An Evaluation of Spring Force Perturbances in Perpetual Motion Machines

To point out there are few errors with major designs mechanically and statistically.

Vertical Lever: Influence limited essentially to tension in lever, likely not much spring as very little flexibility occurs in the lever or lever would assume bent shape after repeated use. A lever that does not bend, springy or not, has the functional properties of a lever that is fixed in shape relative to the force used, otherwise spring force might be attributed to bodies that are not springy.

Escher Machine: Spring unlikely to occur in push bar as little motion in bar has been shown to occur in bar over long time-periods even when bar is weighted. Effect, if any would have to be in the form of a kind of squish effect which likely would have very little force in a short time interval. From rest such force would have to require a downward slope or the mass would be considered over-unity, or force would initially have to be exerted on the sponge (as far as the spring of a sponge creating mechanical energy on its own in this case). However, I do not exert any extra force on the sponge, and it is my observation that there is minimal influence from the sponge effect.

1st Fully Provable: The Single-Module version is a similar case to the vertical lever. Gravity likely keeps whatever spring is present in the lever at bay. Relative to the mass of the marble, the sides of the track are extremely stiff and hardened. No other possible springs are present. The lever itself has shown little or no deformation over a period of about three years or more. They are toys, but they are not of the poorest quality. I always select the rods that are stiff but also lightweight. This is true of most k'nex of that type. They are extremely high quality, and not bendy unless used for at least 5 - 10 years intermittantly under an ordinary light load, rather than three years or rare use as in this case.

Escher Lever: Here a possible spring force is present in the carefully folded duct tape divider. I have sensed differences in function depending on the angle of the duct tape, however part of this may be due to the resulting distance between the marble and the side track, as the marble connects with the divider a distance above the base of the platform, creating differences in distance depending on the angle of the tape. My usual conclusion is the difference is mechanical, but spring may be a tiny factor also. However, as observed with magnets, it is usually said that spring alone does not usually create the illusion of a perpetual motion machine.

Swivel Lever: Similar case to the Vertical Lever and 1st Fully Provable. The lever is not likely providing spring force. The motion is caused by the counterweight and leverage of the marble using the principle of 1/2 mass * distance during the mostly horizontal rising portion, and special ratios. Deflecting boards  or wedges are mechanically workable without spring, given momentum. Boring stuff.

Subtle Causeway: In this case I am half sure one of the causeways has a stretch of accidental duct tape, as such was found in a later model. However, this does not explain the function of BOTH causeways, which are operating on a similar principle. Was energy added? It is a bit unexplained, although it was shown the same design works with additional fixed support. I fully believed it worked without fixed support at the time. Luck? Spiritual wind? It involves no intentional cheating. Maybe if I could make the Escher Machine work I could be smart here too. But not automatically.

Antigravity Drawbridge: This is the subtle causeway, but with support from the side ramp when the drawbridge is depressed. Functions the same way otherwise, although start- and end-height ratios may not have been as careful.

Escher Delta: This is in a class with the earliest Escher Machine experiments where springy cardboard may be thought suspect. However, sponginess is not necessary to create a wedge effect, and any sponge effect is not intentional and not part of the intended mechanics. If we look at how it is designed, we could probably see that as the ball loses altitude against the wedge, the base of the wedge may be allowed to creep upward slightly, so that when the motion is reversed, the end height of the base, which need not be different from the end-height of the wedge, ends up being higher than  the initial height of the wedge, as the base gains height and thus comparatively begins lower over distance, even in a loop. It becomes important however to use a large ball compared to the length of the wedge.

Scarpa's Pendulum: This doesn't involve any spring device, except the experiment is suspect because it seems to require the pendulum being held by the hand. So, it is thought not to work.

Bracket Lever: There are a lot of considerations here such as 1. Positioning the four base points of the main lever so the higher side is turned counterclockwise from the upward side of the fulcrum, 2. Angling the side lever in comparison to the main lever and with the main lever applying maximum leverage at the fullest clockwise position. 3. Blocking the side lever's counterweight such as to prevent excessive upward extension of the side lever in the counterclockwise motion of the main lever, 4. Making the supporting board the correct angle and additional considerations if it is to be perpetual, etc. However the real question is can it achieve upward motion and return. I think this has been proven by experiment within certain ranges indicated in the Top Perpetual Motion Machines and Perpetual Motion Statistics.

Natural Torque: Recent experiment finally verifying the possibility of natural torque from a fixed position has also cast doubt on whether the natural torque is usable without spring force. This criticism is not 100%, but has been shown that when certain parts are loose the Natural Torwue does not function. It may be solid construction is needed more than a spring.

NIBW4: This is a similar case to many others above where only the lever could be suspect and momentum is justified by counterweight and application of the marble. Some proportionality issues may need to be resolved, but it is not considered prohibitive by the inventor. A working range of values for the  counterweight has been given and can be calculated accurately for variable leverage when the lever structure is otherwise extremely lightweight, but not necessarily less than the mass of the marble considering effective leverage included.

NIBW6: Spring may have been a minor factor in the success of the first major experiment due to the weight of the lever, but this device is thought to be workable. I have found light masses operating on long levers function similarly to slightly heavier masses at shorter distance which have less spring, which suggests in this case that spring is not a big factor, similar to the statement concerning gravity on the 1st Fully Provable.

Crescent Lever: Very few experiments have been done so far on this. The first experiment is thought to be a big success. As a small marble was used, the crudeness of the arrangement is not thought to be an absolute inhibitor. Although some lifting of the track occurred in the second motion, it was not the deciding factor overall, so it seems the experiment worked.

Spiral Cone: I am not completely sure of the correct design with the spiral cone, which is one of the reasons experimentation has been so slow.

Slant Lever: This design functionally morphed into the Swivel Lever.

References:

Select Machines

Perpetual Motion Links