Sjack Abeling Gravity Wheel and the Worlds first Weight Power Plant

[Omnibus]

No, I never said anything about mondrasek being negative. Despicable behavior, what drugs are you taking?

I am only looking for others with an education is this area that could give an opinion to gain a consensus about the argument. This would certainly eliminate any opinion from you as it has always been Omnibus's way or the highway.

Regards, Larry

Oh, so you want others to tell you what the truth is because you can't find it out for yourself. Well, you're in for big surprises if you always act in life like that.

In this case it happened so that I'm right. In other cases it may not happen so. This you have to understand through your own analysis. Majority of the educated people won't touch this question with a ten foot pole fearing for their jobs, mortgages to pay, kids to send to college. They don't want to stick their necks uttering opinions about this. So, don't expect them to kick in and tell you what the truth is. Besides there are some lackey-activists, some even paid to do that, who will do nothing else but deliberately disinform you. How would you know who to trust? Give it up. Either try to sort it out yourself or don't even bother.

[i_ron]

I am only looking for others with an education is this area that could give an opinion to gain a consensus about the argument. This would certainly eliminate any opinion from you as it has always been Omnibus's way or the highway.

Regards, Larry

Larry,

The sad part is how fleeting is our memory of how Obot stiffles and closes down lists... here, mainly from this list...ron

The Essence of Omni

These are unsupported statements and you should restrain from filling the forum with such.

I think you should not now try to twist the whole thing every which way to appear you're right.

I know that when nonsense is spewed, it should be nipped in the bud. That's what responsibility is. You may disagree but the world doesn't exist because of you as you so arogantly perceive it.

The man is incorrect. He understood that but is unwilling to admit it. You, on the other hand, can't even understand why but like to participate in the discussion for not having anything else to do. Don't bother.

That's a ridiculous comparison.

I said you don't get it but you arrogantly continue.

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

No, they don't. It's for you to see why.

This post is ignored.

You are the one wasting everyone's time…

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

That’s incorrect….

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

That's incorrect. You're adding vectors frivolously, as I told you before.

You're not only not an instructor but you understand incorrectly the problem at hand and are unwilling to learn…

See, you're making the same mistake over and over again. This is your second misconception…..

As your overall participation in the discussions indicates, you're not qualified enough to make such pronouncements. Learn more before allowing yourself the audacity to teach others.

You should go away and not continue to clutter the discussion with incompetent blabber.

Moderators should take care of the likes of you, impudently imposing their own confusion on others.

So, what do you prove with this little nothing you've written?
On what grounds are you asking us to accept that he has found something let alone that whatever you think he has found is remotely noteworthy?

No, I'm not willing to discuss this again. This is a settled issue,

I've already answered you. It can be shown that with a proper construction displacement can be induced under the action of a conservative force without the expenditure of energy from a pre-existing energy reservoir. That has already been proven conclusively

You did not keep the agreement. I did not ask for your opinion …I specifically said I don't want to discuss this. Uttering the nonsense you've uttered above is starting a discussion and this is deplorable once you've agreed not to discuss it.

Posts like this are useless. What you're presenting are not arguments but some hunches of yours which are hardly of interest to anyone because they are trivial. Probably you'd do much better to keep them to yourself.

[Omnibus]

Larry,

The sad part is how fleeting is our memory of how Obot stiffles and closes down lists... here, mainly from this list...ron

The Essence of Omni


These are unsupported statements and you should restrain from filling the forum with such.

I think you should not now try to twist the whole thing every which way to appear you're right.

I know that when nonsense is spewed, it should be nipped in the bud. That's what responsibility is. You may disagree but the world doesn't exist because of you as you so arogantly perceive it.

The man is incorrect. He understood that but is unwilling to admit it. You, on the other hand, can't even understand why but like to participate in the discussion for not having anything else to do. Don't bother.

That's a ridiculous comparison.

I said you don't get it but you arrogantly continue.

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

No, they don't. It's for you to see why.

This post is ignored.

You are the one wasting everyone's time…

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

That’s incorrect….

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

That's incorrect. You're adding vectors frivolously, as I told you before.

