Nov. 10th, 2013 Successful Over-Unity Experiment

[NathanCoppedge]

I suggest you firm up your demonstration, shoot it with a better camera, and get yourself a decent bubble level. For this kind of work a "machinist's level" should really be used. I would like to see this setup done better, because I can tell from your explanation that you are in earnest and you have thought about what you are doing.

I have tested the slope with a level many times, and it is certainly sloped upwards (more so than in my Master Angle project). I am not confused about which direction the bubble should go. I have highly accurate perception of levels with my eyes also, within reason, and I can tell that if the floor is level, then this device slopes upwards. However, the level confirms that it ACTUALLY IS sloped upwards. I have also found that there is some room for variation in the construction of the device. For example, additional weight can be added to the counterweight, and, if the marble travels further down the track, it will STILL activate the lever to move downwards. But it does depend on proportionality as to when the marble starts and stops. However, unlike in some other prospective designs, there is not much room for downwards sloped movement between upward motions, because of the limited amount of altitude gained. Ideally, three to eight of these apparatuses would be linked in a polygonal loop, reducing the amount of travel necessary to reach the next unit (I find that the distance is significantly longer when there are two modular units, versus three, and there is also a significant reduction in movement with eight, in the right case). With ideal/ professional construction / engineering, some of the problems might be eliminated.

[NathanCoppedge]

Yes, do that, stop speaking about a secret you do not want to disclose, it will be stolen from you if you give too many hints. If you do not give hints, whatever you say is meaningless.

Disclose completely or shut up completely.

Greetings, Conrad

I am being very frank, and I think the video shows accurately exactly how the machine would operate, minus horizontal duplication and a number of very small nearly horizontal, downward-oriented connecting slopes.

I'm sorry if people thought that it gains altitude cumulatively. It is not designed to do that, but rather to ascend and descend in equal or near-equal ratio. This is possible (I think) because there is relatively more downwards motion on the short end of movement. However, this small point may prove unessential.

It is my hope that someone else builds it, so that the world has a real working perpetual motion machine.

I'm not very good at building sturdy devices, I just have some of the best simple ideas about perpetual motion in the world.

I encourage others to find equal evidence to what I have found, so that they gain equal excitement, and the process continues.

With the essence of continuity, perhaps there will also be an essence of progress.

[NathanCoppedge]

I should also note that this is not the only option for a working perpetual motion machine.

Here are some principles I have discovered that might be useful, separately or together:

1. A nearly horizontal fixed slope that serves as a partial support or divided track for a mobile weight, reducing the resistance implied to a counterweight which operates the mobile weight, (trough leverage), this might be the easiest,

2. A certain ratio which seems to permit 'difference weights' to move see-saw apparatuses (see Motive Mass Machine Iteration 2), this might be the easiest to prove mathematically,

3. Leverage might be used to extend slope when the slope swivels, using large or small levers (Tilt Motor), this design might produce the most energy of my designs,

4. A certain horizontal angle positioned on a slight diagonal, and skewed to one side so that the rectangular base's corners occupy four successive tiers may be used to allow a spherical object to roll very slightly upwards (Master Angle), this could be the most subtle, but ultimately the easiest to precision-manufacture.

More information at http://www.nathancoppedge.com

As my disclaimer has said for a number of years (since 2007 or so), my designs are freely available to developers, inventors seeking patents, engineers, institutions, etc. I rely on acts of goodwill for any compensation I receive.

Many of my images are google-searchable, and are not expressly copyright.

[NathanCoppedge]

Disregarding the energy it took to lift the ball onto the track to start the process,the ball would have to end up higher at the end of the track,than it was at the start of the track. At very best-even disregarding any friction,the ball would only roll to the very same hight it started at-it would not go higher.

Actually, you're wrong, and I have proven it.

The counter-argument that the ball cannot lift the counterweight is moot, because in this case, although the counterweight is heavier, it is lifted by the ball weight. This is because the weight of the lever compensates for part of the mass of the counterweight.

Also, the two masses are about equal (a kind of equilibrious effect) yet motion is created, due not only to equilibrium, but also the supporting track, which reduces resistance to the weight of the ball weight.

You might suspect that the ball weight would roll downwards, but in fact, with some angularity of the lever, the natural motion is upwards in the case of an equilibrium (when the weight of the lever is also compensated).

So, I say again, you're wrong, and you need to look no further than my very authentic video for evidence.

I may add, that I'm acting out of pure goodwill, with a little greed mixed in. In other words, ambition.

[TinselKoala]

I have tested the slope with a level many times, and it is certainly sloped upwards (more so than in my Master Angle project). I am not confused about which direction the bubble should go. I have highly accurate perception of levels with my eyes also, within reason, and I can tell that if the floor is level, then this device slopes upwards. However, the level confirms that it ACTUALLY IS sloped upwards. I have also found that there is some room for variation in the construction of the device. For example, additional weight can be added to the counterweight, and, if the marble travels further down the track, it will STILL activate the lever to move downwards. But it does depend on proportionality as to when the marble starts and stops. However, unlike in some other prospective designs, there is not much room for downwards sloped movement between upward motions, because of the limited amount of altitude gained. Ideally, three to eight of these apparatuses would be linked in a polygonal loop, reducing the amount of travel necessary to reach the next unit (I find that the distance is significantly longer when there are two modular units, versus three, and there is also a significant reduction in movement with eight, in the right case). With ideal/ professional construction / engineering, some of the problems might be eliminated.

How does your marble get from its final rest position when all motion has stopped, back to the start position? What agency or force moves it from that final position, to a new start position so that the "cycle" can begin again?