Sjack Abeling Gravity Wheel and the Worlds first Weight Power Plant

[Omnibus]

If at the end of both ramps we replaced the basket with a ramp.  Which ball would climb higher? 

Omnibus,  If there is a great energy gain than the ball should be able to climb higher than it's starting point.  This won't happen.

The ramp experiment has to be carried out and then we'll know the answer. However, even if there is no gain at the end point the fact remains that the kinetic energy of one ball differs from the kinetic energy of the other ball--these balls travel through actual physical paths of differing lengths and one of them covers the longer distance for a shorter time. That's an undeniable fact. Thus, if indeed there's no gain at the end point one should explain what energy that extra kinetic energy has been converted into (if it isn't converted into extra potential energy at the end point).

Further, if there's no potential energy gain at the end point the ball indeed won't be able to climb higher than its starting point. That doesn't mean, however, that there hasn't been energy gain (kinetic energy gain)--we see with our own eyes that one ball despite the longer path, reaches the end point sooner. Whether or not that extra kinetic energy can be used to lift the ball at the end point above the starting point in no way erases the fact that there is an energy gain.

One thing we should establish firmly because it is obvious from the videos--the ball on the curved path has extra kinetic energy independent of how that extra kinetic energy can be used for practical purposes. To deny this is to fly in the face of experimental facts and the basic concepts in physics.

[Low-Q]

This is one of the most interesting experiments in youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZF01JCm-sI&NR=1. I'm re-posting it here from another thread because of the immediate relevance to the problem at hand.

Here is another vid: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VhOiXCRQu0A&feature=related

This experiment is another illustration of the production of excess energy (production of energy "from nothing"), already demonstrated by the magnetic propulsor, as a result of the construction of the device allowing for spontaneous displacement under the action of a conservative force.

This important experiment is to be studied well and simulated, as a start, using wm2d or, better, with 3dmax (reactor) for possibly turning it into a self-sustaining device.

Those A are the coolest I have ever seen! Hard to understand why this is happening - I have no clue, but I'll think about it for a while.

I'm thinking friction vs. "steepness" of the track. The ball on the straight track suffer from more friction than the other ball in the steeper part of the track. So that ball can accelerate with less friction and gain more speed even if it is going uphill at the final part of the track. This uphill might also be less friction.

Anyway, I have no good explanations to this. What would happen if the tracks are made of something very hard and polished, and using hard and polished balls? What would the outcome be?

Vidar

[Omnibus]

@ramset,

While my eyes are telling me that one is faster[more KE],I know this can not be true

On the contrary, it is true that one is faster and therefore has more KE. Your eyes see that correctly and you should believe what you see rather than believe @Fletcher's ramblings.

[ramset]

Fletcher
If I may ask another question?

On the graph you posted?
At the 3 O clock position where the 2 "lines" meet [the long road and the short]
It seems this graph implies an arrival time for both paths [simultaneous]

Am I misinterpreting  this graph?

Sorry for my ignorance in this matter but its making my little head hurt!

Thanks
Chet

[Omnibus]

@Low-Q,

I'm thinking friction vs. "steepness" of the track. The ball on the straight track suffer from more friction than the other ball in the steeper part of the track. So that ball can accelerate with less friction and gain more speed even if it is going uphill at the final part of the track. This uphill might also be less friction.

That's correct and I agree also with @Fletcher's similar explanation:

the track pushes with a more horizontal component than vertical unlike a constant slope track.

This is what's called constructive opportunity for a conservative force field to induce spontaneous displacement which is tantamount to violation of CoE or production of energy "out of nothing".

How is this obvious violation of CoE to be used in a practical device is yet to be seen.