Sjack Abeling Gravity Wheel and the Worlds first Weight Power Plant

[Omnibus]

Again, what many people are astounded by now is not the claimed equal velocity at the end point by the two balls on different tracks. What many people are really astounded by, and you try to run away from it, is the fact that one of the balls arrives sooner at the finish along the longer track despite the fact that both balls start with identical potential energies. That's the astounding fact, repeated over and over again. That's a clear violation of the "transformation" aspect of CoE. That's the shocking part never mind its practical implications. Practicality is never a criterion to judge for or against the validity of a scientific fact.

And, don't repeat that accounting of energy to do work. That has nothing to do with the principle of conservation of energy. Of energy, mind you.

[fletcher]

Good luck with your epiphany omnibus - now practically apply it.

[fletcher]

Good luck with your epiphany omnibus - now practically apply it.

[Cloxxki]

Omnibus, you are confusing this thread. Misinformation agents are paid very well to do less.

Average velocity says nothing about terminal velocity, and thus not over energy out vs in.

Take 2 U-formed train tracks. Steep down first, then flat, then steep up. Friction is zero. I will tell you that the wide u brings a higher averga velocity. Terminal velocity at lowest most point, is however identical. End velocity at the ends up the u, also. Even in these points is lower than the starting point.

You cannot give an example that defies the aforemention rules. Height dictates velocity along the track path, as unfortunate or unfair as that may seem. Time and horizontal distance are interesting to study, but bring nothing. No energy forms are converted there.
In the real world of positive friction, sure result can differ a bit. Friction however doesn't make a ball roll up higher than it started.

[Omnibus]

@fletcher,

[snip]

Like I said, violation of CoE in this case consists in the very fact that one given quantity of gravitational potential energy can be transformed in different quantities of kinetic energy.  The graph you've given is good but it only demonstrates what I just said.