# Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

## Mechanical free energy devices => mechanic => Topic started by: NathanCoppedge on July 30, 2014, 03:58:44 AM

Title: Nov. 10th, 2013 Successful Over-Unity Experiment
Post by: NathanCoppedge on July 30, 2014, 03:58:44 AM
I have a device in which, through a supporting divided track, a ball weight is lifted by counterweight and then triggers the counterweight to move upwards, WITH ITS OWN WEIGHT ALONE.

Here is the video, which is real, which I have posted on an academic website:

It is my belief that this is final proof of over-unity.

Although the device is not perpetual in its current form, since the marble can be made (I believe) to not lose altitude --- since it gains altitude while being moved by the lever --- I believe that eight of these devices may be positioned in a horizontal octagon to produce a continuous cycle, as shown at the following link:

http://www.nathancoppedge.com/Perpetual_Motion_RepeatingLeverage_Diagrams.html (http://www.nathancoppedge.com/Perpetual_Motion_RepeatingLeverage_Diagrams.html)

It would be great to get more enthusiasm behind these simple-seeming devices, which have been designed with so superior a principle. Or, in this case, 6 perfect principles, which I will list here:

(1) It begins from rest and uses no electricity or stored energy, except a counterweight, (2) It moves upwards and then downwards on its own, (3) It uses a principle of weight versus leverage, with the weight at a lesser leverage distance, (4) It makes use of a supporting track, which creates in imbalance between the mobile weight and the counterweight, (5) The lever is unbalanced at every point of motion, and (6) All parts may return to their initial altitudes after motion.

My other recent notable experiment is the Master Angle, tested on July 3rd, 2014, proven, I believe, to allow an object to roll upwards! Check out this video before you disbelieve! Its arranged using a horizontally-angled board which is positioned partly underneath the marble as it rolls sideways... Perhaps a new discovery? I don't know how to tell if it's new, I just know how to tell if it works, within a shade of certainty...

Here is the Master Angle video, for curious observers:

It can also be searched on YouTube under "Master Angle."
Title: Re: Nov. 10th, 2013 Successful Over-Unity Experiment
Post by: TinselKoala on July 30, 2014, 05:19:22 AM

All of your videos that I've watched show you storing energy in the system with your hands, so I'm not sure how you can state that they don't involve stored energy or are overunity. Is there a video of your system that returns to the starting state exactly, without you using your hands to help out?
Title: Re: Nov. 10th, 2013 Successful Over-Unity Experiment
Post by: tinman on July 30, 2014, 05:25:41 AM
I think he forgot to add the energy it took to lift the counter weight up at the other end of the  device, when he placed the ball on the levers track, and pushed it down. But a bit hard to see the video on my phone, so will have another look when I get home from work tonight.
Title: Re: Nov. 10th, 2013 Successful Over-Unity Experiment
Post by: gauschor on July 30, 2014, 08:41:47 PM
Looks interesting but I don't grasp what's this track and ball counterweight. I'm hoping for a better video and explanation.
Title: Re: Nov. 10th, 2013 Successful Over-Unity Experiment
Post by: NathanCoppedge on July 31, 2014, 12:14:49 PM

All of your videos that I've watched show you storing energy in the system with your hands, so I'm not sure how you can state that they don't involve stored energy or are overunity. Is there a video of your system that returns to the starting state exactly, without you using your hands to help out?

Here is what is necessary for perpetual motion in one of my types of devices: (A) Articulation over a point of balance, (B) Natural momentum, (C) Completed cycle. I have not completed all of these stages in any of my designs.

However, my successful over-unity experiment proves that motion can occur without loss of altitude, which has been a sticking point with modern physicists. As to whether force is inputted, no force is inputted except to put the force to raise the marble to the altitude it would maintain during part of the cycle. The video is dramatized by using a wider range of motion than it would adopt in real-life practice. In a real design, the range of motion would be fixed to a very narrow up-and-down movement. The high point of that motion is reached first by raising the marble by hand, and secondly through the natural motion of the apparatus. Notably, the end-point before the drop is HIGHER than the low point where the marble drops to. Also, the marble has the power to life the counterweight as much as necessary after the drop. Therefore, reasoning from the amount of energy the marble can exert, and the position of the counterweight before energy is exerted, it appears to be over-unity, and I believe that it in fact, is.

The effect is a achieved through a combination of six principles: (1) It begins from rest and uses no electricity or stored energy, except a counterweight, (2) It moves upwards and then downwards on its own, (3) It uses a principle of weight versus leverage, with the weight at a lesser leverage distance, (4) It makes use of a supporting track, which creates in imbalance between the mobile weight and the counterweight, (5) The lever is unbalanced at every point of motion, and (6) All parts may return to their initial altitudes after motion.
Title: Re: Nov. 10th, 2013 Successful Over-Unity Experiment
Post by: NathanCoppedge on July 31, 2014, 12:19:19 PM
I think he forgot to add the energy it took to lift the counter weight up at the other end of the  device, when he placed the ball on the levers track, and pushed it down. But a bit hard to see the video on my phone, so will have another look when I get home from work tonight.

