Larger weights have a slightly different reaction. It is the difference between the mass of the weight and the mass of the rocker. But no difference on a stationary track.
Hello AB ;)
In what way 'different reaction'?
Please explain.
Remember, my point here is to acknowledge that the down-force (gravity ++) at 06:00 can be harnessed, without changing the ball's end position on the ramp.
It moves the ramp...and still reach the same height.
ruggero
Contradictions do not exist.
Whenever you think you are facing a contradiction, check your premises.
You will find that one of them is wrong. - Ayn Rand -
When the weight is heavier than the track. The weight will through the track. For instance from your dimo. If the weight is heavier than the track it could very well through the track over itself or overcome the lift by just rolling it down and off the end the weight will go. It is a mass to mass thing.
I don't know how or why you've become so fixated on that armature as a some kind of a "rocking mechanism� and some secret ingredient. It is most likely no more than a piece of moveable track for trying to determine the best path for the weights, which was no doubt locked into various positions for Abeling’s numerous test runs and trials. Something to be used in conjunction with all those different shaped slots as it would have been necessary to do with each of them.
The idea of building such a "test wheel" on Abeling's part, shows the extent and lengths to which he went to find and optimize the design his final version should take. I think poor Dusty has only seen the obvious in that. There is no doubt a wide array of various weights lying about and hidden from sight somewhere as well.
I'm sure Abeling pushed every one of those factors to their absolute limits. I know I certainly would have. I think what you're missing is that either "a rocker" or a "kicker" mechanism of some kind would have to be moved by either the wheel or the weights and it cannot give anything to one without taking it away from the other. It is also quite useless to have it mounted on the wheel because whatever it lends will never cancel out it’s own added drag for most of the trip.
The only way it could provide some mechanical advantage of any kind would be by having some other source of power of it's own to add strictly from the outside... springs or some kind of counterbalanced weight that's tripped off it at the right moment and is then re-cocked by the wheel’s travel in some way. What you don’t seem to see is that it simply isn't necessary. There is already more than enough energy present to do what is required.
You are certainly right in thinking that the curvature of the track is more than half the trick, because it is.
When the weight leaves the wheel it goes much faster through its own bottom curve and so too does the wheel without being unnecessarily burdened by that weight when either of them passes their own individual g-max points that have been separated as they should.
As a consequence they both come back together with a greater combined energy and force and having covered the most critical part of their individual paths against those separate rather than a mixed and highly conflicted single point with far more energy than either of them started out with to begin with. Energy they got from coming together only when necessary and when their combined gravity was at its peak and maximum advantage.
This is the same idea as a "slingshot orbit" used to get space probes further out into space than under their own power by steering them in and letting them be captured by the gravity of another planet and then breaking free at the tangent to their next destination which takes much, less energy/fuel by comparison.
I said "Fibonnacci" because of the way that particular spiral is formed as well as the obvious fact that it's the one nature herself most often uses for growth and bursting forth in self-reinforcing fractal arrangements of great power and beauty. All designed to get the most out of the energy being expended and expanded. It seems just as reasonable to me that energy can also be concentrated and condensed or magnified by traveling that very same route back inwards.
So the weight's path can easily be determined by taking it's outside path on the wheel as the defining measure for the next 2 descending portions of a Fibonacci spiral. One that will carry the weight into the lower half of the wheel and the next up and over the wheel's own centre all by itself. The rest of that leg is somewhere between where the weight' s own trajectory is headed at that point and finding a smooth transition to it's final destination with the help of the wheel coming back together with it at that very point.
Any interaction between them then can’t hurt because it's on the "right side", both literally and gravitationally speaking, for it to take place on and it allows them to actually enter the "drop zone" with speed the next time.
What is interesting about this other fellow's demo is that without any great degree of calculating or any kind serious attention to how long the weight must be completely away from the wheel before being assisted, he has nevertheless managed to get that weight well up and over the wheel's centre and centre of gravity all under it’s own steam. If the wheel was a different size, (and that could be larger or smaller) and a different weight, (and that could be heavier or lighter for either of those sizes), he might very well have made it, not that he would have ever known why.
Now it would have been quite possible to have that hockey stick end in the slot simply an open ended pathway but you'd need a guide rail to keep the weight from coming right off the wheel altogether and a notch or indentation on the outside of the wheel to catch and carry it instead. You'd be close to freely circulating the weights the entire route in that case. It would be natural to simply think that would be better all round, but the truth is it would have to be perfectly done and it can’t be.
Such a guiding device might also make some sense in being what you've been thinking of as a rocker too. I believe Abeling tried that guide bit but when the weight struck it with force he realized he was wasting precious energy that the wheel could directly capture to give it even more of an impetus if he simply let the weight be blocked and transfer it directly to it. Abeling said as much himself when he alluded to the “shot-put effect" as he calls it, pitching the weights right off the wheel, otherwise.
What's missing from that primitive adaptation in the demo is that the weight and size of the wheel itself has a ratio and relationship to the falling weights and how many can successfully ride on it without its either going retrograde or simply not having enough power to begin with. The curvature the weights travel is also a precise and calculated one from that wheels diameter, which is also complicated by the time and timing of the weights being "off and on" it.
All those inter-related and interconnected variables and more still all have to be carefully worked out in detail if the wheel is to indeed to be “perpetual�, let alone create and capture some extra and useable power.
What I’m trying to say is that the size and weight of any wheel is of the utmost concern and doesn’t just determine its own behavior but influences everything else that is associated with it. In that demo wheel where the first weight stops at the top of it’s arc the second weight is already off the wheel too with nothing taking its place for the wheel to continue with and complete the first weight’s circuit. Something is clearly amiss and it isn't simply friction. The dimensions are clealy wrong in any number of ways to begin with. It's a slap-dash effort to say the least but it's also quite informative in how and where it has fallen short.
WHAT is happening with this thing, the Ableing Wheel?
Will it prove just another cheap little fraudlette thing, now come, and then gone?
Let us HEAR NEWS of it from it's original presenter!
James
Cynic-In-Chief, BesslerWheel (Ret.); Perpetualist First-Class; Iconoclast. "The Iconoclast, like the other mills of God, grinds slowly, but it grinds exceedingly small." - Brann
Dr... yes, you are alive and curious! :)
Nice to know this.
No, it is still not running, but will run, as many know well.
Have you, Dr., any guessing about avalanchedrive?
( I mean, technical guessing.)
Main question is people understand it.
I think that if my so obvious avalanchedrive will not work, NONE other FE device will ever be able to work.
Have a good one!
Murilo
I have looked at your device and it is impressive, but I see a problem in the switch over or better said under. Meaning the friction of the shift. For instants it would be similar to a wet tow over a rod. 1/4 over will hold 3/4 up and it will not fall off the rod. But we all know, only the build will have the last say. If I am no mistaken, don't you have most of it built at this time?
Hey, Ruggero, saw a steel bicycle wheel or two in half, make some tracks out of the stuff and stick the whole affair onto a seesaw. No end of fun, and some distinct possibilities i'd guess :)
Preston, hi!
Yes! You are a builder 10X better than I am!
Allow, please, my 2 cents:
- I would use 100% heavier weights.
- would use a metallic cover over that rising ramp at 6h, to reduce friction.
The crossbars are great, but there is some stuff with them that I don't like and I still don't know what is! :|
Would be great if you get NOT ~180 deg action for these crossbars.
Congratulations for your work!
Cheers! Muliro
Attached is another video on my progress with having 16 weights installed and 8 cross-bars. The ramp at the bottom has been revised. I shortened all of the cross bars so the weights move in 12" on the ascending side.
Next, I plan to install a ramp at the top as shown in the video below:
