Sjack Abeling Gravity Wheel and the Worlds first Weight Power Plant

[Omnibus]

Forgot to add -- claims based on centrifugal/centripetal forces are to be ignored out of hand. This was discussed earlier.

[rlortie]

@rlortie,

Aggravating as it is, there are objective reasons for the current state of affairs the basic of which is the lack of proper infrastructure. As for Abeling, he exhibits a typical behavior. That shouldn't be an issue.

For constructive criticism, I ask that you clarify for debate the current state of affairs and the basic lack of infrastructure.

What is the typical behavior?  Is it to make a dramatic presentation of something of no value and rake in a percentage of the advertising it hosts?

Did you know that ABHammer and I have proven that the advertising I am looking at on the same page is not the same as what he sees. Via either hacking or cookies the ads you are looking at is aimed to each individual pertaining to their interests.

And yes I am using my own links in my signature, I figure I might as well benefit too. In fair exchange you will find a link to overunity.com on my site map. 

Ralph
http://arracheenterprise.web.officelive.com/default.aspx
http://arrache.org/  Coming soon.

[Pirate88179]

Ad? What ads?  I see no ads here at all.  Just use Firefox as your browser and also the ad-on ad block plus and you won't see any ads either.

Bill

[Omnibus]

rlortie,

The current state of affairs is this. Discontinuous production of excess energy (violation of CoE) is proven conclusively using a magnetic propulsor.

Also, analysis of an overbalance wheel such as Sjack Abeling's has shown that constructively it has an inherent property to persistently violate the lever rule at every angle of rotation (that's an inherent OU property). Therefore, the only remaining obstacle to have continuous production of excess energy is friction. Since the OU property is constructively a given while friction is variable there's no theoretical argument which wouldn't allow friction to be reduced below a certain value where the OU property would become dominant. 

Reducing friction to such level is a daunting engineering task. As such it would be up to engineers of fine mechanics with proven track record. I can't think of a better example of such engineers than the Swiss watchmakers. That's the known infrastructure. I'm not discussing the exceptions which would only prove themselves by presenting a working OBW, ready to be replicated by others. There are no such at present.



P.S. Bluffing is typical in this area and those who bluff do it for much bigger goals than just to have a cut in a meager advertising.

[Cloxxki]

Also, analysis of an overbalance wheel such as Sjack Abeling's has shown that constructively it has an inherent property to persistently violate the lever rule at every angle of rotation (that's an inherent OU property).

Yet, it turns in different directions, depending on the position in which you release it.
What proof do you prefer to believe in, the one you fabricated, or the one shown to you by builders of the actual design you're claiming to be OU?
What part of "it turns counter clockwise" don't you understand, or choose to not understand?

See 1:18 of this video, for instance : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_pmdExy6xsQ
No springs, just friction and symmetry. There may be more points in the cycle that are counterproductive.
The fast acceleration observed in the last quadrant also comes at a cost. Friction or not.

When calculations accept the counter rotation, the overall (over)unity of the rotation will be more realistic.
I hope you'll have more conclusive proof the next time you enthusiate gullable souls, such as I am too.