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: 84218
  • *Latest: RhineX

  • *Total Posts: 897391
  • *Total Topics: 15816
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 1
  • *Guests: 23
  • *Total: 24

Author Topic: Sjack Abeling Gravity Wheel and the Worlds first Weight Power Plant  (Read 668787 times)

Offline fletcher

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 399
Re: Sjack Abeling Gravity Wheel and the Worlds first Weight Power Plant
« Reply #2085 on: February 26, 2010, 07:56:14 PM »
Einstein made a quip about you should be able to explain physics to a bar maid - I guess he never had a pint poured by omnibus.

Keep going mondrasek until he realizes why getting there any quicker without a higher final velocity is of no practical use in a wheel.
« Last Edit: February 26, 2010, 09:53:12 PM by fletcher »

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy


Offline Omnibus

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5330
Re: Sjack Abeling Gravity Wheel and the Worlds first Weight Power Plant
« Reply #2086 on: February 26, 2010, 08:13:02 PM »
Einstein made a quip about you should be able to explain physics to a bar made - I guess he never had a pint poured by omnibus.

Keep going mondrasek until he realizes why getting there any quicker without a higher final velocity is of no practical use in a wheel.

Before giving irrelevant quotes and talking about practical use which is not the subject of discussion here you should understand first what kinetic energy really means. All your problems stem from misunderstanding of that simple concept.

Offline mondrasek

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1300
Re: Sjack Abeling Gravity Wheel and the Worlds first Weight Power Plant
« Reply #2087 on: February 26, 2010, 08:30:29 PM »
@mondrasek,

That's not the obvious fact that I ask you to agree with. You talk about part of the distance traveled while what is to be considered is the entire distance traveled. Therefore, you have to agree first with the obvious fact that the entire distance has been traversed by the first ball for a shorter time than the time which the second ball needs to traverse its entire, shorter distance.

In other words, you have to agree first that, considering the entire distance traveled, the first ball has higher velocity, that is, has greater KE than the second ball, despite the fact that both ball have the same PE to begin with.

Do you see, you can't escape acknowledging the above obvious fact, no matter how you try to finagle?

Omnibus, what you are stating is a partial truth, that results in a false conclusion.

1)  It can be true that, "the entire distance has been traversed by the first ball for a shorter time than the time which the second ball needs to traverse its entire, shorter distance."

2)  It is partially true that, "the first ball has higher velocity, that is, has greater KE than the second ball".  But this is only the case at a point along the horizontal travel where the ball on the first track is now LOWER than the ball on the second track.  Without adding this additional information, I cannot agree to your statement, because it does not completely describe all the necessary conditions for the case you are trying to make.

3)  It is absolutely not true that, "In other words, you have to agree first that, considering the entire distance traveled, the first ball has higher velocity, that is, has greater KE than the second ball, despite the fact that both ball have the same PE to begin with."  That is a conclusion drawn only from cherry picked facts. 

The only point that can be compared using the PE at the beginning, is the KE at the end.  Any point along the track where one ball is allowed to drop LOWER than the other allows for an increase in KE ONLY at that point.  It is also an obvious case where the ball on the lower track has converted more PE into KE sooner.  Your failure to agree that this information is relevant to any conclusion drawn is unfortunate, because it neglects the obvious case where the ball on the lower track must rise up a hill and thus slow down, or the case where the ball on the upper track continues to accelerate until reaching the same speed as that of the lower ball which does not continue to accelerate.  And those two cases are exactly what DOES occur in every possible configuration for the lower track.

The independence of KE gained due to a change in height of a mass relative to the path it travels between the start and end is well understood and supported by simple experiments.  Why don't you try one?  Your attempts at logically disproving these facts are pointless.  The nature of a "Conservative Field of Force" is not disproved by these experiments.  Maybe you can find one that does instead.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Sjack Abeling Gravity Wheel and the Worlds first Weight Power Plant
« Reply #2087 on: February 26, 2010, 08:30:29 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline fletcher

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 399
Re: Sjack Abeling Gravity Wheel and the Worlds first Weight Power Plant
« Reply #2088 on: February 26, 2010, 09:56:13 PM »
Kinetic Energy is energy of motion omnibus - Potential Energy is energy of position.

I think you're short of a chromosome if you can't grasp this & its implications.

Offline Omnibus

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5330
Re: Sjack Abeling Gravity Wheel and the Worlds first Weight Power Plant
« Reply #2089 on: February 26, 2010, 10:02:08 PM »
Kinetic Energy is energy of motion omnibus - Potential Energy is energy of position.

I think you're short of a chromosome if you can't grasp this & its implications.

I wish you really understand what you've written. Read your own definition of kinetic energy once again. Do you see in it anything about collision, transfer, turning into work etc. etc., that is, all the crap you were foisting in your previous postings as part of the definition of energy? Learn physics foundations before engaging in discussions such as this one.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Sjack Abeling Gravity Wheel and the Worlds first Weight Power Plant
« Reply #2089 on: February 26, 2010, 10:02:08 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline fletcher

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 399
Re: Sjack Abeling Gravity Wheel and the Worlds first Weight Power Plant
« Reply #2090 on: February 26, 2010, 10:24:30 PM »
Good luck in your very own special alternate reality omnibus - in my reality Ke is a 'slice in time' energy of motion - it can not be accumulated however it can be stored in a flywheel for example as Pe, after losses - if you think it can be accumulated over distance then do some experiments to prove it - while you're at it why don't you show how momentum can be an energy source as well since your theory & the view that momentum can also be accumulated ties in closely.

Keep taking those meds & stay away from chocolate.

Offline Omnibus

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5330
Re: Sjack Abeling Gravity Wheel and the Worlds first Weight Power Plant
« Reply #2091 on: February 26, 2010, 10:26:04 PM »
@mondrasek,

Someone deleted my reply to you asking you to immediately correct point 2) and 3). Velocity is physically traveled distance (the entire distance from the beginning to to the end of the journey) over the physical time that distance is traveled for. You must not ignore that elementary definition of velocity when attempting to give arguments. Ignoring basic definitions such as this and inventing your own is nothing but finagling. @Fletcher does the same thing, proposing Fletcherphysics where kinetic energy also involves usefulness, collisions, transfer and what not instead of physics where kinetic energy is simply a quantity function of mass and velocity.

Here's mondrasekphysics:

Quote
The only point that can be compared using the PE at the beginning, is the KE at the end.

That weird kind of physics is obviously incorrect because the initial PE isn't only responsible for the KE at the end but is also responsible for the traversing of the entire distance form the beginning to the end. That is so obvious that need not even be commented.

PE being responsible for the travel of one ball from the beginning to the end of a track of 10m for 5s makes it responsible for that ball having velocity = 10m/5s. Same PE however is responsible for the travel of another ball from the beginning to the end of a track of 7m for 8s, say, and therefore makes it responsible for that ball having velocity = 7m/8s.

Thus, same PE is responsible for two balls of mass m to have two different velocities when traveling from the same beginning to the same end. However, two balls of equal masses traveling from the same beginning to the same end with different velocities have different kinetic energies. Therefore the same PE gives rise to two different kinetic energies.

Like I said, finagling, as you're attempting, won't cut the mustard. Try to be logical and stick to what physics definitions are not the definitions of mondrasekphysics.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Sjack Abeling Gravity Wheel and the Worlds first Weight Power Plant
« Reply #2091 on: February 26, 2010, 10:26:04 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline Omnibus

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5330
Re: Sjack Abeling Gravity Wheel and the Worlds first Weight Power Plant
« Reply #2092 on: February 26, 2010, 10:30:12 PM »
Good luck in your very own special alternate reality omnibus - in my reality Ke is a 'slice in time' energy of motion - it can not be accumulated however it can be stored in a flywheel for example as Pe, after losses - if you think it can be accumulated over distance then do some experiments to prove it - while you're at it why don't you show how momentum can be an energy source as well since your theory & the view that momentum can also be accumulated ties in closely.

Keep taking those meds & stay away from chocolate.

Not at all. KE cannot be accumulated and I never said it could. Your understanding of kinetic energy is wrong and, as I said, that's the basis for your overall confusion about the discussion at hand. Read again what I told you about the definition of kinetic energy, try to understand it and don't invent your own. It makes no sense to repeat what I already told you.

