Nov. 10th, 2013 Successful Over-Unity Experiment

[NathanCoppedge]

It really sounds as though you are almost completely unaware of the history of your chosen topic. Here is a good place to start. You really should read every page of this website:
https://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/museum/unwork.htm

I have read most if not all of Simanek's webpage, and I have found he is unfortunately not willing to include my designs. Perhaps you felt that Grav-Buoy Iteration 1 was already done? I was aware of that! I regularly cite Tatay's work as the only major example of a precedent for any of my machine, with few exceptions. SOME of those designs are better than SOME of my designs, but not all of mine!

Simanek has expressed to me that the physics principles in my devices are (too) hard to explain. Which is hard to believe given some of the complexities present on his webpages (siphons, etc.).

I am engaged with the history of critique on my own level, which is trying to make sure that SOMETHING works.

[NathanCoppedge]

The fact that you are sure that your design will work, but you are not a builder yourself.... combined with the fact that you won't take the analyses and judgments of people who _are_ builders to heart, yet you want someone of them to build your device anyway...  is kind of a kinky windup, don't you think?

Although the existence of perpetual motion might be a very exceptional case if it is real, there is no denying an exceptional case by referring to general evidence, at least where some things have not yet been tried. I have found almost no evidence that the Tilt Motor, Repeating Leverage, Motive Mass Machine, Coquette Device, Trough Leverage, Curving Rail Device, or Grav-Buoy Iteration 2 even existed in people's minds. But what you probably meant is that you're more skilled in building a device, which is what I hoped to take advantage of. Unfortunately I find many engineers get caught up in the electronics, and then they aren't in the right mindset to do something simple and perfect. They always want to spend energy. It may seem cruel, but this appears to be the exceptional unrelenting truth. I don't feel very blind on this keynote issue.

Yes, the fact that your device cannot return to the exact start position without the addition of energy from your hands or other sources like precocked or prepositioned levers does in fact mean that your system, that part of it anyway, is not overunity."Very close" does not count for anything. A heavy flywheel on good bearings is "very close" to being a perpetual motion machine all on its own. All you need are negative-coefficient of friction bearings. Unfortunately these are perpetually on back-order.

The experiment shows that an object can move upwards by counterweight alone, and then LIFT THE COUNTERWEIGHT OF IT'S OWN VOLITION. When the couterweight is lifted, the marble may be allowed to return to EXACTLY THE ALTITUDE IT BEGAN AT.   What more proof do you need of over-unity, if not perpetual motion? It begins from rest, it ends at rest, energy takes place, and all the work is done and undone, at no expense. That's over-unity!

If the marble cannot return to the same altitude, it is a failure of cyclic operation, not energy, in this case. The energy has been proven! In fact, the marble can lift the counterweight to higher than when it started, after moving upwards itself! It's over-the-top, subtle mechanics.

Some people haven't practiced enough to know how to exaggerate in their minds or focus on JUST WHAT HAPPENED. They want it to work like every other case. But this is exceptional physics! I can't tell you it works like every other case, because it doesn't! It doesn't use batteries, it doesn't just move downwards, all the energy is expressed in terms of mass!