Showing posts with label american. Show all posts
Showing posts with label american. Show all posts

Thursday, October 17, 2019

First Improved and Simplified General Proof Theory for Perpetual Motion Machines

October 17, 2019.

I. Possibility of 'Cheating Nature'

1. It was thought as late as the 2010's  that there was nothing more efficient than a permutation or a turning wheel. However, if an exception presented itself, it would mean something important. However, no concept really existed to explain the possibility. The closest analogy was a perpetual motion machine, but perpetual motion machines were thought not to work.

2. In Feb and Nov 2013 Nathan Coppedge invented the theoretical concept of exponential efficiency in the process of finding examples of the same. Even without referring to the examples, the general idea of making an efficiency that is exponentially efficient suggests improving at least some kinds of efficiency to a point where there could be something more efficient than a wheel or permutation. All that were needed were examples, and this is what Nathan found in 2013. But dismissing great examples without understanding them is not a fair argument, the burden of proof now rested on the opposing scientists. And, in a way, that was all that needed to initially be proved as perpetual motion was thought to be impossible by the scientists.

II. Necessity of Proportionality

1. A version of close to 1/2 mass X distance follows from experiment (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMihSRllvZY&app=desktop) under low friction conditions, and when trigger mass is directed vertically rather than horizontally, and effected mass is always more horizontal than 45 degrees, usually by a huge margin (in rare cases 22.5 degrees rather than more like 1.1 - 9.9). Instances of the more vertical end tend to be rare, one example was found by Nathan Coppedge in 2010 while at a shopping mall, the simpler version involving a shallower angle was only proven in a simple satisfactory form in Oct 2019 as though a barrier had been lifted).

2. Given the existence of other combinable cheating methods such as leverage, balances, difference of mass, and pulleys, it follows from 1/2 mass X distance that since a larger mass csn be moved by a smaller mass and motion takes place from rest, perpetual motion can be created if proportionality can be overcome. This is in part because a working proportionality could be built physically and could incorporate multiple overlapping 'cheating' methods.

3. However, proportionality CAN be overcome by analogy to a circle. Completing a cycle of motion is clearly physically possible, even more so in three-dimensionality than two-.

III. Energy in Some Cases

1. Proving energy is as simple as proving two-directional natural momentum (from rest). However, this is not necessarily easy. I have found it can be done (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ao0pIBVKjDo&list=PLcttXCrYoAgP88CiJ3ibPqVl1FjlAAIdi&index=9&app=desktop).

2. Consider a 3X lever counterweighted on the short end may have 1X additional structural mass on the long end. If the leverage applied on the long end  to a ball by the mass on the short end is greater than 2.5X and less than 4X the mass of ball being moved, and the long end has the additional 1X structural mass, the 1X ball will begin to move by the force of the mass on the short end at 3X leverage distance if the 1X ball is positioned on a slotted track operated by the lever that is mostly horizontal but slightly upwards sloped (although under some conditions this is hard to prove). For example, 3 X leverage X 1 mass for ball / 2 for support is 1.5X mass + 1 for additional weight is 2.5 X effective mass. If counterweight is greater than 2.5X it may move ball under some conditions.

3. However, if ball is unsupported at the same amount of leverage, it has higher effective mass. 3 X leverage X 1X mass = 3X effective leversge + 1 additional structursl mass of lever means that if counterweight on short end is less than 4X mass of ball, then ball can lift counterweight when ball is supported by lever without the slotted track support (under some conditions).

4. Now we have proven there is two-directional motion in at least one case. And since the weight of the lever is accounted for and motion takes place from rest, it does not assume absolutely ideal physics, just fairly good conditions. Actual operation may depend on the size of the mass window and whether friction can be overcome in a case similar to a low-friction balance, which I suggest IS possible, although the practical window may be smaller than stated, and my example is one of the better cases.

Perpetual Motion Links

Thursday, June 27, 2019

Evidence of Theory of Everything!

https://nathancoppedge.quora.com/Solution-to-the-Theory-of-Everything?ch=10&share=ac1c50e9&srid=B13X

Sunday, April 15, 2018

Crossed 20,000 Views to Top Perpetual Motion Videos

https://www.quora.com/Is-the-free-energy-generator-not-true/answer/Nathan-Coppedge


Saturday, March 10, 2018

Recent Additions to History of Philosophy

The Counter-Calculus (Feb 2018)
Multi-Modularism (Feb 2018)
New Existentialism (Feb 2018)
Group Formalism (Feb 2018)
Emergent Contractualism (one of my favorite theories, Feb 2018)
Black Ideas (Feb 2018)
Integrated Progress (Feb 2018)
Alternative Systems (Feb 2018)
Non-Causal Systemology (Laws of Timeless Nature, Feb 2018)
Subtle Physics (Mar 2018)
The Dubious Process-Coherence (Mar 2018)
Proof by Machine (Mar 2018)
Minima Ontology (Mar 2018)


ABSTRUSIST MORALITY (1993)

What if the key to everything were nothing?

Maybe if it were good later it would be really good.

Maybe the only good cheating is cheating at cheating.

We should focus on 'savoring the last crumb' by which we appreciate everything.

THE COUNTER-CALCULUS (FEB 2018)

(Prescript: Before there were idiots it was all malarky… Know all the alternatives, climb the magic steps).
I know it will be cold tomorrow, because I'm not going to wear my coat. It happens my coat is enchanted with warm weather.
Sometimes pessimism is the best theory of optimism, because it creates awareness and raises the standard.
We progress when we think of the alternatives. How were we ever right? Well, through our degree of being concerned.
We may have moved on, but it is all necessary.
We can create necessity, for it defines proof.
A higher proof defies necessity.
Back to our roots, magical reasoning.
There is ‘something in there’, for I do not comprehend.
I may as well be an expert, to limit my options.
I should seek sacrosancts, because they have formility!
Calculus is really a forge of concepts.
Little more, that is what we are looking for!
Amalgamated feeling!
Dove-doors!
Proscilitution!
Grimacing gnomes!
Sophisocracy!
Eliadics!
Eddes!
Meaningful attractions!
Mechanical speed!
Sublimation!
Divine information!
Philosophical problemation!
Elidation!
Sophreyzation!
Composit samplification!
Exponential effication!
Significant vivification!
Conceptual animation!
(I reached this in Feb 2018)
...

MULTI-MODULARISM (FEB 2018)

[Coherent Systems 2.A.3.C.3.]
X = Number.
M = A module.
Number of Ms = X.
Number of Ms (X) = Coherent result R.
M(0) = Empty coherence.
MX = R1
MMX = R2
MMMX = R3
MMMMX = R4
If (R1, R2, R3, R4) is a coherent set, then MXMMXMMMXMMMMX = Coherence.
(Soul: Expecting a four).


NEW EXISTENTIALISM (FEB 2018)

Essentially, it adopts a new framework → uses the framework for some new notion → is useful → may be open to meta-interpretation.

Existential Coincidence

...

GROUP FORMALISM (FEB 2018)

Also called Group Formalism, as opposed to formal grouping. I do not consider this list comprehensive.

Pure Theoretics

Modal Formalism

High-Minded Formalism

Survival Formalism
...

EMERGENT CONTRACTUALISM (FEB 2018)

I think its more like this process:
  1. Learn how to negotiate, or encounter a higher intelligence.
  2. Negotiate, either through intelligence or interaction with higher intelligence.
  3. Have an idea.
  4. Contract the idea.
  5. Locate a body of ideas or objects (‘setting’) as a result of the contract.
Now, we can ask whether the ‘setting’ has ‘emerged’ but it is much smarter to see the setting, from our vantage point as a contractualization of our prior ideas, and from others’ vantage points as a continued attempt at bargaining.
My general thesis is that the universe, that is, the real living universe, is far more intellectual than we think. Everything that is not intellectual tends to encounter something supernatural. That is the part we forget when we encounter the physical largesse of our own often inevitable contracts for dominion.
The supernatural aspect mostly only exists in order to ‘reproduce’ — to interact with the contractual, core-idea forming elements, and it may be predatory, but it remains blameless because there are necessities, ideas, and compensation built into the system.
Once we have a contract (with the universe), we can say whether we are being wise or foolish, or if we are just not getting what we want.
...

BLACK IDEAS (FEB 2018)

For awhile things don’t seem to get better, they seem to stagnate.
Then you are sure that you’ve evolved a little bit…
You have a black idea, something to add to your other ideas, until things seem to get a little bit better.
Now we cannot prove that we are not evolved.
Such is the influence of the idea.
And from then on, you decide you are allied to the ‘blackest ideas’ — that is, the ones that are most evolved.
Even so, it is a delicate balance, and it is possible—although difficult even—to imagine another approach or technique going equally far.
The black ideas are one of many methods—although not the worst, to prevent civilization from crumbling.
How high the day, how good the honey—when you can afford more than one!
Things will surely change for the better. How funny it was to think you were being blackmailed!—
It looks the same, but it is different, such is the nature of the best ideas!
One must therefore concern oneself with this mythological thing, this elephant in the room—which is merely one’s ability to comprehend with some completeness the importance of any one of these true ideas.
It is a bit like gambling, but with more reassurance, and within a few measures great things come to pass.
Therefore, acknowledge greatness, and stand in the shadow—civilization is non pareill.
...

INTEGRATED PROGRESS (FEB 2018)

It is much like how a mouse-brain thinks, as exaggerated by the human mind. Potentially advanced, in a smallish form.
“When the present integrates the thoughts of the future, then progress is integrated. Thus, progress is the past of the future, so progress is now. Thought integrated with the present is integrated progress when the present integrates the future. Thoughts of the present are the future of integration.”
The method is the following:
  1. Look back from the future.
  2. Think about what remains of the present.
  3. Act with future knowledge.
  4. Gradually resolve the presence of the future.
  5. See the present as an element of the future.
  6. Calibrate ideas by their arbitrary distance to the future.
  7. Guess future ideas.
  8. Plan history coherently.
  9. Refine timeless models.
  10. Adopt relevant paradines (paradigmatic paradigms).
  11. Use standardized or better metaphysics.

ALTERNATIVE SYSTEMS (FEB 2018)

[Coherent Systems 2.A.3.C.4.]
Proof is Proof (if it exists as such, or to the extent that its considered proof).
What is a proof?
Okay, what we have just stated as the definition of proof is indeed proof as such or considered as such.
Implications:
  • There are many, many variations of proof.
  • Each is a true proof by its own standard, if it has a standard.
  • Everything has its own kind of proof.
  • Everything is proven to the extent that it has a standard.
  • We should seek the best standard.
  • The standard of standards is the standard of proof.
  • There is no proof without standards.
  • The proof of proof is the proof of standards.
  • Proving standards are standard proofs.
  • The standard of proof proves a similar standard of standards, such as universal.
  • The proof, for example, of the universal, is proven by the proof of standards regarding the universal.
  • Universal proof is a universal standard.
  • The proof varies with the standard.
  • The universal proof varies with the universal standard.
  • If the universal standard constitutes the laws of absolute logic, then if such logic is absolute, the universal proof depends on it.
  • Then where the universal standard is absolute logic, the universal proof derives from it, and similarly for other logics.
  • What constitutes the universal standard will be the ultimate basis of proof.
  • Therefore the ultimate basis of proof has a universal standard.
...

