Advanced Troubleshooting Perpetual Motion

PART I.

The most essential advice, but by no means the only necessary advice, is that perpetual motion requires both correct design AND correct construction.

These hurdles (design & construction) are both extremely difficult, but they are essentially equal. The goal of design is to make an idea that works well mathematically. The goal of a working model is to adopt a good design and work out the engineering such as to make the math succeed.

Other good advice includes but is not limited to the necessity of correct cheating, overcoming proportional difficulties, the use of an ultra-lightweight structure, and having a good understanding of leverage.

Note on Levers:

If lever is beyond 4X of the shorter length, weight problems will render it almost inherently impossible. However, superbly sturdy construction and genuinely expert design typically involving special materials and a close to wire-thin lever  can make 4X workable if the design is working and suited to the measurement. The concern is that the difference between the unweighted long end and short end should not exceed the mass of the lighter of either the marble or the counterweight mass. This limit can be extremely difficult over long distances, as the lever is not allowed to bend.

For that reason, leverage of less than or equal to 3X the short end length is strongly recommended. There is not much alternative.

The same problem that occurs with 4X also occurs with 3X and 2X levers, with the norm of the raw long end lever mass being < 1X the marble (mass) in almost every case. However, at 3X or less the problem I mentioned is less serious.

Elsewhere I have discussed the material problems of perpetual motion. Materials are often limited exclusively to aluminum, steel, and oak, and in the case of small devices, sometimes strong yet lightweight plastic. Further, oak will often not be an option at most scales as it tends to be excessively heavy for its level of tensile strength, so I do not recommend oak, however it may ultimately be usable I simply have never had an easy time with it.

Cases are numerous of excessive stickiness, wetness, or even low amounts of moisture, and odd amounts of torque, and other oddities, contributing to failed models.

PART II.

A gradual method I have frequently adopted may be called a 'prop method'.

In the prop method  the goal is to configure design and construction under such conditions that functionality is maximally optimized.

Often the first condition of a prop method is not adequate, and this can be instructive.

However, over time, as the construction generally improves, and the design is adjusted, a prop method may improve. This generally involves multiple experiments.

It is important to mention by this I am NOT assuming any particular methodology of construction.

In every case the best and often simplest available construction method should be preferred.

The traditional difficulty in designing a fully-working experiment places some restrictions  on working prop methods.

Working with the best (absolute best) prior examples fromNathan Coppedge's work may be necessary.

It may also be necessary to incrementally improve materials and also radically improve design decisions.

The proper intuition is not always automatic or easy, as the proper method often involves adopting a kind of well-worn path that is still flexible.

This can be one of the least intuitive things. It helps to have an intuition for what a working design involves.

Of the important  factors to be considered, keep in mind:

1. The most important is probably design. Years can be absolutely wasted by choosing a bad design. To be safe, consider non-magnet designs by Nathan Coppedge which he has considerable material about including video footage and diagrams.

2. The second biggest factor may be that some designs are misinterpreted as working differently. Indeed, if a design works in even aslightly different way, it must be interpreted as a different design, and then there is a chance it does not work as well, which may be the same as not working.

3. A third factor is making sure materials, particularly the main body of the lever, are lightweight. This can be the biggest limiting factor once an appropriate design is followed closely. In some cases the only available choice will be  to build larger, and carefully, or to adopt  a radically different construction method than originally intended (like moving from 3-d printing to hand-cutting materials).  This can place some creative restrictions which stop many hobbyists from taking a design to completion. In some cases it looks like the best strategy is if a corporation or professional designer takes over.

4. A fourth factor is unfortunately finicky design issues. Some designs that are very close to working merely require so much tweaking and high precision that their completion begins to seem impossible. The advantage here is often with parts that are fixed in place, yet much adjustment may be necessary, even to the point of turning parts upside down. In this case, patience can be helpful. It can also help to follow advice from those that have tried similar designs. If you cannot consult Nathan Coppedge on Quora on Nathan's designs, then the only option left may be to analyze Nathan's videos and diagrams for details like bells and whistles or unnoticed aspects which make a design work when it ordinarily would not.  In some cases an analysis of Nathan's exponentially efficient mathematics may be useful. As far as key features of design, these are LESS likely to be conventional cheating like spring force, and MORE LIKELY to be factors like avoiding extra attached parts, and making sure the counterweight is not excessivly heavy or light. In some cases there are real bells and whistles like wire used for deflecting a marble, or special materials.


Perpetual Motion Links