Just for the fun of it i thought I'd draw up a little diagram and see what your reactions are to it.

We have two half circle ball races or tracks.

We have a steel rod that takes the impact of a falling ball and transfers it to the top of the second track (Pivotting in the middle) and transfers it's energy to the ball at the top of the second track. The ball at the top of the second track has gained the energy generated by the first ball falling due to gravity.

When the second ball is propelled to the bottom of the second track has it in effect created energy by accumulating not only the first balls gain but it's own?

Ball one at top = zero energy

Ball one at Bottom = 1 unit of energy due to gravity

Ball two at top = 1 unit of energy due to getting energy from first ball.

Ball two at bottom has what value of energy.......2 units?

The question is have we gained greater energy than what gravity would normally impart?

Have we created energy?

Btw I am sure this has been thought through before but I am not aware of such

Ball one at top = zero energy
OK, since potential energy is defined up to a constant, you can define the constant such that the energy of your system will be zero at the begining



Ball one at Bottom = 1 unit of energy due to gravity
I remind you that gravitational energy (near the earth) increases when you climb and decreases when you go down. So you have here -1 unit of energy due to gravity, and since the ball has 1 unit of kinetic energy at the bottom you still have zero energy.



Ball two at top = 1 unit of energy due to getting energy from first ball.
Ball 1 has lost 1 unit of energy due to gravity, it has no kinetic energy, since ball 2 has taken all its kinetic energy. Ball 2 has 1 unit of kinetic energy.
you still have a total of zero energy.


Ball two at bottom has what value of energy.......2 units?
Ball two at the bottom has lost another unit of gravitational energy and gained 1 other unit of kinetic energy.
you still have a total of zero energy.


The question is have we gained greater energy than what gravity would normally impart?
no


Have we created energy?

no

P.S. At each stage, we made the assumption that there is no friction. If there was, the mechanical energy would have been less at the end. The difference would have gone into heat

after three cycles would it have enough energy to lift the first ball? Do you think assuming it takes the 1 unit gained to lift the ball to the top, ie 1 unit gained on the down therefore 1 unit to go to the top....thinking of a pendula ( and no friction)

Also If there is no gain in kinetic energy at the last balls position what has happened to the energy transfered to it from the first ball?
I think I understand that energy has not been created. yet the last ball has a kinetic value of 2 units ( at the end of it's run)

Does this indicate an increase in anything? If so what would you call it?

after three cycles would it have enough energy to lift the first ball? Do you think assuming it takes the 1 unit gained to lift the ball to the top, ie 1 unit gained on the down therefore 1 unit to go to the top....thinking of a pendula ( and no friction)

Sorry I have never seen a pendulum that goes higher at each step without being kicked.


Also If there is no gain in kinetic energy at the last balls position what has happened to the energy transfered to it from the first ball?

Energy has benn transfered to him but it doesn't have a gain in energy?
Please explain.


I think I understand that energy has not been created. yet the last ball has a kinetic value of 2 units ( at the end of it's run)

and a loss of potential energy equal to 2 units


Does this indicate an increase in anything? If so what would you call it?
Yes you have an increase in kinetic energy.
The total energy still remains the same.

after three cycles would it have enough energy to lift the first ball? Do you think assuming it takes the 1 unit gained to lift the ball to the top, ie 1 unit gained on the down therefore 1 unit to go to the top....thinking of a pendula ( and no friction)

If the steel rod is removed after it has kicked the second ball from the top, and assuming perfectly elastic collisions and no energy losses to friction, then when the second ball strikes the first at the bottom of the loop, the second ball will stop, the first ball will do a loop of the track, returning to strike the second ball and repeat the cycle.

The balls do not get any faster. Each time, one ball is stationary at the bottom of the track while the other ball has 1 unit of energy at the top and 2 units at the bottom.

In practice, of course, the system will lose energy to heat. With the right setup I guess you might get a few dozen cycles out of it before the moving ball doesn't have enouh energy to reach the top of the track. After that, the moving ball will roll up, then back down the same way it came. That cycle will continue for a while before all energy is lost to heat and both balls come to rest at the bottom.

so if we assume no energy loss as an abstract this system suggest that the energy is contained with in the system allowing pseudo perpetual motion to exist.

The interesting thing I found with this is that The potential of gravity has been converted into an energy that can be transfered back to the top.

Thus in reality our first ball has a potential to come up with 2 units or more of energy from using gravity in this way.

If you induce the first ball with any extra energy (initially) this inducement would stay in the system.

If our first ball started with say 20 units then it would achieve 22 units by the end of the second stage. If we had 4 stages then would the end result be 24 units and so on?

Of course we are assuming no loss due to friction cause by the desire of the ball to travel in a straight line. and rolling friction.

What would happen if say we had 100 cycles, what would be the net energy of the last ball? ( assuming no friction)

Here's a related experiment you can easily do at home.

Take a basketball and a tennis ball, hold them together with the tennis ball on top, then drop them onto a hard surface.
When the basketball hits the ground, it bounces up and collides with the tennis ball which is still on the way down. The tennis ball gets a big kick from the basketball, and shoots up much higher than the height you dropped it from.

A golf ball instead of a tennis ball is more spectacular, but can be dangerous.

If you have the right setup, you can cascade this idea... Say a basketball, a volleyball, a baseball, a golf ball, and two marbles - If the drop was precise, you could just about put the marble into orbit!

The maths is pretty easy - conservation of momentum and conservation of energy (with some arbitrary energy loss if you like).

As a amateur can I ask why these principles can not be employed as a source of useable energy?

Because you're not getting something for nothing. You set up the system with two units of energy (by lifting the balls from the bottom to the top of the track), and that's all that you can get out of it.

Once you've extract 2 units of energy from the system, both balls will be stationary at the bottom of the track. You need to put two more units back in to get it going again.

ok i got lost, i dont understand ur diagrams, and, well, i just dont know.

I guess that what puzzles me is that the transfer of the first balls finish energy is done without cost to the next ball. So could not one say that the second ball has greaater potential than the first.
Granted it has taken two units of energy to put the balls there in the first place but normally this energy is lost but because we have transfered the energy this would mean that we are utilising it better.

if both balls were allowed to drop ( without transfer)the net gain at the bottom is equal to the potential at the top..this is correct yes?

If this is a correct statement then if the energy of the first balls gain is transfered does this not increase the energy in the system.

The first ball has a potential of 1 unit

The second ball has a potential of two units and not one unit as would normally be the case. As it takes one unit of energy to place the ball at the top this indicates a surplus of one unit?

My logic is probably up the shit but your advise would be welcome

Say we think of the two tracks as separate systems.

Both have a potential to deliver what they have been given. Potential 1 unit each.

Now we transfer the energy of first system to the second meaning that the second system has gained 1 unit of energy beyond it's pre-existing potential.
Therefore it now has a potential of two units and not one.