about letting a weight fall slowly down a spiral, accumulating rotational velocity so that by the time it hit bottom, it had much energy. This could be extracted via a pony brake for useful work, and then the stationary wheel be lifted up the pole by a matching weight coming down.

I didn't factor in that work done by gravity in inducing rotation is basically the same as a wight falling down an inclined plane. The force can be diverted into a horizontal component, at the expense of the vertical component. Parallelogram of forces at work. If this could work, we could simply have a mass falling down an inclined plane winching up an identical mass straight up - but this never happens. Such a system just stalls, because the force on the inclined plane side has a lesser vertical component because it has been diverted horizontally.

[greendoor]

Silverfox - welcome to the forum. It's a real education. Enjoy the ride. :)

Personally - I'm sick of paying for energy, and I want to build a free energy machine. A gravity wheel is the most compelling approach for me. It seems a matter of historical fact that a humble healer & mechanic named Bessler succeeded, at the very time that the brilliant minds of the day were writing the 'laws' of science that 'prove' this to be impossible. I find this strangly ironic yet very believable.

[Grimer]

Well James...

...
A ball that is spinning and launched straight-up will travel higher than an identical one that isn't spinning, even and most particularly when that test is conducted in the strictest of vacuums, as it has been.

What's more, it also comes down faster to arrive in the very same amount of elapsed time. There's a certain sense to that in regards to the presence of additional energy or possibly even some form of induced magnetism owing to that spin but what about it explains gravity itself being stretched like a rubber band and then snapping right back just exactly as if it were?
...

That's news to me. Can you give a reference, or better still a link?

[jim_mich]

I'm trying to remember who it was that placed a motor inside of a box and then tested the time it took for the box and motor to drop from a balcony. The test used electronic photo sensors for accuracy. It was found that it dropped faster when the motor was spinning and slower when the motor was not spinning.

It is well known that a spinning bullet will travel higher and farther. This was always thought to be due to differences of wind resistance because a spinning bullet doesn't tumble.

[bluesgtr44]

Way, way behind on this. I had a lot of catching up to do on this one....what caught my attention was the example that Grimer put up and the similarities to one of my ideas I posted a good while back ago. The transfer of the point of contact between the axle and the rim to try and achieve a gain of sorts in the position of the mass/weight.

What gave me a bit of a nudge on this was Fletchers thoughts on ADL (aero dynamic lift) a good while back ago. Although, my application of this was way off from the point he was making, it was that little nudge that sent me along this path.

It was the one using my "spiral wheel" design and there were two points where I thought if I could apply a method to shift the weights naturally, the offset wouldn't take away from the overall system. I still think of this one and have not been able to totally eliminate it from the scrap pile that I have accumlated of "definite non-runners". Instead of using the typical ramp as Grimer has done, I took the conical design riding down a separating rail to induce the mass/weight to naturally roll further out on the descending side and then again, roll further in on the ascending side. I really don't if it would work but I have serious doubts. I know I personally do not have the skills to actually build anything of this nature. This is not new here as many already know. It just happens to fall in line with what Grimer is presenting.


Steve


edit: A couple of extra things to consider....gyroscopics and how it will apply to the actual weight of the mass, we already know that this will be a factor, but I have no idea how it would apply to what Grimer is presenting. Another thing is the contact point and direction of the shift from the axle to the perimeter of the weight/wheel device (it is a wheel in and of itself, is it not?), it would need to be in the direction of rotation of the main wheel so as not to take away from the system, but presumably add to it.

[silverfox]

Thanks for the welcomes and that reference for Grimer or anyone else interested in a updating their spin on spin is "Bruce DePalma".

That plus "spinning ball experiment" ought to give you googol of Googles to oogle on that subject including DePalma's own thoughts on it after spending about five years trying to wrap his own brain around those results.

He was an interesting man and has became something of an icon in the alternative energy field. His own pet project was something he simply called the "N machine" that gradually grew out of the results of that particular experiment. It was said to be a genuine over-unity device. That project, like not a few others, didn't reach fruition because of his own untimely death.

Others have also found some correlation between that experiment and similar anomalies that seem to surround spinning gyros and flyweels that standard theories can't seem to adequately explain either. Those will also be peppered throughout that search. There's not much point in giving you merely one site when you can pick the ones the best suit your own individual interests along any of those various lines.

[Grimer]

Thanks for your reply. I knew about the Bruce DePalma experiment but the results were hardly convincing and as far as I remember they were not carried out in a vacuum - which was the point which arose my interest. If you should come across statistically significant experiments carried out in a vacuum they would be very interesting.

[silverfox]

Well Grimer...