NON-CAUSAL SYSTEMOLOGY (FEB 2018)


Otherwise known as The Laws of Timeless Nature.
[Coherent Systems 2.A.3.D.2.]
SUCCESSFUL TYPES:
VERTICAL IMPOSITION
A translation with the same meaning.
(—crude analogies)
COHERENT CYCLE
ABCD and ADCB using polar opposites in diagonally opposite positions.
(—categorical deduction method)
TIMELESS REGRESS
Proof is proof. What is proof? Okay.
ETERNAL ORDER
The such (universe) works because it is such (complete), by infinite mastery or sufficient coincidence.
(—Scientific or theological approach)
PARTIALLY FAILED TYPES:
IMPOSED COHERENCE
Venn Diagrams.
VERTICAL CYCLE
Gödel's defense of mathematical vitality and objectivity with Completeness and Incompleteness.
TIMELESS IMPOSITION
Incoherent Coherentism.
VERTICAL REGRESS
Specific metaphysical theories.
COHERENT REGRESS
The Infinite Trumpet.
TIMELESS CYCLE
History.
ETERNAL IMPOSITION
Legality, vanity, espousal, pretext.
VERTICAL ORDER
Replacement, elimination, simplification, objectification.
ETERNAL CYCLE
Disclosure, deanimation, nothing, unexceptionalism.
COHERENT ORDER
Labeling, assuming, exaggerating, electrifying.
ETERNAL REGRESS
Ambiguousity, greed, collapse, impossibility.
TIMELESS ORDER
Insubstantiality, hesitation, emptiness, requirement.
MORE COMPLETELY FAILED CASES
COHERENT VERTICAL
Function, equivalence, justification, awareness.
CYCLE OF IMPOSITION
Strategy or strategizing, cheating, modifying, changing.
TIMELESS VERTICAL
Discovery, singularity, solving, credit.
IMPOSED REGRESS
Destruction, non-existence, over-complexity, confusion.
CHANGELESS VERTICAL
Death spiral.
CYCLE OF REGRESS
Delay, usurpation, maxing, incidiousness.
ETERNAL VERTICAL
Discovery, singularity, solving, credit.
IMPOSED ORDER
Temporality, ugliness, dysfunction, doubtfulness.
ETERNAL COHERENCE
Transparency, exception, paranoia, example.
CYCLICAL ORDER
Imperfection, multiplicity, parity, holes.
TIMELESS AND ETERNAL
Ultimate, unsurpassable, refined, shrewd.
REVERSE ORDER

Incomplete, undone, irrational, historical.
...

SUBTLE OR SUBTIL PHYSICS (MAR 2018)

[Coherent Systems 2.A.3.D.3.]
1 SUBTLETY IN FORMULAS
In one case, an object is defined by a number of separate formulae… The formulae are collectively, so to speak, what makes the object subtle, which makes it physical. The larger the number of formulae, the more complex the object is relative to the physics, and so any subtlety which depends on more than one formula will also have a subtle physics by some definition.
2 PHYSICAL SUBTLETY
On the other hand, there are cases defined by a single law, in which case it is what is physical that is subtle, because many physical things pertain to the law, and where the number of physical things is many, the difference between physical things is subtle relative to the law, and so, the law is subtle.
3 SUBTLE LOCATIONS
On the other hand, there are things (objects) which vary not by law, nor by formulae, but rather by location, and these things are subtle because their location is subtle, for otherwise, there is nothing to distinguish locations, as the difference in locations cannot be great unless it is lesser between the majority of other locations, and so the difference represented by a location tends to be subtle, unless it is expressed as a law, or a formula, etc.
4 LOGICAL SUBTLETY
Too, there are things that may vary by logical reduction, and here it is clear that if objects do not logically reduce, the logic is subtle enough so as to be NECESSARY, which means that there is something necessarily complex about it, which implies that it is subtle, as it is hard to see why if something were already partially reduced, that it would not be reduced further. Therefore, what is not physical, or formulaic, or subtle in location, is actually subtle logically.
5 INFINITE SUBTLETY
So too, if an object is necessary but not logically subtle, this implies that it cannot be even partially reduced, in which case the object is infinite, which is again another form of subtlety which is hard to comprehend.
6 CONCLUSIONS
Therefore, all indications show that physically, in terms of formulas, in terms of locations, in terms of logic, and in terms of infinity, every thing (objects) are subtle, and therefore we may surmise that physics has a rule of subtlety.
Now we may determine that there is something special about physics:
(1) It may be partly ambiguous or random.
(2) It may be self-determinative in some way.
(3) It may be small and ingenious, and hard to comprehend.
(4) It may be composed of some type of essence or abstract substance.
(5) It may be on the whole inexplicable, because no explanation is large enough.
Therefore, unless further concepts of substantial subtlety present themselves* (*As may be the case) we may assume that physics in its subtlety takes one or more of these forms.
A corollary is that physics adopts those properties that are subtle, insofar as formulas, physics, locations, logic, and infinity are implied within the subtle.
The alternative to subtlety is then also likely to be subtle in at least one way, unless the thing is contradictory in some way.

