Posted by Davis Landstrom (195.93.50.172) on April 30, 2002 at 15:23:39:
I have just seen Oystein's web page, and am particulaly interested in the section entitled "Perpetual Motion, HOW?".
This section shows a classical attempt at perpetual motion using swining weighted leaver arms and has a reason as to why it can not work. Below this there is another drawing of a perpetual motion machine upon which the conservative force field converter is based. This desighn like the classical perpetual motion machine displayed above it has weighted lever arms, however they are arranged in strange possitions, so I must assume that some mechanism moves and keeps them in these possitions during the cycle period.
Below this perpetual motion machine desighn is what appears to be equations for the moments about the left side of the wheel and moments about the right side of the wheel (Substituting 'units' for m)
I think that I may have discovered a mathematical flaw in the desighn which could prevent any device based on this desighn from working, I do hope that I am wrong, but here goes:
I took clockwise moments and anti-clockwise moments, substituting 'units' for lengths in m.
A moment = Force (N) x distance (x)
For force a value for weight was calculated, I assumed that all masses on the device = 1Kg, therefore Weight = mass (Kg) x acceleration due to gravity (ms to the -2), therefore each mass weighed 9.81N.
Clockwise moments Anti-clockwise moments
For mass M6 = 9.81Nm For mass M2 = 9.81Nm
For mass M7 = 9.81Nm For mass M3 = 7.4Nm
For mass M8 = 9.81Nm For mass M4 = 4.9Nm
For mass M1 = 9.81Nm For mass M5 = 2.4Nm
Sum of clock M = 39.2Nm Sum of anti-clock M = 24.56Nm
(To calculate moments for masses M3, M4, and M5 I assumed distances between masses and wheel centre of 0.75m, 0.50m and 0.25m respectivly, for the remainder of the masses I assumed distances of 1m)
As Oystein pointed out there is a moment difference that is acting clockwise, using my figures I calculated it to be 14.64Nm, (I got the figure by subtracting the sum of the clockwise moments from the sum of the anti-clockwise moments)
The problem arrises when you try to get mass M5 into the possition of mass M6 to perpetuate the motion of the wheel.
I calculated how much force would be required to move the mass, to do this I re-aranged the moment equation to make force the subject;
F = moment/distance
I took the moment difference as the moment value and the difference in distance of masses M5 and M6 relative to the centre point of the wheel. (M6 = 1m from centre, M5 = 0.25m from centre, therefore difference = 0.75m)
The force I calculated was 19.52N, which means that in order for the wheel to move the 12 'O' clock mass into the 1:30 possition on the diagram the wheel would need to put out 4.88 more Newtons of force than it does.
I hope that I am wrong, and I hope that Oystein or someone else can show me why and explain the mechanism that would allow the mass transaction.