Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy
Mechanical free energy devices => mechanic => Topic started by: NathanCoppedge on February 27, 2015, 05:59:21 PM
-
Analyze the following video carefully. I made the video. It is not edited.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d6YYEsHB0mM (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d6YYEsHB0mM)
Perhaps an object can roll up from rest?
Although I have shown rolling upwards before (I think, unless I have somehow been fooled by the level), this time (I think) I show upwards motion FROM REST.
The principle is that the sharp backboard creates more momentum than the vertical slope can overcome.
Consider.
Free energy?
The experiment was not an attempt at fraud at all, but instead, a rare attempt at a very very simple, yet perhaps viable principle.
Any criticisms?
I especially want to avoid the usual hemming and hawwing about a faked video. It's NOT a faked video.
The level really appeared as shown.
Does anyone think the marble is not rolling downwards? After all, this might be allowed by the wider gap on the further end.
-
An image of the general Escher Machine principle in an earlier, less effective variation can be found at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:The_Escher_Machine_of_Nathan_Coppedge.jpg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:The_Escher_Machine_of_Nathan_Coppedge.jpg).
Refer to that image if you want information on how it (might) work.
-
"wider gap on the further end"
Exactly. It doesn't take much divergence of the "rails" or contact points to get the "uphill rolling" effect from a sphere or a double-cone roller. You should construct your apparatus out of better materials than the cardboard so you can accurately measure whether the "rails" are truly parallel or not. I don't think they are, and this is the cause of the "uphill rolling" effect.
Here's a full explanation and mathematical analysis of what is probably going on.
http://plus.maths.org/content/defying-gravity-uphill-roller (http://plus.maths.org/content/defying-gravity-uphill-roller)
-
Re: TinselKoala. Thank you for being so circumspect. Of course some sort of tracked spindle is the default thesis for this type of thing.
You may find this irrelevant, but I have thought sometimes that my experiment was different because the background was derived from the Escher Machine concept and not the tracked spindle.
There are several differences, which I try to find meaningful:
(1) The Escher Machine is designed to have sideways momentum from the backboard (more steeply angled board), which could not occur in a spindle device the end of which could not push against a board during the process of its motion.
(2) The spindle device is virtually designed to lose altitude by virtue of the spindle design. The same is at least NOT AS TRUE of a spherical marble.
(3) Combining 1. and 2., we have a result which would predict less loss of altitude (due to 2.), and more potential energy (due to 1.). Thus, I think it is fairly impossible that it follows the same type of equation as the tracked spindle device.
If my conclusion is found to be true, then the issue remains open to debate, unless a mathematician can prove that the physics between the two devices are somehow the same. I think most such 'proofs' simply ignore my arguments.
I find the addiction to proofs is not necessarily vindicating of a valid position inherently. After all, rarely will mathematics ever tell you how a computer works. If a perpetual motion machine is more interesting, in some ways (some variable or exception) it may also be more complex than a computer in some specific way or ways.
Here is a thought experiment that I find helpful about the Escher Machine. See if you agree!
(A)
(1) Someone leaning against a wall that is angled to the left or right will be jilted sideways.
(2) A similar construction with a lever could cause its base to rise, by applying significant leverage.
(3) A lever applied about a screw could lift the shorter end of the lever inside the screw, theoretically (e.g. by aid of wheels or bearings).
(4) Since the longer end of the lever need not move to a lower position than the short end of the lever to create leverage, the actual base of the lever can move up without causing any downward motion at its level.
(5) Thus, a lever could lift its base while moving roughly horizontally, so long as leverage is applied that is stronger than the resistance.
(6) The horizontal motion may exceed the vertical gain at the base, although not the vertical loss at the top.
(7) Weight is somewhat equivalent to leverage in the sense that it can provide lift. For example, a human body displaced onto a lever can cause a gain in height by moving the lever a greater distance. But this effect is even more exaggerated when the person is counterweighted by something. In that case, it takes about equal leverage distance minus resistance. An exception.
Therefore (8) A sphere may be able to lift its own weight if the weight is displaced---that is, if motion-from-rest is occurring. Momentum must be provided by something. But in this case, unlike the spindle case, the backboard provides momentum. In the case of the spindle, it is due to vertical gravity, but in the case of the Escher Machine it is due to a re-directed nearly horizontal gravity, which may be called a mass-force.
Consider a second experiment:
(B)
(1) A ball dropped along a downwards-sloping wall will shoot out when it reaches the floor, if the floor is smooth.
(2) The ball shoots out further under specific conditions, a combination of the maximized angle of the wall, and any reductions by friction.
(3) The mass of the ball serves a purpose similar to being dropped.
(4) Upwards-moving momentum is possible.
(5) In theory, momentum may be significant from such a sloped wall.
(6) It may be possible to direct momentum upwards, if there is more horizontal motion than vertical (as per prior).
(7) There is no principle which says that resistance must exceed force, as demonstrated by all kinds of unbalanced and electric things.
(8) So perhaps the principle of the Escher Machine is proven?
Considering these thought experiments, I think some people could change their minds, and it is not so much how much knowledge they have of physics, as how un-restrained they are in considering new hypotheses.
Thank you for reading. And please respond if your mind is not completely resolute.
-
This is going to take some thinking about. I'll get back to you later when I've had a chance to consider what you've written.
-
This is going to take some thinking about. I'll get back to you later when I've had a chance to consider what you've written.
That's a high compliment coming from almost anyone. Thanks for the compliment! And feel free to reproduce any of my categorical language proofs for perpetual motion amongst your physics / and or hobbyist buddies.
More concepts of perpetual motion proof and principles can be found at: http://www.nathancoppedge.com/Perpetual_Motion.html (http://www.nathancoppedge.com/Perpetual_Motion.html)
And, http://www.hypercubics.blogspot.com/2015/03/more-exposure-now-possible-for.html (http://www.hypercubics.blogspot.com/2015/03/more-exposure-now-possible-for.html)
See also the most casual defense of open-endedness: http://www.hypercubics.blogspot.com/2015/03/a-guide-to-real-working-perpetual-motion.html (http://www.hypercubics.blogspot.com/2015/03/a-guide-to-real-working-perpetual-motion.html)
-
Do you have a magnetic ramp, SMOT or something under the cardboard?
Vidar
-
I would guess a magnet located at the top right. What is stronger the pull of the magnet or the pull of gravity?
Find the right balance and perpetual motion could be possible, I have a ramp that raises 10 inches over 2 feet which sucks the magnet in and rolls uphill to the height of the end , the trick is to decrease the magnetic attraction at the end so gravity can do its' thing.
artv
-
Do you have a magnetic ramp, SMOT or something under the cardboard?
Vidar
No, there are no magnets involved in this device. The Master Angle / Escher Machine concept and the Modular Trough Leverage do NOT involve magnets, as amazing as that may seem to those who love magnets.
Neither device has been proven to cycle yet at this point, although both devices seem proven to generate motion from rest with no net loss of altitude.
Thank you for taking interest, by the way.
-
No, there are no magnets involved in this device. The Master Angle / Escher Machine concept and the Modular Trough Leverage do NOT involve magnets, as amazing as that may seem to those who love magnets.
When I say this, don't start calling me the devil. The gap in the cardboard widens, but is supposed to deliver the marble upwards by using a sideways-directed momentum from the backboard, and minimal vertical resistance. If it works, it is essentially using the energy from mass and previous momentum to generate forwards momentum in the same way as a ball that drops along a slanted wall will shoot out along the floor. The unique property if it has one is that it moves upwards from rest.
One of my inspirations is the marble rally game. Another one is metal roofs. And garden ornaments. What really prevents luxury from entering into an object, is one of my questions?
-
the trick is to decrease the magnetic attraction at the end so gravity can do its' thing.
artv
I find no reason to think that magnets will be necessary. And I don't mean to discourage anyone from imitating my construction. It requires super-straight cardboard on the lower end and super-smooth cardboard for the backboard. The experiment can be imitated using a level. I think basically no one thought of it before.
Some of my other experiments using a slope that is joined with the backboard may look more conclusive on the level issue, or not. But my intuition is that there are some configurations, like in the video, that work. Essentially the principle is more horizontal than vertical displacement, plus a means of momentum.
-
I don't understand that Escher machine. Gravity alone can't do anything, neither can magnetism.
Together I think it's possible.
If you place a ring magnet on top of a steel pipe it will rotate 270 degrees ,then go back to 180.If you cut that pipe so the thickness of the steel is less at 180 the magnet will let go of the pipe.
