The Day Perpetual Motion Was Proven For Certain

I have noticed there is a growing Perfect Storm for Perpetual Motion

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.

1. Do you think my fingers cause the motion? Certainly not in the second video.
2. Do you think the cardboard causes the motion? Most would argue that's against physics. After all, you would say, it's not perpetual.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. Are you denying perpetual motion but not the workability of the experiment? Then say so.
6. Admit that image quality has nothing to do with the quality of experiment, just the quality of viewing.
7. Do you think anyone has done a better experiment of this kind? Then please refer me to them.
8. Do you think I'm being dishonest? I'm not.
9. Now, what are you assuming is wrong with the experiment?
10. Why do I have to go through this?

SEE ADDITIONAL VIDEOS / DIAGRAMS:
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:

1. The belief that its impossible because they didn't build it.
2. The belief that it's unfair because they don't believe in cheating physics.
3. They either believe its impossible or don't believe its unfair, which seem like the same thing to them.
4. Thus, they think it is impossible to believe in.

See also: Contingency Plan for Perpetual Motion

See also: Red Letter Days for Nathan Coppedge’s Perpetual Motion

And: Perpetual Motion Links

7 Books in the Top Million

The Dimensional Philosopher's Toolkit

100 Mind-Seals

The Golden Notebook, etc.

See all titles at: http://www.amazon.com/author/nathancoppedge

I have sold my first copies of the Autobiography of the Inventor of Perpetual Motion

Although I have not built a working perpetual motion machine, I have designed several successful experiments which seem to prove that perpetual motion is possible.

For that reason, I have decided to circumvent the competition and write the book before anyone else does. I can always revise later with new material as my life progresses... But it is unlikely that I will undo the progress made in those experiments...It is hard to prove something impossible that is partly possible.

Here is a link to the bound volume which includes both the Autobiography and the Perpetual Motion Designs & Theory: http://www.amazon.com/Designs-Theory-Autobiography-Inventor-Perpetual/dp/1508729085/   * Here is the version without the theories and diagrams.

Responding to a Three-Star-Review

OPTI RIGOT (SCEW) CAN'T EDIT EDITOR APPLIED

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.

(3) A+ Institutional 2025-07 - Esoteric Mathematics - Quora Da (CHARACTER)

I have been participating at OverUnity.Com

Which is a site people should check out if they are interested in perpetual motion. Especially the discussion page ("Community").

LINK:

http://www.overunity.com

Red Letter Day

On July 3rd, 2014 I discovered the Master Angle, a particular configuration of horizontally-disposed slope and a particularly angled backboard which (I believe) permits an object to roll UPWARD.

This is possible because H - V > V (H).

This is possible, I have proved (or believe I have proved) in very particular configurations (I believe the equation is not enough by itself, but rather there must be a particular ratio of weight placement between the horizontal and the vertical, including consideration of the height of the marble relative to the horizontal slope, affecting the angularity of the backboard).

I have tested with a level, and the bubble is close to the middle, but sometimes indicates upward slope. The optimal case is shown in my video, Master Angle / Reverse Gravity 1.

In the following video

I think I have evidence that a spherical weight can roll upwards under certain very specialized conditions:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g9Zpdjj1bWs

I measured from the floor on the right and left edges of the marble's movement, and it appears that the right side was higher than the left. Mixed results with a level, although clearly when measured on a partial contingency, the slope is upwards.

My explanation for the theory is that the forwards angularity of the marble is steeper than the difference between the horizontal slope and the vertical slope, corresponding to the two pieces of cardboard underneath the marble. A very special case, if true.

Degrees of Perpetual Motion

According to my research, perpetual motion has two absolute degrees.

1. Over-Unity, and

2. Perpetual Motion.

However, there are intermediate degrees that consist of construction.

While the first degree is very difficult (see notes below), at the second degree it is tempting to abandon construction and rest on one's laurels, with half-finished machines everywhere.

(I am the only one I can think of besides Reidar Finsrud who may have reached the first degree, unless the Newman or Johnson motors work. I have inside evidence that a certain pendulum someone else built which was said to be perpetual was actually plugged into the wall, but this may have been constructed as a defense of the physical preservation of that machine).