Author Topic: Sjack Abeling Gravity Wheel and the Worlds first Weight Power Plant (Read 830346 times)

AquariuZ · « **Reply #885 on:** April 18, 2009, 02:40:05 AM »

Quote from: 0c on April 18, 2009, 02:01:05 AM

Nobody seems to think the idea I posted earlier is worth modeling. So I took the time to do a crude GIF animation to illustrate what I was trying to say. There are several ways to improve on the design. It is not self-starting, but needs to be spun up fast enough that balls will exit with enough momentum to get back up to the top.

There are several ways this design can be optimized. Adding some padding where the ball hits the hub will allow more kinetic energy transfer from the impact. The number of spokes might need to be changed to allow the ball more (or less) time to hit. The tube or chute curvature and length can be modified to shorten the path back to the top, could even be shortened more so the balls impact the spokes horizontally instead of vertically.

It's just a start. It should be modeled with a reliable simulation software to see just how feasible it really is.

Bessler Wheel Concept animation
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?action=tpmod;dl=get267

Hi 0c,

Sorry I must have missed your design.

It looks original, but I have my doubts as to how the balls leaving the wheel will get back to the top again because the acceleration required is not enough to overcome the gravitational pull to bring the ball back to the start position. IÂ´ll try and model it if you can be a little more specific on the return path.

To add: you can naturally spin the wheel up to get enough momentum to bring a single ball back to the top, but it will slow down if you do not pulse it with an external force and will slow down eventually because the balls can no longer reach the top for the lack of momentum, and I do not see this wheel permanently accelerating (yet)

0c · « **Reply #886 on:** April 18, 2009, 03:28:57 AM »

Quote from: AquariuZ on April 18, 2009, 02:40:05 AM

I have my doubts as to how the balls leaving the wheel will get back to the top again because the acceleration required is not enough to overcome the gravitational pull to bring the ball back to the start position. IÂ´ll try and model it if you can be a little more specific on the return path.

To add: you can naturally spin the wheel up to get enough momentum to bring a single ball back to the top, but it will slow down if you do not pulse it with an external force and will slow down eventually because the balls can no longer reach the top for the lack of momentum, and I do not see this wheel permanently accelerating (yet)

The return path can be much shorter and more efficient than I showed in my animation. I drew it that way so it would be easier to see that the return chute is completely independent of the wheel. In my mind, the chute should curve up sharply and should return the ball to the wheel just above the hub, at a 45 degree angle to a spoke that is just past vertical. This would allow the ball to retain some of its vertical momentum and transfer it directly to the wheel.

But to get started, you could just model what I showed. The wheel will need to be spun up to a speed where the balls will exit with enough momentum to carry them back to the top before the balls start dropping. The wheel should weigh more than the sum of the balls. A shorter return path will have less losses.

AquariuZ · « **Reply #887 on:** April 18, 2009, 03:34:53 AM »

Quote from: 0c on April 18, 2009, 03:28:57 AM

The return path can be much shorter and more efficient than I showed in my animation. I drew it that way so it would be easier to see that the return chute is completely independent of the wheel. In my mind, the chute should curve up sharply and should return the ball to the wheel just above the hub, at a 45 degree angle to a spoke that is just past vertical. This would allow the ball to retain some of its vertical momentum and transfer it directly to the wheel.

But to get started, you could just model what I showed. The wheel will need to be spun up to a speed where the balls will exit with enough momentum to carry them back to the top before the balls start dropping. The wheel should weigh more than the sum of the balls. A shorter return path will have less losses.

Ok a quick one done. Crude wm2d model attached.

It fails (sorry) because the wheel needs to spin in such a rate to bring the ball back up that on the downpath the ball does not impose a downward force on the wheel (moves faster than gravitational acceleration of the falling balls)

Hence it will slow down to a point where the wheel is no longer able to bring the balls back up.

In other words, the balls cannot keep the wheel spinning at such a rate as is required to bring even one back up.

0c · « **Reply #888 on:** April 18, 2009, 04:07:14 AM »

Quote from: AquariuZ on April 18, 2009, 03:34:53 AM

Ok a quick one done. Crude wm2d model attached.

It fails (sorry) because the wheel needs to spin in such a rate to bring the ball back up that on the downpath the ball does not impose a downward force on the wheel (moves faster than gravitational acceleration of the falling balls)

Hence it will slow down to a point where the wheel is no longer able to bring the balls back up.

In other words, the balls cannot keep the wheel spinning at such a rate as is required to bring even one back up.

If a tight curve is used for the chute and it only returns to just above the hub of the wheel, is there enough energy left in the ball for it to catch up with the rotation of the inner part of the wheel?

PS: I don't have WM2D, so if anything looks promising please post an image or video.

hansvonlieven · « **Reply #889 on:** April 18, 2009, 05:07:27 AM »

Quote from: AquariuZ on April 18, 2009, 03:34:53 AM

Ok a quick one done. Crude wm2d model attached.

It fails (sorry) because the wheel needs to spin in such a rate to bring the ball back up that on the downpath the ball does not impose a downward force on the wheel (moves faster than gravitational acceleration of the falling balls)

Hence it will slow down to a point where the wheel is no longer able to bring the balls back up.

In other words, the balls cannot keep the wheel spinning at such a rate as is required to bring even one back up.

I guess that answers my earlier question.

Hans von Lieven

BTW. How come we are still hoping when we really know better.

Go figure

Omnibus · « **Reply #890 on:** April 18, 2009, 05:23:00 AM »

Quote from: hansvonlieven on April 18, 2009, 05:07:27 AM

I guess that answers my earlier question.

