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 Posts: 894391
  • *Total Topics: 15729
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 0
  • *Guests: 12
  • *Total: 12

Author Topic: Sjack Abeling Gravity Wheel and the Worlds first Weight Power Plant  (Read 639061 times)

Offline mscoffman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1377
Re: Sjack Abeling Gravity Wheel and the Worlds first Weight Power Plant
« Reply #2100 on: February 27, 2010, 01:48:15 AM »
Just wanted to mention; I suspect that two solid ball bearings would
have much less noticable velocity difference then two hollow metal
spheres...How the object mass is allocated within the object's rotational
radius probably makes a difference in outcomes. The ball bearing has
much more "momentum" to lift and much less rotational mometum energy
stored with which to do it.

Physics really needs to be discussed in terms of differential equations. :)

:S:MarkSCoffman

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy


Offline onthecuttingedge2005

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1335
Re: Sjack Abeling Gravity Wheel and the Worlds first Weight Power Plant
« Reply #2101 on: February 27, 2010, 01:54:30 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

Very true, all kinetic energy will decelerate because of the path of resistance, if you have a path with no resistance then it will store that kinetic energy until used up. if constant kinetic energy is not applied then the Kinetic energy will dissipate naturally, just like a bullet that loses kinetic energy to all the forces working against it in flight.

this tells me that Kinetic forms of energy are not the key answer because kinetic energy is only stored energy.

you need direct and constant energy not stored energy. use stored energy when it is in overload.

it is the same with all particles and or even a virtual particles, they always want to decelerate until they come to rest unless the path has no resistance and even then it is only stored until used.
« Last Edit: February 27, 2010, 02:28:51 AM by onthecuttingedge2005 »

Offline Cloxxki

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 825
Re: Sjack Abeling Gravity Wheel and the Worlds first Weight Power Plant
« Reply #2102 on: February 27, 2010, 11:33:03 AM »
Perhaps this mental picture will help some of you.

A ball rolling frictionless along a horizontal path, is little different from a satellite in orbit. Distance from the souce of attraction (or target of repulsion, depending on aether/gravity theory in hand) is a constant. As said, when not acceleration occurs, KE is being stored until exchanged to do work of gain/lose height. KE is more like a state, than an energy level. It certianly is not an output of any kind.
Scientifically, nothing interesting happens. All very well documented I'm sure.
Technologically, this is 100% unused on earth. In orbit, our satellites have no forms of friction to come up with, to pick a fight with.
On earth, we barely use KE in traffic. Most go from pedal-to-the-metal to "foot on brake" without real KE phase. We are maximizing the work done for the distance we travel, where the opposite is wanted.

If we can't find a use for horizontal displacement on a wheel, would Abeling somehow have found a way to harvest centrifugal forces? A horizontal component could certainly be made available, the above pages make that apparent. How to extract it without KE loss, though...

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Sjack Abeling Gravity Wheel and the Worlds first Weight Power Plant
« Reply #2102 on: February 27, 2010, 11:33:03 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline Low-Q

  • without_ads
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2840
Re: Sjack Abeling Gravity Wheel and the Worlds first Weight Power Plant
« Reply #2103 on: February 27, 2010, 07:47:41 PM »
  Cloxxki,
 There might be a way to use KE froma horizontally moving object without changing it's m*v.
 It's technical and relies a little on math to understand the A.


                                                                              Jim
Sorry for answering your post to Cloxxki with a question, but I have to :)

How can you harvest energy from a horizontally moving mass without reducing its velocity? (or did I completely lost your point?)

Vidar

Offline Cloxxki

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 825
Re: Sjack Abeling Gravity Wheel and the Worlds first Weight Power Plant
« Reply #2104 on: February 28, 2010, 02:31:01 PM »
Sorry for answering your post to Cloxxki with a question, but I have to :)

How can you harvest energy from a horizontally moving mass without reducing its velocity? (or did I completely lost your point?)

Vidar
The easy (lame) answer would be : by increasing the mass.

If we could really do some work of any kind that is greater with more horizontal displacement, I'd be building OU devices like Mozart wrote symphonies.

In hundreds or even thousands gravity wheels, horizontal offset is used to enhance torque of the weight on the axle. Meant to establish overbalance, bring us a self-running. So far, it has not worked out this way. Torque goes at the cost of speed. Place a weight a mile out from the axle. The torque will be biblical, yet the angular moment will be 1/biblical.
If someone can solve the equasion we're all hoping is there for us to be solved, OU will be as real as daily sunrise.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Sjack Abeling Gravity Wheel and the Worlds first Weight Power Plant
« Reply #2104 on: February 28, 2010, 02:31:01 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline Low-Q

  • without_ads
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2840
Re: Sjack Abeling Gravity Wheel and the Worlds first Weight Power Plant
« Reply #2105 on: March 01, 2010, 08:30:20 PM »
  Hi Vidar,
 A mass following a llinear path has momentum. This gives the mass a value greater than m*v.
If the kinetic energy of the momentum can be converted, then overunity might be possible.
 One problem with a masss moving in a straight line, sooner or later it will have to stop or change directions.


