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: 897790
  • *Total Topics: 15824
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 5
  • *Guests: 16
  • *Total: 21

Author Topic: Sjack Abeling Gravity Wheel and the Worlds first Weight Power Plant  (Read 667668 times)

Offline matrixman

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 9
Re: Sjack Abeling Gravity Wheel and the Worlds first Weight Power Plant
« Reply #2160 on: March 05, 2010, 04:00:22 AM »
LMAO

 Omni does doing this really do anything for you? Whatcha lookin for down there?

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 #2161 on: March 05, 2010, 04:14:05 AM »
I know. For lack of real arguments that's the only thing you can come up with.

Offline fletcher

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 399
Re: Sjack Abeling Gravity Wheel and the Worlds first Weight Power Plant
« Reply #2162 on: March 05, 2010, 06:15:44 AM »
Ok omnibus - so let's apply a little logic in a different way so I'll change the 'analogy' to a more common example.

This time let's talk about trajectories, which is very similar to the brachistochrome experiment.

I throw a base ball horizontally from a height of 1.5 meters - it hits the ground some distance away [travelling x horizontal distance & y vertical distance] in time z - I then drop the same base ball from the same height [y vertical distance] & it hits the ground at my feet in the same time z - is that right ?

What was the vertical component of the velocity [in both cases] ? - of course the ball I threw had a horizontal component of velocity/Ke & that came from my initial input of muscle calorie energy to throw it - that made its total Ke slightly larger than the free fall comparison but the vertical component was the same - is that right ?

N.B.1 assume that there was a vacuum to make it easier.

N.B.2. repeat the experiment but this time let the base ball roll down a flat slope to ground level so that no extra energy was added to the system by way of initial impetus i.e. both balls had zero Ke at start - the ramp ball obviously has velocity/speed made up of a vertical [y] & horizontal [x] components giving total Ke - guess what - that's the same Ke total as the free falling ball [with only vertical velocity/Ke] even though it took longer to arrive at the ground - is that right ?

There is no difference because no sideways thrust was externally applied by me - the ramp did exert an up & sideways thrust slowing its speed down but its total Ke was the same even if its velocity [vector i.e. with magnitude & direction] was different - is that right ?

P.S.1 I'll draw a picture tomorrow if you want ?

P.S.2 do any of these scenarios violate CoE as you propose ? - if so, which ones & why ? - if I throw the ball harder & it travels a further distance [say 2x] does that violate CoE in any way ?
« Last Edit: March 05, 2010, 07:42:07 AM by fletcher »

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Sjack Abeling Gravity Wheel and the Worlds first Weight Power Plant
« Reply #2162 on: March 05, 2010, 06:15:44 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline Omnibus

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5330
Re: Sjack Abeling Gravity Wheel and the Worlds first Weight Power Plant
« Reply #2163 on: March 05, 2010, 01:53:17 PM »
@fletcher,

As I already told you, what you're trying to do is to divert from the conditions of the experiment to make it suit your preconceived motion. First, only consider spontaneous motion, never mind spending muscle energy. Second, always treat the entire physical travel, from beginning to end. Third, mind the fact that no matter what the inbetween discrepancy of potential energy might be, the overall potential energy change of each ball is the same.

Having in mind the above, you should recognize the obvious fact that, although expending the same potential energy:

1) Terminal velocity of each ball is different--its direction obviously differs for each ball.

2) Velocity (average) of each ball from beginning to end is different and therefore kinetic energy on the average has also been different for each ball.

There are further interesting physical things to be observed but for now the above suffices to conclude CoE has been violated--same potential energy transforms spontaneously into different kinetic energies.

Offline petersone

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 209
Re: Sjack Abeling Gravity Wheel and the Worlds first Weight Power Plant
« Reply #2164 on: March 05, 2010, 02:13:49 PM »
Hi Bus
It is hard to go against your facts,start with the same pe,end with a different av. ke.
The only thing I question is if the 2 balls were allowed to travel on,level plain,would they come to rest at the same point at the same time.
peter

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Sjack Abeling Gravity Wheel and the Worlds first Weight Power Plant
« Reply #2164 on: March 05, 2010, 02:13:49 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline Omnibus

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5330
Re: Sjack Abeling Gravity Wheel and the Worlds first Weight Power Plant
« Reply #2165 on: March 05, 2010, 02:24:56 PM »
Hi Bus
It is hard to go against your facts,start with the same pe,end with a different av. ke.
The only thing I question is if the 2 balls were allowed to travel on,level plain,would they come to rest at the same point at the same time.
peter

Yes, they will, provided their mass (and size) are the same. Of course, the "level plain" should have an incline, no matter how small. Otherwise, they will stay at rest where you put them.

Offline mondrasek

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1300
Re: Sjack Abeling Gravity Wheel and the Worlds first Weight Power Plant
« Reply #2166 on: March 05, 2010, 03:00:11 PM »
Yes it is. Finish the sentence, don't finagle--"Having a greater average KE over one path than another from start to finish" when the two balls expend the same potential energy (starting and ending at the same level) is a violation of CoE.

