Volitional Mechanics: The Science of Perpetual Motion Machines

[NathanCoppedge]

Nathan, could you possibly provide some diagrams along with your equations? They would go a long way to aid understanding in what you are describing.

The Master Angle / Escher Machine diagram has been provided above. For other designs, see my primary website at http://www.nathancoppedge.com/Perpetual_Motion.html

Mobile version: http://www.nathancoppedge.com/Perpetual_Motion.xhtml

[NathanCoppedge]

Could you please define the terms 'volitional energy', 'volitional equilibrium' and 'volitional efficiency'?

Why did you 'invent equations from thin air'? Did you observe some effect and produce these equations in an attempt to explain said effect?

I was simply saying that the equations are unreliable under any standard of conventional physics. They are only designed to describe functioning machines, not anything else. It does not even measure real 'over-unity', it only measures functionality relative to other designs, with the assumption that some of them work.

The terms are defined as best as I can by the equations. However, I can add additional information.

Volitional Energy is potential momentum.
Volitional Equilibrium is a rough measure of the ability to equilibrize. Scales are known to equilibrize, for example. This is used as a potential source of energy. However, smaller numbers are better the way it is measured.
Volitional Efficiency is potential momentum relative to the ability to equilibrize.

Impressed?

[NathanCoppedge]

I am not really understanding this part. Crossed boards?

This should already be explained by my diagram. It's a specific construction depending on complex 3-d angularity, and a specific height of support for the boards running underneath the marble.

Certain angles and heights (or perhaps more accurately 'angle' and 'height') are much more effective than others.

[NathanCoppedge]

Why did you 'invent equations from thin air'? Did you observe some effect and produce these equations in an attempt to explain said effect?

In a manner of speaking, yes. I was trying to do some fast thinking as patiently as possible. The equations are designed to predict functional, simple, over-unity devices, by doing the following:

1. In the energy equation, dual-directional units are bad (mathematically, in my equation), because I observed that dual-directional conventional wheel-type devices were never functional. I saw that these types were basically a dead end.

2. In the equilibrium equation, I made a further generalization, that stems are bad (it is bad to divide force) unless the division of force corresponds to an equal or greater number of modular units. I realized later that stems could effectively be eliminated from the equation in most designs, but it still proves to be clarifying occasionally. Essentially, stems clarifies that modular units are valuable in those terms. Modular units, however, must be defined by the earlier equation as not being dual-direction or fixed. They must be moving parts, and it must be a design for which there is little evidence of dysfunction.

3. In the efficiency equation, the two parts are compounded. A functioning device needs to not only meet the moving parts criteria of the equilibrium equation, but also must not be a conventional wheel-type device.

The equation is actually more complicated than that, but that describes the basics.

[NathanCoppedge]

Have you ever seen one of these?

Re: Force Diagram

Here is my crude attempt to explain the forces in the case of the Escher Machine: