Author Topic: Sjack Abeling Gravity Wheel and the Worlds first Weight Power Plant (Read 830888 times)

Cherryman · « **Reply #735 on:** April 15, 2009, 02:39:04 AM »

Quote from: Omnibus on April 15, 2009, 01:58:00 AM

@Cherryman,

Well, it's usual patentees to hide some crucial aspects of the device or the method so that they can control further negotiations through trade secrets. I don't think this case is any different. It's worth I think for the time being to have the device "replicated" in wm2d as close to the patent as possible. See attached Fig.2 from Abeling's patent and the two examples of wm2d (especially one of them) closest to the patent.

Well Omnibus, here is an almost exact copy (I used the original patent drawing as an underlay) as you requested...

But i warn you... the design doesn't make any sence!

Anyway, you will have to make the restrains yourself, that is a good exercise

Cherryman · « **Reply #736 on:** April 15, 2009, 02:41:24 AM »

Quote from: broli on April 15, 2009, 02:21:07 AM

If you do some force analysis you can get an idea why these ramp setups won't work. That patent is a joke. Any design that uses a ramp now is patent infringement, that's how vague his patent is and I'm pretty sure is deliberate.

I Think he does not have a working model yet, he just thinks the rampo idear might work, asked for a patent and is facing now the same problems as we do.. With the exception that he has some investors behind it...

( Because he doesn't like publicity and doesn't want any money, i do believe that he himself is thinking it will work... and who knows.. It might work.. But not from those patent drawings)

Omnibus · « **Reply #737 on:** April 15, 2009, 02:57:30 AM »

Thanks @Cherryman. That's a good start.

Now that I looked at it I see you've made the rotor consisting of two parts so the rotor as a whole isn't one polygon but two. How do you merge these two parts into one polygon? I've had that problem before but the form was much simpler and I could use the Polygon tool and walk around the contour by hand. Now here the problem is more complex. Is there a way to merge these two polygons in WM2D or I should export it into AutoCAD and try to do it there (have no idea how).

Also, the scaling down from the current 140m has to be done too. That I already seem to have the grasp for in AutoCAD. The merging of polygons, however, is a persistent problem.

Cherryman · « **Reply #738 on:** April 15, 2009, 03:27:43 AM »

Quote from: Omnibus on April 15, 2009, 02:57:30 AM

Thanks @Cherryman. That's a good start.

Now that I looked at it I see you've made the rotor consisting of two parts so the rotor as a whole isn't one polygon but two. How do you merge these two parts into one polygon? I've had that problem before but the form was much simpler and I could use the Polygon tool and walk around the contour by hand. Now here the problem is more complex. Is there a way to merge these two polygons in WM2D or I should export it into AutoCAD and try to do it there (have no idea how).

Also, the scaling down from the current 140m has to be done too. That I already seem to have the grasp for in AutoCAD. The merging of polygons, however, is a persistent problem.

You do not need to merge the polygons, because you then will not get any balls inside (At least i don't know how to do that in WM2D, Just "pinpoint" them both on the same background circel.
Scaling.. hmm forgot again. Well as you have autocad. Go in WM2D to file: Export and then select as filetype .dxf Then you can import it in autocad and change anything you want and export it back again.

Going to sleep now, good luck.

LarryC · « **Reply #739 on:** April 15, 2009, 04:31:08 AM »

Centrifugal sling slam force versus Centrifugal force:

Bob Kostoff stated:

Once the weights are past the ballance point they accelerate and generate many times their weight that creats the the energy needed.

Sjack stated:

In the topleft of the system the weight is accelerated (like with shot put). The weight is moving faster than the system, and as the system catches the weight it is propelled forward.

In my post at http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=2326.msg153063#msg153063, I showed the actual force difference in a physical testbed between a CF sling slam force and CF force at the same distance from center:

With 2.7 lbs for each weight box:

CF slam 15 10 lbs/ounces
CF static 5 5 lbs/ounces

With 4.7 lbs for each weight box:

CF slam 25 4 lbs/ounces
CF static 7 3 lbs/ounces

I then asked if any WM2D user could replicate to see how close it can come to real world testing.
No response, just a ton more WM2D issues.

Please don't respond with anymore CF force definitions as they are all well known including the formulas by anybody with a physics book or Google ability. CF sling slam force calculations are not, so can WM2D do them or not?

