Saturday, August 30, 2014


I'm in the top 4% at Academia.Edu! See PAGE here.

Feeling more prestigious now! Not everyone Ivy gets to that level, in my presumptuous opinion!

Update: Oct. 2014 down to Top 5%

Friday, August 29, 2014

I posted some data about the Master Angle / Escher Machine

The data is visible on Academic Room, in the form of one of the comments below the video:

Errata of the Mechanists, #2

"If perpetual motion kills anyone (imagine a gigantic rolling pin running over an industrial snooper), it is officially an accident, an apocryphal accident. The accident is comparable to the pride of the machine, just as the specific inventor imagines that it's his design"

Thursday, August 28, 2014

Perpetual Faith in Motion

"Recently, very few people seem to believe in perpetual motion"

"Inventing perpetual motion seems to require an act of God"

"Invention? That's like saying the inventor's God you might say"

"Like, the inventor's God, someone might say"

"They think they're stuck on God? What about perpetual motion!"

[It's the final quotation above that I think is most important in spite of confusions...]

Perpetual Motion Press Dilemma

More important for someone (amongst anyone) to build it, than to get press...


More important to get press than for one specific individual to build it (unless there's only one)...


More important for one specific individual to build it than to broadcast your average White House Press Conference...


The existence of your average White House Press Conference is much more important than going to nuclear war...

By this argument, there's something very real about perpetual motion!

Or do you not see clearly?

Wednesday, August 27, 2014

Terrapinian Advice

(Terrapin is my erstwhile pseudonym, which I have been slowly rejecting)

"It's best if we can have feelings with our thoughts, and not become a band of what-nots" ---ET

"Oh, for thoughts to not be the same, when they return again: to remember the form and forget to learn what does not teach: to be the eye of the storm" ---ET

Sunday, August 24, 2014

Temporary Rating

DPT is currently #15 for Kindle / Philosophy / Reference

Currently 140,193rd in Kindle Store overall (for now).

There is a link to that text HERE. I think it belongs in bookstores.

(Once I found two different books that had the same rating, so I don't know if these statistics are really trustworthy).

Saturday, August 23, 2014

Thursday, August 21, 2014

Perpetual Motion Genius' Guide to Philosophy


Previously the author of similar 'Guides' on poetry, young adulthood, and child development, here the author addresses a topic dear to his heart: philosophy. Those unfamiliar with the topic are likely to find many reasons either for or against it in this entertaining and reasonably deep guide to the subject. From the author of the Dimensional Philosopher's Toolkit, and also inventor of numerous over-unity concepts.

It is available on Amazon HERE.

Tuesday, August 19, 2014

I don't have a Guggenheim Fellowship after all

But I got a phone call while I was at Starbucks, which made the impression that someone was speaking on behalf of the Guggenheim Foundation.

What I heard --- but I suffer from auditory hallucinations --- was that I was being offered a Guggenheim Fellowship.

I said 'no...I can't hear you' because I couldn't hear what they were saying.

So now I don't know if I'll ever hear from them again. It was a no-callback number.

The other option is it was an ad for Laser Vision surgery. Oh well.

Update: At least two Guggenheim foundations claim it wasn't them. But maybe it was a screening call by Lavazza, which is one of their supporters... I may not ever know.

Monday, August 18, 2014

Case Examples in Perpetual Motion

Many scientific observers are concretists on the subject of over-unity. They think its either-or, and some work and some don't, if any work at all. But I find that view is far too simplistic. It's not that nothing works, it's that most examples are too difficult to be easy. Here are some case-examples proving the minimum (or scientific maximum).

The Escher Machine --- My recent case example observes that an object can roll upwards. If the in-between-connecting downwards-slopes are not steep enough for motion, then it doesn't work. If they are steep enough, it does work (the primary slopes are slightly upwards-inclined, with sideways-directed gravity).

Motive Mass Machine --- In Iteration 2 (3?), motion is permitted if the proportionality allows significant motion, and if the vertically-falling mass has enough mass simultaneously to move the partially-supported weight by pulley. This seems possible, but perhaps problems will emerge. I have temporarily stalled building the project because it seems difficult. Actually, I never got very far, except to prove that a free-falling mass can move an equal mass slightly upwards if it rolls.

