Saturday, March 21, 2015

Proofs Defending the Escher Machine

My post dated today at responds to a query that the Escher Machine may be like the Tracked Spindle-type designs:

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!


(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:


(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. 

Original posting at:

No comments: