Sjack Abeling Gravity Wheel and the Worlds first Weight Power Plant

[Omnibus]

@stgpcm

Do not bother with Omni.

I tried to nicely tell him on page 3 or about.

He claims things proved based upon nonsense.

I admire his tenacity but feel he causes harm by inducing others to blindly follow his twisted logic.

BTW I like your diagram, it is a pity OB will not look at it closely.

You're despicable human being who breaks his word and therefore should be ignored outright.

As for your opinion on page 3 it's nothing but ridiculous.

[Omnibus]

No, the most conclusive criteria is a persistent tendency to accelerate.

(It's not required to be persistent, but if there are sections that decelerate you've got to do a whole shedful of extra calculation to show the acceleration phases overcome the deceleration phases, and you don't have a system that can self start from any position, but you can still have perpetual motion)

in order to accelerate from any position, there has to be net torque in any position.

as you've been objecting to the simplified models - on the grounds that they don't show the other (irrelevent) parts of the perpetual motion machine, I've include the whole thing. you will find the centre of mass is always to the right of the axis. You will also find a static torque analysis shows there is always a clockwise torque. You will also find that if you built it the device would stop in this position, despite a static torque analysis showing it should rotate.

The right-hand two balls are fixed while the left-hand ones can move freely along the arms, right? In absence of friction it will turn CW. It isn't a perpetuum mobile, though, and it's for you to answer why.

[Omnibus]

In this example as well as in the perpetuum mobile case the constructions, materials, lubricants and what not have to ensure that the friction forces on the left are less than the excess torque provided by the weight on the right. That's only a matter of engineering and not of whether or not perpetuum mobile is real which it actually is.

[stgpcm]

The right-hand two balls are fixed while the left-hand ones can move freely along the arms, right? In absence of friction it will turn CW. It isn't a perpetuum mobile, though, and it's for you to answer why.

no, all for balls move along the arms, there is an catch mechanism that is holding them fixed on the right that releases at 3:00

in absence of friction the model would not rotate from the position it is in, other wise it would be a perpetual motion machine. Until you can understand why it doesn't rotate you are wasting everyones time

[Cloxxki]

Omnibus, might I suggest you channel part of the energy you put in stting "the obvious", to making the obvious visible to us mere mortals? If you are so certain, come up with an over-torque design, and build it would less than the maximum friction to get it to run.
I am noticing repetitive pattern in your posts here which seems greater than even mine.

Your efforts are most commendable, but really could be put to much better use. Getting fellow inventors and free energy proponents more p'd off than you aremotivating them, cannot be a desired result of your postings? The way you prefer to state the truth as it is clearly quite apparent to you, you are alienating those potentially able to make a real difference here.
How are do'ers like Dusty in their spare time going to get to constructive advice when you are filling pages (from cut up or repetitive posts) on the only thread dedicated to this design?
Please open a separate thread "Perpetuum Mobile proven in 1001 ways, by Omnibus" to vent your genious. The mere mortals will crawl along using their pre-historic brains to their fullest, getting further than with your help.

Everyone is entitled to an opinion, but no-one should be allowed to vent this opinion so violently that it is undermining the future of free energy.

Thank you. Looking forward to your more constructive advice to actual replicators like Dusty and Eisenficker.