Sjack Abeling Gravity Wheel and the Worlds first Weight Power Plant

[Omnibus]

*smile followed by a long yawn*

Instead of yawning try to learn something.

[fletcher]

Not from you, LOL.

[Omnibus]

@mondrasek,

In your example you're repeating the same confusion seen in your earlier posts. Besides, you're putting in my mouth your own ideas calling them omniphysics. That's preposterous.

What you don't understand is that a person versed in physics, as opposed to mondrasekphysics, does care what the length of the path traveled from the beginning to the end is and what the time that path had been traveled for. As a matter of fact that's exactly what a person versed in physics would care about when he or she needs to know what the velocity of that ball traversing the entire path had been. You don't care, but you're living in the world of mondrasekphysics and that's not something under consideration in this discussion. 

Only the final velocity by no means characterizes the velocity of the ball when traveling along the path from the beginning to the end. That's what you don't understand. The ball doesn't somehow find itself suddenly at the end of the path without passing along the entire length of that path. If you understand that simple thing you would know that arriving sooner along a longer path means higher velocity which equivalently means greater kinetic energy. In your mondrasekphysics you want to forget that. It makes you uncomfortable because you can't explain it and you pretend it never existed, you pretend the ball never traveled along the entire path but somehow suddenly appeared at the end with a velocity. Until you somehow convince yourself that's wrong any further discussion with you is senseless.

[Cloxxki]

I think I must disagree with all the above.
IMO, PE st the start is NOT nomimal height (sea level, center of earth, whatever), but the height above the bottom most part of the track. At the bottom most part, all this PE has been converted into KE. The incline will be zero in this place.
Should the (long) track continue after this point of minimal height and maximum KE, then KE is being exchanged for PE. This PE is worth nothing if the journey ends there, but should there be a bump at the end of the long track, the PE would again be converted into KE going back down.
Yes, at the end of the tracks, being the same vertical height under the respective start positions, KE for each track will be the same.

Horizontal displacement has always fascinated me. It's what our lives are all about. We want to go places. We fill up our cars with $$$ gas, all to travel HORIZONTALLY. A very small amount of our traveling is vertical. When we get serious about vertical, we use elevators or ski lifts. Even commercial airplanes, are all about horizontal displacement.
YET, Horizontal DISPLACEMENT is FOR FREE. Efficiency/speed of FREE horizontal travel are set only by our engineering level (think bobsleigh) and, essentially, GRAVITY.
We roll down a ramp, gravity gets a hold. We travel the flat section at speed, and take back the PE by rolling up a ramp, accepting to give back that speed. We made a travel, got where we wanted to go, expended ZERO JOULES of useful work along our frictionless track, and travelled hundreds of miles per hour.

Now, what can we possibly do with horizontal displacement that we have to spare?

The only thing I've been able to come up with, is making it from 4/6:00 to 12:00 faster than it took to get from 12 to 6. We start with the same KE again at 12:00, but do so when the counterweight is still busy doing work. Now 2 weights are exchanging PE for KE. KE is higher. Yet, average weight height, I must now face, is ALSO lower.
I'd love someone to put this principle in WM2D. I lack the skills.
I would expect it to, if at all, work only at higher turning speeds, hence perhaps Abeling's low-friction material quests.

Could horizontal displacement offer a preferential leverage on the wheel, or the other weight, someway? Could it give a JERK, changing it's KE vector while not reducing it?

Regards,
J

[Low-Q]

I think that the change of direction in the curved slope is itself a swap between kinetic and potential energy. If the curved slope was going vertical for 90% of the hight, then takes a sudden change into horizontal plain via a small radius turn near the bottom, the ball have already used its potential energy down there, because a moving object in the horizontal plane does not consume, or gain energy (if we do not consider friction) because it has no potential energy left to convert into kinetic energy - no more acceleration. So the kinetic energy will be the same for both balls at the end of the track, but also in average over the total distance because the ball in the horizontal plane do not accelerate anymore.

In a perfect world, imagine a top fuel dragster and a Fiat Uno at the same weight. Say that both shall accelerate from zero to 100km/h. The top fuel dragster will use shorter time from 0 to 100, than the Fiat Uno, and will also cross the finish line much earlier. But nevertheless, both have consumed the same energy to gain that speed. As the top fuel dragster have used 1 second to 100km/h it does not longer require energy to maintain that speed. The Fiat Uno is still accelerating and still gaining kinetic energy. The net energy spent in both cases are equal (said that both cars have 100km/h over the finish line), so (in my head) it is impossible for the dragster to have more average kinetic energy than the Fiat Uno during the whole track. Because: The total kinetic energy is also lasting shorter for the dragster, but it is in average faster. The total kinetic energy in the Fiat Uno is lasting longer, but is in average slower. Both time and average velocity must be taken into consideration - and If my head is good, I would say these factors cancels eachother out into an equal average kinetic energy.

I still have no correct answer or correct explanation to the subject, only thoughts and ideas.

Vidar