Responding to a Three-Star-Review

In which someone expressed disappointment because I did not make it easy to build perpetual motion,

I wrote:

I did my best to include numerous diagrams with descriptions which illustrate the function of the designs, and thus, how to build them. In some cases construction may be flexible in some ways, and much more awkward in others, but only under ideal conditions. This kind of complexity defies the concept of easy explanations. Confronting design problems is often counter-productive to the motivation in reading a book on perpetual motion. You are more likely to reach original theories by ignoring the most fundamental physical aspects of design. As for theory, it is certainly present in the book, and provides a strong groundwork for developing new theories of perpetual motion, which is the most viable strategy for realizing the goal of all these projects ('when in doubt, quantify' 'when in doubt about conservatism, quantify endlessly').

Few if any perpetual motion machines have been built, so it is unreasonable to expect detailed instructions on how to make them. For instructions on building a partial model of the Modular Trough Leverage device which can serve as experimental evidence, refer to Nathan Coppedge's blog.

I have at least two successful experiments, neither of which is particularly easy to reproduce. I felt including that material would just bog down the text. A few instructions on how to design the Escher Machine are present in another work, titled The Scientific Papers. However, I think you will find that book is less technical overall on the subject of cohensive perpetual motion theories. 

An industrial designer, for example, would find numerous ways to build the designs present in the numerous diagrams within the book. Including all the exhaustive details about what small errors to avoid for every device is really beyond me at this point. However, exhaustive information about one of the more successful designs is present about the Modular Trough Leverage device at my blog.

Remember that not all of the designs are successful. It is a remarkable achievement to get any evidence whatsoever of over-unity effects. To construct my experiments, I had to find cases where over-unity could be proven without building a full-scale perpetual motion machine. Actually building a complete machine (as of early 2015) is something that involves too large a leap, has too many psychological barriers, and would likewise meet with a politics of conflicted opinion. The motive is present to build successful experiments, however, the capacity to build is reserved for a builder, whereas I consider myself more of a designer. My efficiency is to churn out new, potentially viable concepts. It is then for history, or the authorities that be, to recognize me in small or large ways for my achievement, by making a practical choice involving trial and error, or concerted effort, applying a computational model if necessary.

I do apologize for what another reviewer called a 'lack of formulas'. I have done my best to revise based on that criticism and include at least a semblance of the relevant theory concepts (according to my own idiosyncratic definition). By providing theory concepts, it becomes much easier to realize the abstract element of design which prefigures a successful construction. Since many of my designs have remained theory-only, there is little else I can do to provide you with tools for building them. There is a strong difference between the practical characteristics of design (say, grades of aluminum, or how to weld joints), and the philosophical considerations that go into the formulation of perpetual motion in the abstract (such as enumeration of adequate principles). In constructing a principles-based book, I have done my best to provide more than just hints, but real affirmative evidence of a viable theory of working over-unity. However, I realize that some readers will be disappointed when my own success in theories does not carry over into a complete realization of every detail.

The truth is, because I have focused on theory, I give my readers what I believe to be a legitimate opportunity to build perpetual motion and claim the patent for themselves. But that depends on the practical knowledge which the reader may possess. It's not a bad bargain, but I wish it were more secure. I wish there were something guaranteeing success. But, apparently, there isn't. In confronting the book, readers will encounter many of the minor traumas I encountered in seeking out a good theory of perpetual motion. However, again there is a benefit: for this is the real, authentic quest of perpetual motion! I have already found good ideas. The only hurdle that remains, provided that someone accepts the limitations of design, is practical implementation. 

I in no way assume that the real builder will be a solitary individual. It is just as likely that a multi-national corporation or academic research agency adopts the problem.
Buy the Perpetual Motion Machine Designs & Theory on Amazon.