Sjack Abeling's Gravity Wheel.

[silverfox]

I believe, friend Grimer, that this is the most demonstrative simulation of the simple principle involved in Abeling's wheel, at least as it has been described. Nothing new under the Sun, as they say.

Of course any overbalancing must be provided by your own imagination but I'm quite sure your expertise in that is more than match for that even if you do have to tilt your head 90 degrees while watching it. LOL

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Inter ... el_ani.gif

[Grimer]

I believe, friend Grimer, that this is the most demonstrative simulation of the simple principle involved in Abeling's wheel, at least as it has been described. Nothing new under the Sun, as they say.

Of course any overbalancing must be provided by your own imagination but I'm quite sure your expertise in that is more than match for that even if you do have to tilt your head 90 degrees while watching it. LOL

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Inter ... el_ani.gif

Very pretty.

When you subject it to the PMM test and stare at it for long enough you realise that to drive it you really need the left hand side to be heavier than the right.

[rod]

Hi all,
Who ever posted the youtube clip titled KAD6 and KAD8
are on the money with the Sjack Abeling Gravity Wheel.
This design has speed and random ball collisions to keep the wheel spinning.
I'm gonna make one!
:)

[AB Hammer]

rod

I would research it a bit more before you build. For instance here is a drawing of a predecessor of it. This basic idea has been run through the mill so to speak for hundreds of years.

[primemignonite]

This is really interesting, AB! Thanks for finding it.

A quick study reveals why it could not work, it being
the old height v. width loser-game.

However, the Abeling approach would seem to
display some differences.

For instance, the path taken by the latter is elipsoidal,
whereas the old classical one, as illustrated, is the
more prosaic.

Abeling's path may be the 'dodge' that somehow
finesses results, as compared to the usual.

"The very trick of accomplishment itself, Sir, is
to fool Mother Nature if you can, which is not nice!"

Also, there is no top-wise gearing of the rollers to the
support.

The jury is stil patiently out on the Abeling proposition.

James

[BAR]

I do not understand. This wheel simply can not work by what we agree to know about physical systems. So if this does work can anyone please explain it to me? Please even if you are not good at physics I stiil would like your theory and suggestions.

[primemignonite]

BAR, AB is not proposing that it could, if I understood
what he wrote.

By now, I don't think that many would accept that such
an apporach might be one-viable. We have learned.

As I clearly implied above, Abeling may have some
other things going for his device. We don't yet know.

AB successfully points out that there are positive similarities.

James

[BAR]

Abling site:
Q: Does your Weight Power Plant generate a lot of energy?
A: The Weight Power Plant is constructed out of 1 to 20 connected torque systems. 1 Torque system can generate enough energy for approximately 17 thousand households. If for instance 20 torque systems are connected the power plant will generate enough energy for 340 thousand households.

Well as I said earlier gravitational engines are very inefficient. A circular type wheel can not generate more than 32% of its working mass as power. Even the oval type can not exceed 50% efficiency. So this Abling is either ignorant of physics or a nut case. To power any house takes a Ferris wheel type stucture for each home. 87,000 pounds minimum. For just 30 kilowatts. Megawatts is simply a mountain of motion.

[primemignonite]

BAR

Yes!

The earlier calculations done for max watts out
conform to this. As I recall, it was somethiing like
120 watts for Bessler's largest.

All that set aside, let us just see ONE that operates.

That's all, powerful or not.

"It wenteth of its own self, truly it did!"

My confidence has not yet flagged. (I am not so sure
about some others though, the N.F.G. having thrown-in
that proverbial towel on the G.O.G.'s proposition. Standing
also as a possibility is the D.D.G., of which I am the only
as-yet existing representative. Grimer might have been
another, given his surpassingly splendid essay for which
he has now issued apologies, of all things!

" 'Twas the spirits themselves that brought-forth the very truth of the matter".

James

[Grimer]

I think that's an important point Bar. When I calculated how much energy a Paternoster Power Plant would generate I was surprised at the very low power to weight ratio.

But then one has to take into consideration that once built the fuel, gravity, is both free, continuous, available above and below both sea and ground.

[silverfox]

The most critical difference is that the weights are esssentially off the wheel once they've lent it the better part of their downward momentum.

After that they are moving on their own wheels and on their own track outside of the wheel and back to their starting point on it. Their own residual momentum is supposed to carry them more than half of that way.

After that, the wheel takes over to "push them" along the last leg of that sloping incline.

It's the weights riding on their own wheels and on their own tracks outside either side of the wheel itself that seriously reduces the amount of energy used by the wheel. It reduces it enough, in fact, that the wheel can apparently slam them back into their starting slots with an impact that increases the amount of force beyond that of their own weight on the next go-round, which is to say it "builds power" to some extent. How much and up to what speed is anyone's guess, but it is possible.

That is essentially the basic idea insofar as I understand it.

[ruggerodk]

I agree with you, Silverfox.

Though I do think that we overlook something here: The G-max at 06:00.

I'm not in to math and formula, so I have to ask somebody who know about this, to find the answer:

– At 06:00 the G-max force will have a push-down on the outside ramp (oval guide).
– How does that influence on the friction and velocity (of the weight)?
– If we take away this additional G-max force, then how high could the weight roll?
– Is it possible to harness this additional force?

ruggero

[ruggerodk]

It's me again....;)

Perhaps this illustration better explain what I'm talking about.

The 'Egg' curve is standing freely on the ground (able to tip).
Working like both as a lever and beam itself.

At the top left, the Egg curve rising will be catched, so the weight can continue rolling forward and up-hill on an incline plane.

How far will the weight roll up-hill?

Will there be an impact at the catch-point...and how big would that impact be?

ruggero

[AB Hammer]

Greetings ruggero

I'll have to give this one a real time test. It looks interesting.

[murilo]

Hello AB and boys!
Here are two other wheels for you appreciation!
Look at this: