Volitional Mechanics: The Science of Perpetual Motion Machines

[s3370389]

I have been away for a while. My apologies.

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.

Why are you inventing equations to describe functioning machines? As far as I understand the sub-fields of dynamics, kinetics and kinematics, describe machines very well.

Volitional Energy is potential momentum.

Why do you have an energy term that has the unit [(kg m) / s ]?

Volitional Equilibrium is a rough measure of the ability to equilibrize.

What are you referring to that has the ability to equilibrize?

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.

Which energy equation are you referring to here? And what are dual-directional units?

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.

I have no idea what any of this is.

I am trying to understand what it is that you claim your invention does, but none of the above is helping I am sorry to say.

[NathanCoppedge]

Why are you inventing equations to describe functioning machines? As far as I understand the sub-fields of dynamics, kinetics and kinematics, describe machines very well.

I'm trying to narrow down the types of properties that would work in a functioning machine. In my view, this requires a departure from traditions. Also, math and engineering isn't really my specialty. Most of the time I only expect someone else to carry on the ideas if they seem viable to them --- e.g. by checking with their own math / engineering skills. In my view, this is 'other people's work' (not meaning to be rude, but this is just the way I've found to allocate my 'ability points'.

What are you referring to that has the ability to equilibrize?

A balancing scale, and by implication, any nearly balanced condition, typically involving a fulcrum or pivot-point.

Which energy equation are you referring to here? And what are dual-directional units?... I have no idea what any of this is.
I am trying to understand what it is that you claim your invention does, but none of the above is helping I am sorry to say.

I have already explained that I am using my own equations (it is in the realm of proto-math, or typology, more than physics or engineering as people know it). These are general theories that in theory apply to more than one device.

Dual-directional units are units that move in more than one direction independently of the theoretical cycle of the device, or are balanced and move cyclically. Examples of this are major structures which tilt in multiple directions, meant to be caused to move by other structures, or weights which are symmetrically placed around such a structure, unless such weights are actually proven to be unbalanced (as I believe of the levers in the Tilt Motor, due to the limited resistance to the levers and limited need for upwards motion). Multiple reasons are needed to prove that something is not a dual-directional unit. It is desired that the larger value is the active units, which are non-dual-directional.

[NathanCoppedge]

Why do you have an energy term that has the unit [(kg m) / s ]?

I don't, do I? None of the terms I use are actually empirical, unless you're referring to the four types of vectors in the second diagram for the Escher Machine.

As I understand it, vectors can be measured in multiple ways, and the system used is for the most part sheerly arbitrary (just descriptive).

If you're wondering if the machine moves, I think I have evidence here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DLHx-CphNZI

and here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JT9YxNAUu6k

[s3370389]

I will reply to the rest later when I have more time.

Quote from: s3370389 on September 06, 2014, 02:09:06 PM
Why do you have an energy term that has the unit [(kg m) / s ]?

I don't, do I? None of the terms I use are actually empirical, unless you're referring to the four types of vectors in the second diagram for the Escher Machine.

I am referring to your volitional energy term which you state as being equal to potential momentum. Momentum being mass x velocity. The units of momentum being [kg] x [m/s].

This is not an unit of energy.

Also, your vector diagram for the Escher machine is unclear. Are these vectors all occurring in one plane?

Again, I will respond to the rest later.

[ARMCORTEX]

You have been "compared with Isaac Newton".... In what way? Both of you have curly hair?

I never actually saw this part, almost fell off my chair.

Even if you made an 100 kW device that fit in a suitcase I wouldnt call you Newton.

For every 1000 OU inventors, there was a great physicist like Newton.

Forever, he will be one of the best. Never ever measure yourself against Newton.
And it dont matter if a few rules dont seem to work in every instance.
That is simply natural to have a few mistakes, he was doing his best to visualize it.

We are connecting easy dots, like logical monkeys would put a square in the right hole, everything was already layed out when we were born,
by people like Newton.