                                                                                      Jim
Yes, but what hand did place the potential energy in that mass in the first place.

Vidar

Offline petersone

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 209
Re: Sjack Abeling Gravity Wheel and the Worlds first Weight Power Plant
« Reply #2106 on: March 02, 2010, 01:12:02 AM »
Hi All
As I understand it,the shorter the time anything goes from A to B,the more energy it consumes,as both balls start with the same energy,how come the "valley" ball gets to the end before the "straight" ball? I wonder if the balls are identical,I don't think they were shown changed around.
peter

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Sjack Abeling Gravity Wheel and the Worlds first Weight Power Plant
« Reply #2106 on: March 02, 2010, 01:12:02 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline Cloxxki

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 825
Re: Sjack Abeling Gravity Wheel and the Worlds first Weight Power Plant
« Reply #2107 on: March 02, 2010, 08:01:13 AM »
Hi All
As I understand it,the shorter the time anything goes from A to B,the more energy it consumes,as both balls start with the same energy,how come the "valley" ball gets to the end before the "straight" ball? I wonder if the balls are identical,I don't think they were shown changed around.
peter
Peter, it's about which ball gets up to speed first (allowed to swap height for speed). The ball that started down a steeper track before going level, will head into the level part with greater speed, and thus easily makes up the lost horizontal time. As nothing is slowing it down, the hor. advantage can be extended, depending on the length of the track.

If there's a really wide valley between 2 mountain peaks of identical height, fastest rail track would not be horizontal, would not follow the mountain faces, but follow the mountain faces and go deep underground for the valley section. More time is made up by going fast for long, than it takes to cover the extra meters of steep track.

Offline fletcher

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 399
Re: Sjack Abeling Gravity Wheel and the Worlds first Weight Power Plant
« Reply #2108 on: March 02, 2010, 08:31:22 PM »
Another metaphor to help visualize what happens for those that might care - many would have watched the winter Olympics just finished - there were parallel slalom racing for snowboarders & skiers - two contestants raced twice, swapping left & right downhill tracks & the fastest combined time won the heat.

Commentators often commented that one track was faster than the other - but how many who watched thought about why that would be so ? - all else being equal i.e. windage factor, body mass, snow conditions etc then the track with the most steep parts was the faster track - i.e. more steeper bits & more flat glides translates to arriving at the finish line in less time - they didn't arrive with a faster velocity, just got there quicker [average velocity] - same as the brachistochrome experiments showed.

An additional bit of information as an aside - heavier skiers also tend to get down a track quicker, if it doesn't have sharp turns for example - this is on the same track - the reason in this case is that the gravity force is pulling the skiers downhill - all mass accelerates at the same rate regardless of that mass - but there are losses or forces opposing the acceleration of gravity - these are frictional losses, one of the largest being air drag - a more massive skier accelerates the same as a lighter one but reaches a faster terminal velocity because the percentage of windage losses is less compared to the lighter skier - that's why they wear skin suits to reduce windage & maximise net acceleration - of course this advantage is often engineered out to even the playing field by having lots of sharp turns because more massive skiers have more inertia & have to dig their edges in harder to get around a tight turn which slows them down - lighter skiers don't have the same top velocity but can manoeuvre faster so their average speed is just as fast on a well designed slalom & that makes the contest as fair as possible.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Sjack Abeling Gravity Wheel and the Worlds first Weight Power Plant
« Reply #2108 on: March 02, 2010, 08:31:22 PM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline Omnibus

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5330
Re: Sjack Abeling Gravity Wheel and the Worlds first Weight Power Plant
« Reply #2109 on: March 02, 2010, 08:38:12 PM »
@fletcher,

Your last text again doesn't help in explaining as to why two balls with equal gravitational potential energy clearly convert it into two different amounts of kinetic energy thus apparently violating the second, "transformation", part of CoE (violation of the first, "conservation", part has already been proven definitively earlier). Just giving examples with slaloms and reconfirming that transformation of a given amount of potential energy into other kinds of energy is construction dependent isn't addressing the main issue.

Offline fletcher

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 399
Re: Sjack Abeling Gravity Wheel and the Worlds first Weight Power Plant
« Reply #2110 on: March 02, 2010, 09:35:26 PM »
@fletcher,

Your last text again doesn't help in explaining as to why two balls with equal gravitational potential energy clearly convert it into two different amounts of kinetic energy thus apparently violating the second, "transformation", part of CoE (violation of the first, "conservation", part has already been proven definitively earlier).

Just giving examples with slaloms and reconfirming that transformation of a given amount of potential energy into other kinds of energy is construction dependent isn't addressing the main issue.

But they don't omnibus - at any same height when two identical balls are compared they have the same velocity i.e. kinetic energy [translational & rotational], regardless of the path they follow which only dictates how long they took to get down to that height or datum.

