Sunday, January 25, 2015

How to Conduct a Computation Experiment Involving Perpetual Motion


1. Make sure that the system depends on the specific engineering application. If the rules are so inflexible that ordinary things like levers and ratchets don't work, then the simulation will be a failure.

2. Eliminate assumptions.

3. At first, consider the system as if it must function with almost no friction at all. Assume some friction, but very limited friction. Remember, any simple perpetual motion device can function in spite of minimal friction, but it will also be a somewhat ideal case, because friction is supposed to be partially eliminated by the physical construction of the device.

4. Locate a perpetual motion design, such as one of Nathan Coppedge's perpetual motion concepts.

[I recommend the Motive Mass Machine Iteration 2, Escher Machine, Modular Trough Leverage, standard Trough Leverage, and Tilt Motor. It is possible none of the other concepts are as viable as these].


1. Test categories of function independently. A. Motive Mass Machine: can a free-falling weight balanced on a see-saw pull a similar weight that is supported, by using pulleys, when the second weight is moving partially horizontally?  B. Escher Machine: Is there any case (using exhaustive study) in which a slope pushing a ball weight horizontally may be made to move it upwards, due to inhibition of the backwards vertical by a slope along the horizontal? C. Trough Leverage: Can a lever with a counterweight lift the ball weight? Can the ball weight activate itself to go downwards again? Or, D. Tilt Motor: Is there any case where leverage can be used to extend a sloped surface, through the use of a rolling member that is heavy relative to the levers, and which maintains the same average altitude, that is, in a horizontal circle?

2. Test continuity. Does the device have a means to recover altitude? Here are some examples: A. Motive Mass Machine: each see-saw functions as a kind of re-settable domino. Chain reaction might take place through the use of pulleys. Thus, there is nothing strictly vertical about the device. B. Escher Machine: Experimental evidence shows that a marble may be able to roll upwards using a horizontal surface, like leaning against an angled wall while standing on a subtly upward-graded surface. C. Trough Leverage: This device attempts to use the principle of equilibrium and in imbalance between heavy weight at short distance and equivalent leverage at longer distance to create motion which alternates between up and down, through the use of a supporting track for the mobile weight to create upwards momentum leading to application of leverage without support.  D. Tilt Motor: this device is designed in a similar way to a human on a leverage lift. According to this principle, which involves displacement and strategic use of energy, weight can be used to perpetuate altitude horizontally.

3. Check the abstract dimensions of your general and specific theory. Is there a missing principle if disadvantage which you have not yet recognized? This particularly comes up in the case of buoyancy, electronics, magnetism (magnets are not magic). You aren't allowed to spend any energy. If buoyancy is not in fact cumulative, then there is a need to assess just how strong entry resistance might be. Electronics use energy, and are therefore generally banned (except at the point of extracting energy, which supposedly no one has ever reached). Magnets might reduce friction slightly, but they are otherwise worthless. Ignoring these claims is stalling any potential real-working-process.


1. Borrow from the best (most ideal: hard lesson) examples of specific construction. This may depend on going back to theoretical aspects again and again. Or, just use Nathan Coppedge's designs. Make sure to: A. Implement every aspect of the complex principle. B. Use sturdy construction, C. Use lightweight materials where required (hint: usually only mobile elements and counterweights have significant weight. Otherwise, the only requirement so far as these last points are concerned is sturdiness).

2. Use scientific principles NOT to simplify, but for the purpose of finding exceptional rules of advantage. This involves establishing a highly specific physical model: any model that appears to work. This may involve trial-and-error, or the use of problem-solving praxis (that is, a check-list of functional principles, each of which can be accepted or eliminated. This may involve parameters or data-ranges for example). The emphasis should be on painting the broadest possible course, with the most openings for success, and the most physically accurate design. The result of this process will be to find a functional model of perpetual motion. But at this point, it may still be theory.


Build the device or test it with a computer program. You will need to have a good concept of the materials of construction  You may feel free to take a few limited liberties in the physical design. Here are some principles: A. Many materials really are very lightweight. Estimating in pounds or kilograms might not be accurate enough. B. Less important than the overall function of the device for a computer program is the specific functionality of the device at every point in the process, as tested earlier. In the worst case, the overall process can be generalized to establish estimates. C. Simplify the math equations to elements that involve the actual principles by which the machine operates. Otherwise, you are likely to miss the subtlety of the application. D. IF possible, streamline the equations to involve only those elements which GUARANTEE, UNDER ALMOST IDEAL CONDITIONS, THAT THE MACHINE CONTINUES TO MOVE. With that principle in mind, it should become clearer whether the machine is functional or not. More often than not, simply an earlier stage in the process was glossed over. Because, all things considered, if viable concepts exist, and they were considered for the design, they would be functional by this point, if every step were followed accurately.

website on perpetual motion machines HERE.

---Nathan Larkin Coppedge, January 25th, 2015

No comments: