Language: 
To browser these website, it's necessary to store cookies on your computer.
The cookies contain no personal information, they are required for program control.
  the storage of cookies while browsing this website, on Login and Register.

GDPR and DSGVO law

Storing Cookies (See : http://ec.europa.eu/ipg/basics/legal/cookies/index_en.htm ) help us to bring you our services at overunity.com . If you use this website and our services you declare yourself okay with using cookies .More Infos here:
https://overunity.com/5553/privacy-policy/
If you do not agree with storing cookies, please LEAVE this website now. From the 25th of May 2018, every existing user has to accept the GDPR agreement at first login. If a user is unwilling to accept the GDPR, he should email us and request to erase his account. Many thanks for your understanding.
Amazon Warehouse Deals ! Now even more Deep Discounts ! Check out these great prices on slightly used or just opened once only items.I always buy my gadgets via these great Warehouse deals ! Highly recommended ! Many thanks for supporting OverUnity.com this way.

User Menu

Tesla Paper

Free Energy Book

Get paid

Donations

Please Donate for the Forum.
Many thanks.
Regards, Stefan.(Admin)

A-Ads

Powerbox

Smartbox

3D Solar

3D Solar Panels

DC2DC converter

Micro JouleThief

FireMatch

FireMatch

CCKnife

CCKnife

CCTool

CCTool

Magpi Magazine

Magpi Magazine Free Rasberry Pi Magazine

Battery Recondition

Battery Recondition

Arduino

Ultracaps

YT Subscribe

Gravity Machines

Tesla-Ebook

Magnet Secrets

Lindemann Video

Navigation

Products

Products

WaterMotor kit

Statistics

  • *Total Members: 83907
  • *Latest: Vi

  • *Total Posts: 524044
  • *Total Topics: 15602
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 2
  • *Guests: 10
  • *Total: 12

Author Topic: Sjack Abeling Gravity Wheel REAL World Replications  (Read 24327 times)

Offline AquariuZ

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 645
Re: Sjack Abeling Gravity Wheel REAL World Replications
« Reply #15 on: May 22, 2009, 12:51:26 AM »
@Dusty, @Eisenficker2000,

OK, here's an idea that conforms to both :
A- smart harnessing of power,
AND
B- something that could have been invented 200 years ago.

Inter-connected slots.
You've may have read or skipped my posts on "getting an advantage". I feel that's somehow what Abeling is doing.
Now what if we don't give up that advantage anymore?

The machine does exactly what @Dusty's machines do, works the way we understand it, BUT the weight gets to advance one slot each rotation, between 8:00 and 10:00 or so. There are like 12+ slots (to not make one slot too big a jump), and like 3 or 4 weights going around.

The phases of the action all shift a bit, the working weights might even get better leverage on the lifted weights, and the work on the rise is obviously gotten over with quicker.

THE SHORT CUT ONLY HELPS WHEN THE WEIGHT IS ABLE TO CASH IN THE ADVANTAGE.

When a weight "beats" it's original rim slot to 0:00, and cashes in that advantage, it will be able to do useful work sooner again.

A way to harness the advantage a ramp offers in unloading the wheel : placing the weight back higher up than where it's expected to go!

This could be done in many ways.
1) Dursty-style wheel : single weights, and the slots are inter-connected and shaped to slide a weight back towards the rim in another slot that where it can from.
2) Supposing the aforeproposed tandem weights, they could be connected by a spring rod. The back weight makes up some ground, and the spring doesn't get unload (restrained by vertical ramp) until the shot put phase, where the front weight also cashes in its step forward on the rim.

Does that make any sense at all?

Now this too crossed my mind a while back, but it does not fit the "D" diagram.

Still it must be investigated ofcourse

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy


Offline AquariuZ

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 645
Re: Sjack Abeling Gravity Wheel REAL World Replications
« Reply #16 on: May 22, 2009, 01:08:15 AM »
Just reading this again on his website:

"This new physical theory will explain how to generate energy by rotating two bodies with the same mass/weight."

Why does he specifically mention TWO WEIGHTS?

What could he possibly mean....

So close, yet so far away...

Two weights... Connected? Two weights make one dumbbell? I do not think so. I would regard a dumbbell as a single weight. so two dumbbells then...


Hmm.. Why two. They are connected?...