Bottom line, if WM2D cannot do CF sling slam force calculations then it will not be able to reproduce Sjack's gravity machine performance.

Regards, Larry

Omnibus · « **Reply #740 on:** April 15, 2009, 05:05:47 AM »

@LarryC,

As was already explained, that additional force could not have come from the centrifugal force (slim slam, static or whatever you wanna call it). In fact, if true that there's such difference, it has nothing to do with the centrifugal force which needs energy to be spent for its appearance rather than energy release. Reading standard sources and sources from net search engines is good but isn't enough. One thing is to read a definition quite another is to actually understand it.

LarryC · « **Reply #741 on:** April 15, 2009, 06:10:10 AM »

Quote from: Omnibus on April 15, 2009, 05:05:47 AM

@LarryC,

As was already explained, that additional force could not have come from the centrifugal force (slim slam, static or whatever you wanna call it). In fact, if true that there's such difference, it has nothing to do with the centrifugal force which needs energy to be spent for its appearance rather than energy release. Reading standard sources and sources from net search engines is good but isn't enough. One thing is to read a definition quite another is to actually understand it.

Let me get this straight. The statements of the main two inventors about CF slam energy should be ignored as it was already explained better by who???

Also, you are saying I don't understand my UNIVERSITY PHYSICS book Sixth edition Fig 5-12 page 98 about centrifugal force. I hope they don't take my degree away based on your flimsy word.

Back to the original question in spite of your obvious missdirection attempts. Can you please give me an answer on my last WM2D question?

Regards, Larry

AquariuZ · « **Reply #742 on:** April 15, 2009, 06:21:11 AM »

Larry may have a point. I just found something which can be replicated in wm2d (hope it is not an error) and may very well be Abelings trick.

Keywords acceleration AND spinning weights which hit a constraint (carrier) at a certain angle of attack generates a "jolt". Model tomorrow, looking promising. IÂ´m off as it is 06:20 and work soon.

Omnibus · « **Reply #743 on:** April 15, 2009, 06:28:46 AM »

@LarryC,

Like I said, wm2d won't prove that energy can be extracted from a centrifugal force, no matter how you prefer to qualify it. Therefore, it's a useless exercise to experiment on that even virtually, using wm2d. Also, the fact that you cite a standard textbook, even if you cite the exact edition and page is no proof that you have actually understood the concept. The fact that you're continuing to ask the centrifugal force to be studied as the source of energy proves that you haven't. The statements of the main two inventors about CF slam energy should also be ignored.

Omnibus · « **Reply #744 on:** April 15, 2009, 06:29:32 AM »

Quote from: AquariuZ on April 15, 2009, 06:21:11 AM

Larry may have a point. I just found something which can be replicated in wm2d (hope it is not an error) and may very well be Abelings trick.

Keywords acceleration AND spinning weights which hit a constraint (carrier) at a certain angle of attack generates a "jolt". Model tomorrow, looking promising. IÂ´m off as it is 06:20 and work soon.

Make no mistake, Larry doesn't have a point.

rlortie · « **Reply #745 on:** April 15, 2009, 06:56:22 AM »

Please do not stop the merry-go-round! I am an old man an require the assistance of centrifugal force to disembark. I will pay you back later

Is this a thread on Sjack Abeling Gravity Wheel or "How to simulate CF in WM2D??? May I suggest you use the acronym "wm2d' for Wood Metal & 2 Days, I am sure you will find that CF will not sustain the design in question.

Ralph

Grimer · « **Reply #746 on:** April 15, 2009, 09:43:27 AM »

The Abeling Wheel works.

The clue as to why and how is in Figure 6 of the patent.

The Bessler wheel also worked.

The clue is in that quote that gets bandied about on the Bessler forum.

Ezechiel 1:16. And the appearance of the wheels, and the work of them was like
the appearance of the sea: and the four had all one likeness: and their
appearance and their work was as it were a wheel in the midst of a
wheel.

AquariuZ · « **Reply #747 on:** April 15, 2009, 11:22:31 AM »

Here is the model I referred to last night. I just made it pretty.

Regular scale, all real world parameters and accuracy active as far as I can tell.

Imagine a weight receiving spin because it is pulled by gravity along a ramp. It hits a barrier at an angle and transfers the spin to that barrier. Experiment by turning the spoke more and more parallel to the ramp in small increments and watch V0 for the barrier. Pause directly after hit to see full translation of spin. At a certain angle, a significant "jolt" is given to the barrier, which is disproportionate to the momentum of the dumbbell axle.

A hint: the optimal strike angle seems to be near 0.579 rad for the barrier (resulting in V0 = -4.256)

If this is not a bug in wm2d this may be where the extra "energy" comes from: the translation of spin via a specific angle of attack. I am currently trying to build this into another model to show acceleration of the barrier.

Cherryman · « **Reply #748 on:** April 15, 2009, 11:26:52 AM »

Quote from: AquariuZ on April 15, 2009, 11:22:31 AM

Here is the model I referred to last night. I just made it pretty.

Regular scale, all real world parameters and accuracy active as far as I can tell.

Imagine a weight receiving spin because it is pulled by gravity along a ramp. It hits a barrier at an angle and transfers the spin to that barrier. Experiment by turning the spoke more and more parallel to the ramp in small increments and watch V0 for the barrier. Pause directly after hit to see full translation of spin. At a certain angle, a significant "jolt" is given to the barrier, which is disproportionate to the momentum of the dumbbell axle.

A hint: the optimal strike angle seems to be near 0.600 rad for the barrier

If this is not a bug in wm2d this may be where the extra "energy" comes from: the translation of spin via a specific angle of attack. I am currently trying to build this into another model to show acceleration of the barrier.

It looks good Aquariuz, but where or how is the weight lifted back up again?

broli · « **Reply #749 on:** April 15, 2009, 11:57:13 AM »

READ THIS FIRST BEFORE RUNNING MODEL

AquariuZ, this is interesting. I have been quiet about this but I have been experimenting with this kind of systems. The model below is a lever with two weights. One weight is further than the center, the one closer to the center is restricted only to move up and down AND can slide back and forth in the direction of the lever. The right model on the other hand has no vertical restriction so the weight can only move back and forth along the lever.

The interesting thing and what force analysis shows is that when restricted like that there's a much larger torque that when you just pretend to calculate the weight at certain distance from the center. First of all this is the big mistake people make with these rail/ramp designs. But on the other hand how can this be exploited and this is what I'm trying to figure out. Mainly

Quote

Johann E. E. Bessler:

"A great craftsman would be that man who can 'lightly' cause a heavy weight to fly upwards! Who can make a pound-weight rise as 4 ounces fall, or 4 pounds rise as 16 ounces fall. If he can sort that out, the motion will perpetuate itself. But if he can't, then his hard work shall be all in vain."

In the below wm2d file I challenge you to predict first what would happen to the left model before hitting the run button. Both masses are equal and the pivot point is closer to one so you should use your lever logic but then also be amazed to what really happens.

News:

User Menu

Author Topic: Sjack Abeling Gravity Wheel and the Worlds first Weight Power Plant (Read 830888 times)

Cherryman

Re: Sjack Abeling Gravity Wheel and the Worlds first Weight Power Plant

Cherryman

Re: Sjack Abeling Gravity Wheel and the Worlds first Weight Power Plant

Omnibus

Re: Sjack Abeling Gravity Wheel and the Worlds first Weight Power Plant

Cherryman

Re: Sjack Abeling Gravity Wheel and the Worlds first Weight Power Plant

LarryC

Re: Sjack Abeling Gravity Wheel and the Worlds first Weight Power Plant

Omnibus

Re: Sjack Abeling Gravity Wheel and the Worlds first Weight Power Plant

LarryC

Re: Sjack Abeling Gravity Wheel and the Worlds first Weight Power Plant

AquariuZ

Re: Sjack Abeling Gravity Wheel and the Worlds first Weight Power Plant

Omnibus

Re: Sjack Abeling Gravity Wheel and the Worlds first Weight Power Plant

Omnibus

Re: Sjack Abeling Gravity Wheel and the Worlds first Weight Power Plant

rlortie

Re: Sjack Abeling Gravity Wheel and the Worlds first Weight Power Plant

Grimer

Re: Sjack Abeling Gravity Wheel and the Worlds first Weight Power Plant

AquariuZ

Re: Sjack Abeling Gravity Wheel and the Worlds first Weight Power Plant

Cherryman

Re: Sjack Abeling Gravity Wheel and the Worlds first Weight Power Plant

broli

Re: Sjack Abeling Gravity Wheel and the Worlds first Weight Power Plant