THE DUBIOUS PROCESS-COHERENCE (MAR 2018)

Not much in this category for good reason, nor can it be considered fully-coherent so far.
The Coherent Dialectic
...


PROOF BY MACHINE (MAR 2018)

Ask someone: Relatively speaking, all the potential of life comes from immortality.
If they do not agree with you, in a high-minded sense they must be a robot.

MINIMA ONTOLOGY (MAR 2018)

Everything is true in some way about everything → Law by Universalism.
Nothing is true about nothing → Illusion.
to be continued. My brain is not functioning this morning.

See also:
Shortlist of 'souls’ of Ancient Philosophy

Perpetual Motion Assessing the Competition

ACTUALLY IN THE RUNNINGM A

The Day Perpetual Motion Was Proven for Certain by Nathan Coppedge

Overall, some devices I see as having principles: Select Machines - YouTube

SUPPORT FROM SCIENTISTS

“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

“ok so publish and let someone else verify… someone articulate and educated..” —Bob Smurdly

NOTES AT STACKEXCHANGE:

"I'm still not sure I really follow. The notability or importance of an invention is really orthogonal as to whether it can be patented. The patent office does not exist to give publicity to inventions per se (at least, not beyond the duty of disclosure that all patent applicants have), but merely to decide what inventions should receive a patent." —Maca (2018 / 03 / 05)

"On a second look, I can see now that your question is how to publicise your invention if people don't believe in it. This is a problem that lots of inventions have: especially pharmaceuticals. How does one prove new drug X cures disease Y? By solid theory and rigorous empirical tests. But that is somewhat outside the scope of this stack, since we only deal with patents, and not commercialisation." —Maca (2018 / 03 / 05)

How Can I Patent My Perpetual Motion Machine? "One requirement for a patent to be granted is that the invention is useful (35 USC § 101). Since perpetual motion machines are inconsistent with modern laws of physics, it is assumed that a patent application relating to a perpetual motion machine does not function, and therefore is not useful. The application is therefore summarily rejected.
However, if the applicant can show a working model to the examiner, this assumption can be overcome. In such a case, the application can proceed as with any other kind of invention."
—Maca (2018 / 03 / 05)

Source: My apparent (perpetual motion?) appears unpatentable. If the evidence truly is unbelievable, but very real, how will I ever be recognized?

The only other even marginally viable inventor may or may not be: Finsrud

MAIN COMPETITION
  • Billionaires have a likelihood of taking advantage of inventors by sheer probability.
  • Reidar Finsrud, an industrial artist in Norway, built a device which looks perpetual, but supposedly it isn’t. Also, that was recently, from 1990 or later.
  • The V-Gate is just a magnetic rail concept which has never overcome the entry resistance to recycle the energy, but it is one of my major competitors.
  • A fellow I talked to online has inspired VE Project maybe a quarter or less as much as I have. He has a clever design for a torque-based machine, but I know why it doesn’t work.
  • The VE Project does models of perpetual motion machines, but they are largely considered fakes which make use of hidden power and special effects.
  • A handful of others are almost-convincing fakes evidently making use of various tricks to convince video watchers that their machines work. However, the number of somewhat convincing fakes is smaller than most assume.
That’s just about all—virtually no one else is competing for perpetual motion in real life, other than ME.

