Sjack Abeling Gravity Wheel and the Worlds first Weight Power Plant

[fletcher]

The first yellow ball free falls - the second grey one has external impetus horizontally for 0.25 secs - the third red one runs a steep slope - the fourth blue one runs a shallow slope - the fifth green one takes a curved path with some initial steepness.

Conclusions : all balls arrive at their termination height with the same Ke - the exception is the grey ball which has slightly higher Ke [the vertical component is the same as the total Ke for the others] - it has higher Ke because it was falling in a parabola because of introduced energy - the others had no introduced energy & started with potential of position only [in a gravity field].

Thankyou omnibus for showing us the most efficient shape for a ball to get to the bottom - calculus has been able to do that for quite some time - nevertheless at any vertical height on the way down, when a comparison is made, the kinetic energies are identical from the same potential energy, if there is no input of external energy giving a horizontal thrust.

Now, if you could just arrange to have one of the balls arrive with excess Ke over & above the others then you might be onto something.

[Omnibus]

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.

Don't you see you're proving my point with this example. Read your own example once again and try to understand it.

[Omnibus]

The first yellow ball free falls - the second grey one has external impetus horizontally for 0.25 secs - the third red one runs a steep slope - the fourth blue one runs a shallow slope - the fifth green one takes a curved path with some initial steepness.

Conclusions : all balls arrive at their termination height with the same Ke - the exception is the grey ball which has slightly higher Ke [the vertical component is the same as the total Ke for the others] - it has higher Ke because it was falling in a parabola because of introduced energy - the others had no introduced energy & started with potential of position only [in a gravity field].

Thankyou omnibus for showing us the most efficient shape for a ball to get to the bottom - calculus has been able to do that for quite some time - nevertheless at any vertical height on the way down, when a comparison is made, the kinetic energies are identical from the same potential energy, if there is no input of external energy giving a horizontal thrust.

Now, if you could just arrange to have one of the balls arrive with excess Ke over & above the others then you might be onto something.

Like i said, don't sidetrack, especiall when the examples you give prove nothing of substance. Read what I've explained and try to understand that exact example. Don't try to invent things which are beside the point.

[Omnibus]

This twitching in attempt to save face is useless. Violation of CoE is proved even in this case--unnoticed far-reaching consequence for physics from a well known mathematical problem. What we need to focus now on is the constructive, engineering solution which would allow building a working perpetuum mobile.

[mondrasek]

Don't you see you're proving my point with this example. Read your own example once again and try to understand it.

Nope.  I proved that a given PE results in the same KE, regardless of the path taken.  This CONFIRMS CoE.

It also shows that a given PE can result in different AVERAGE KE, which proves absolutely nothing about CoE.  You claim that it is a violation of CoE.  Clearly you are wrong.  And no finagling or wiggling can escape this fact.