Nope.  And here is clear proof:

Let's take a straight level track.  So PE is ZERO.  Now lets send one ball along that track starting with a velocity of 10mph.  It will obviously get to the end of the track with the same velocity of 10mph.  So the AVERAGE velocity was 10mph.  Now send a second ball down the same track starting with a velocity of 20mph.  It will obviously get to the end of the track with the same velocity of 20mph.  So the AVERAGE velocity was 20mph.

So, two different AVERAGE velocities/KE achieved from the same PE (ZERO).  But if the PE was ZERO, then it could in no way be responsible for the different AVERAGE velocities/KE.  SO no violation of CoE.  Because there was no change in energy to even consider.

PE is related to the CHANGE or DIFFERENCE in height.  It is responsible for a CHANGE or DIFFERENCE in KE.

AVERAGE KE is absolutely not related to PE and therefore comparing the two cannot tell you anything about CoE.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Sjack Abeling Gravity Wheel and the Worlds first Weight Power Plant
« Reply #2166 on: March 05, 2010, 03:00:11 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline Omnibus

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5330
Re: Sjack Abeling Gravity Wheel and the Worlds first Weight Power Plant
« Reply #2167 on: March 05, 2010, 03:10:58 PM »
Nope.  And here is clear proof:

Let's take a straight level track.  So PE is ZERO.  Now lets send one ball along that track starting with a velocity of 10mph.  It will obviously get to the end of the track with the same velocity of 10mph.  So the AVERAGE velocity was 10mph.  Now send a second ball down the same track starting with a velocity of 20mph.  It will obviously get to the end of the track with the same velocity of 20mph.  So the AVERAGE velocity was 20mph.

So, two different AVERAGE velocities/KE achieved from the same PE (ZERO).  But if the PE was ZERO, then it could in no way be responsible for the different AVERAGE velocities/KE.  SO no violation of CoE.  Because there was no change in energy to even consider.

PE is related to the CHANGE or DIFFERENCE in height.  It is responsible for a CHANGE or DIFFERENCE in KE.

AVERAGE KE is absolutely not related to PE and therefore comparing the two cannot tell you anything about CoE.

That's wrong and to understand it and not get confused always consider spontaneous motion. In your first example the motion isn't spontaneous. It is due to external energy input and therefore PE has nothing to do with it. In your first example only the spending of external energy is related to the average velocity.
In your first example PE is not related to the average velocity. The kinetic energy in your first example is equivalent to the external energy input. There's no violation of CoE there.

In our case the driving cause isn't external. Motion is spontaneous. It is directly related to PE, PE causes the motion, PE causes the average velocity, PE is related to the average velocity. PE is the only source, it's unique and yet it can transform into two different kinetic energies, depending on the construction, unlike your first example. That has to be understood very well.

Offline Omnibus

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5330
Re: Sjack Abeling Gravity Wheel and the Worlds first Weight Power Plant
« Reply #2168 on: March 05, 2010, 07:50:00 PM »
Let us make some further observations:

First, it should be observed that the given gravitational potential energy PE cannot be transformed into indefinite quantities of kinetic energy KE. For a given PE there will always be a maximum kinetic energy KEmax, corresponding to a path between the beginning and the end point in the form of a cycloid. That cycloid path will provide the upper bound of that transformation. The minimum KE will be achieved along a straight path between the beginning and the end.

It would be curious to find out if the KEmax is the exact equivalent amount of energy to the expended PE. If so, then only a motion along a cycloid ensures ensures obeying CoE. Any other path would cause energy (PE) to be lost, "destroyed''. Thus, this would be the first instance of "destroying'' energy. Of course,that will not be the case if obeying of CoE occurs along a straight path. In such a case only the obtainment of excess energy already found in the magnetic propulsor will take place.

The above observations prove violation of CoE independent of whether or not they can be applied to build a practical perpetuum mobile.

Nevertheless, it would be interesting to see, once we have determined that CoE can be violated also as a result of varying the path while transforming a given amount of gravitational potential energy, if there could be practical implications of that violation. So far I do not see any direct way of utilizing it. One may think that somehow the discrepancy in timing while transforming the same PE may somehow be implemented in a construction to cause its continuing over balance. Unfortunately, so far the only plausible way for continuous over balance is not by creating time discrepancies but by constructive solutions ensuring persistent violation of the lever rule at every angle of rotation of the wheel as in: http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=7150.msg229720#msg229719 and http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=7150.msg229720#msg229720. What remains is to come up with creative constructive solutions and actually implement them and manufacture the device.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Sjack Abeling Gravity Wheel and the Worlds first Weight Power Plant
« Reply #2168 on: March 05, 2010, 07:50:00 PM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline mondrasek

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1300
Re: Sjack Abeling Gravity Wheel and the Worlds first Weight Power Plant
« Reply #2169 on: March 05, 2010, 08:27:03 PM »
In our case the driving cause isn't external. Motion is spontaneous. It is directly related to PE, PE causes the motion, PE causes the average velocity, PE is related to the average velocity. PE is the only source, it's unique and yet it can transform into two different kinetic energies, depending on the construction, unlike your first example. That has to be understood very well.

