Sjack Abeling Gravity Wheel and the Worlds first Weight Power Plant

[Omnibus]

I'm not, I'm claiming that by your criteria it is, but that it isn't. No it wont. You're doing your vector calculations incorrectly

So, we're in agreement then. Yours is not perpetuum mobile and you shouldn't waste everybody's time with that. Also, saying that I'm doing my vector calculations incorrectly isn't enough for what you're saying to be true. At least @modrasek is trying, to no avail, but trying. You have no clue, though, as seen from the examples you're giving.

[AquariuZ]

Now you see, this is the only disadvantage of an internet forum: Threads that grow out of proportion.

That is for whatever reason. I am not going to choose sides in battles unless I have a strong opinion backed by strong understanding of the matter.

I do feel this thread is too large and for clarity I have opened the two other threads.

Right or wrong, I would suggest not to attack anyone personally, for any reason. It is just not productive.

Thanks to all for your continuing interest and input.

[stgpcm]

So, we're in agreement then. Yours is not perpetuum mobile and you shouldn't waste everybody's time with that.

apart from the fact they fit YOUR definition of one.

So, please stop using a broken definition, and I'll stop providing you with machines that match your definition.

Also, saying that I'm doing my vector calculations incorrectly isn't enough for what you're saying to be true.

OK, do the vector caluculations for the instance shown  in  the two weight diagram, and I'll tell you where yo are making your mistake - I have the correct calculations that show why it would (contrary to your understanding) actually turn Counter Clockwise

At least @modrasek is trying, to no avail, but trying. You have no clue, though, as seen from the examples you're giving.

I am trying to help by making sure we are performing the correct calculations - surely that is a really good starting point?

I am doing this by providing simple examples that I believe exhibit the errors in your calculations, based on my understanding of them. If your calculations don't have the errors. Then I have misunderstood your methodology, and we have eliminated a potential reason for misattributing the status of perpetuum mobile to the system

[Omnibus]

@stgpcm

apart from the fact they fit YOUR definition of one.

No, you've shown persistently (pun not intended) that you don't understand my definition. You have to study that problem more.

OK, do the vector caluculations for the instance shown  in  the two weight diagram, and I'll tell you where yo are making your mistake - I have the correct calculations that show why it would (contrary to your understanding) actually turn Counter Clockwise

OK, show it.

I am doing this by providing simple examples

No, simple examples won't do. I've said that to @mondrasek as well. If the simple examples were doing the job then this would've been proven much earlier. Proven, I say, not having it working, because I believe it has existed as working devices in the past but has been suppressed. Not by mediocrities like Simanek who are only the ones who'd love to be the lackeys and laboriously strive to somehow please whoever they perceive as their masters, not very successfully, at that. The powers that be are different.

[stgpcm]

@stgpcm

No, you've shown persistently (pun not intended) that you don't understand my definition. You have to study that problem more.

Indeed I don't understand your definition. To me it seems flawed. I'me asking you to show how the models presented fail your definition to gain clarity.

you say if the center of mass is always to the right of an axle it will turn clockwise. Others have said not if you've got guides involved.
I've provided a model that I believe has its center of mass always to the right of the axis of rotation, and we both agree it isn't perpetual. So, can you clarify?

OK, show it.

no, I have observed you tendency to be dishonest. show your working - and we'll see if that matches mine. If it does, you get an apology from me.

No, simple examples won't do. I've said that to @mondrasek a well.

You are right, simple examples wont prove perpetual motion, but they will let us test our tools for testing them. what's the point of saying "my calculations say it works" if the maths behind those calculations is misunderstood?