The marble is capable of lifting the entire counterweight ON IT'S OWN---something I believe was not done before. And the initial motions (e.g. the rising motion after the drop) occurs exclusively through the counterweight. It is my belief that the range of motion can be fixed to allow the marble to trigger each lever in succession when eight of the apparatuses are arranged in a circle. That is my basis for over-unity.

The experiment was designed to make PROGRESS OF ANY KIND.
Title: Re: Nov. 10th, 2013 Successful Over-Unity Experiment
Post by: NathanCoppedge on July 31, 2014, 12:27:25 PM
Looks interesting but I don't grasp what's this track and ball counterweight. I'm hoping for a better video and explanation.

Sorry, I took the video with my phone, and it was then converted to MPG format using a video converter program.

The track is a series of two slats through which runs the lever. The counterweight, which is not visible for the entire video, is positioned at the opposite end of the point of balance (called a fulcrum or hinge), and is fixed to the lever.

The lever tilts up and down through the track, and in this special configuration in which the marble travels from about 2.2X counterweight leverage to about 3X counterweight leverage, the marbles motion is created by the counterweight, AND the marble can trigger the counterweight to rise afterwards.

It may seem like a small experiment, but I think it is highly significant.

Will this be marked as the time over-unity was proven for posterity? Time will tell.
Title: Re: Nov. 10th, 2013 Successful Over-Unity Experiment
Post by: TinselKoala on July 31, 2014, 12:56:04 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.

I suggest you firm up your demonstration, shoot it with a better camera, and get yourself a decent bubble level. For this kind of work a "machinist's level" should really be used. I would like to see this setup done better, because I can tell from your explanation that you are in earnest and you have thought about what you are doing. Let's see if we can fully and rigorously quantify the role of Mister Hand, before we start declaring overunity, OK?
Title: Re: Nov. 10th, 2013 Successful Over-Unity Experiment
Post by: tinman on July 31, 2014, 02:18:48 PM
Disregarding the energy it took to lift the ball onto the track to start the process,the ball would have to end up higher at the end of the track,than it was at the start of the track. At very best-even disregarding any friction,the ball would only roll to the very same hight it started at-it would not go higher.
Title: Re: Nov. 10th, 2013 Successful Over-Unity Experiment
Post by: conradelektro on July 31, 2014, 08:43:42 PM

It is my belief that this is final proof of over-unity.

Although the device is not perpetual in its current form, since the marble can be made (I believe) to not lose altitude --- since it gains altitude while being moved by the lever --- I believe that eight of these devices may be positioned in a horizontal octagon to produce a continuous cycle, as shown at the following link:

http://www.nathancoppedge.com/Perpetual_Motion_RepeatingLeverage_Diagrams.html (http://www.nathancoppedge.com/Perpetual_Motion_RepeatingLeverage_Diagrams.html)

According to my unimportant opinion, the only way to interest a sufficient number of people would be to build that "horizontal octagon to produce a continuous cycle". Why not build a decagon (ten devises in a circle) to make the lift high enough.

Only a marble going in circles for a long time (let's say a week) without energy input would cause a stir in the scientific world. Of course, independent verification is a must as well.

But this is of course the impossible thing to do. So, do not talk about it, do not make promises, just build it and we will see.

The video without details and no understandable explanation is more than useless. Who can take that seriously?

"Look I have something, I do not show what it is, but it proves a violation of known principles." Ridiculous, as always!

"I can not show you details, because I want to preserve my rights." Yes, do that, stop speaking about a secret you do not want to disclose, it will be stolen from you if you give too many hints. If you do not give hints, whatever you say is meaningless.

Disclose completely or shut up completely.

Title: Re: Nov. 10th, 2013 Successful Over-Unity Experiment
Post by: NathanCoppedge on August 02, 2014, 02:30:58 AM
I suggest you firm up your demonstration, shoot it with a better camera, and get yourself a decent bubble level. For this kind of work a "machinist's level" should really be used. I would like to see this setup done better, because I can tell from your explanation that you are in earnest and you have thought about what you are doing.