"Q: Where does the extra energy come from?
A: The weights are applied two by two: one weight is pushing/falling, the other one has to be lifted. Due to the invention of the dual lifting system , the falling/pushing weight will hardly be hindered by the weight that has to be lifted.
In the top left 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. The path of the weights in the system is determined up front so the weights are always in a fixed position relative to each other and that will reduce the drag of the lifted weight on the falling/pushing weight. The system will start rotating from any position. Extra force is generated in the lower left of the system and on top it is transferred to the system itself, generating the extra energy. If the system would fail to catch the propelled weight, the weight would be ejected from the system with force."

It is almost like a riddle... Who will be the first to interpret it correctly?

If the dumbbells are connected in pairs... How? If not a spring maybe a bar?

But that cannot be because the distance between the pairs varies as one of the set travels around the egg on the lower side.... It must be a connector which varies its lenghts. Like a spring....

Just thinking out loud here.............


HMMMMMM

Offline AquariuZ

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 645
Re: Sjack Abeling Gravity Wheel REAL World Replications
« Reply #17 on: May 22, 2009, 01:13:56 AM »
Dusty, you have such a nice setup, could you please indulge me and connect a pair of opposite dumbbells with a spring on their axles and see what happens?

If you do not have a spring maybe some rubber band? Or anything elastic. NYLON STOCKING

Slowly turn the wheel by hand and see what happens?

It must be something like this.

(he thinks wishfully)

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Sjack Abeling Gravity Wheel REAL World Replications
« Reply #17 on: May 22, 2009, 01:13:56 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline AquariuZ

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 645
Re: Sjack Abeling Gravity Wheel REAL World Replications
« Reply #18 on: May 22, 2009, 01:19:01 AM »
I just realized: you need full eggs as shown in patent fig 8 for that to work so I guess this cannot be tested.

Darned. OK wm2d it is for now.

Offline pstroud

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 12
Re: Sjack Abeling Gravity Wheel REAL World Replications
« Reply #19 on: May 22, 2009, 02:26:54 AM »
Dusty,

Thanks again for the new video updates.  Greatly appreciated!!!!

You are doing a great job in your replication and I look forward to each new update.  Keep up the great work!

If I was not so tied up in my current gravity prime mover project, I would be replicating the Abeling wheel too.

Nice job!!!

thanks!
Preston

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Sjack Abeling Gravity Wheel REAL World Replications
« Reply #19 on: May 22, 2009, 02:26:54 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline alfilmx

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 10
Re: Sjack Abeling Gravity Wheel REAL World Replications
« Reply #20 on: May 22, 2009, 07:03:00 AM »
Just reading this again on his website:

"This new physical theory will explain how to generate energy by rotating two bodies with the same mass/weight."

Why does he specifically mention TWO WEIGHTS?

What could he possibly mean....

So close, yet so far away...

Two weights... Connected? Two weights make one dumbbell? I do not think so. I would regard a dumbbell as a single weight. so two dumbbells then...


Hmm.. Why two. They are connected?...

"Q: Where does the extra energy come from?
A: The weights are applied two by two: one weight is pushing/falling, the other one has to be lifted. Due to the invention of the dual lifting system , the falling/pushing weight will hardly be hindered by the weight that has to be lifted.
In the top left 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. The path of the weights in the system is determined up front so the weights are always in a fixed position relative to each other and that will reduce the drag of the lifted weight on the falling/pushing weight. The system will start rotating from any position. Extra force is generated in the lower left of the system and on top it is transferred to the system itself, generating the extra energy. If the system would fail to catch the propelled weight, the weight would be ejected from the system with force."

It is almost like a riddle... Who will be the first to interpret it correctly?

If the dumbbells are connected in pairs... How? If not a spring maybe a bar?

But that cannot be because the distance between the pairs varies as one of the set travels around the egg on the lower side.... It must be a connector which varies its lenghts. Like a spring....

Just thinking out loud here.............


HMMMMMM
maybe

Offline Cloxxki

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 825
Re: Sjack Abeling Gravity Wheel REAL World Replications
« Reply #21 on: May 22, 2009, 08:04:30 AM »
Would one of you please respond to my suggestion that the weight in the left half is allowed/enabled to advance on the wheel? To the inside on a slot as we know it, perhaps past a revolving lock, and back out another slot, having it end up further on the rim.
Supposing this works, you get rid of the left hand weights quicker, at least in terms of radial distance/time. Weights are more to the right by definition now.
The lower ramp picks up the weight at 6:00, but places it back slightly up. To cash in the advantage gained. When this works, there is no way around it, you have more weight working than being lifted. The path is preferable as well, close to the egg shape.
Thank you.