Tilt Motor --- Motion is possible if leverage can extend slope. My first experiment succeeded, and the next two failed.

Repeat Lever Type 2 --- A cycle is possible if a counterweighted lever can lift a weight 180 degrees, through a cross-sectional loop, through the use of a supporting track. The remainder of the loop consists of a vertical drop, where the mobile weight activates the lever. Some proportions show this may be possible, so long as the mobile weight can be lifted. The length of the lever can be extended as necessary, since reduced altitudes corresponding with longer levers actually reduce resistance to the rising motion.

Modular Trough Leverage ---- There is strong evidence going for the trough principle. In this case, construction must permit each modular unit to end and begin at the same altitude, which simply means that the vertical drop is equal to the differential between the angularity of the lever and the angularity of the track. Collectively, no altitude needs to be gained. Although some of the peculiarities still have to be worked out, there is evidence pointing towards the functionality of this design. My video titled Successful Perpetual Motion Experiment 1 gives evidence that it may be possible to trigger the next modular unit without loss of altitude. As dubious as this evidence may seem, it is at least VERY CLOSE to proving each unit can move from rest to an adequate altitude, and IF THAT IS THE CASE, then perpetual motion IS possible. For that reason, it is a worthwhile experiment. Note, that the levers at the beginning of the tracks can be bent downwards, so that only when the lever is directed downward does it cause motion. From the upwards position, it can be triggered to have greater motion, resulting in greater movement of the mobile weight (in theory).

My primary website on perpetual motion machines can be found at or in Mobile Format here:

My videos demonstrating over-unity can be found at the following links:

Successful Over-Unity Experiment 1:

Master Angle:

Or, more professionally:

Evidence Against the Classical Model:

Master Angle, An Elementary Discovery:

Sunday, August 17, 2014

Diagram Showing A Possible Proof of the Escher Machine

Perpetual Motion Songs


When will come the tilting coquette---?
What kingdom will lend its crown---?
Above the tree the form will tilt---!
By scaffolds built a gleaming machine---!

Older than the ancient em-pire---!
A seed, within a star
Higher than embiciles of gravity
It turns travelers a-jar---!

Here is this most simple infinity
Sitting beside a crumbling chimney
Made of brass or metal fair!

Physics lost its wits to make
The bricks stick together bricks, it takes
An engineer two thousand years to make----

A Til-ting Coquette!

LINK: coquette device


The Escher Machine, The Escher Machine,
The Escher Machine, The Escher Machine.
The Escher Machine, The Escher Machine,
The Escher Machine, The Escher Machine.
It does not move randomly! Maybe it is a reality!
The Escher Machine, The Escher Machine,
The Escher Mahcine, The Escher Machine.
The Escher Machine, The Escher Machine,
The Escher Machine, The Escher Machine.

LINK: The escher machine

August 2014 Inventor Quotes

"If I'm ancient, there might be better things already" ---Nathan Coppedge

"The two songs correspond to the two simplest machines, for no coincidence" ---Nathan Coppedge

"When I think of science, I try to develop a logical method. When I find no logic, I find no science" ---Nathan Coppedge

Thursday, August 14, 2014

Metaphysical Style / The Twerk has been sold!

My fabled Picasso Style piece has been sold to a Mr. Lehr in the U.K.

This is my long-belated first sale at

The piece is titled "Metaphysical Style / The Twerk."

Including person-to-person sales, this is approximately my second sale over $300. A number of others have sold in the $100 - 200 range.

My previous sale was two framed drawings to Anthony and Crystal of CT. The couple stopped in my exhibit at Woodland Cafe which took place Sept. - Nov. in 2012.

I have also been selling a few copies of my very interesting art book, which is available for purchase here: Nathan Coppedge's Hyper-Cubism: Post-Cubist Drawings and Paintings.

Here is a link to my online gallery:


Probably Me

I saw a pink PE Troll in the sky,
Petroll because of the oily texture
of the sky...
[Oh her chin,
and oh her very long hair!]
and I thought:
That stands for physical energy troll...
And it probably means:
Someone's being dishonest about physical energy...
Which means someone else is right about some contrary principle...
And, It's probably me...  Someone's right about energy! It's probably me! Probably me!

