Proven experiment has gone un-noticed by the media...

[NathanCoppedge]

Consider this thought experiment:

1. Why would the counterweight have to be twice as heavy to lift the object, if the second object is supported? You might say that the second object has more leverage. But, in fact, it is moving a smaller distance.

2. Nonetheless, the marble remains on top of the lever the entire time, therefore it has an advantage.

3. The next lever is not much different in height. Less than the difference between the lowest and highest point of the lever's motion.

4. So at this point, you wonder, if friction would stop it. Why would friction stop something that is being propelled by an imbalance?

5. So, you might wonder if it has an imbalance at all! But, it is clear that it does, because the simple principle of a supporting track means that the equilibrizing force must create an imbalance in symmetry.

6. So, you must think that it has a proportionality problem. But I have already suggested that the marble can move the next lever from a higher position, not only because it has momentum, but because that's what mass does when it is allowed a downwards slope.

7. So, apparently, it works! Not much change in altitude, means of moving horizontally, self-sufficient units acting efficiently, proportional advantage.

[NathanCoppedge]

At any rate, your designs do not differ in nature from many others, some in the Museum of Unworkable devices, that failed.

In principle you may be partly right, but that's based on a lot of assumptions. Would you really say that the devices are designed to work in EXACTLY the same way? Because that's what is necessary to have the SAME ~~machine.

When it comes to how the devices are designed to work, I think you miss the mark. Do you mean Frank Tatay's device, or the sponge-buoy design? I hardly see the resemblance. I have rarely if ever seen a design outside of my own work that attempts to make use of levers to create horizontal motion, and that is the key difference.

There have been videos, such as the Best Perpetual Motion Machines of 2014 (by the Visual Education Project) which made use of similar principles, but these were perhaps obviously based on my own work, and their existence is a recent phenomenon.

Do you agree, or can you point me to a device from the Museum that makes use of leverage to move a ball-weight almost horizontally?

[memoryman]

I haven't visited the 'museum' in years, so I may be out of date.
I suggest that you do an analysis of the forces etc. involved using vector analysis. Eventually it always comes down to energy in/out. I see no way for extra energy to enter this conservative system.

[NathanCoppedge]

I'm noticing this design and can't make heads or tails out of what is supposed to happen from the images posted. Any further info that doesn't require me searing the entire wikipedia for related images?

Thank you for your interest. It is a 'simple' (for now in part theoretical) perpetual motion machine in which a weight on the opposite end of a lever lifts an approximately equal weight that is supported by a track (the track has a slot that passes through the middle, so the lever can move the weight while it is supported by the track). Since the track goes upwards, when the marble gets to the end of the track, it has the mass to lift the opposing weight from either position, due to the slight difference between the two weights.

The process in theory continues, because each unit is identical. The biggest problem is if there is some problem triggering the second lever in the series, but otherwise there is momentum, because the marble or ball weight is supported, reducing the opposing mass necessary to move it mostly horizontally. Vertical resistance is all that needs to be overcome, and for most purposes, it is overcome. The return journey (a very slight downwards motion) at the end of each lever is made possible by the capacity for the marble to lift the counterweight when it is unsupported. As soon as it is supported, it begins to move horizontally, and slightly upwards (only 0.5 degrees, NOT 45 degrees).

(When I said 90% I was not referring to energy, but my own estimate of how metaphysically likely it could be that it could be turned into a simple perpetual motion machine).

[NathanCoppedge]

I haven't visited the 'museum' in years, so I may be out of date.

Ah, albeit.

I suggest that you do an analysis of the forces etc. involved using vector analysis. Eventually it always comes down to energy in/out. I see no way for extra energy to enter this conservative system.

The principle is similar to domino acceleration, except without net loss of altitude. The (possibly theoretical) advantage comes through proportionality of length and mass. If two weights are equal in mass, but one is supported, then there is an extension of the length the supported weight can move to before it will stop. This creates an imbalance. And, if the weight is moving in-to-out instead of out-to-in, there is no doubt that the place it will move to will have enough leverage to lift the weight that lifted it, provided a 1:1 or 1:2 ratio. Now, we add another factor, that due to the 1 : 1-2 ratio in mass, the mobile weight or marble can be lifted vertically very slightly, since the support from the track reduces its effective mass, so long as it remains in contact with the track. And, another factor is that the effective range of the mobile marble can be limited to a range in which the angle of the lever has an effect on its motion.

The result? I predict perpetual motion!