2 balls on slope, 1 is faster. MAKING USE OF THIS WITH A SMOT.

[FreeEnergy]

hi all thanks for taking the time to look at this thread 

ok i will try to be as clear as possible and to the point on this.

ok based on this video http://www.hcrs.at/VIDEOS/KUGELA.MPG as you can see one ball is faster at the end of the track.
now image if we had a track, a full horizontal track with a dip at the end of the track. the video has a dip in the middle of the track, but mine is at the end. the dip seems to be the main thing which makes the ball faster like in the video.

ok now image a smot starting from the beginning of my horizontal track all the way to the middle of the dip of this track where the smot ends. do you think since the ball is now 'faster' it will escape the sticky spot? unlike the regular way with out the dip?
of course the smot is only strong enough to make the ball travel horizontally ONLY. what i am saying is if the ball can escape the sticky spot we can loop this thing.

i guess i can draw a picture for you guys if needed, but i am sure you guys can understand in just words

please let me know what you think or maybe add improvements?


peace

[hartiberlin]

Well, the nearer to the camera ball is not faster, but has the same speed at the end of the track.
But it has had a faster speed in the valley, so it was first at the end of the track.

You just have a time difference, no energy difference...!

Maybe one could use this time difference somehow within a gravity wheel
so that one leverarm is bigger than the other, so a wheel gets unbalanced...

But then the question is, how to reset or continue the wheel
to rotate ?

Regards, Stefan.

[greendoor]

If this is true with no fakery - this is amazing!  The ball in front has a much longer path, and more friction, and more air resistance ... and yet it wins the race!  How does conventional science cope with this? 

My thinking is that the ball gains more velocity during the dip - and since power is a proportional to velocity squared, it has a lot more power at that point in the race.  But it then has to climb up from the dip, against gravity - I would have thought conventional physics dictated than any energy gained would now be lost at this point ... i'm amazed ...

This could be the answer to a successful gravity wheel ... several people have proposed a simple wheel where the leverage on one side is a lot longer, and therefore there is more torque on one side.  The downfall of these designs is simply - you run out of time!  Longer leverage means a longer arc ... if you have a small weights falling down a longer arc, they have to be on the wheel for longer period of time, relative to the heavier weights being pulled upwards.  (The alternative is to let them fall lower than the arc described by the heavier weights - which is untenable, because once you go lower, you have to come up again, which is the show stopper). 

So i've come to the conclusion that a torque wheel is theoretically possible, but only as long as you can get the weights back up in time, and normally you run out of time ...

Intriguing ... I'm not sure if this is just a trick ...

[spinner]

If this is true with no fakery - this is amazing!  The ball in front has a much longer path, and more friction, and more air resistance ... and yet it wins the race!  How does conventional science cope with this? 

This is so called brachistochrone problem, mathematically solved before 1700's by great men like Bernoulli brothers, Newton, Leibniz...

Wikipedia description:
"A Brachistochrone curve, (Greek - "brachistos" shortest, "chronos" time), or curve of fastest descent, is the curve between two points that is covered in the least time by a body that starts at the first point with zero speed and passes down along the curve to the second point, under the action of constant gravity and assuming no friction."

Today's practical implementation are, for instance, ski-jumping installations...

My thinking is that the ball gains more velocity during the dip - and since power is a proportional to velocity squared, it has a lot more power at that point in the race.  But it then has to climb up from the dip, against gravity - I would have thought conventional physics dictated than any energy gained would now be lost at this point ... i'm amazed ...

You're correct. At the endpoint, theres no energy gain compared to a linear slope. Or free-fall (point A directly above point B)...

This could be the answer to a successful gravity wheel ... several people have proposed a simple wheel where the leverage on one side is a lot longer, and therefore there is more torque on one side.  The downfall of these designs is simply - you run out of time!  Longer leverage means a longer arc ... if you have a small weights falling down a longer arc, they have to be on the wheel for longer period of time, relative to the heavier weights being pulled upwards.  (The alternative is to let them fall lower than the arc described by the heavier weights - which is untenable, because once you go lower, you have to come up again, which is the show stopper). 

So I've come to the conclusion that a torque wheel is theoretically possible, but only as long as you can get the weights back up in time, and normally you run out of time ...

Intriguing ... I'm not sure if this is just a trick ...

Greendoor, i like your tinkering... Keep on!
Cheers!