Use the momentum upon release to send the magnet, up the next track.
artv
-
I don't understand that Escher machine. Gravity alone can't do anything, neither can magnetism.
Together I think it's possible.
artv
The point is, I think gravity CAN do something, when it is directed sideways with minimal resistance. It's hard to find the right metaphor to explain this. But I think if you look over my two eight-point proofs, you may find you don't disagree with any of the individual points.
Like you said, magnets don't do anything. I think I agree on that point. The average magnet machine is either depletable or cannot overcome friction. So I find no reason to believe that combining magnets and gravity has much additional effect, unless you're thinking of a different design.
Remember, John Wilkin's ramp perpetual motion concept was a failure, see the fake video (it's the second machine mentioned):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2D9FcjTNaEk&index=10&list=PLC3662DDC93A31100
But that's a very different design from the Escher Machine. For one thing, it tries to achieve a much larger gain in altitude.
-
That Wilkin ramp won't work because if the magnet at the top is strong enough to pull the ball up the ramp, it will never let it drop out to the slide to go down. It will just grab the ball.
The ball has to be the magnet, steel has to be the track, if you have a tapered piece of curved steel at the end of that track it will let go.
artv
-
That Wilkin ramp won't work because if the magnet at the top is strong enough to pull the ball up the ramp, it will never let it drop out to the slide to go down. It will just grab the ball.
The ball has to be the magnet, steel has to be the track, if you have a tapered piece of curved steel at the end of that track it will let go.
artv
I don't know if you're right. But for one thing, there are no genuine ball magnets, that I know of. I think they're all polar. That's the property of magnetism. Those little plastic ball magnets are polar, too, if you open them up. Difficult to make it roll properly, even if it were magnetic. One pole is likely to be attracted to the steel, and the other repelled. So either it doesn't rise to begin with, or it completely gloms onto the steel part. I have been frustrated by my most basic experiments on magnetism, and it should probably be considered conclusive.
On the other hand, if you can fuse magnets into an assembly, and somehow convert the magnetic pressure into power or motion, then that's sort of like a perpetual motion machine. But I think it depletes the magnets, contrary arguments notwithstanding.
-
I just use 2 ring magnets on their edge, so a pole on each side.
In-lay a piece of 1in. wide steel on a piece of hardwood flooring, making sure both surfaces are flush.
With the wood perfectly level, bring the magnet towards one end of the strip of steel, when you start to feel the pull from the magnet , let it go, it will travel past the halfway point of the overall length of the steel , then return to the center, where it stops.
You can make travel farther by adding layers of steel, and also climb ramps.
artv
-
I just use 2 ring magnets on their edge, so a pole on each side.
In-lay a piece of 1in. wide steel on a piece of hardwood flooring, making sure both surfaces are flush.
With the wood perfectly level, bring the magnet towards one end of the strip of steel, when you start to feel the pull from the magnet , let it go, it will travel past the halfway point of the overall length of the steel , then return to the center, where it stops.
You can make travel farther by adding layers of steel, and also climb ramps.
artv
I have a feeling your device won't attract the magnet from the initial position unless it becomes sideways-glommed onto the steel. An observation.
Of course, if you think it works, perhaps you should try to build it. If you have genuine mathematical evidence, that's another story, although you may have trouble finding anyone that believes you.
Post a diagram here, if you like.
-
I've already built it.
The latest version is 12in. in length , with a rise of 2in. It pulls the magnet in , and today I finally got it to release!
Need to send it back up now.
artv
-
@NathanCopage
Thanks for the interesting topic.
I could not see any detail in the photos / video of
your device.
Can you provide us with a more detailed drawing or photo ?
I would very much like to replicate / see for my self the device.
best wishes
floor
-
@NathanCopage
Thanks for the interesting topic.
I could not see any detail in the photos / video of
your device.
Can you provide us with a more detailed drawing or photo ?
I would very much like to replicate / see for my self the device.
best wishes
floor
Here is an image of the device (for now at least, it is also available on Wikipedia under a multimedia search for "nathan coppedge"):
-
...for now at least, it is also available on Wikipedia under a multimedia search for "nathan coppedge"...
I also have a diagram showing what I know of the physics of the device.
Note that more recently I have found that a very steep backboard probably more effective than the one pictured in these images.