Language: 
To browser these website, it's necessary to store cookies on your computer.
The cookies contain no personal information, they are required for program control.
  the storage of cookies while browsing this website, on Login and Register.

GDPR and DSGVO law

Storing Cookies (See : http://ec.europa.eu/ipg/basics/legal/cookies/index_en.htm ) help us to bring you our services at overunity.com . If you use this website and our services you declare yourself okay with using cookies .More Infos here:
https://overunity.com/5553/privacy-policy/
If you do not agree with storing cookies, please LEAVE this website now. From the 25th of May 2018, every existing user has to accept the GDPR agreement at first login. If a user is unwilling to accept the GDPR, he should email us and request to erase his account. Many thanks for your understanding.
Amazon Warehouse Deals ! Now even more Deep Discounts ! Check out these great prices on slightly used or just opened once only items.I always buy my gadgets via these great Warehouse deals ! Highly recommended ! Many thanks for supporting OverUnity.com this way.

User Menu

Plug Heater

Powerbox

Smartbox

3D Solar

3D Solar Panels

DC2DC converter

Micro JouleThief

FireMatch

FireMatch

CCKnife

CCKnife

CCTool

CCTool

Magpi Magazine

Magpi Magazine Free Rasberry Pi Magazine

Battery Recondition

Battery Recondition

Arduino

Ultracaps

YT Subscribe

Gravity Machines

Tesla-Ebook

Magnet Secrets

Lindemann Video

Navigation

Products

Products

WaterMotor kit

Statistics


  • *Total Posts: 508882
  • *Total Topics: 15176
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 3
  • *Guests: 17
  • *Total: 20

Author Topic: Nov. 10th, 2013 Successful Over-Unity Experiment  (Read 9992 times)

Offline Pirate88179

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8364
Re: Nov. 10th, 2013 Successful Over-Unity Experiment
« Reply #15 on: August 02, 2014, 11:03:44 PM »
How does your marble get from its final rest position when all motion has stopped, back to the start position? What agency or force moves it from that final position, to a new start position so that the "cycle" can begin again?

My guess is....Mr. Hand.

Bill

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy


Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13824
Re: Nov. 10th, 2013 Successful Over-Unity Experiment
« Reply #16 on: August 03, 2014, 01:15:10 AM »
Pay no attention to Mister Hand. The apparatus is level, you can tell that by comparing it to the floor with your sharp eyeballs.


Offline NathanCoppedge

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 97
    • Philosopher, Artist, Inventor, Poet
Re: Nov. 10th, 2013 Successful Over-Unity Experiment
« Reply #17 on: August 03, 2014, 01:58:33 AM »
How does your marble get from its final rest position when all motion has stopped, back to the start position? What agency or force moves it from that final position, to a new start position so that the "cycle" can begin again?

It's complicated to explain, but basically in the full design as pictured at http://www.nathancoppedge.com/Perpetual_Motion_RepeatingLeverage_Diagrams.html

or, for mobile:
http://www.nathancoppedge.com/Perpetual_Motion_RepeatingLeverage_Diagrams.shtml
(see bottom of page...)

The modular units, each of which this is one, trigger in succession, so that when the marble is dropped, it instead activates the next lever.

This is possible because the marble rises while it is on the track, and because of the arrangement of the modular units.

Hope that clarifies.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Nov. 10th, 2013 Successful Over-Unity Experiment
« Reply #17 on: August 03, 2014, 01:58:33 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline Newton II

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 307
Re: Nov. 10th, 2013 Successful Over-Unity Experiment
« Reply #18 on: August 03, 2014, 05:33:14 AM »
It's complicated to explain, but basically in the full design as pictured at ......


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

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






Offline gauschor

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 529
Re: Nov. 10th, 2013 Successful Over-Unity Experiment
« Reply #19 on: August 03, 2014, 11:14:42 AM »
@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?

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Nov. 10th, 2013 Successful Over-Unity Experiment
« Reply #19 on: August 03, 2014, 11:14:42 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline NathanCoppedge

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 97
    • Philosopher, Artist, Inventor, Poet
Re: Nov. 10th, 2013 Successful Over-Unity Experiment
« Reply #20 on: August 04, 2014, 05:26:19 PM »
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.

Offline NathanCoppedge

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 97
    • Philosopher, Artist, Inventor, Poet
Re: Nov. 10th, 2013 Successful Over-Unity Experiment
« Reply #21 on: August 04, 2014, 05:31:18 PM »

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).

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Nov. 10th, 2013 Successful Over-Unity Experiment
« Reply #21 on: August 04, 2014, 05:31:18 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline NathanCoppedge

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 97
    • Philosopher, Artist, Inventor, Poet
Re: Nov. 10th, 2013 Successful Over-Unity Experiment
« Reply #22 on: August 04, 2014, 05:54:28 PM »
@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.

Offline NathanCoppedge

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 97
    • Philosopher, Artist, Inventor, Poet
Re: Nov. 10th, 2013 Successful Over-Unity Experiment
« Reply #23 on: August 04, 2014, 06:11:31 PM »
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).

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Nov. 10th, 2013 Successful Over-Unity Experiment
« Reply #23 on: August 04, 2014, 06:11:31 PM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline NathanCoppedge

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 97
    • Philosopher, Artist, Inventor, Poet
Re: Nov. 10th, 2013 Successful Over-Unity Experiment
« Reply #24 on: August 04, 2014, 06:26:59 PM »
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"

Offline NathanCoppedge

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 97
    • Philosopher, Artist, Inventor, Poet
Re: Nov. 10th, 2013 Successful Over-Unity Experiment
« Reply #25 on: August 04, 2014, 06:33:50 PM »
My guess is....Mr. Hand.

Bill

If the downwards motion is placed onto the beginning of the following lever in the series, you will note that the previous lever has returned upwards to its start position, so in theory the proportions are very close, in fact, to creating a perpetual cycle. It just requires a slightly different mode of operation. It's kind of like springs that don't go dead.

Duly noted, I hope.

Most people forget that there is an implicit advantage in upward motion. It can be compared to getting a cannon shot without an explosion, which is really a remarkable thing. It's not equivalent in energy terms unless it's built on a large scale. But still, the potential is there. I hope you will see that irony is not the only option about this very real reality.

There are a lot of dead ends you can choose in reasoning about perpetual motion. It doesn't help that perpetual motion is, after all, a specialty. But who would expect honest criticism from people outside of the field, if they worked in a physics laboratory, for instance. Some of the above comments are excusable but contextually unenlightened.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Nov. 10th, 2013 Successful Over-Unity Experiment
« Reply #25 on: August 04, 2014, 06:33:50 PM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline gauschor

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 529
Re: Nov. 10th, 2013 Successful Over-Unity Experiment
« Reply #26 on: August 04, 2014, 08:08:00 PM »
I see. Your explanations come back very honest. Hopefully the questions didn't bother you too much. At least people in this forum can now understand what hinders the progress.

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13824
Re: Nov. 10th, 2013 Successful Over-Unity Experiment
« Reply #27 on: August 04, 2014, 08:34:46 PM »
It really sounds as though you are almost completely unaware of the history of your chosen topic. Here is a good place to start. You really should read every page of this website:
https://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/museum/unwork.htm

The fact that you are sure that your design will work, but you are not a builder yourself.... combined with the fact that you won't take the analyses and judgments of people who _are_ builders to heart, yet you want someone of them to build your device anyway...  is kind of a kinky windup, don't you think?

Yes, the fact that your device cannot return to the exact start position without the addition of energy from your hands or other sources like precocked or prepositioned levers does in fact mean that your system, that part of it anyway, is not overunity."Very close" does not count for anything. A heavy flywheel on good bearings is "very close" to being a perpetual motion machine all on its own. All you need are negative-coefficient of friction bearings. Unfortunately these are perpetually on back-order.

Offline NathanCoppedge

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 97
    • Philosopher, Artist, Inventor, Poet
Re: Nov. 10th, 2013 Successful Over-Unity Experiment
« Reply #28 on: August 05, 2014, 11:42:51 AM »
Why not build a decagon (ten devises in a circle) to make the lift high enough.

To be clear, the device is designed to have enough and equal lift within each of the modular units, as shown in the video. I DON'T mean that there is some kind of segmented springed apparatus. What I mean is that the track, the lever, and the fulcrum are meant to be duplicated in a polygonal shape. At every end-of-subcycle the altitude is the same, which I believe is made possible by the fact that the marble can rise during each motion within each modular unit.

Projecting the units higher and higher simply reduces the possibility of repeating the cycle. Not to be arrogant. From my point of view the current arrangement is just as impressive as raising it even further, because here it occurs within one modular unit, which seems rare to me.

Offline NathanCoppedge

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 97
    • Philosopher, Artist, Inventor, Poet
Re: Nov. 10th, 2013 Successful Over-Unity Experiment
« Reply #29 on: August 05, 2014, 11:46:40 AM »
I see. Your explanations come back very honest. Hopefully the questions didn't bother you too much. At least people in this forum can now understand what hinders the progress.

Thank you so much! It's genuinely rare to hear such kind-hearted words in response to this subject.

 

OneLink