Sjack Abeling Gravity Wheel and the Worlds first Weight Power Plant

[fletcher]

Strange wasn't it ? - all those interesting video's on U-tube & no one bothered to comment on what they were observing with a commentary - you could put that right omnibus with your own video - remember to measure the kinetic energy [ahem, I mean velocity] across the finish line - maybe just run the ball up an incline & see how high it gets.

Then you can 'foister away' with authority.

[Omnibus]

Strange wasn't it ? - all those interesting video's on U-tube & no one bothered to comment on what they were observing with a commentary - you could put that right omnibus with your own video - remember to measure the kinetic energy [ahem, I mean velocity] across the finish line - maybe just run the ball up an incline & see how high it gets.

Then you can 'foister away' with authority.

Not across the finish line. Try to understand that. Velocity of the two balls differs because one of them travels longer distance for a shorter time. Again, observe the entire physical path of the balls, not just the finish line.

Also, the fact that no one but Omnibus has noticed so far the physical implications of that well known variational problem is no argument against the fact that physically it is a clear demonstration of CoE violation (of its "transformation" aspect).

[fletcher]

Not across the finish line. Try to understand that. Velocity of the two balls differs because one of them travels longer distance for a shorter time. Again, observe the entire physical path of the balls, not just the finish line.

Also, the fact that no one but Omnibus has noticed so far the physical implications of that well known variational problem is no argument against the fact that physically it is a clear demonstration of CoE violation (of its "transformation" aspect).

Congratulations on two counts - first proving that a ball rolling down an initial steep track accelerates up to speed quicker than one rolling down a flatter initial incline - that's because if you use vector analysis & plot the x & y coordinates & resultant forces you find that the track inclination is less of a net impediment to the balls rate of acceleration, resulting in .. dadaa - higher average velocity - secondly, for referring to yourself in the third person   

I guess I won't wait for your video - I will await with interest your math paper describing this insight - I don't think myth busters will be interested - just not enough mass street appeal to hold an audience for long [ratings you know], though I'm sure Jamie & Adam would whip up a couple of wire tracks with bolling balls in less than an hour.

[Omnibus]

You're saying nothing new, so nothing to congratulate me for. The problem, again, is that you can't understand the physical implications of what you're describing. That's not a small problem, as you may think. Ignoring violation of CoE, especially when it is pointed out to you in no uncertain terms, is a big problem of yours and you have to deal with it somehow (hint: don't await math papers to describe inherently physical problems).

[fletcher]

Well, I guess by now there must be plenty of people astounded by the fact that a ball can roll down a slope & arrive with the same velocity as an identical ball on a completely different shaped track - and that the ball that took the longer track got there quicker with an average velocity that was higher than the shortest direct route from A to B - of course that scenario doesn't apply to balls taking the longer track above the shortest route from A to B so it wasn't the track distance that was important - must have been its initial steepness.

No matter, what you're proposing has no practical application anyway because that's not how energy is accounted for to do work.