Hans von Lieven

BTW. How come we are still hoping when we really know better.

Go figure

These ideas are an obvious dead-end and no time and effort should be wasted on them. The only hope in Abeling's case is whether or not there can be a combination of proper wheel spokes and what we call here â€œeggâ€-shaped groove, which would ensure persistent violation of the lever balance rule. If you can prove that no such combination can exist then this project is a goner.

hansvonlieven · « **Reply #891 on:** April 18, 2009, 06:46:25 AM »

G'day Omnibus,

As long as there is a black box in the system that supposedly does something unknown to science but the principle of which is not revealed by the inventor there is no way to prove that such a system cannot work.

All scam merchants rely on this.

Hans von Lieven

Omnibus · « **Reply #892 on:** April 18, 2009, 07:20:07 AM »

Quote from: hansvonlieven on April 18, 2009, 06:46:25 AM

G'day Omnibus,

As long as there is a black box in the system that supposedly does something unknown to science but the principle of which is not revealed by the inventor there is no way to prove that such a system cannot work.

All scam merchants rely on this.

Hans von Lieven

I don't think the fact that something is unknown to science can be an argument invalidating it. Every discovery has been unknown to science. This seems more like, if I may offer an analogy, proving that a given polynomial can never have certain types of roots. Until that's rigorously proven opinions that because it hasn't been known to science (hasn't been proven so far) it obviously is so have no merit. In our case, we have to prove that there can never be a combination of any form of the egg-shaped track with any form of the wheel spoke which will ever produce a persistent violation of the lever balance rule. The solution to this problem isn't evident.

That's the nature of what scientists do -- offer solutions that thus far have been unknown to science. Only engineers tackle problems based on phenomena known to science.

khabe · « **Reply #893 on:** April 18, 2009, 09:15:51 AM »

15 days - 90 pages and ... not any working models?
Come on, guys!

cheers,
khabe

AquariuZ · « **Reply #894 on:** April 18, 2009, 11:28:58 AM »

Quote from: hansvonlieven on April 18, 2009, 05:07:27 AM

I guess that answers my earlier question.

Hans von Lieven

BTW. How come we are still hoping when we really know better.

Go figure

Because Bessler did it.

Or do you have doubts he did?

AquariuZ · « **Reply #895 on:** April 18, 2009, 11:37:14 AM »

Quote from: hansvonlieven on April 18, 2009, 06:46:25 AM

G'day Omnibus,

As long as there is a black box in the system that supposedly does something unknown to science but the principle of which is not revealed by the inventor there is no way to prove that such a system cannot work.

My thoughts exactly.

Quote

All scam merchants rely on this.

Hans von Lieven

Abeling does not match the scam profile, so I disagree.

As I posted earlier:

A) Has money
B) You cannot invest (at least not as individual) anymore
C) He has proven deals with known companies
D) He may or may not have an agreement for an experimental setup by the government (waiting response)
E) I believe in him

There is no reason for a scam, hence there is no scam.

The Netherlands are not the U.S. or Australia, and Ter Apel, well, ask any dutchman.

AquariuZ · « **Reply #896 on:** April 18, 2009, 11:43:25 AM »

Quote from: khabe on April 18, 2009, 09:15:51 AM

15 days - 90 pages and ... not any working models?
Come on, guys!

cheers,
khabe

There are working models flying around everywhere, just none that display consistent acceleration.

But by all means, feel free to jump in anytime...

AZ

canam101 · « **Reply #897 on:** April 18, 2009, 12:32:15 PM »

Quote from: khabe on April 18, 2009, 09:15:51 AM

15 days - 90 pages and ... not any working models?
Come on, guys!

You are looking at this the wrong way: the 90 pages are a sign of a successful overunity.com thread. The 230 pages at the mylow thread show an even greater success story.

The object of this site is not to build OU devices, it is to fantasize about them, and the two threads have been very successful in that regard.

Personally, I prefer the mylow thread because of the complexity of the magnetic fields. There is a lot of room for mystery and fantasy.

This thread is a little too simple: a wheel and slots and guides. There is not enough mystery about it. Still, it is enjoyable and doing well.

Omnibus · « **Reply #898 on:** April 18, 2009, 12:56:49 PM »

@canam101,

Quote

the object of this site is not to build OU devices, it is to fantasize about them

So, whereâ€™s your proof that a contraptions such as the one offered by Abeling can never work so that we can believe you that this thread is only about fantasizing about it working? Donâ€™t tell me, however, that the proof is because someone has told you that such contraptions have never worked before.

Now, because I donâ€™t expect such proof from you, my conclusion is that the object of your participation in this thread is to blabber nonsense and share it with others having the same inclination. The most such activity can achieve is clutter the thread but you obviously donâ€™t mind it.

Omnibus · « **Reply #899 on:** April 18, 2009, 01:01:37 PM »

Quote from: khabe on April 18, 2009, 09:15:51 AM

15 days - 90 pages and ... not any working models?
Come on, guys!

cheers,
khabe

Oh, sure. Propaganda says it has been tried for several centuries and hasn't worked. Propaganda is right -- new 15 days and 30 pages and nothing. Propaganda is always right -- centuries have passed and there was no radio and airplanes, therefore, there cannot be such a thing, as we all know.

News:

User Menu

Author Topic: Sjack Abeling Gravity Wheel and the Worlds first Weight Power Plant (Read 830346 times)

AquariuZ

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

0c

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

0c

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

hansvonlieven

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

hansvonlieven

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

khabe

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

AquariuZ

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

canam101

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