I think it has pretty much been established, if only begrudgingly accepted, that any spinning ball both goes up a bit higher and falls down a bit faster in the atmosphere. What has not been done or established is what, if anything, the atmosphere might have to do with it.

To my mind there is something inherently "wrong-headed" in focusing on that aspect when we are talking about an iron ball exhibiting that kind of behavior in relatively close and closed in quarters.

Now we live on an enormous spinning iron ball ourselves in the form of the planet and it has some quite powerfull magnetic, gravitic, and polarizing forces and effects that have something to do with all that spinning it does.

By spinning any iron ball we are already not only imitating that but directly under those influences that it may very well have some affintiy for spontaneously or sympathetically acquiring and taking on itself, if only for the duration of it's own spin.

Now going up higher and coming down faster could both concievably be caused by the very same thing and quite logically so.... if that cause is some form of "polarity". It may be north or south, or positive and negative, or something that's naturally developed out of both of those again.

So there is a distinct possibility that while the ball is spinning but still in direct contact with the earth it acquires some form of an alligned polarity with it. As that contact is broken that polarity could suddenly reverse itself just as breaking any bar magnet in half does which would immediately add a bit of a "repulsive" force to it's upward thrust as well as inevitably see it turn 180 degrees around and have it's attractive pole help increase it's speed back by the enhanced "attraction" involved.

That's what the experiment actually suggested to me right off the bat and that's why I think that it's really worth some further investigation. In short I wouldn't expect the effects to be less, let alone missing entirely in a vaccum, but most likely even more pronounced.

[primemignonite]

Aspects of this discussion are reminiscent of Prof. Laithwaite's little run-in with the Royal Society, with his demonstration to them of a similar effect.

Other than for such a like purpose, the spinning of the weights in the Abeling configuration don't make sense to me. It is odd that, if it truly is real, this phenomenon observed variously has not yet been nailed-down-sure.

Also, De Palma's "N-Machine" always reminded me of the Time Machine in George Pal's movie of the same name.

When around it, I got a strong feeling that it might not be too wise to move too fast, what with one's head filled with fillings and all.

I do wonder what became of the Grand Creature.

James

[silverfox]

Ah yes... the little dissertation that created the same kind of stir that Professor Carey did when he challenged the whole idea of plate techtonics with his Expanding Earth Theory that was just as tantalizingly obvious as the orthodox establishment decreed that to be downright impossible too.

Only in Carey's case being being one of the most pre-eminent and experienced geologists on the planet spared him from the kind of open ostracism and humiliating derision Laithwaite was so deliberately subjected to.

Spinning obviously changes the way gravity influences any object by presumably inducing a little more of it's own inside it and most likely something of a magnetic field and temporary poles within it too. The anomalies with gyros and flywheels do make some if not entirely perfect sense from that standpoint.

It seems a lot better to me to incline my thinking along those lines than accept that theories that have nothing at all to say about it must somehow be right instead.

[rod]

Any thoughts about the Abeling Gravity wheel using skateboard type trolleys with wide axels that have round weights for wheels that ride on the ascending external wood track then the cart at just past 12 oclock does a wheelstand and flips CCW and falls down into the hockey stick shape cutouts and then starts it way up again.
All in all the skateboard (if you like) might rotate 3 times 180deg.
I will try to build a small balsa model.
ps I also feel there is an internal track that helps the sliding down process from 12 oclock to 4oclock. a free fall almost thus the sudden stop at the foot shape slot propells the wheel around.
this wheel would travel quite fast.
speed = more power -from gravity our friend.
regards Rod

[AB Hammer]

Only 2 big question.

If Sjack Abeling's Gravity Wheel is working? Why is there not some form of video of it doing work, or at least running? Claims with out show, are big red flags in my book.

[rlortie]

A quote from Abeling's home page located at:
http://mooieenergie.nl/index.php/en/home

This new physical theory will explain how to generate energy by rotating two bodies with the same mass/weight. The weight of the bodies together with ... (intentionally omitted) and the rotational velocity determine the amount of energy that can be generated.

So what is intentionally omitted? Possible augmentation from an outside source such as natural gas, the prime source of energy in the area the plant is to be built?

Ralph

[path_finder]

WM simulation tentative of Sjack Abeling wheel :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rM8SmU9pjcI
associated comment: New simulation about the Abeling wheel. But also this does not work. Just elliptical pathes in a wheel do not work to get a gravity wheel working. This animation has a force applied for the first 400 frames, to help speed it up. After the 400 frames it must work by itsself and you see, how it slows down and then stops
and more:
Simulation of Gravity Machine with @Dusty's Rotor:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vf37W1C4uzc

[Grimer]

Does that simulation take rotation of the weights into account?