Furthermore,
Abeling seems to ephasize the number of bodies as 2. Perhaps more weights would disrupt the harmonic action he discovered or devised. That one NEEDS that extreme start-stop action in the wheel, and more weight would only smooth that out in an unpreferable way.
I would think will be worth to really investigate the phases the wheel goes through with a few different slot types. Analyse the inter-acting of the bodies. When one it on the ramp, how does that effect the other, and the wheel it may or may not at that time be attached to?

@AquariuZ:
Would you be able to identify a phase where a spring could be "efficiently" loaded, and another where it could be released (in part enacting a member the system), to only net a gain in energy? Else, I have a feeling the spring route will be one of the many commendable attempts we've seen over the centuries.
The member outside the wheel could be a ratcheting parallel wheel. When the spring is allowed to unload, it has something to press off against. The hard part in my view will be to load the spring in a way that takes less energy from the rest of the system than is being stored.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Sjack Abeling Gravity Wheel REAL World Replications
« Reply #21 on: May 22, 2009, 08:04:30 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline AquariuZ

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 645
Re: Sjack Abeling Gravity Wheel REAL World Replications
« Reply #22 on: May 22, 2009, 10:27:18 AM »
Cloxxi, working on it right now to see what forces are involved.

Your own idea merits more investigation, but like I said it does not seem to fit the "D" Abeling is showing.

IMAGES can no longer be seen in the forum, anyone else have this problem?

Like the previous post, if you click on the image it says "Error". The image is not shown by default anymore. Most likely an error in SMF. I just sent a message to stefan.

Offline Cloxxki

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 825
Re: Sjack Abeling Gravity Wheel REAL World Replications
« Reply #23 on: May 22, 2009, 10:51:47 AM »
@AquariuZ,
Thanks for thinking with me.
Actually, the way I see it, the shape and function of the wheel slots would dramatically change, while the D shape of the weight's path would remain 100% intact, along with the placement of the ramps.

Where does it say the weight has to return to the same hook on the wheel by 0:00-1:00 which it left around 5:00-6:00? The "D" or flattened oval path I feel needs to remain the basis.

Yes, pics are requiring moderation or something it seems.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Sjack Abeling Gravity Wheel REAL World Replications
« Reply #23 on: May 22, 2009, 10:51:47 AM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline LarryC

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 911
Re: Sjack Abeling Gravity Wheel REAL World Replications
« Reply #24 on: May 24, 2009, 01:32:13 AM »
In my last post in this thread (#9), I brought up the parallel problem which caused a jam in Rusty's machine. Rusty posted he would concentrate on building larger track wheels. I wasn't sure that this would help as the roller size would still cause a larger than the designed acceleration at some point in the upper left.

So, first I graphed out what would happen with smaller rollers. This helped some, but it would be impractical due to the decrease in main weight rod size and added heat and friction with smaller rollers.

The best solution would be to have the weight at the intersection of the stand guides and the radial guides as shown in Fig 4. No parallel problem and no larger than designed acceleration. 

The attachment shows a Sjack weight design proposal which meets the intersection criteria in all areas and allows for appropriate sized rollers.

The bottom of the orange rollers would ride on the external guide stands.
 
The top of the yellow rollers would ride on the carriers radial guides.
 
The blue rollers allow the weight to freewheel, as any attempt to turn would be a waste of energy. The orange/yellow rollers would flip around on every turn.

The side of the purple plates would be a good place to have a glass coating as they would slide against the guide edges to keep them aligned.

Regards, Larry

Offline Cloxxki

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 825
Re: Sjack Abeling Gravity Wheel REAL World Replications
« Reply #25 on: May 24, 2009, 02:13:10 AM »
To prevent the parallel problem, would it not suffice to have a significantly wider radius on the slot than on the upper ramp where the two interact?

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Sjack Abeling Gravity Wheel REAL World Replications
« Reply #25 on: May 24, 2009, 02:13:10 AM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline LarryC

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 911
Re: Sjack Abeling Gravity Wheel REAL World Replications
« Reply #26 on: May 24, 2009, 03:47:14 AM »
To prevent the parallel problem, would it not suffice to have a significantly wider radius on the slot than on the upper ramp where the two interact?