Offline fletcher

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 399
Re: Sjack Abeling Gravity Wheel and the Worlds first Weight Power Plant
« Reply #2093 on: February 26, 2010, 10:49:30 PM »
*smile followed by a long yawn*

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Sjack Abeling Gravity Wheel and the Worlds first Weight Power Plant
« Reply #2093 on: February 26, 2010, 10:49:30 PM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline mondrasek

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1300
Re: Sjack Abeling Gravity Wheel and the Worlds first Weight Power Plant
« Reply #2094 on: February 26, 2010, 10:51:12 PM »
PE being responsible for the travel of one ball from the beginning to the end of a track of 10m for 5s makes it responsible for that ball having velocity = 10m/5s. Same PE however is responsible for the travel of another ball from the beginning to the end of a track of 7m for 8s, say, and therefore makes it responsible for that ball having velocity = 7m/8s.

I'll correct this for you:

PE being responsible for the travel of one ball from the beginning to the end of a track of 10m for 5s makes it responsible for that ball having AVERAGE velocity = 10m/5s. Same PE however is responsible for the travel of another ball from the beginning to the end of a track of 7m for 8s, say, and therefore makes it responsible for that ball having AVERAGE velocity = 7m/8s.

And here is a gross example to show how that average velocity is meanignless with respect to the KE of the balls at the end of the tracks.

I will make my long track very, very long.  It will drop one hundred meters, but then come back up to end at only the same relatively small drop of the short straight track.  So my ball on that track will accelerate to velocities/KE of incredible magnitudes on the drop as compared to that of the ball on the short track.  But who cares?  It will lose the vast majority of that velocity/KE as it rises back up to the final end height.  Now it might get to the end before or after the ball on the short straight track does.  But, again, who cares?  At the end, it is going the exact same speed and has the exact same KE as the ball that simply rolled down the short straight track.  So those average velocities you have in your example are, in effect, meaningless as far as showing any relationship with the KE gained by the balls while traveling the whole distance.

The PE available at the beginning is the difference of only the height at the beginning and the height at the end of the tracks.

You say the ball on my long track gained the super fast speeds at the bottom of the 100 meter drop due to that initial PE?  No.  It gained it from the PE of a 100 meter drop.  That 100 meter PE is NOT the same as the PE due to the difference in the height of the start and end of the tracks.  That 100 meter PE is being confused by Omniphysics.  No finagling needed.

Offline Omnibus

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5330
Re: Sjack Abeling Gravity Wheel and the Worlds first Weight Power Plant
« Reply #2095 on: February 26, 2010, 10:52:52 PM »
*smile followed by a long yawn*

Instead of yawning try to learn something.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Sjack Abeling Gravity Wheel and the Worlds first Weight Power Plant
« Reply #2095 on: February 26, 2010, 10:52:52 PM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline fletcher

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 399
Re: Sjack Abeling Gravity Wheel and the Worlds first Weight Power Plant
« Reply #2096 on: February 26, 2010, 11:07:17 PM »
Not from you, LOL.

Offline Omnibus

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5330
Re: Sjack Abeling Gravity Wheel and the Worlds first Weight Power Plant
« Reply #2097 on: February 26, 2010, 11:24:05 PM »
@mondrasek,

In your example you're repeating the same confusion seen in your earlier posts. Besides, you're putting in my mouth your own ideas calling them omniphysics. That's preposterous.

What you don't understand is that a person versed in physics, as opposed to mondrasekphysics, does care what the length of the path traveled from the beginning to the end is and what the time that path had been traveled for. As a matter of fact that's exactly what a person versed in physics would care about when he or she needs to know what the velocity of that ball traversing the entire path had been. You don't care, but you're living in the world of mondrasekphysics and that's not something under consideration in this discussion. 

Only the final velocity by no means characterizes the velocity of the ball when traveling along the path from the beginning to the end. That's what you don't understand. The ball doesn't somehow find itself suddenly at the end of the path without passing along the entire length of that path. If you understand that simple thing you would know that arriving sooner along a longer path means higher velocity which equivalently means greater kinetic energy. In your mondrasekphysics you want to forget that. It makes you uncomfortable because you can't explain it and you pretend it never existed, you pretend the ball never traveled along the entire path but somehow suddenly appeared at the end with a velocity. Until you somehow convince yourself that's wrong any further discussion with you is senseless.

