Sjack Abeling Gravity Wheel and the Worlds first Weight Power Plant

[fletcher]

To understand what is happening research "brachistochrone", perhaps on wikipedia - the explanation is very simple & there is no magic or gain in energy.

It goes like this - two balls rolling down two different shaped ramps will start at the same height [Pe = mgh] & arriving at the same lower height will have the same energy [i.e. mgh + Ke [1/2mv^2]] - N.B. both balls have the SAME velocity, but the one that takes the track that dips lower while traversing arrives in less time [it gets to accelerate faster because of the steepness of the track & the proportionately less resistive force of the track pushing on the ball i.e. the track pushes with a more horizontal component than vertical unlike a constant slope track].

The explanation is this - if you have a vertically mounted disk & attach a weight at the rim say around 1 o'cl - then let it go - assume the disk is massless [no inertia to contend with for this thought experiment] & that the axle bearing is perfect & there is no air drag etc - drop an exact same mass from the same starting height [Pe = mgh] & let it free fall.

Now do a comparison at any vertical height between the two setups e.g. at the 3 o'cl position the mass on the disk will have a certain velocity - that velocity will be identical to the free falling mass at the same height [obviously they get there in quite different times].

This applies to ANY shaped track whether it be riding a wheel rim [concave] or rolling down an undulating track to its target [convex] - if the track dips below the final height at its lowest point the rolling mass will have its greatest velocity which is proportional to its Ke which on the climb up to end height it gives up to Pe as you'd expect.

All is conserved & NO energy was created because the end height velocities were IDENTICAL.

To be of any use the ball would have to arrive with greater velocity & therefore have greater Ke, which it does not - the apparent time factor difference is a red herring if any one is going to suggest this.

[Omnibus]

It goes like this - two balls rolling down two different shaped ramps will start at the same height [Pe = mgh] & arriving at the same lower height will have the same energy [i.e. mgh + Ke [1/2mv^2]]

On the contrary, the experiment itself, not your impression what the experiment might be, demonstrates that one of the balls travels along a longer distance for a shorter time than the other ball. Therefore, although the same potential energy is imparted to each ball the kinetic energy of the balls differs. I already explained that and one should read it before posting attempts for bogus explanations.

N.B. both balls have the SAME velocity,

No, they obviosly don't. See above, after checking the video again.


Edit to add: Now, I should add this--you are attempting to obfuscate the matter and confuse people by introducing another experiment. Stick to this experiment. Explain this one, not a different one. You obviously cannot explain it but then say so and don't try to finagle.

[fletcher]

Supply your data to prove they have different velocities at the same ending height omnibus - in case you don't understand, at the end of the trip, not distance divided by time average velocity - and don't obfuscate.

[Omnibus]

Supply your data to prove they have different velocities at the same ending height omnibus - in case you don't understand, at the end of the trip, not distance divided by time average velocity - and don't obfuscate.

No, don't you obfuscate. One of the balls is obviously traveling along a longer path and reaches the final point for a lesser time. What data shall I supply? Don't you have eyes to see? Why would that ball arrive faster traveling a longer distance if it didn't have higher velocity?

Answer this question. Don't muddle the point by emphasizing only the end of the trip. Observe the whole trip.

[Cloxxki]

You're both right with what you're meaning to say.

Traveling a horizontal path in a quick manner is great, but the distance doesn't buy us anything. Height does. Unless we can find a weight to extract DISTANCE from a weight wheel. A whole new ball game then.
If there is anything OU about a horizontal path as the product from a drop, the terminal velocity or extractable energy will need to show excess over potential energy at the high starting point. Thsi would, as I now see it, still equal being able to bring the weight to above its starting position, being rock hard over unity.

From early in this thread, I've hitting walls in the direction my thoughts are sending me:
- Time gain to be cashed in on the upwards side vs. the working side. The shorter path along the axle DOES facilitate this. A high start-up speed seems required to get the time gain to surface. And of course, immaculate geometry and building.
- SOMEthing to do with the 2nd or even third derivative of speed or even angular momentum. There's gotta be something there, but I can't quick visualize what I'm almost tasting. Should have paid better attention in high school, learn to get through boring scientific books. At the time I thought I'd spend plenty more time learning.

If we could guess what Abeling invented, the type of gain, we could more easily come up with the trick itself.