More recently I have found further evidence: THE 1ST SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF PERPETUAL MOTION
"People often think technology is the paradigm, but they have yet to think paradigm can be a technology. In that way, I have innovated." —Nathan Coppedge
“Say… you talk about pulling something up an inclined plane with an equal weight. You're right. This is possible. And not at all a violation of conservation of energy.” --Ian Switzer, CEO of a Cornell engineering company
The closest thing to a documentary (other than my experiments) is here: My Perpetual Motion Story
If you are looking for experimental evidence: Select Machines - YouTube
Recently I talked with a Cornell engineer regarding my designs: Consequences of talk with Cornell engineer
https://youtu.be/IzbuVeHXDrAhttps://youtu.be/l-js6SrgT5I
I was writing to Francisco Jimenez when I said:
I just realized, OH MY GOD, IT'S F***ING PROVEN!
The motion is mostly horizontal. The physics is not different at the end of each unit! We already know the marble can have advantage!
JUNE 19, 2017— New Haven, USA ~3:42pm
A few minutes ago I realized it's fully-proven!
Whether anyone recognizes it, perpetual motion and free energy is proven once and for all!
The evidence is:
(1)
The very real experiment pictured in the videos*
*—which prove an object can lift the object that lifted it, from rest, with no electricity or further moving parts.
(Full instructions for the experiment here: How To Build An Over-Unity Device )
AND:
(2)
The fact that physics at the beginning of each unit as shown is the same, as it continues horizontally NOT vertically like a ferris wheel, so clearly the lever can be depressed.
When combined with the height of the marble in the First Fully Proven diagram (pictured below) and the ending of support from the earlier fixed track in the first unit, it means the marble can CERTAINLY continue the cycle horizontally,
Notice the earlier part about the physics being the same. Notice, since the units are horizontal, and the marble need not gain more than it loses, that there is no necessary net loss of altitude.
Notice that most of the operation is proven by the experiments.
Let me explain the twelve-pronged advantage at the weakest point.
(1) The ball has gained a small amount of altitude,
(2) There is momentum, given that it moves from rest,
(3) There is room to move into, permitting motion,
(4) The track is no longer providing support, creating an advantage,
(5) There is leverage advantage at every point, including the beginning position of each lever unit.
(6) Almost equal pressure from the counterweight not considering leverage.
(7) Stops at either end of the range of motion of the lever permits stored energy that does not require motion.
(8) The part of the lever that is active for the marble does not require the full height of the lever.
(9) The angle of the lever creates an efficiency with the slight upward slope of the track by entering at a sharp angle.
(10) The motion from one unit of lever and track to the next is predominantly horizontal.
(11) There is no necessary change in net altitude other than that shown in the experiment.
(12) In each modular unit the marble is proven to move from rest, and each modular unit functions in exactly the same way at the same altitude.
Since it moves from rest at every point, the only potential problem remaining was the ability to activate the next lever, which has now been proven to be overcome by the fact that the physics is the same at the beginning of each unit.
All of this is proven, so there is no doubt of potential perpetual motion.
The next step is to make a working computer model. Its the Information Age. We have experimental evidence, so the next step is an information model. Its real information if its real physics. A computer model is the next logical step.
How To Conduct A Computation Experiment Involving Perpetual Motion
Looking for an Incidental Builder of Perpetual Motion
QUESTIONS FOR DOUBTERS:
If you have time, would you answer some questions please? I think I have considered everything.
- Do you think my fingers cause the motion? Certainly not in the second video.
- Do you think the cardboard causes the motion? Most would argue that's against physics. After all, you would say, it's not perpetual.
- Do you think there is something wrong with stored energy? Storing as mass is not necessarily problematic for perpetual motion, as it does not involve heat.
- Do you think it loses momentum from friction? Then are you denying it moves from rest? Then you don't know even how its supposed to work. Do you know about equilibrization? Equilibrization can create motion from differing heights even with equal weights.
- Are you denying perpetual motion but not the workability of the experiment? Then say so.
- Admit that image quality has nothing to do with the quality of experiment, just the quality of viewing.
- Do you think anyone has done a better experiment of this kind? Then please refer me to them.
- Do you think I'm being dishonest? I'm not.
- Now, what are you assuming is wrong with the experiment?
- Why do I have to go through this?
A list of videos with titles is present here:
Select Machines - YouTube
Have there been any actual demonstrations of over-unity?
The most amazing experiments are HERE:
What are the most amazing perpetual motion-like principles ever proven?
I Devised a 1st Periodic Table of Working Perpetual Motion Machines
Here is my report on technological readiness: Report on the Readiness of Perpetual Motion
HOW IS THE DEVICE NEWTONIAN?
How is it in line with friction? It overcomes friction, although it is not frictionless, much in the same way that dominos gain speed.
How is it against momentum principles? It is not against momentum, it simply uses it with exponential efficiency.
How does it conserve motion? It is permitted to remain in motion because legitimate cheating is used. Remember, the laws of thermodynamics are not against infinite motion, they are against infinite motion with friction or heat. This is not heat, and it is a rare case designed to overcome friction through the new principle of exponential efficiency. It is like inventing the paperclip.
Therefore, as far as Newton, there is nothing wrong with it. The assumption that there could be was attached after the age of Newton, and I have seen no evidence my best devices, as they are, were invented until recently.
OTHER EXAMPLES:
What if there were infinite dominos which were timelessly set up? Would you deny they gain energy (by any considerations) in chain reaction? But if they are timelessly set up, the energy seems to come from nowhere even if it is very slight!
What about a taut cord? Would you say it can have heat energy?
THE LATEST GENERAL ARGUMENT IN DEFENSE:
But of course perpetual motion is statistically impossible if it hasn't been invented yet! Look for modern paperclips in 1538 and you won't find any. See what I mean?
Paperclips are a simple invention from the last 200 years. Now prove to me we don't live in the Stone Age. How can you argue against Stone Age technology?
Through statistics, probably. But once again, its not going to exist if it wasn't invented.
The recent consensus is that humans die from bacterial buildup, but that's not a problem machines would have. And there are trees (Poplars) that live 80,000 years which is pretty immortal for a plant. Theoretically computers or calculators could work when plugged in after a million years if they were designed to do that.
A BIT OF A COMPLAINT: I'm not being angry here, I'm just pointing out…
Do you know how many patent trolls there are out there? Do you know how much a patent costs? Do you know how hard it is to get press? Do you realize it may be one man cannot do the whole thing himself?
I would expect someone to volunteer to work on computer models, but so far no one has volunteered.
If no one else even knows it works how its been demonstrated to work WITH SIMPLE PHYSICS, it might take 5000 years!
How am I supposed to accomplish in a decade or so what takes others 5000 years?
THE PSYCHOLOGY OF THE OPPOSITION:
- The belief that its impossible because they didn't build it.
- The belief that it's unfair because they don't believe in cheating physics.
- They either believe its impossible or don't believe its unfair, which seem like the same thing to them.
- Thus, they think it is impossible to believe in.
See also: Red Letter Days for Nathan Coppedge’s Perpetual Motion
And: Perpetual Motion Links
No comments:
Post a Comment