Sjack Abeling Gravity Wheel and the Worlds first Weight Power Plant

[mscoffman]

Just wanted to mention; I suspect that two solid ball bearings would
have much less noticable velocity difference then two hollow metal
spheres...How the object mass is allocated within the object's rotational
radius probably makes a difference in outcomes. The ball bearing has
much more "momentum" to lift and much less rotational mometum energy
stored with which to do it.

Physics really needs to be discussed in terms of differential equations.

:S:MarkSCoffman

[onthecuttingedge2005]

I think that the change of direction in the curved slope is itself a swap between kinetic and potential energy. If the curved slope was going vertical for 90% of the hight, then takes a sudden change into horizontal plain via a small radius turn near the bottom, the ball have already used its potential energy down there, because a moving object in the horizontal plane does not consume, or gain energy (if we do not consider friction) because it has no potential energy left to convert into kinetic energy - no more acceleration. So the kinetic energy will be the same for both balls at the end of the track, but also in average over the total distance because the ball in the horizontal plane do not accelerate anymore.

In a perfect world, imagine a top fuel dragster and a Fiat Uno at the same weight. Say that both shall accelerate from zero to 100km/h. The top fuel dragster will use shorter time from 0 to 100, than the Fiat Uno, and will also cross the finish line much earlier. But nevertheless, both have consumed the same energy to gain that speed. As the top fuel dragster have used 1 second to 100km/h it does not longer require energy to maintain that speed. The Fiat Uno is still accelerating and still gaining kinetic energy. The net energy spent in both cases are equal (said that both cars have 100km/h over the finish line), so (in my head) it is impossible for the dragster to have more average kinetic energy than the Fiat Uno during the whole track. Because: The total kinetic energy is also lasting shorter for the dragster, but it is in average faster. The total kinetic energy in the Fiat Uno is lasting longer, but is in average slower. Both time and average velocity must be taken into consideration - and If my head is good, I would say these factors cancels eachother out into an equal average kinetic energy.

I still have no correct answer or correct explanation to the subject, only thoughts and ideas.

Vidar

Very true, all kinetic energy will decelerate because of the path of resistance, if you have a path with no resistance then it will store that kinetic energy until used up. if constant kinetic energy is not applied then the Kinetic energy will dissipate naturally, just like a bullet that loses kinetic energy to all the forces working against it in flight.

this tells me that Kinetic forms of energy are not the key answer because kinetic energy is only stored energy.

you need direct and constant energy not stored energy. use stored energy when it is in overload.

it is the same with all particles and or even a virtual particles, they always want to decelerate until they come to rest unless the path has no resistance and even then it is only stored until used.

[Cloxxki]

Perhaps this mental picture will help some of you.

A ball rolling frictionless along a horizontal path, is little different from a satellite in orbit. Distance from the souce of attraction (or target of repulsion, depending on aether/gravity theory in hand) is a constant. As said, when not acceleration occurs, KE is being stored until exchanged to do work of gain/lose height. KE is more like a state, than an energy level. It certianly is not an output of any kind.
Scientifically, nothing interesting happens. All very well documented I'm sure.
Technologically, this is 100% unused on earth. In orbit, our satellites have no forms of friction to come up with, to pick a fight with.
On earth, we barely use KE in traffic. Most go from pedal-to-the-metal to "foot on brake" without real KE phase. We are maximizing the work done for the distance we travel, where the opposite is wanted.

If we can't find a use for horizontal displacement on a wheel, would Abeling somehow have found a way to harvest centrifugal forces? A horizontal component could certainly be made available, the above pages make that apparent. How to extract it without KE loss, though...

[Low-Q]

  Cloxxki,
There might be a way to use KE froma horizontally moving object without changing it's m*v.
It's technical and relies a little on math to understand the A.


                                                                              Jim

Sorry for answering your post to Cloxxki with a question, but I have to

How can you harvest energy from a horizontally moving mass without reducing its velocity? (or did I completely lost your point?)

Vidar

[Cloxxki]

Sorry for answering your post to Cloxxki with a question, but I have to

How can you harvest energy from a horizontally moving mass without reducing its velocity? (or did I completely lost your point?)

Vidar

The easy (lame) answer would be : by increasing the mass.

If we could really do some work of any kind that is greater with more horizontal displacement, I'd be building OU devices like Mozart wrote symphonies.

In hundreds or even thousands gravity wheels, horizontal offset is used to enhance torque of the weight on the axle. Meant to establish overbalance, bring us a self-running. So far, it has not worked out this way. Torque goes at the cost of speed. Place a weight a mile out from the axle. The torque will be biblical, yet the angular moment will be 1/biblical.
If someone can solve the equasion we're all hoping is there for us to be solved, OU will be as real as daily sunrise.