Nov. 10th, 2013 Successful Over-Unity Experiment

[NathanCoppedge]

So that's a "no" then I guess. You cannot show the device returning to the initial state exactly, without using your hands, and there is energy stored in the positioning of the weight and counterweight initially.

Over-unity can be achieved without returning the parts to the initial positions, in the case in which an object is proven to rise from rest with reversible motion (I believe). For example, if the reverse uses up some of the rising force, then the full rising force is inexplicable. Then it is only up to the respective position of the device to determine if the cycle can repeat. But over-unity is already proven (in my view).

Just because it is something significant does not mean it must make a big impression on our minds.

It's not necessarily going to glow like the holy bible when it operates with a new principle.

[NathanCoppedge]

https://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/museum/newacqui.htm

In the above link see the first machine 'Patrick Voet's Perpetuum Mobile Machine'.   

I see how this might explain the failure of my Type 5, but not necessarily the trough-lever versions.

Type 1 DOES make use of a kind of lever-and-wheel advantage which I have sometimes thought could work.

(I'm referring to the above Repeating Leverage diagrams).

[NathanCoppedge]

@Nathan:
That's nice and all, but looking at your website it seems your experiments and theories exist for a couple of years now, some of them dating back to 2006.

Point is: why did you not verify this perpetuum mobile hypothesis already? Either it works, or it doesn't. There is no point in arguing pages for pages about this device, if you could verify it already. Hence you created a part of it. And you obviously have workman skills. What is holding you back to close the loop?

It's fallacious to have to explain my difficulties in constructing the machines. The point is, the difficulty is there. These devices require precision manufacture, and I don't necessarily have a computer that I can pump instructions into to build it in perfect proportions. And even if I did, it might have the wrong weight values.

I don't have a strong physics background, so I don't know the correct equations to do it perfectly the first time. Even if I did, it would require incredible diligence, and expense on my part.

Here are some other reasons:

1. Due to budget, I'm limited to small parts, which require very precise proportions, which limit the types of things I can buy, which goes in an endless loop of absurdity. As I said, I don't have much money to spend (I'm on a $12/ day budget for food, and perpetual motion is not my only other expense).
2. One of the only things I have found to fasten the devices is duct tape and brackets. I have no electric drill (and the other tenants of the apartment complex wouldn't like the noise). Duct tape does not allow much precision manufacture, and eventually breaks down, as I'm sure people know.
3. The types of devices I build are not absolutely simple. They require scale and very specific properties, which must again be reproduced using the parts that are available. Attaching plastic parts with duct tape doesn't work, as some people probably know. Attaching brackets to wood with nails is not very desirable, because the wood can split and the nails must be pulled out if they skew. Screws would be better, but require a drill.
4. There is also a fear that my devices will not work. On at least one occasion I have been stricken with terror that angels will come and destroy me. This makes for a difficult sensation of extreme improbability, which works against reason.

Overall, the fear combined with the budget constraints and the precise manufacturing requirement has made it difficult for me to construct more than the crudest experiments in eight years since I thought of my first design. Added to that is the fact that not all the designs have been in existence during that entire time. For a significant period my Tilt Motor has been my most promising design, and I have found it impossible to build (although I have one confirming experiment, and several disconfirmations). I only developed the guts to try repeat leverage experiments recently. My first major experiment with repeat leverage was a failure, and I found it discouraging that a counterweight could not easily lift a supported weight. But more recently I found that it does work with subtle proportions. However, subtle proportions are more difficult to construct in a crude experiment.

As I said, its fallacious to expect me to explain the difficulties in building a perpetual motion machine. It should be enough to say that it is practically difficult.

I encourage other people to have optimism about the narrowness of all previous efforts to build and design an adequate machine. One of the things I have discovered is that IT IS POSSIBLE that no one has experimented like this before. It takes not only a means, but an idea, and not only an idea, but a will, and not only a will, but circumstances. The improbability is significantly great to prevent prior progress, if not future progress, which can be taken as the loosest axiom on the subject.

[NathanCoppedge]

What is holding you back to close the loop?

I have built the beginnings of a model using aluminum rods, cardboard, duct tape, and plastic parts. Ironically, I didn't have enough clay blocks to reliably lift the fulcrums off the ground, so I knew I couldn't complete the loop until I went shopping. I had one successful partial experiment, but the video was rejected from Wikipedia, and I became discouraged. I decided I had to work on more fundamental issues, something which would serve as a more adequate proof. After all, as I realized, even if I videotaped a completed loop PMM, press wouldn't necessarily believe it, since they might think the video had been faked. Compounded with this, my earlier experiment with Repeating Leverage in some way met the criteria of doing something more fundamental, but I had trouble acquiring any press for this accomplishment.

I had come to recognize that at this point press might be a bigger issue than actually building the machine. So now I have two videos demonstrating proof. One at:

http://www.academicroom.com/video/evidence-against-classical-model

And one at:

http://www.academicroom.com/video/master-angle-elementary-discovery

I decided to just rest on my laurels for awhile. The kick of optimism might pay off for construction in the long term.

(It takes tremendous confidence to actually succeed, is something that doesn't strike me as superficial).

[NathanCoppedge]

What is holding you back to close the loop?

To be more clear, I have been waiting for the precise design that would be easiest to build. Now I'm NOT SURE that the Modular Trough Leverage is it.

I seem to keep finding simpler things to do, things that would be easier to prove, or easier to build.

Although I shouldn't be, I am a little distracted by pendulum concepts, because it seems there should be a genius shortcut to make those work. But it is a shot in the dark.

I have been hoping some industry person could become interested in the Modular Trough Leverage, since a professional manufacturer would find it less difficult to build. Then, if there was goodwill, I might have a mutual patent with somebody. Goodness knows the U.S. Patent Office isn't going to care unless it's professionally done. I certainly can't afford a patent on my own.

That's the original disillusionment, is that patenting is impossible.

Being philosophically minded, I'm more of a theorist than an engineer. In some ways it seems unnatural to build it myself. I've had so many designs, it seems like someone could take interest in one of the decent ones and have it professionally made. They're more likely to get the patent, anyway. The patent office gives patents for working proof, not theories.

Also, if I'm the inventor, I have an interest in self-preservation to not build it, whereas someone else can blame me for the superstitious event. In this way, it's more in someone else's interest to get the thing built, if it's my idea.

A casual attitude has seemed like one of the wisest things, not only because it eases my nerves about construction, but because it is what the public needs if I am the genuine designer.

However, I have done things for the image of perpetual motion, which is an important thing, such as writing this poem:

"While they were floundering,
I was pondering,
No more wandering
through the dark tunnels of grim determination;
For no, it's time to grow in a thousand folded-folds
For which we need an infinite fuel"