Author Topic: Sjack Abeling Gravity Wheel and the Worlds first Weight Power Plant (Read 831060 times)

hartiberlin · « **Reply #660 on:** April 14, 2009, 01:47:03 PM »

Quote from: Omnibus on April 14, 2009, 10:52:38 AM

Nobody seems to have noticed another patent, from 2004, which I uploaded earlier. The idea seems practically the same as Abeling's. Here it is again (see attached)

Wonder what will happen if someone calls the guy and asks for a demonstration? Bet you he's gonna be nowhere to be found. It's kinda weird Sjack Abeling isn't so much reclusive (I, for one, spoke personally with him, as I reported here, to no avail).You may recall about a year or two ago there was a discussion here on these matters -- USPTO issuing perpetuum mobile patents which they claim isn't their job to refute. Their understanding is that if the patent is no good it will simply die out and if someone is so much interested in voiding such non-working patents, the only recourse it to go through the court system.

Interesting patent, but I wonder,
if the friction on the walls will not kill all the effects again ?

But maybe worth a try in WM2D.

Regards, Stefan.

P.S. I am almost much convinced now, that the Abeling wheel
does not work as drawn in his patent.
Just moving weights on elliptical pathes in a wheel just does not work.

There must be still something else, like 90 degrees weight pulling
or something simular to the Milkovic pendulum, etc...
But just an overbalanced wheel with just pure weights going up and
down in circles or elliptical pathes, just does not work.

Omnibus · « **Reply #661 on:** April 14, 2009, 01:49:26 PM »

OK, here it is. There are no rigid joints here (see attached) but @mondrasek explained that the problem was due to the spring. Somehow the calculations get out of sequence. To take care of this (and the inevitable losses in the spring) one turns on air resistance. I mentioned that at that time and now Hans also noted that this is inconsistent with an experiment in vacuum. Anyway, that seems to be a problem, although what @mondrasek explained makes sense. Seems that losses should be accounted for differently and the "out of sequence" problem should be amended by changing the algorithm probably.

EDIT: Changed the anchors w/ double pins. No joy either.

Cherryman · « **Reply #662 on:** April 14, 2009, 02:33:31 PM »

Quote from: Omnibus on April 14, 2009, 01:49:26 PM

OK, here it is. There are no rigid joints here (see attached) but @mondrasek explained that the problem was due to the spring. Somehow the calculations get out of sequence. To take care of this (and the inevitable losses in the spring) one turns on air resistance. I mentioned that at that time and now Hans also noted that this is inconsistent with an experiment in vacuum. Anyway, that seems to be a problem, although what @mondrasek explained makes sense. Seems that losses should be accounted for differently and the "out of sequence" problem should be amended by changing the algorithm probably.

EDIT: Changed the anchors w/ double pins. No joy either.

hartiberlin · « **Reply #663 on:** April 14, 2009, 02:45:43 PM »

Quote from: Omnibus on April 14, 2009, 01:49:26 PM

OK, here it is. There are no rigid joints here (see attached) but @mondrasek explained that the problem was due to the spring. Somehow the calculations get out of sequence. To take care of this (and the inevitable losses in the spring) one turns on air resistance. I mentioned that at that time and now Hans also noted that this is inconsistent with an experiment in vacuum. Anyway, that seems to be a problem, although what @mondrasek explained makes sense. Seems that losses should be accounted for differently and the "out of sequence" problem should be amended by changing the algorithm probably.

EDIT: Changed the anchors w/ double pins. No joy either.

Yes, seems to be another error,
also at frame 1463 the right ball falls through the blue see-saw bar,
as if it would be not there...
Strange error...

mrsean2k · « **Reply #664 on:** April 14, 2009, 02:46:51 PM »

Quote from: Grimer on April 14, 2009, 11:11:17 AM

I see that I am in good company is proposing a gravitational wind that is blowing steadily downwards. None other than that canonised scientific saint, Newton himself.

"Remarkably, Newton himself does not seem to have ruled out the possibility of a perpetual motion machine. It is a little known fact that in his early notebooks under the heading "Quaestiones"[sic] Newton speculates that gravity (heaviness) is caused by the descent of a subtle matter which strikes all bodies and carries them down. "Whither ye rays of gravity may bee stopped by reflecting or refracting ye, if so a perpetual motion may bee made one of these two ways." Adjacent to these words, Newton added two sketches of perpetual motion powered by the "flux of the gravitational stream".

Frank,

I posted this on the Steorn forum (bar a few spelling corrections and elaborations) in reponse to your repeat of this post. Could you try to enlighten me?

==================================

One thing puzzles me about this view though Frank.

If I accept for a moment that there *is* a gravitational "wind" of some kind, I still don't understand how *any* of the devices proposed would make use of this.

The orientation of these rotational devices is all vertical, not horizontal, i.e. the blades are edge on, not face-on into the wind. I think in the case of a windmill for instance this would result in no movement?

I suppose if I was to take a device like this:

http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/museum/arab-t.gif

and apply an *actual* wind-force directly from above - using a large fan for instance - it would turn CCW as the surface area presented by the arms on the LHS of the wheel is larger than that on the RHS.

Other objections aside (I don't need to be saved by being reminded how "mad" this idea is considered, thanks) is my interpretation of your analogy just too literal? Is surface area presented the wrong analogy. i.e it doesn't rely on force per unit area / volume providing a displacement at right-angles to the "wind" itself?

hartiberlin · « **Reply #665 on:** April 14, 2009, 02:48:52 PM »

Quote from: Cherryman on April 14, 2009, 02:33:31 PM

boing4weird3-1_With_Block.wm2d

And here the ball falls through at frame 1277...
Strange.

Probably too much motion of the blue see-saw bar does not trigger the collide function

Cherryman · « **Reply #666 on:** April 14, 2009, 02:50:19 PM »

IF there is gravitational wind, then would a horizontal windmill in a vacuÃ¼m start spinning?

Cherryman · « **Reply #667 on:** April 14, 2009, 02:51:33 PM »

Quote from: hartiberlin on April 14, 2009, 02:48:52 PM

And here the ball falls through at frame 1277...
Strange.

Probably too much motion of the blue see-saw bar does not trigger the collide function

Yep, or the programm does not calculate a trajactory, but single points. And when at high speeds the points probarly will not collide (A resolution problem of the program)

broli · « **Reply #668 on:** April 14, 2009, 03:06:52 PM »

Cheeryman a few tips:

1) Refrain from using polygonal shapes. In your latest model all polygonal shapes can be simple primitives.
2) Always increase the accuracy of both the steps as the integration error to look for consistent results on highly accurate simulations. Again in your latest model if you increase both values by two orders of magnitude you get a completely different result.

hartiberlin · « **Reply #669 on:** April 14, 2009, 03:07:39 PM »

New simulation about the Abeling wheel from the
ab-az-cm-2.wm2d file.

I removed the motor and applied just a force onto the wheel for 400 frames to speed it up.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rM8SmU9pjcI

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

AquariuZ · « **Reply #670 on:** April 14, 2009, 03:12:49 PM »

@Stefan

Thanks for the tip about the rigid joints (Now he tells me!)

I totally agree Abeling is hiding something, because at best you have a very low loss construction like one of the models I posted earlier. Not overunity. The construction as presented in the patent is not new and disproven on several occaisions over the years, same goes for the 2004 patent which Omnibus posted. Interesting as it is, friction kills it.

@Hans

Trial and error is the way to go, the theory can be defined later I totally agree. Tesla would strongly disagree, but he built his devices in his head and tested them before putting a single thing to paper. Edison was more a trial and error engineer hence the two could not stand each other.

If Tesla had a decent way to simulate models back in the day, who knows we would probably be terraforming our third planet by now.

