Sjack Abeling Gravity Wheel and the Worlds first Weight Power Plant

[Omnibus]

Absolutely amazing your easy flow of math here! I am in awe.

Now the next question is... will it continue to accelerate?

What a strange twist of fate if this does turn CCW.
Thank you for taking the time to explain this.

Ron

Why are you thanking him for providing an incorrect analysis? That's not something one should be thanked for.

[stgpcm]

Why are you thanking him for providing an incorrect analysis? That's not something one should be thanked for.

because the analysis is correct.

The static analysis matches a dynamic analysis, "proving" it - If you can show where both calculations are flawed then you have disproved my method of calculating torque.

It matches the observed results by builders, "proving" it - if you can otherwise explain why people who put two weights in their replications observe this counterclockwise acceleration from rest where your method indicates a clockwise torque, then you method becomes a viable method for calculating.

Remember, friction can only decelerate a system, never accelerate it.


Put up, or shut up.

[hansvonlieven]

Remember, friction can only decelerate a system, never accelerate it.

Unless you are talking about screwing of course 

Hans von Lieven

[stgpcm]

I told you where your mistake is and you don't need to beat around the bush trying to prove the unprovable.

the dynamic analyis is entirely different to the static one, so you have shown nothing about this one.

I have disproved your mathmatical method, so your "proof" is no such thing.
Learn this once and for all and don't try to finagle. It's just a waste of forum resources.

[stgpcm]

The mistake that guides can somehow generate somehow more mass is at the bottom of your misunderstanding and you have to correct this.

Ah... here it is. This is your error.

The "classic" machines - the lever, the inclined plance, the pulley, all provide "mechanical advantage" - a force multiplier. That's the whole point.

"Mechanical advantage" is the maths short hand way of saying the sum of the magnitude of the components of a vector is greater than the magnitude of the resultant (except in the limit case where all components are acting in the same direction, at which piont it is equal)

The balance of forces calculation I did for the lower weight showed that clearly.

The reactive calculation doesn't - because you don't complete the calculation. (you fail to acount for the resultant force that lies along the radius of the wheel).

I wil do I full reactive analysis for you later - which will be tiresome, but it will show the same result (as much as anything involving examining the limit can)

You can calculate the torque on a system in three ways, all of which will give you the same result -

1) reactive
2) balance of forces
3) change of energy

if you don't get the same result, you have either found a new principle, or have made a mistake.