Sjack Abeling Gravity Wheel and the Worlds first Weight Power Plant

[Omnibus]

Hi Bus
It is hard to go against your facts,start with the same pe,end with a different av. ke.
The only thing I question is if the 2 balls were allowed to travel on,level plain,would they come to rest at the same point at the same time.
peter

Yes, they will, provided their mass (and size) are the same. Of course, the "level plain" should have an incline, no matter how small. Otherwise, they will stay at rest where you put them.

[mondrasek]

Yes it is. Finish the sentence, don't finagle--"Having a greater average KE over one path than another from start to finish" when the two balls expend the same potential energy (starting and ending at the same level) is a violation of CoE.

Nope.  And here is clear proof:

Let's take a straight level track.  So PE is ZERO.  Now lets send one ball along that track starting with a velocity of 10mph.  It will obviously get to the end of the track with the same velocity of 10mph.  So the AVERAGE velocity was 10mph.  Now send a second ball down the same track starting with a velocity of 20mph.  It will obviously get to the end of the track with the same velocity of 20mph.  So the AVERAGE velocity was 20mph.

So, two different AVERAGE velocities/KE achieved from the same PE (ZERO).  But if the PE was ZERO, then it could in no way be responsible for the different AVERAGE velocities/KE.  SO no violation of CoE.  Because there was no change in energy to even consider.

PE is related to the CHANGE or DIFFERENCE in height.  It is responsible for a CHANGE or DIFFERENCE in KE.

AVERAGE KE is absolutely not related to PE and therefore comparing the two cannot tell you anything about CoE.

[Omnibus]

Nope.  And here is clear proof:

Let's take a straight level track.  So PE is ZERO.  Now lets send one ball along that track starting with a velocity of 10mph.  It will obviously get to the end of the track with the same velocity of 10mph.  So the AVERAGE velocity was 10mph.  Now send a second ball down the same track starting with a velocity of 20mph.  It will obviously get to the end of the track with the same velocity of 20mph.  So the AVERAGE velocity was 20mph.

So, two different AVERAGE velocities/KE achieved from the same PE (ZERO).  But if the PE was ZERO, then it could in no way be responsible for the different AVERAGE velocities/KE.  SO no violation of CoE.  Because there was no change in energy to even consider.

PE is related to the CHANGE or DIFFERENCE in height.  It is responsible for a CHANGE or DIFFERENCE in KE.

AVERAGE KE is absolutely not related to PE and therefore comparing the two cannot tell you anything about CoE.

That's wrong and to understand it and not get confused always consider spontaneous motion. In your first example the motion isn't spontaneous. It is due to external energy input and therefore PE has nothing to do with it. In your first example only the spending of external energy is related to the average velocity.
In your first example PE is not related to the average velocity. The kinetic energy in your first example is equivalent to the external energy input. There's no violation of CoE there.

In our case the driving cause isn't external. Motion is spontaneous. It is directly related to PE, PE causes the motion, PE causes the average velocity, PE is related to the average velocity. PE is the only source, it's unique and yet it can transform into two different kinetic energies, depending on the construction, unlike your first example. That has to be understood very well.

[Omnibus]

Let us make some further observations:

First, it should be observed that the given gravitational potential energy PE cannot be transformed into indefinite quantities of kinetic energy KE. For a given PE there will always be a maximum kinetic energy KEmax, corresponding to a path between the beginning and the end point in the form of a cycloid. That cycloid path will provide the upper bound of that transformation. The minimum KE will be achieved along a straight path between the beginning and the end.

It would be curious to find out if the KEmax is the exact equivalent amount of energy to the expended PE. If so, then only a motion along a cycloid ensures ensures obeying CoE. Any other path would cause energy (PE) to be lost, "destroyed''. Thus, this would be the first instance of "destroying'' energy. Of course,that will not be the case if obeying of CoE occurs along a straight path. In such a case only the obtainment of excess energy already found in the magnetic propulsor will take place.

The above observations prove violation of CoE independent of whether or not they can be applied to build a practical perpetuum mobile.

Nevertheless, it would be interesting to see, once we have determined that CoE can be violated also as a result of varying the path while transforming a given amount of gravitational potential energy, if there could be practical implications of that violation. So far I do not see any direct way of utilizing it. One may think that somehow the discrepancy in timing while transforming the same PE may somehow be implemented in a construction to cause its continuing over balance. Unfortunately, so far the only plausible way for continuous over balance is not by creating time discrepancies but by constructive solutions ensuring persistent violation of the lever rule at every angle of rotation of the wheel as in: http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=7150.msg229720#msg229719 and http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=7150.msg229720#msg229720. What remains is to come up with creative constructive solutions and actually implement them and manufacture the device.

[mondrasek]

In our case the driving cause isn't external. Motion is spontaneous. It is directly related to PE, PE causes the motion, PE causes the average velocity, PE is related to the average velocity. PE is the only source, it's unique and yet it can transform into two different kinetic energies, depending on the construction, unlike your first example. That has to be understood very well.

Still wrong.  And here is your proof using "spontaneous" motion:

First track is gently sloping.  Ball starts at velocity zero and steadily accelerates to a final velocity of 20mph.  Average speed along the track was 10mph.  Second track is as shown.  The ball starts at velocity zero and accelerates quite rapidly to 20mph at location "A".  From this location to the end of the track it is level so the ball continues at a steady 20mph all the way to the end.  Average velocity is just a bit under 20mph.

So, two different AVERAGE velocities/KE achieved from the same PE (starting from velocity of zero for "spontaneous" motion).  Again no violation of CoE.

Once again, AVERAGE KE is absolutely not related to PE and therefore comparing the two cannot tell you anything about CoE.