Perpetual Motion and convincing otherwise

Mr. Sharp; I have a data book half full of data from cylinder and spheres machines. As near as I can tell they produce over 300% the original energy. All you need is a video camera, spheres from a science catalog and pvc pipe. Place a bola through a diameter of a pipe, wrap the pipe with the bola, spin the system and video tape it. As the bola unwinds from the pipe the pipe stops. A four to one mass ratio, pipe to bola works well. These are not words, these are real machines.

I made a search for zero point radiation and found this thread.

It is related to perpetual motion in that there are proposed uses for
H2 <=> 2H process, He , Nobel gases, diatomic gases, isotopes and the
like that defy the physics energy equation.

More energy is absorbed from the electron - atom local environment
from zpr of unknown material than commonly known.


Thats all I've heard.

The perpetual is the making of sealed exhaust-less engines giving in to
wear-out of parts for failure and engine replacement.


This development will not be funded by oil companies, banks and the like
just as Edison had huge investments in DC equipment and would not back
Tesla's AC power.

This link was posted at start

The Tesla Tower must have been 10cps or 12cps due to it size but see it is
just a configuration study.

It is proof that it is impossible, nothing else!

I scanned this looking for a voice of reason and I found you, Arthur! Good work.

Physfan

This post has been edited by Physfan on Oct 19 2006, 05:30 AM

Concise statement of claims for an energy producing machine

Objects can be released from circular motion, when they are released they travel tangent to the circle with linear motion that has equal displacement to the previous arc motion. The circular interaction of arc motion in ballistic pendulums conserves linear motion.

The experiment seeks to prove that arc motion (in meters per sec) and tangent linear motion are the same and should be covered under the same Laws of Physics (Newton’s Three Laws of Motion; which predicts momentum conservation) and that both should be conserved.

The experiment; A spinning cylinder with spheres embedded at 180° is released to allow the spheres to feed out on the end of tethers. As the spheres feed out they stop the rotation of the cylinder. At this point all the arc motion (tangent linear motion) is held by the spheres. If arc motion is conserved the spheres must be moving faster by a proportion roughly equal to the total mass (spheres and cylinder) divided by the mass of the spheres. If this proportion of motion increase holds, the energy increases.

Cylinder: 364g: 5 inch O.D. 4.5 inch I.D. PVC pipe coupler, smaller 4 inch I.D. 4.5 inch O.D PVC pipe to seat spheres, 40g.

Spheres: 67g each, 1 inch dia. Steel

Or; another experiment

Disk: 284g, ½ inch HDPE 7 in dia.

Pucks: 32.3g each, standard 2.75 inch air pucks

The motion transfer to the spheres in the first experiment and to the pucks in the second experiment has been confirmed by other scientists. The motion of a large mass has been given to a smaller mass.

Nathan
Your web page is fun.
It is good to see that you are trying to use your own mind to solve or explore possibilities.
I looked at one of your designs and it looked as if it could have some promise.

If you look at your proposed system, it indeed would turn clockwise rather than counter clockwise as you suggest.
You can see that more weights are on the right descending side. They are also equal in amount if you draw a square around the seven weights that are actually doing work on the right. They match seven on the left going up.
The other thing I noticed was if it indeed did rotate counter clockwise, the friction of the balls on the right will slow the motion enough to make the whole process in equilibrium.
Thanks for the concept and should you wish to have your ideas looked at more, I can give you a web site that you may enjoy.
Boneheaded

Are you referring to this one: http://www.nathancoppedge.com/PerpetualMot...ightMachine.jpg?

It is perfectly balanced and will go nowhere on its' own. Due to the slope on the curving side the increase in weight is exactly offset by a decrease in the effect of gravity. Let me illustrate using a simple case:

Our string of weights (or chain, heavy rope, etc.) follows a track that is the shape of a right triangle, horizontal side is length sqrt(2) = 1.888..., vertical side is length 1, and the sloped side is length 2 and the slope is 30 degrees off horizontal and 60 degrees off vertical. The horizontal side is, well, horizontal with no gravitational change and has no effect on the system. The vertical side is of length 1 and weight 1 with gravity pulling straight down creating a downward force of 1*1G on this side of the machine. The sloped side is of length and weight 2, but is on a slope, decreasing the effects of gravity by cos(60) = sin(30) = 0.5, so the sloped side pulls down with 2*0.5G force. 1*1G - 2*0.5G = 1G - 1G = 0. 0 Net force on the system.

This same analysis applies to NCoppedge's machine and, though the actual math is complicated by the constantly changing slope, the end result is the same.



His water-wheel is illustrated in a state that is impossible to achieve during actual use and doesn't work anyway. His buoy systems will not work because the effort needed to insert the buoy into the bottom of the tank is exactly the effort returned by the buoy rising through the tank. His lever/see-saw/catapult designs are generally incomprehensible to me, but do not work because in a gravitational field there is no increase in energy over any closed path.

Yes that is what I was referring to.
The basic idea is no different than if it was a simple circle.
The system is in equilibrium and if it was a circle instead of a
D shape, it would actually run longer.

I'm confused, if you understand that the design is in gravitational equilibrium and cannot work, even in a frictionless system, why did you claim that "it indeed would turn clockwise rather than counter clockwise as you suggest."?

Benny
You are correct, I did say it would turn cw.
I did not actually investigate that it would not work until later.
I could not see it working ccw, and I had to look closely to see it also would not work cw.
Sorry for the confusion.