I have tested the slope with a level many times, and it is certainly sloped upwards (more so than in my Master Angle project). I am not confused about which direction the bubble should go. I have highly accurate perception of levels with my eyes also, within reason, and I can tell that if the floor is level, then this device slopes upwards. However, the level confirms that it ACTUALLY IS sloped upwards. I have also found that there is some room for variation in the construction of the device. For example, additional weight can be added to the counterweight, and, if the marble travels further down the track, it will STILL activate the lever to move downwards. But it does depend on proportionality as to when the marble starts and stops. However, unlike in some other prospective designs, there is not much room for downwards sloped movement between upward motions, because of the limited amount of altitude gained. Ideally, three to eight of these apparatuses would be linked in a polygonal loop, reducing the amount of travel necessary to reach the next unit (I find that the distance is significantly longer when there are two modular units, versus three, and there is also a significant reduction in movement with eight, in the right case). With ideal/ professional construction / engineering, some of the problems might be eliminated.
Title: Re: Nov. 10th, 2013 Successful Over-Unity Experiment
Post by: NathanCoppedge on August 02, 2014, 02:38:32 AM
Yes, do that, stop speaking about a secret you do not want to disclose, it will be stolen from you if you give too many hints. If you do not give hints, whatever you say is meaningless.

Disclose completely or shut up completely.

I am being very frank, and I think the video shows accurately exactly how the machine would operate, minus horizontal duplication and a number of very small nearly horizontal, downward-oriented connecting slopes.

I'm sorry if people thought that it gains altitude cumulatively. It is not designed to do that, but rather to ascend and descend in equal or near-equal ratio. This is possible (I think) because there is relatively more downwards motion on the short end of movement. However, this small point may prove unessential.

It is my hope that someone else builds it, so that the world has a real working perpetual motion machine.

I'm not very good at building sturdy devices, I just have some of the best simple ideas about perpetual motion in the world.

I encourage others to find equal evidence to what I have found, so that they gain equal excitement, and the process continues.

With the essence of continuity, perhaps there will also be an essence of progress.
Title: Re: Nov. 10th, 2013 Successful Over-Unity Experiment
Post by: NathanCoppedge on August 02, 2014, 02:49:33 AM
I should also note that this is not the only option for a working perpetual motion machine.

Here are some principles I have discovered that might be useful, separately or together:

1. A nearly horizontal fixed slope that serves as a partial support or divided track for a mobile weight, reducing the resistance implied to a counterweight which operates the mobile weight, (trough leverage), this might be the easiest,

2. A certain ratio which seems to permit 'difference weights' to move see-saw apparatuses (see Motive Mass Machine Iteration 2), this might be the easiest to prove mathematically,

3. Leverage might be used to extend slope when the slope swivels, using large or small levers (Tilt Motor), this design might produce the most energy of my designs,

4. A certain horizontal angle positioned on a slight diagonal, and skewed to one side so that the rectangular base's corners occupy four successive tiers may be used to allow a spherical object to roll very slightly upwards (Master Angle), this could be the most subtle, but ultimately the easiest to precision-manufacture.

As my disclaimer has said for a number of years (since 2007 or so), my designs are freely available to developers, inventors seeking patents, engineers, institutions, etc. I rely on acts of goodwill for any compensation I receive.

Title: Re: Nov. 10th, 2013 Successful Over-Unity Experiment
Post by: NathanCoppedge on August 02, 2014, 02:51:03 AM
Disregarding the energy it took to lift the ball onto the track to start the process,the ball would have to end up higher at the end of the track,than it was at the start of the track. At very best-even disregarding any friction,the ball would only roll to the very same hight it started at-it would not go higher.

Actually, you're wrong, and I have proven it.

The counter-argument that the ball cannot lift the counterweight is moot, because in this case, although the counterweight is heavier, it is lifted by the ball weight. This is because the weight of the lever compensates for part of the mass of the counterweight.

Also, the two masses are about equal (a kind of equilibrious effect) yet motion is created, due not only to equilibrium, but also the supporting track, which reduces resistance to the weight of the ball weight.

You might suspect that the ball weight would roll downwards, but in fact, with some angularity of the lever, the natural motion is upwards in the case of an equilibrium (when the weight of the lever is also compensated).

So, I say again, you're wrong, and you need to look no further than my very authentic video for evidence.

I may add, that I'm acting out of pure goodwill, with a little greed mixed in. In other words, ambition.
Title: Re: Nov. 10th, 2013 Successful Over-Unity Experiment
Post by: TinselKoala on August 02, 2014, 04:24:55 AM
I have tested the slope with a level many times, and it is certainly sloped upwards (more so than in my Master Angle project). I am not confused about which direction the bubble should go. I have highly accurate perception of levels with my eyes also, within reason, and I can tell that if the floor is level, then this device slopes upwards. However, the level confirms that it ACTUALLY IS sloped upwards. I have also found that there is some room for variation in the construction of the device. For example, additional weight can be added to the counterweight, and, if the marble travels further down the track, it will STILL activate the lever to move downwards. But it does depend on proportionality as to when the marble starts and stops. However, unlike in some other prospective designs, there is not much room for downwards sloped movement between upward motions, because of the limited amount of altitude gained. Ideally, three to eight of these apparatuses would be linked in a polygonal loop, reducing the amount of travel necessary to reach the next unit (I find that the distance is significantly longer when there are two modular units, versus three, and there is also a significant reduction in movement with eight, in the right case). With ideal/ professional construction / engineering, some of the problems might be eliminated.

