Volitional Mechanics: The Science of Perpetual Motion Machines

[NathanCoppedge]

Here is a brief introduction to a science I have been developing related to my hobby-inventor experiments.

As the science develops, it acquires an increasing level of mathematical sophistication.

However, it is important to begin with a very open mind, and to be highly original. Any theory which can mathematically prove perpetual motion is on-par, in my mind, with Isaac Newton (incidentally I have been compared to him, but perhaps that is another matter. See:  http://www.kgbanswers.co.uk/who-is-credited-with-the-theory-of-perpetual-motion/22774483 )

At first I had very crude equations which I invented from thin air. They were the following:

Volitional Energy = Mobile U / (Fixed or Dual-Axial U)

Volitional Equilibrium =   Modular U  / (Stems / cycle / Subcycles / cycle)

Volitional Efficiency = Volitional Energy / Volitional Equilibrium

These equations were highly inventive all-in-all, but didn't have the cachet of conventional physics. They did seem to work, however, to explain which designs were better suited to functioning. But they could not prove absolutely that any of the designs functioned.

Only recently have I found the inkling of a better theory. However, I have found that it is frustratingly specific. It only applies to a very specific condition of angularity, in straight boards placed across one another, with the outer board being about 1/4 the height of a rolling weight placed upon it. This is what I call the "Master Angle Equation," and it is deceptively simple:

H - V > V (H) . It refers to the angularity relative to horizontal and relative to the vertical in that specific design, using crossed boards. Note that the lower left corner must be raised slightly above the lower right corner, and the upper right corner must be raised slightly above the upper left corner for a rightwards motion (or the reverse of all this for leftwards). Otherwise it can't work.

See the video of the functioning Master Angle, at: http://www.academicroom.com/video/master-angle-elementary-discovery (it was not faked unless by telekinesis).

Also see my primary perpetual motion website, which you may or may not have visited before: http://www.nathancoppedge.com/Perpetual_Motion.html .

"While they were floundering,
he 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"

---Nathan Coppedge

[s3370389]

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.

At first I had very crude equations which I invented from thin air. They were the following:

Volitional Energy = Mobile U / (Fixed or Dual-Axial U)

Volitional Equilibrium =   Modular U  / (Stems / cycle / Subcycles / cycle)

Volitional Efficiency = Volitional Energy / Volitional Equilibrium

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?

H - V > V (H) . It refers to the angularity relative to horizontal and relative to the vertical in that specific design, using crossed boards. Note that the lower left corner must be raised slightly above the lower right corner, and the upper right corner must be raised slightly above the upper left corner for a rightwards motion (or the reverse of all this for leftwards). Otherwise it can't work.

I am not really understanding this part. Crossed boards?

[TinselKoala]

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

Give me a break. This has got to be a windup. I am sorry, but when you make statements like that you are opening yourself up for the harshest criticism and examination and I for one will want to know the justification for the statement. Newton was quite the mathematician you know, he wrote a little book that we today simply call "the Principia".  Have you produced anything like that?
How about the calculus? Can you show us a rigorous mathematical derivation of your Volitional Mechanics equations up above? Can you draw a force vector diagram of your marble ramps and angles?

Have you ever seen one of these?

[NathanCoppedge]

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

Of course I consider the comparison to Newton only a curiosity. But if you do a little research on Nathan Coppedge, there is a website run by the British KGB, which is now an information-gathering agency. The website compares me to Newton and Einstein, when it comes to the invention of perpetual motion machines.

Here is the link to the info-gathering site:
http://www.kgbanswers.co.uk/who-is-credited-with-the-theory-of-perpetual-motion/22774483

Give me a break. This has got to be a windup. I am sorry, but when you make statements like that you are opening yourself up for the harshest criticism and examination and I for one will want to know the justification for the statement.

Of course I want my machines to be both criticized and confirmed to work.

Remember 2000 years is only about 45 X 45 years since the year 0. Then you add in that some people were slaves, some people were too poor to buy tools, some people didn't have the ideas, and some people were being conventional, and then it still looks possible that someone has not (or had not) yet invented it.

Here is a diagram of the Escher Machine, which uses 'master angles' designed to make objects roll upwards very slightly (this has been tested with a level, to within at least 90% probability of functioning, in certain very specific cases, following the equation mentioned above):

[NathanCoppedge]

Have you ever seen one of these?

Yes, I know how those work, and certainly they have been part of my inspiration, but I think there are more exceptional cases, namely the Master Angle, which supports an object horizontally and at an angle, more than vertically, yet with the horizontal running ever-so-slightly upwards (yet not from above).