Monday, August 11, 2014

Another piece in the style of Picasso

St. Paul's Cathedral / Picasso Style #2
Hyper-Cubism by Nathan Coppedge
Available for purchase HERE.

Friday, August 8, 2014

My Escher Machine shows up in Wikipedia multimedia

Here is the link:

Earlier, I had submitted the file to Wikimedia Commons:

Maybe someday an article will even be written about me. Possible.

As I see it, I deserve press for more than one reason. Not that I'm famous yet, but I deserve fame.

I don't have any videos with a million views yet, but one of them is over 2000 now (on Academic Room), and I have another that's over 1000 (on YouTube).

Perhaps considering the importance of my work popularity should follow from official coverage, rather than trendiness. But then again, the two things are so often the same.

Wednesday, August 6, 2014

Statements on the Square of Opposition

Recently I discovered a link to a device very similar to the Semiotic Square. I immediately became interested in disproving the logical device's purported logical validity.

Here is what I wrote in criticism (note especially the second paragraph):

[At Left: The Square of Opposition, which I intend to criticize, and Below: the Categorical Deduction diagram that I mean to defend].

[In reference to the Square of Opposition,] The graphical design alone is one of the simplest symbols in philosophy, logic, symbolics, and semiotics: it simply means 'modifying something', and in my view it is a rather incomplete notion of coherence. For example, if we have the categories they grant of 'None', 'All', 'Some', and 'Some not', we could add 'ambiguously some', 'ambiguously all' 'arbitrarily some' 'arbitrarily all' etc. This shows a clear pattern of incoherence in the formula, since in my view, although arbitrariness and ambiguity might apply to all cases, they are themselves in some sense, opposites. In other words, how do we know that 'some' are not 'all' by qualification, let alone whether ambiguous cases are arbitrated on the level of 'everything' versus on the level of 'nothing'? There is a deep need to find exclusion, a tool the square of opposition does not use well. Where is the logic? It is a little unfair, but I think the answer is categorical deduction, using opposites.

On the other hand [still referring to the Square of Opposition as opposed to Categorical Deduction], I can see how the diagram is inspired to create an exclusive set, it's just that it takes a kind of spiral pattern which does not easily return to its point of origin. Performing a categorical deduction on the set, we would conclude that 'Something is not nothing where everything is something' OR 'Something is not something where everything is nothing'. I'm afraid these statements do not hold up, because 1. In the first statement, it is the wrong kind of conservatism. We shouldn't need to prove everything is true to prove SOME things are true. 2. In the second case, instead of being conservative, it is the wrong type of generalization. There is no necessary connection between irrationalist statements of contradiction and the abnegation of all properties. Indeed, irrational properties may exist, under the right semantic conditions. So, the square of opposition rests on two fallacies, namely A. generic assumptions and B. A specific form of the fallacy of Affirming the Consequent. Added to this is the reality that I've virtually invented the complexity of the diagram in order to analyze it. Remember, the categorical deduction diagrams are different, even if they seem more simple, they usually involve more substantive data (i.e. opposite words), and a more coherent---perhaps the only simple and coherent----logical method.

Alternate method: Re-arranging the Square of Opposition to fit the standard of categorical deduction arguably yields the order (All, None, Not Some, Some), because the alternate order (All, None, Some, Not Some) yields trivial cases (1. Everything is nothing that is not something, and 2. Everything that is not something is not something,) , and the alternate order (All, Some, Not Some, None) does not complete a cycle, and amounts to quantification (what I call the quantification fallacy, a case in which data cannot return to itself or self-reflect, due in this case to beginning with everything and ending with nothing). Accepting the chosen order, the categorical deduction is different, but I suspect it is equally problematic due to the flawed choices. 1. Everything is nothing when something is not something, and 2. Everything is something when something is not something. Instead of being trivial, this example is purely relativistic, and in a coherent context, that doesn't hold up. The categorical deduction is neither relative, nor trivial, nor problematic, and so it must be the method that is preferred.

----Nathan Coppedge

Originally comments on
In response to the SEP:

How to Write Aphorisms by Nathan Coppedge

is now available in a 'E-TEXTBOOK' edition.
Update: Scientific Papers is also available in that form.

I don't know for sure, but perhaps I can expect big things on the horizon.

I have not been informed of this new edition in any of my e-mails with my publisher.