Offline Cloxxki

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 825
Re: Sjack Abeling Gravity Wheel and the Worlds first Weight Power Plant
« Reply #2098 on: February 27, 2010, 12:39:45 AM »
I think I must disagree with all the above.
IMO, PE st the start is NOT nomimal height (sea level, center of earth, whatever), but the height above the bottom most part of the track. At the bottom most part, all this PE has been converted into KE. The incline will be zero in this place.
Should the (long) track continue after this point of minimal height and maximum KE, then KE is being exchanged for PE. This PE is worth nothing if the journey ends there, but should there be a bump at the end of the long track, the PE would again be converted into KE going back down.
Yes, at the end of the tracks, being the same vertical height under the respective start positions, KE for each track will be the same.

Horizontal displacement has always fascinated me. It's what our lives are all about. We want to go places. We fill up our cars with $$$ gas, all to travel HORIZONTALLY. A very small amount of our traveling is vertical. When we get serious about vertical, we use elevators or ski lifts. Even commercial airplanes, are all about horizontal displacement.
YET, Horizontal DISPLACEMENT is FOR FREE. Efficiency/speed of FREE horizontal travel are set only by our engineering level (think bobsleigh) and, essentially, GRAVITY.
We roll down a ramp, gravity gets a hold. We travel the flat section at speed, and take back the PE by rolling up a ramp, accepting to give back that speed. We made a travel, got where we wanted to go, expended ZERO JOULES of useful work along our frictionless track, and travelled hundreds of miles per hour.

Now, what can we possibly do with horizontal displacement that we have to spare?

The only thing I've been able to come up with, is making it from 4/6:00 to 12:00 faster than it took to get from 12 to 6. We start with the same KE again at 12:00, but do so when the counterweight is still busy doing work. Now 2 weights are exchanging PE for KE. KE is higher. Yet, average weight height, I must now face, is ALSO lower.
I'd love someone to put this principle in WM2D. I lack the skills.
I would expect it to, if at all, work only at higher turning speeds, hence perhaps Abeling's low-friction material quests.

Could horizontal displacement offer a preferential leverage on the wheel, or the other weight, someway? Could it give a JERK, changing it's KE vector while not reducing it?

Regards,
J

Offline Low-Q

  • without_ads
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2840
Re: Sjack Abeling Gravity Wheel and the Worlds first Weight Power Plant
« Reply #2099 on: February 27, 2010, 01:41:19 AM »
I think that the change of direction in the curved slope is itself a swap between kinetic and potential energy. If the curved slope was going vertical for 90% of the hight, then takes a sudden change into horizontal plain via a small radius turn near the bottom, the ball have already used its potential energy down there, because a moving object in the horizontal plane does not consume, or gain energy (if we do not consider friction) because it has no potential energy left to convert into kinetic energy - no more acceleration. So the kinetic energy will be the same for both balls at the end of the track, but also in average over the total distance because the ball in the horizontal plane do not accelerate anymore.

In a perfect world, imagine a top fuel dragster and a Fiat Uno at the same weight. Say that both shall accelerate from zero to 100km/h. The top fuel dragster will use shorter time from 0 to 100, than the Fiat Uno, and will also cross the finish line much earlier. But nevertheless, both have consumed the same energy to gain that speed. As the top fuel dragster have used 1 second to 100km/h it does not longer require energy to maintain that speed. The Fiat Uno is still accelerating and still gaining kinetic energy. The net energy spent in both cases are equal (said that both cars have 100km/h over the finish line), so (in my head) it is impossible for the dragster to have more average kinetic energy than the Fiat Uno during the whole track. Because: The total kinetic energy is also lasting shorter for the dragster, but it is in average faster. The total kinetic energy in the Fiat Uno is lasting longer, but is in average slower. Both time and average velocity must be taken into consideration - and If my head is good, I would say these factors cancels eachother out into an equal average kinetic energy.

I still have no correct answer or correct explanation to the subject, only thoughts and ideas.

Vidar

 

OneLink