But if someone takes interest in MY designs, it could be almost anyone, so it is somewhat confusing. THESE people MIGHT be interested, but there is little evidence that they have been interested:
  • Middle school and high school students working on science projects could probably replicate my partial experiments. They are not fake.
  • Someone older with model-building skills could reproduce an experiment just to see how it works.
  • An engineer or mathematician could test the ratios I used.
  • Someone with physical modeling software could fiddle around with close to ideal ratios to see whether it works.
  • Big companies could pay someone small change to investigate it.
See, there are possibilities, but for some reason people don’t know how easy it might be to officialize that I made history!

Some devices almost certainly proven not to work:
PMMs Competition - YouTube

Critiques of Magnetic and Electric Motors

Debunking Magnet Motors

Critique of So-Called Working Over-Unity Generator

The Argument Against Flywheels
Argument pro perpetual motion against zero-point energy

Understanding the Searl Effect (not pmm)

VERSUS CONVENTIONAL POWER:

HYDRO
  • Very limited number of sites—only where water makes a significant change in altitude.
  • Expensive to build (like a steel bunker).
  • Depends on sunlight for evaporation.
NUCLEAR
  • Prohibitively expensive.
  • Some of the nastiest waste products in large amounts—including large amounts of radioactive seawater for cooling.
  • Requires mining rare minerals.
  • Hard to.maintain.
  • ‘Cap’ on power output.
OIL & COAL
  • Limited resource.
  • Causes pollution.
  • More expensive than simple perpetual motion.
  • More restrictive sites—not a toy.
THERMAL:
  • (Less pollution than conventional coal).
  • Similar downsides to coal & oil (India, which runs these plants, has terrible pollution).
SOLAR:
  • Only runs half the day.
  • Requires special materials.
  • More expensive than simple perpetual motion.
WIND:
  • Takes a long time to pay for itself.
  • Depends on wind.
  • Can't be built indoors or underground.
  • More fragile due to exposure, materials used.
WAVE POWER:
  • Limited sites.
  • Reduces shipping lanes.
  • Depends on gravity from the moon.
  • Harder to carry the energy to the place where it is needed.
Perpetual motion also has competition from so-called professional idiots… So-Called Professional Idiots

See also:

Perpetual Motion Links

What simple technologies have actually been invented recently (a lot)

1st Periodic Table of Working Perpetual Motion

Please allow me to post here. If you can restore the images, please do so. This post existed earlier, and was subsequently reposted and revised by Nathan Coppedge, the same author, at the following address, and others under slightly different names. This is the latest edition. There is no copyright problem with this work, in fact it is reusable if the author's name stays with the work: https://emporium.quora.com/3rd-Revised-Periodic-Table-of-Working-Perpetual-Motion-Machines-Aug-7-2018-Recommended-A-Casual-Reference-for-Perpe

I personally find it inconvenient that I have to post a disclaimer every time. No one will read it this way.


The lower left corner exemplifies an over-unity 'wheel’. The upper left exemplifies cleverness. The lower right exemplifies efficient use of materials.
1
ESCHER MACHINE
2
MOTIVE MASS MACHINE
3
1ST FULLY PROVEN
4
TILT MOTOR IT 1
5
SPIRAL CONE
6
NOT-IF-BUT-WHEN #3
7
REPEAT LEVER 2 MOD 1
8
NOT-IF-BUT-WHEN #4
9
PENDULUM 1, FORMERLY CALLED MAGNET 1
10
“UNITY BALL” REPRESENTING A TYPICAL IDEA OF IDEAL PHYSICS
Here is also an expanded list hypothesized for a few other cases:
NANO PMMS
This field doesn't really exist yet, but I theorize the best options are:
1. Some type of polarized hole.
2. Sites on larger machines.
3. Combinations of material textures such as magnet hairs and waves of relatively heavier parts.
OTHER CASES
The Universe is another possible case.
Notice there is another smaller-than-10+, although still larger category of machines that might apply to toys or conjunctions between machines.