Still wrong.  And here is your proof using "spontaneous" motion:

First track is gently sloping.  Ball starts at velocity zero and steadily accelerates to a final velocity of 20mph.  Average speed along the track was 10mph.  Second track is as shown.  The ball starts at velocity zero and accelerates quite rapidly to 20mph at location "A".  From this location to the end of the track it is level so the ball continues at a steady 20mph all the way to the end.  Average velocity is just a bit under 20mph.

So, two different AVERAGE velocities/KE achieved from the same PE (starting from velocity of zero for "spontaneous" motion).  Again no violation of CoE.

Once again, AVERAGE KE is absolutely not related to PE and therefore comparing the two cannot tell you anything about CoE.

Offline fletcher

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 399
Re: Sjack Abeling Gravity Wheel and the Worlds first Weight Power Plant
« Reply #2170 on: March 05, 2010, 08:41:28 PM »
The first yellow ball free falls - the second grey one has external impetus horizontally for 0.25 secs - the third red one runs a steep slope - the fourth blue one runs a shallow slope - the fifth green one takes a curved path with some initial steepness.

Conclusions : all balls arrive at their termination height with the same Ke - the exception is the grey ball which has slightly higher Ke [the vertical component is the same as the total Ke for the others] - it has higher Ke because it was falling in a parabola because of introduced energy - the others had no introduced energy & started with potential of position only [in a gravity field].

Thankyou omnibus for showing us the most efficient shape for a ball to get to the bottom - calculus has been able to do that for quite some time - nevertheless at any vertical height on the way down, when a comparison is made, the kinetic energies are identical from the same potential energy, if there is no input of external energy giving a horizontal thrust.

Now, if you could just arrange to have one of the balls arrive with excess Ke over & above the others then you might be onto something.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Sjack Abeling Gravity Wheel and the Worlds first Weight Power Plant
« Reply #2170 on: March 05, 2010, 08:41:28 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 #2171 on: March 05, 2010, 08:55:41 PM »
Still wrong.  And here is your proof using "spontaneous" motion:

First track is gently sloping.  Ball starts at velocity zero and steadily accelerates to a final velocity of 20mph.  Average speed along the track was 10mph.  Second track is as shown.  The ball starts at velocity zero and accelerates quite rapidly to 20mph at location "A".  From this location to the end of the track it is level so the ball continues at a steady 20mph all the way to the end.  Average velocity is just a bit under 20mph.

So, two different AVERAGE velocities/KE achieved from the same PE (starting from velocity of zero for "spontaneous" motion).  Again no violation of CoE.

Once again, AVERAGE KE is absolutely not related to PE and therefore comparing the two cannot tell you anything about CoE.

Don't you see you're proving my point with this example. Read your own example once again and try to understand it.

Offline Omnibus

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5330
Re: Sjack Abeling Gravity Wheel and the Worlds first Weight Power Plant
« Reply #2172 on: March 05, 2010, 08:58:22 PM »
The first yellow ball free falls - the second grey one has external impetus horizontally for 0.25 secs - the third red one runs a steep slope - the fourth blue one runs a shallow slope - the fifth green one takes a curved path with some initial steepness.

Conclusions : all balls arrive at their termination height with the same Ke - the exception is the grey ball which has slightly higher Ke [the vertical component is the same as the total Ke for the others] - it has higher Ke because it was falling in a parabola because of introduced energy - the others had no introduced energy & started with potential of position only [in a gravity field].

Thankyou omnibus for showing us the most efficient shape for a ball to get to the bottom - calculus has been able to do that for quite some time - nevertheless at any vertical height on the way down, when a comparison is made, the kinetic energies are identical from the same potential energy, if there is no input of external energy giving a horizontal thrust.

Now, if you could just arrange to have one of the balls arrive with excess Ke over & above the others then you might be onto something.

Like i said, don't sidetrack, especiall when the examples you give prove nothing of substance. Read what I've explained and try to understand that exact example. Don't try to invent things which are beside the point.

Offline Omnibus

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5330
Re: Sjack Abeling Gravity Wheel and the Worlds first Weight Power Plant
« Reply #2173 on: March 05, 2010, 09:03:39 PM »
This twitching in attempt to save face is useless. Violation of CoE is proved even in this case--unnoticed far-reaching consequence for physics from a well known mathematical problem. What we need to focus now on is the constructive, engineering solution which would allow building a working perpetuum mobile.

Offline mondrasek

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1300
Re: Sjack Abeling Gravity Wheel and the Worlds first Weight Power Plant
« Reply #2174 on: March 05, 2010, 09:14:51 PM »
Don't you see you're proving my point with this example. Read your own example once again and try to understand it.

Nope.  I proved that a given PE results in the same KE, regardless of the path taken.  This CONFIRMS CoE.

It also shows that a given PE can result in different AVERAGE KE, which proves absolutely nothing about CoE.  You claim that it is a violation of CoE.  Clearly you are wrong.  And no finagling or wiggling can escape this fact.

 

OneLink