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?
Title: Re: Nov. 10th, 2013 Successful Over-Unity Experiment
Post by: Pirate88179 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
Title: Re: Nov. 10th, 2013 Successful Over-Unity Experiment
Post by: TinselKoala 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.

Title: Re: Nov. 10th, 2013 Successful Over-Unity Experiment
Post by: NathanCoppedge 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.
Title: Re: Nov. 10th, 2013 Successful Over-Unity Experiment
Post by: Newton II 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'.

Title: Re: Nov. 10th, 2013 Successful Over-Unity Experiment
Post by: gauschor 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?
Title: Re: Nov. 10th, 2013 Successful Over-Unity Experiment
Post by: NathanCoppedge 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.
Title: Re: Nov. 10th, 2013 Successful Over-Unity Experiment
Post by: NathanCoppedge 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).
Title: Re: Nov. 10th, 2013 Successful Over-Unity Experiment
Post by: NathanCoppedge 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.
Title: Re: Nov. 10th, 2013 Successful Over-Unity Experiment
Post by: NathanCoppedge 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:

And one at:

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).
Title: Re: Nov. 10th, 2013 Successful Over-Unity Experiment
Post by: NathanCoppedge 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"
Title: Re: Nov. 10th, 2013 Successful Over-Unity Experiment
Post by: NathanCoppedge 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.
Title: Re: Nov. 10th, 2013 Successful Over-Unity Experiment
Post by: gauschor 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.
Title: Re: Nov. 10th, 2013 Successful Over-Unity Experiment
Post by: TinselKoala 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 (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.
Title: Re: Nov. 10th, 2013 Successful Over-Unity Experiment
Post by: NathanCoppedge 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.
Title: Re: Nov. 10th, 2013 Successful Over-Unity Experiment
Post by: NathanCoppedge 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.
Title: Re: Nov. 10th, 2013 Successful Over-Unity Experiment
Post by: NathanCoppedge on August 05, 2014, 11:56:02 AM
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 (https://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/museum/unwork.htm)

I have read most if not all of Simanek's webpage, and I have found he is unfortunately not willing to include my designs. Perhaps you felt that Grav-Buoy Iteration 1 was already done? I was aware of that! I regularly cite Tatay's work as the only major example of a precedent for any of my machine, with few exceptions. SOME of those designs are better than SOME of my designs, but not all of mine!

Simanek has expressed to me that the physics principles in my devices are (too) hard to explain. Which is hard to believe given some of the complexities present on his webpages (siphons, etc.).

I am engaged with the history of critique on my own level, which is trying to make sure that SOMETHING works.
Title: Re: Nov. 10th, 2013 Successful Over-Unity Experiment
Post by: NathanCoppedge on August 05, 2014, 12:13:48 PM
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?

Although the existence of perpetual motion might be a very exceptional case if it is real, there is no denying an exceptional case by referring to general evidence, at least where some things have not yet been tried. I have found almost no evidence that the Tilt Motor, Repeating Leverage, Motive Mass Machine, Coquette Device, Trough Leverage, Curving Rail Device, or Grav-Buoy Iteration 2 even existed in people's minds. But what you probably meant is that you're more skilled in building a device, which is what I hoped to take advantage of. Unfortunately I find many engineers get caught up in the electronics, and then they aren't in the right mindset to do something simple and perfect. They always want to spend energy. It may seem cruel, but this appears to be the exceptional unrelenting truth. I don't feel very blind on this keynote issue.

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.

The experiment shows that an object can move upwards by counterweight alone, and then LIFT THE COUNTERWEIGHT OF IT'S OWN VOLITION. When the couterweight is lifted, the marble may be allowed to return to EXACTLY THE ALTITUDE IT BEGAN AT.   What more proof do you need of over-unity, if not perpetual motion? It begins from rest, it ends at rest, energy takes place, and all the work is done and undone, at no expense. That's over-unity!

If the marble cannot return to the same altitude, it is a failure of cyclic operation, not energy, in this case. The energy has been proven! In fact, the marble can lift the counterweight to higher than when it started, after moving upwards itself! It's over-the-top, subtle mechanics.

Some people haven't practiced enough to know how to exaggerate in their minds or focus on JUST WHAT HAPPENED. They want it to work like every other case. But this is exceptional physics! I can't tell you it works like every other case, because it doesn't! It doesn't use batteries, it doesn't just move downwards, all the energy is expressed in terms of mass!