Sorry Cloxxki, from my layouts of a wider radius on the slot it would only seems to have the same parallel problem futher down the path.

But since you've asked this question, it would seem that I have not explained my previous post sufficiently. I will try to come up with some better graphics to explain how it works.

Please review what I have shown, it will keep the weight right at the intersection of the stand guide and the radial guide in all positions.

Regards, Larry 

Offline Cloxxki

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 825
Re: Sjack Abeling Gravity Wheel REAL World Replications
« Reply #27 on: May 24, 2009, 10:51:41 AM »
Sorry Cloxxki, from my layouts of a wider radius on the slot it would only seems to have the same parallel problem futher down the path.

But since you've asked this question, it would seem that I have not explained my previous post sufficiently. I will try to come up with some better graphics to explain how it works.

Please review what I have shown, it will keep the weight right at the intersection of the stand guide and the radial guide in all positions.

Regards, Larry
Thanks Larry,
I have an idea where you're going with your idea, it's quite smart. Yet, to the point where I understand it, the parallel problem would only in part be prevented.

Abeling wrote that if the weight would not be "caught" by the [end of the slot] wheel, it would fly off diagonally. Hitting the rim at 1:00 or so we gathered.
With slots that approximate the shape (and direction) of the upper guide, we get exactly the claimed acceleration action. However, when the two approximate to much, it creates the parallel problem (endlessly great acceleration required for the weight to pass, wheel nearly stops turning, friction does the rest, I suppose).
The way I'm seeing it, Dusty's almost half-circle slots, pointing so sharply clockwise at their end near the rim, on a clockwise turning wheel, cause most of this problem. Is there a need that we have established for the slot to have that shape, apart from Abeling's patent using that schematic shape?
This forward pointing shape makes it super easy for the lower ramp to pick the weight out of the slot, but possibly that's also not the desired action. Unless the design goal was for the weight a 6:00 to grind to a halt, get behind radially and than make up all ground, plus excess velocity, at 1:00. I commend that idea, but don't think it's the way. Use energy and direction when you have it, don't slowly drain it before it's taken away.
I propose to first going back to a hockey stick shape (straighter lines) on the slots, and work from there. Perhaps even use a locking mechanism to hold the weight near the rim, when the repsective shapes don't provide for that at lower wheel speeds.
Furthermore, I dear Dusty's slot shape at present fails to take real advantage from the lower ramp's action. Near the axle (where we seem to agree we want to be), we get little or no radial advantage over the rim-side position of the same slot.
And, I'll echo here my suggestion made elsewhere: the slots on wheel to be inter-linked. The interface with the lower ramp does what we understand it to do, but in stead of the weight sliding back the same slot, it "takes a left" and cashes in a bit of radial advantage. This last idea is the bet I can come up without springs and fixed slots. In the end, both work in a similar way. The springs would aim to net some excess speed at 1:00, the inter-connected slots would enforce radial advantage (passing the left side faster than the wheel, the lower ramp aiding to do so efficiently) while hoping the wheel will manage to complete this rotation and the next.

Changing the shape of the slots could do much more than just reduce the parallel action. And this parallel action comes down to what I addressed in one of my first posts here: does Dusty's first replication perhaps have TOO MUCH of a good thing, being that extreme acceleration? How much is enough, how much it too much? Dusty found in his second replication the answer to what is too much. I now also doubt the basic shape and layout of the slots vs. what they are meant to do. There will be multiple ways about it, places to store and unleash potential. Maybe even multiple solutions will "work", but maybe also the whole reason Abelin's idea works, is by getting it all just right. We're taking advantage here of a slightly shorter route around a wheel, there's not much of a margin to play with, it has to be just right to attain overunity.
If we're to do anything on such a design, we'll have to be able to really argument it. I've not yet sen strong argumentation for the part-of-circle slot shape, although I'll give it that it's easy to model and replicate, should it happen to work. The wished for acceleration action near the rim is very much there. But, that only comes to use when the weight makes it that far. Making i that far seems to require (near?) frictionless execution.

Hope this was sufficiently on-topic. Looking forward to your thought.

Regards,
J

Offline LarryC

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 911
Re: Sjack Abeling Gravity Wheel REAL World Replications
« Reply #28 on: May 25, 2009, 12:03:48 AM »
@Cloxxki,

Attached is a layout showing the positions of the offset roller design (orange/yellow) as opposed to the in line roller design (red).