Perhaps they are playing semantics? But why would they take a risk on a book that has only sold nine copies, unless they have made a calculated decision?

I'm theorizing that this means that Barnes & Noble will be ordering more copies soon. So far they only order every two months, and the volumes have been in the single digits (actually single digits is almost an exaggeration. As I said earlier, I have only sold about 4 copies in bookstores, including three different titles. But, incidentally How to Write Aphorisms is the title that has sold the most copies in bookstores so far).

Nonetheless, big news seems like the kind of thing to find on my plate just about now.

I can always laugh and say nothing feels quite like perpetual motion!

Even that is mechanics, not euphoria, so it all kind of melts into the dust until I find empirical evidence in front of my eyes.

Featured at Wikipedia [multimedia search for Hyper-Cubism]:

"Metaphysical Style / The Twerk" by Nathan Coppedge

The original may be purchased HERE.

Updated Books

All of my books are print-on-demand, making it much easier to update everything.

Lessons of the Master, by Master Kuo (pseudonym): Completed the life of Master Kuo, from start to finish. I now consider it to be the 3rd Edition.

Story of Master Wu, by Master Kuo: Additional details about the end of Wu's life, spanning an additional 10 or so very short chapters, leaving the book at 200 pages. It is now the 2nd Edition.

Nathan Coppedge's Perpetual Motion Machine Designs & Theory: Has updated sections on theories.

The Dimensional Philosopher's Toolkit Re-Issued Edition is supposed to now contain several additional methods as well as several possible sections that were accidentally removed. But don't buy the e-book edition if you want the updated version, because there's no guarantee that they updated the e-book version.

The Dimensional Psychologist's Toolkit now has excerpts from the Kirkus review on the back cover.

The Book of Uniques has a number of added images.

Modal Dimensionism had a typo corrected.

One-Page-Classics obviously is in a new edition, from the previous 1-Page-Classics, which was less searchable on Amazon. The new edition has an updated Eternal Song that is less like something from John Milton.

Tuesday, August 5, 2014

Book Sales

4 sales through expanded distribution (book stores), via my CreateSpace account.

According to this data, bookstores have sold:

2 Copies of How to Write Aphorisms,
1 Copy of Nathan Coppedge's Perpetual Motion Machine Designs & Theory, and
1 Copy of 1-Page-Classics.

Overall, including online sales and e-books, the following books are the most popular:

1. The Dimensional Philosopher's Toolkit (22 copies sold)
2. Nathan Coppedge's Perpetual Motion Machine Designs & Theory (20 copies sold).
3. How to Write Aphorisms (9 copies sold)

Even if these sales look disappointing, I'm doing at least 550% better than last year, so that's a good sign. At this rate, it might count as a career in four years ($87,500 / yr. at that point), assuming a 5X exponential curve.

However, for now, it's only about $140 / year reliably, thanks to my excellent publisher it's not even less.

You have to take into account that I've published 32 books, most of them this year, so:

A. There's a big popularity cushion, assuming people don't think I'm just braining myself.
B. I'm at the very minimum of potential exposure right now.

So, I don't want to call the four years to that much money conservative, but it does seem achievable in ideal conditions, by my estimates.

Meanwhile I may have proven over-unity! But that's another issue. 'Another issue' seems so cruel this way!

For those looking for my Amazon Profile, it can be found there. My e-books are now listed as $0 - $2.99 instead of the previous $4.99 ridiculousness. I have also updated several of my books (actually many of them) with new content.

Link to my WordPress Blog

"Significant Developments: News of the Extraordinary, in Art, Science, and the Universe in General"

Mostly records my key accomplishments in over-unity, and interesting science articles. I'm trying to keep it brief (I joined Wordpress thinking that it would attract a lot more traffic, but so far only 2 views. From me, apparently).

Contrast that with this blog, which once got 269 views in a day... Partly bot traffic though.

Sunday, August 3, 2014

Updated Twitter Profile Picture

Some may find this is the more familiar me:

In case you found this post by searching for 'big eared intellectual' I recommend my website at and my twitter profile at

Update: I've decided to switch the picture back to a photograph due to popularity issues.

Friday, August 1, 2014

I have been participating at OverUnity.Com

Which is a site people should check out if they are interested in perpetual motion. Especially the discussion page ("Community").