@Omnibus, in the original KADweird just set the mass of the blue rod to 1 KG. The problem is that the dimensions of the rod are around 150 meters by 20 meters and it has a mass of less than a gram. Hence "impossible" because there is no such material. That, combined with the for me new discovery of the rigid joint factor will explain away most of the erratic behaviour. Pity about the joints.

@Cherryman: in your model you have a tiny opening in the ring structure through which the balls fly out. If you move the polygon opening to another location where the spheres cannot get to it the spheres will probably be stopped correctly.

AZ

mondrasek · « **Reply #671 on:** April 14, 2009, 03:15:21 PM »

Quote from: AquariuZ on April 14, 2009, 03:22:00 AM

Here is a self starter, we had a discussion about it I believe a year ago..

There are more out there, I cannot explain this one, it is an unbalanced huge construction.

WM2D is calculating the effects of forces on each model piece one at a time. The analysis is sequential and iterative. So it looks at the initial conditions of part #1 and calculates where it should move to by the end of the selected time step and what speed and direction while be the result of this iteration. It then looks at part #2 and does the same. But what position of part #1 should influence the calculations on part #2? The position and speed of part #1 at the beginning of the iteration or the one just calculated as the result of this iteration? Neither. The results need to be calculated simultaneously, and this the computer cannot do. To get the best possible approximation you want the time step and integration error for the sim to be as small as possible. As the time step and integration errors approach zero (get very very small) the sim should approach reality (in theory).

Look at the time step (Animation Step) and Integration Error in this sim. They are at .25 s and 1.627 meters respectively. The defaults for these values are .05 s and .010 meters. So they have both been made purposely larger to introduce more error? Of course the result is a poor approximation of reality. Set them back to default or lower (better) and this accelerating wheel does not accelerate.

It is easy to cheat the software. That is why I advise using the smallest time step and integration errors that you can stand while designing. The closer you get to what appears to be a desired effect, the smaller you should make these numbers. Big values are only useful for gross and quick approximations like testing two similar concepts (like small slot profile changes) to see quickly if one idea is better than another.

M.

AquariuZ · « **Reply #672 on:** April 14, 2009, 03:16:46 PM »

BTW: Whatever happened to Bob and his piston gravity wheel? That one looked really promising.

Was it/he buried?

Was it ever modeled?

AquariuZ · « **Reply #673 on:** April 14, 2009, 03:20:26 PM »

Quote from: mondrasek on April 14, 2009, 03:15:21 PM

Look at the time step (Animation Step) and Integration Error in this sim. They are at .25 s and 1.627 meters respectively. The defaults for these values are .05 s and .010 meters. So they have both been made purposely larger to introduce more error? Of course the result is a poor approximation of reality. Set them back to default or lower (better) and this accelerating wheel does not accelerate.

Even better! See previous.

It is so easy to mis tweak, I think niente (author) may have hoaxed this particular model on purpose just to ruffle some feathers.....

The more tweakable things the better, but wm2d lacks a single real world switch which normalizes all variables to real world settings including air, gravity and integrator settings...

Cherryman · « **Reply #674 on:** April 14, 2009, 03:40:48 PM »

Quote from: hartiberlin on April 14, 2009, 03:07:39 PM

New simulation about the Abeling wheel from the
ab-az-cm-2.wm2d file.

I removed the motor and applied just a force onto the wheel for 400 frames to speed it up.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rM8SmU9pjcI

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

I tried several of those designs, but it lacks the "extra" to give it additional force..

Same principal, little different look but that doesn't matter.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nSaKQEn0Wwc&feature=channel_page

The one i did found most promising was this one:

Notice how the ball fly's UP the ramp due to its own speed. On that moment the ball goes up the ramp, it is faster and detaches itself from the spoke.. So the wheel is not bothered by the ball in the upmovement..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GBygA2vOHx4&feature=channel

News:

User Menu

Author Topic: Sjack Abeling Gravity Wheel and the Worlds first Weight Power Plant (Read 831060 times)

hartiberlin

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

hartiberlin

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

mrsean2k

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

hartiberlin

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

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

hartiberlin

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

mondrasek

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

Cherryman

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