The bottom positions are at Fig 4 labels of 5, 6, 6.5, 7 and 8. The opposite weight at top is 13, 14, 14.5, 15 and 0 in the same order.

The weight is at the center of the orange/yellow. I did not show the red when it was under the orange/yellow. Note how it starts to pinch out at 14 due to the space restriction imposed by the two curves. Even further at 14.5 and 15, where they get close to the parallel zones.

The orange/yellow rollers stay tangent to their surfaces at all intersections and no position has a parallel intersection. The orange/yellow angle to each other is just a guess. Will need to test for actuals.

Actually, I'm glad you asked the questions. I can see now where this design allows CF to sling the weights out at higher rpm's, where the in line rollers were restricting CF due to the pinching. May need to up my vote.

At the right side is a small test piece with just one of the offsets. I used the predrilled holes in the Steel Tec bar so the rollers are not at the optimum position.
 

Regards, Larry

Offline Cloxxki

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 825
Re: Sjack Abeling Gravity Wheel REAL World Replications
« Reply #29 on: May 25, 2009, 12:57:18 AM »
Thank you for the elaborate explanation and drawing Larry. My brain is still trying to get to working temperature after joining these forums a few weeks ago, others will surely understand them instantly, while I'll need to sleep on it.

In the mean time,
I did some very rough pen sketching on a train ride today, and have now pretty much given up on the curved slots as drawn up above. What I want to see modelled or even made is straight slots with a minimalist hook on the rim side. The axle side of the slot points forward, by roughly 35 degrees. Centre of weight is consistently in the right upper quadrant this way. Logically, due to inner path 6-12:00 also meaning an advantage of the weight when closer to the rim. It all being upward 6-12:00, the advantage is height. The weight spend very little time in the lower 30% of the left side of the wheel. A weight going up should not be used to push a heavier wheel whih is turning nicely already.
Weights in my proposal waste no radial time to gain some good height, before they get to ~30% of counterweight's rim speed, which is the speed in the rising column when placed at 30% between axle and rim.
The straight slots should offer plenty of a shot put action sitting at that angle and working on a curved upper inner ramp. And in stead of a parallel problem, it looking pretty much T shaped up there. The final nudge over the top BTW in my sketch was done by the wheel's weight, not the counter weight, as that just rolled up the lower ramp (closer to 5:00 than to 6:00 perhaps?). This is possibly a good thing I now realize while writing this, as this will slow down the wheel, allowing the lower weight to make up some radial distance. The wheel then catches up nicely due to only the 1:00> weight being on the wheel for as long as the lower one is still outrunning it's slot, or barely holding it. When one weight hits 3:00, the other is already past 9:00, and much closer to the axle. 3:00-5:00 there will see good acceleration, and right after 11:00-12:00 the wheel's flywheel will be drained a bit to nudge over the top weight.

I feel quite strongly now my proposal of forward pointing straight slots has a better chance at completing a rotation than the dimensions proposed to and put in reality by @dusty. The curved slots presented seem to just feather the weight down in the valley, wasting momentum, making it a long way up to 12:00. Slots will need to be argumented before builder's valuable time and energy are used on testin them.

Sorry, this may not have been the right thread for this. But I do seek assistance/guidance from more capable modellers and replicators to work with me on alternative layouts of the same wheel as proposed by me, hopefully improved by others. I've been pressing for such radial advantage to possibly be vital since my first posts, but have seen little arguments sending back to the drawing board on that, and I've received little support or guidance in my ideas. All simulations I'd seen have been back pointing. I'd like to hear 2 valid reasons to use such a layout. Abeling's patent mosaic sending us that direction, to me, is not valid, the man wants to patent a secret.

A torque and/or vector analysis of forward pointing (well wider near the hook rim, mind you) might offer interesting differences from building as by Dusty and @Eisenficker2000. If this http://www.videospider.tv/Videos/Detail/952838927.aspx animation could be altered to have slots per my specifications, I would be most grateful. If it runs worse, I promise humility and reduced post counts. It if runs better, I will perhaps require fewer post to make my points :-)

Thank you for your patience (one of my lesser talents), but please do consider for a few minutes my proposals, in case they may save this group weeks in getting to the bottom of Abeling's claim.

Let's crack this code!

J

 

OneLink