I would suggest that the work-energy equivalence theorem might have some part to play in answering your question - so to compare the relative energies of the two balls you need to treat them as discrete 'snap shots' like a video frame by frame, IMO - then you do the sums & calculate the Pe & the Ke in that frame or instant - like static analysis.

I would ask you a question - can you intergrate the area under the curve [curve representing the path taken] & if not, why not ? - if so, what conclusions can you draw from that ?

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Sjack Abeling Gravity Wheel and the Worlds first Weight Power Plant
« Reply #2110 on: March 02, 2010, 09:35:26 PM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline Omnibus

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5330
Re: Sjack Abeling Gravity Wheel and the Worlds first Weight Power Plant
« Reply #2111 on: March 02, 2010, 09:57:16 PM »
@fletcher,

Quote
But they don't omnibus - at any same height when two identical balls are compared they have the same velocity i.e. kinetic energy [translational & rotational], regardless of the path they follow which only dictates how long they took to get down to that height or datum.

But they obviously don't have the same velocity because not only one of them travels along a longer path but also gets sooner at the end point. Havening different velocities (their mass being thew same) means that the two balls have different kinetic energies despite having the same initial potential energy. To avoid repeating your confusion, recall, kinetic energy is only a function of mass and velocity and has nothing to do with collision, transfer or whatever else you seem to think it might be connected to.

Quote
I would suggest that the work-energy equivalence theorem might have some part to play in answering your question - so to compare the relative energies of the two balls you need to treat them as discrete 'snap shots' like a video frame by frame, IMO - then you do the sums & calculate the Pe & the Ke in that frame or instant - like static analysis.

Not at all. The comparison must be made between the entire quantities of KE the two balls are obviously displaying and the entire initial PE these two balls obviously have. Also, again, no theorem can obliterate what physics understands under kinetic energy--once again, kinetic energy of a body is only a function of m and v and of nothing else.

Quote
I would ask you a question - can you intergrate the area under the curve [curve representing the path taken] & if not, why not ? - if so, what conclusions can you draw from that ?

You sure can and the integration is the product of the force on the ball and the displacement. That integration will give you work which will be different for the two balls that have started at the same potential energy--clear violation of CoE.

Don't know yet how the above violation of CoE can be used in engineering terms to create a self-sustaining device but the violations itself is clearly there.

Offline mondrasek

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1300
Re: Sjack Abeling Gravity Wheel and the Worlds first Weight Power Plant
« Reply #2112 on: March 02, 2010, 10:25:04 PM »
Maybe this can help:

The PE of the entire track is related to the height difference of the beginning and end of the track, shown as PEe.  The only KE that can be related to this PEe is the KE at the end.

The ball shown on the long track will be traveling faster at the point shown.  But that velocity/KE is not the result of PEe.  It is the result of the PEb, the height difference of the beginning and it's current position on the track.

Likewise, the ball shown on the short, straight track will be traveling slower at the point shown.  Again, that velocity/KE is not the result of PEe.  It is the result of the PEa, the height difference of the beginning and it's current position on the track.

At any horizontal point of travel where the ball on one track is moving faster than the other, it is also lower.  It has converted more PE to KE.  But only at the end can you relate the KE at that point to the PE (PEe) at that point.

Offline fletcher

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 399
Re: Sjack Abeling Gravity Wheel and the Worlds first Weight Power Plant
« Reply #2113 on: March 02, 2010, 11:11:36 PM »
Work Done = force x distance, measured in Nm's [Joules]

Force = mass x acceleration [a force pushes or pulls something - without mass you wouldn't know a filed of acceleration exhisted because it couldn't interact] - acceleration introduces the time element which is helpful for working out the rate of change or power.

Energy is the capacity to do work also measured in Nm's [Joules] - mechanical energy we might be interested in is either potential energy [i.e. stored or energy of position] or kinetic energy [i.e. energy of motion] - they are in the same units as Work Done therefore are interchangeable [both are a measure of capacity to do work] - Ke is of real interest to us because when applied to a mass it moves it or deforms it & this gives us the objects capacity to perform mechanical work i.e. force x distance i.e. a physical exchange.

You are welcome to explore ways to capture any of that abundance of surplus Ke that you see omnibus & use it to create OU - knock yourself out !

Offline Omnibus

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5330
Re: Sjack Abeling Gravity Wheel and the Worlds first Weight Power Plant
« Reply #2114 on: March 02, 2010, 11:15:44 PM »
@mondrasek,

You already said this and I told you it is incorrect:

Quote
The only KE that can be related to this PEe is the KE at the end.

It is incorrect because in such understanding you are ignoring the physical fact that the ball travels along the entire distance and isn't just appearing suddenly at the end of the track.

Thus, when all said and done, the travel of any of the two balls is only due to the PEe. As I said more than once, the entire travel from the beginning to the end has to be had in mind in this analysis and not only some partial observations which fit this or that preconceived notion.

Thus, the fact remains--the same PEe, corresponding to the entire journey of each one of the balls, transforms into two different kinetic energies, depending on the path taken. That's a clear violation of the "transformation" aspect of CoE.

 

OneLink