Quote from: fletcher on February 07, 2011, 11:58:33 PM
Oh, but you do deserve it omni_moron !

Learn some mechanics & how to analyse things properly before pushing your incessant rubbish !

Hey, buddy, either give arguments or just get lost. No one should get embarrassed for you by your bad manners let alone your incompetence to express a coherent argument.

To be notice once again -- the video shows that a weight attached to the periphery cannot carry through even one full turn. On the other hand, the weight attached to a one-way clutch causes two full turns in addition to a third incomplete one. This is the argument fletcher cannot shoot down with his blabber. Like I said, if he wants to really prove that that's trivial he has to present quantitative derivations (which are obviously over his head). Mind you also, that no matter what arguments fletcher would attempt the undeniable truth remains -- violation of CoE is contained in the very essence of theoretical mechanics -- the Hamilton's equations  -- as I have already shown. Watch carefully -- fletcher can only curse and use ad hominem but will not be able to present a cogent argument against my claim.

I'm no buddy of yours arsehole.

Seems you like to dish it out over numerous threads to way to many people who try to discuss things civilally & intelligently with you, but have a different opinion than your own - you browbeat them into submission or they go away in disgust, exasperated by your illogical arguments & failure to get through to you.

Suck it up baby, try the shoe on the other foot - I'm here to stay & I'll keep riding you till you learn & show some respect & manners to others.

If however, you want to make progress in threads & conduct logical civil discussions, without being an arsehole to others, then I might go away, LOL.

Don't make me laugh. Where are your arguments? Hey, buddy, other people are reading here too, not only you and I, do you realize that? Obviously not. Arguments, arguments, buddy. Only arguments will save you from the embarrassment you inflicted on your own self.

Quote from: Omnibus on February 07, 2011, 10:44:44 PM
In the case at hand, the contention is that the mgdeltaH is the gravitational potential energy which not only helps to complete the first turn but also drives the wheel throughout an entire second turn and allows it to almost complete a third turn. That isn’t at all evident and if someone insists that such speculation is viable one has to prove it quantitatively.

One does not need to think so complicated to see the function of the wheel. Your request for a quantitative proof are not necessary - there is no need to prove this quantitatively, because common sense are sufficient as proof.

Delta H is the reason why the wheel can start to rotate. Delta H are applied in advance by hand, then this applied potential energy are spent when the wheel have taken one round. After that the mass will follow the same circular path. Because the wheel are big and loss are low, the built up kinetic energy in the wheel will make it turn several rounds untill friction has consumed all the kinetic energy.
There is no more to be explained. The wheel are not OU - no matter what you reply.

An equivalent deal, in a different case, is to place a ball on a track. The track starts with a gentle slope downwards, then the track are horizontal for as long as the eye can see. Delta H are equivalent to the one in the wheel. Do you then call it excess energy achieved in the ball if you by hand spend energy to place the ball at the top of the track and let it go? It is the same deal in two different cases. The wheel are not OU.