Sjack Abeling Gravity Wheel and the Worlds first Weight Power Plant

[Omnibus]

See, math is only a helping hand in physics. That's just a tool. Math doesn't make physics. Physics makes math.

Also, usually scientific discoveries have no practical value in a sense of having direct utilitarian application. This latest one we discussed here is of this type. Scientific discoveries often but not always are the basis of technologies but more importantly they serve us to understand the world better. In this instance, now that we already know CoE can be violated, our perspectives are widened and we feel much freer and expectant of approaches, even in practical sense, that will bring us to new levels of our existence.

Now that we know perpetuum mobile is possible in principle we should not waste time to implement that knowledge in producing a practical device.

Like I said, the best approach so far is to seek in concrete terms a construction which  demonstrates a persistent violation of the lever rule. I've already shown initial steps of making a model to that effect. As I said, in that model the greatest problem is keeping the upper part of the ramp in place. Let's discuss now this concrete technical problem.

[Omnibus]

Anybody know what this is all about: http://brevets-patents.ic.gc.ca/opic-cipo/cpd/eng/patent/2497861/summary.html

[Omnibus]

Just wanted to mention that the "high road and low road" effect has already been discussed (http://www.physics4all.co.il/open.php?link=606) and has been tried unsuccessfully in the so-called "classic overbalanced wheel" (http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/museum/art.htm).

Of course, we already know, that prior to this discussion it hasn't been noticed that the brachistochrone problem which maximizes the above effect, although well understood mathematically, has been overlooked as a violation of CoE in physics. Simanek's explanation is no exception in that respect as is his incorrect assessment of other devices.

We also now know that, although CoE can be violated in the above way, its dierct application for making a working OU device isn't straightforward.



P.S. The above text may be ignored by @Cloxxki and others who are only interested in direct technical solutions.

[Omnibus]

In terms of practicality, the greater problem, as I already said, is keeping in place the upper part of the track in a device similar to that of Sjack Abeling which seems so far to minimize friction the most (I already gave twice links to that device).

Unfortunately, the ramp problem is probably the insurmountable obstacle in the oldest known unbalanced wheel -- Bhaskara's wheel (http://keelynet.wordpress.com/2009/10/09/bhaskaras-wheel-interesting-claim-of-replication/) -- which is probably the ultimate in minimizing friction. How does one make the liquid on the left stay closer to the axle?

Another  problem with the Bhaskara's wheel is that it cannot be studies theoretically, using WM2D. You may recall, I defined a rule which is a test for an unbalanced wheel to be OU -- a wheel demonstrating persistent violation of lever rule (whereby wheel's center of mass is persistently sideways on one side of the axle) at any angle of rotation, is an OU wheel. Using WM2D one can easily prove that Sjack Abeling's device is OU (certain trajectories of the balls being more efficient than others) by observing that it demonstrates a persistent violation of the lever rule at every angle of rotation. Like I said, WM2D program cannot be used to study Bhaskara's wheel in this way although it would be quite curious to see how the center of mass refers to the axis of rotation at different angles of rotation of that wheel too. It very well may be that certain constructions would offer a better discrepancy (that is, greater extent of the desired violation). The mentioned practical lack of friction makes it a very attractive object of study, though.

[Cloxxki]

I sympathize. You are dilusional, and no-one but you can see it. In your own eyes you're so smart and can see all the greatness others are seemingly just ignoring.
Dig up all of internet, my 50,000 or more forums posts over the past decade, and catch me expressing myself towards someone this strongly. I am a patient man, but can't tolerate intensional misinformation. You ought to know better, and no sincere thinker can explain a good idea this badly.

A steeper or deeper path is nothing more than a earlier energy conversion. Without friction, height is simply converted into velocity. A ramp can take KE with vertical path component, and store it in a horizontally moving object.
Horizontal displacement, as vital as it is in our everyday life, living on the surface of our friction infested planet, is useless in physics. Horizontal velocty is like a state, it does nothing. Brings nothing. All you do to it, will rob it of KE without any gains.
A weight one foot from level ground needs to reach the finishline at level ground, 10 feet out. The fastest route, without going under ground, is steep down, and then levels towards the finish. Get that max velovity (x=1/2gt2) and use it to cross the distance in a short time. Finish line still has this same max velocity, in a no friction environment. If you get to go underground, you may get there a bit quicker still. Go 3 foot underground, reach 2x max speed, travel the next 8-9 feet at that speed, and then go steep up to level ground, and beat the above ground fastest time. In the latter case, 4x more PE was converted into KE. That's how the speed got into the weight. You just got to give the 300% back at the end again, and end up with 100% speed. You don't get speed for free if you need to dig a well, jump into it, and then climb out. In the low road case it's a quick transition, but still not for free. In stead of digging the well, one could as well climb a pole.

I will not ignore misinformation when I see it. Tolerating a lie, not fighting to identify it, is to be part of the lie. This is not a personal game, or an ego thing. In the free energy case, misinformation is a crime to humanity. Even if unintentional (I'm not the best informed thinker myself), it should be identifying where and as it occurs.

Go promote OU where it has actual merit. OU doesn't need your single sided hurrays. People are paid well to ridicule the OU movement just this way.