You're not only not an instructor but you understand incorrectly the problem at hand and are unwilling to learn…

See, you're making the same mistake over and over again. This is your second misconception…..

As your overall participation in the discussions indicates, you're not qualified enough to make such pronouncements. Learn more before allowing yourself the audacity to teach others.

You should go away and not continue to clutter the discussion with incompetent blabber.

Moderators should take care of the likes of you, impudently imposing their own confusion on others.

So, what do you prove with this little nothing you've written?
On what grounds are you asking us to accept that he has found something let alone that whatever you think he has found is remotely noteworthy?

No, I'm not willing to discuss this again. This is a settled issue,

I've already answered you. It can be shown that with a proper construction displacement can be induced under the action of a conservative force without the expenditure of energy from a pre-existing energy reservoir. That has already been proven conclusively

You did not keep the agreement. I did not ask for your opinion …I specifically said I don't want to discuss this. Uttering the nonsense you've uttered above is starting a discussion and this is deplorable once you've agreed not to discuss it.

Posts like this are useless. What you're presenting are not arguments but some hunches of yours which are hardly of interest to anyone because they are trivial. Probably you'd do much better to keep them to yourself.

Someone good for nothing tries to be my biographer for having nothing else to do (incapable, rather, of doing anything creative). Didn't I say there are lackeys-activists who try to divert the discussion from its fruitful direction? Here's one -- @i_ron.

[stgpcm]

Here is a sim in WM2D of the case that I illustrated here:  http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=7150.msg180738#msg180738



Stgpcm, I guess I did not fully understand your explanation where you said Omni was correct for this aspect of mechanics.  But please take a look at this and let me know if I am doing something wrong.

Thanks,

M.

Sorry for failing to correctly explain myself. You are correct that the discrepancy between Omnibus's maths and wm2d (and the real world) is down to an angle. I believe you fixed on the angle of the physical slot in relation to direction of gravity, because that made sense visually, and gave results that looked about right

The angle that actually matters (for calculating the torque)  is the angle between the direction of motion* of the weight, and the radius that runs from the pivot.

Where the your slot constrains the weight to a motion that is purely radial this is exactly the same.

This is shown in your diagram More vectors for OB.JPG

The component that formed torque you found in both of the top and middle diagram was 10.

the middle and bottom diagrams both have the slot so the force is at 135 degrees to gravity, but you calculate a different force for the lower diagram - because the angle between the radius and the direction of travel of the weight is now at around 5 degrees. Unfortunately, the diagonal vector you've constructed shows the original error of failing to account for the radial component of that second vector calculation - which is why you show a lower torque than you would if the guide wasn't there

In the middle diagram you also found the force on the slot was 10.root(2) (the diagonal), the lateral component of that force (10 right) was transferred through the fabric of the wheel, as strain, to the hub, and so into the frame. The lateral force on the wheel (10 left), is passed (as the direction of the perpendicular there's no nasty resultants) into the guide, which is bolted to the frame. The frame manfully absorbs 20 units of force as strain.

Basically, vector triangles (or parallelograms) are a great way to work with forces BUT every time you split one force into two, you have to say what happens to both parts. In the normal case, you are splitting the vector into two parts, one direction of which works against the earth and so can be discarded.

*yes, in a static system there is no motion, but if it were to move, you know the direction the weight would move in. It's just another limit case.

[stgpcm]

stgpcm's simple instructions for calculating static torque.

1. normalise the input force to the direction of travel.

this step calculates the effects of the guides, after which you can discard all the physical aspects of the system, and deal with a nice simple mathematical weight glued to a spoke calculation. This calculates all your scissor forces, cams, and weights on strings, but not a reactive way.

if F is the force and A is the angle between the radial (from the axle to the centre of mass of the weight) and the direction of travel of the weight (for a weight on the rim of a wheel this angle is 90 degrees) the normalised force is F/sin(A). the direction of force is unchanged.

2. calculate the component that corresponds to torque at the centre of mass of each object

3. calculate the torque by multiplying the force component by the distance of the centre of mass from the pivot.