Sjack Abeling Gravity Wheel and the Worlds first Weight Power Plant

[ramset]

The "Buss "said

How is this obvious violation of CoE to be used in a practical device is yet to be seen.
------------------------
Omni,
Balls have been around a "Long time"
How can this be ??
The proof is in the pudding!!
You posted too soon [should have waited till you got home to test].

Now I will have to play with this.
I like Q's polished ball idea,
I have some "huge" ball bearings off a crane turntable,
I'll throw together a test ramp with incline brake/scale tomorrow.
Chet

[fletcher]

Fletcher,  Do you have to factor in the friction of the ramps?
For instance if both ramps have considerable friction, the ball on a slight incline will be slowed more so than one on a very steep incline.  Am I correct?

Yes, you do - imagine a frictionless ramp for the thought experiment - the same way as we imagined a friction less bearing on a wheel or disk which a weight rode - friction is a force & can be represented by vectors - that means the track is pushing at right angles to the track - this impedes the acceleration of the ball if the track is flattish compared to steep - this is why tracks with initial steepness allow the ball to accelerate up quickly & ultimately arrive at destination quicker, carrying a faster average velocity.

A metaphor might be a parachutist reaching terminal velocity in free fall - two parachutists equal in every way except one weighs twice the other - both will be affected by air drag & will stabilise at terminal velocity but the terminal velocity of the more massive parachutist [all else being equal] will be considerably higher than the light one - proportionately the percentage of air drag is higher for the lighter parachutist [like a feather falls slowly on earth but everything falls the same rate on the moon] - hope that helps.

Chet .. 3 o'cl isn't time but vertical distance - no matter what track the rolling mass takes i.e. around the rim of a disk, down a flat incline, undulating incline, concave, convex, dipping below final height track etc etc as long as the velocity is measured at the same vertical heights [V1;V2:V3;V4;V5] the velocities will be the same [no allowance for small amount of friction on track difference].

As a graphic example  - attach a mass to a frictionless & massless wheel [no inertia] - let it fall from 12 o'cl to 6 o'cl & measure its velocity at 6 o'cl - let an identical mass fall vertically in free fall from 12 o'cl to 6 o'cl & measure its velocity - one will have velocity in the vertical while the other has velocity in the horizontal - but both have the same speed & hence Kinetic Energy - they both took considerably differing amounts of time to get there with different average velocities - no one but omnibus is suggesting that the path a mass takes increases the Ke - as already explained AT ANY HORIZONTAL HEIGHT COMPARISON the velocities/speeds are the same - since physical contact is required in mechanics to turn that Ke into work done then it matters not what the average velocity is but only its contact speed [across the finish line speed].

Omnibus .. try to understand the reasoning underlying physical principles & the math rather than relying on shallow use of numbers & bluff - if that doesn't sink in then go & do some experiments with your hot wheels & come back & tell us how you were able to harness all that extra energy in a useful way - duh!

[overtaker]

Omnibus,    Let's compare a ball on a curved ramp with a ball free falling.  The ball free falling will travel a longer distance in a shorter amount of time.  What do we do with all that energy?     

[Omnibus]

@Fletcher,

since physical contact is required in mechanics to turn that Ke into work done then it matters not what the average velocity is but only its contact speed [across the finish line speed].

Wrong. It is not true that a body traveling in vacuum along a trajectory with no physical contact with other bodies doesn't have kinetic energy. The kinetic energy of a body is only determined by the mass and the velocity of that body and depends on nothing else. Learn physics.

Invoking brachistochrone curve in this discussion only muddles it. That mathematical problem does not overthrow what physics defines as kinetic energy (see above) but only helps to determine the optimum path for a body of a given mass and potential energy to convert it into kinetic energy. Mathematics isn't physics. Mathematics only helps physics to obtain its solutions easier. To understand a physical phenomenon, however, you have to know physics and its basic notions which you obviously don't.

Omnibus .. try to understand the reasoning underlying physical principles & the math rather than relying on shallow use of numbers & bluff - if that doesn't sink in then go & do some experiments with your hot wheels & come back & tell us how you were able to harness all that extra energy in a useful way - duh!

Don't teach me what to understand. Instead, you try to understand that "all that extra energy" not being harnessed "in a useful way" is not at all an argument against the reality of that extra energy. Your utilitarian approach only shows that you're not comfortable with the elementary notions of physics.

Hear it again because, obviously, it is not getting across to you. Kinetic energy is only a function of velocity and mass. A ball of mass m which travels along a longer distance for a shorter time has a greater velocity and therefore has greater kinetic energy than a ball of the same mass m that travels along a shorter distance for a longer time. This is the only way physics defines kinetic energy. In the definition of kinetic energy physics implies no interaction, no impact, no transfer, no anything else you are imagining. You are inventing Fletcherphysics which isn't an object of discussion here. Educate yourself first about what physics, not Fletcherphysics is and then join this discussion. What you're doing now is only wasting bandwidth.

[Omnibus]

Omnibus,    Let's compare a ball on a curved ramp with a ball free falling.  The ball free falling will travel a longer distance in a shorter amount of time.  What do we do with all that energy?     

You realize that a ball in free fall experiences no horizontal displacement, don't you? Start from there.