| ABOVE: The fourth experiment, using a different design. This design serves as an argument for the use of difference weights. |
| ABOVE: Pushing one causes the other to move. Since the lower segment of each shaft is smaller, leverage is provided which makes the machine uni-directional and thus not due the suspicion of machines which attempt over-unity through assumptions about symmetry. |
| ABOVE: The same design with a third difference lever. Here we can see that when the first lever on the left is moved all the way across, the next in the middle is moved about half way, and the third lever moves about a quarter. It seems to me that this problem of soaking force/entropy would not be a significant factor in the case of the see-saw with difference weight design, in part because the presence of counterbalancing weights ensures that minimal force is necessary to return the device to the original position. It is also at least the weight of the difference weight that contributes to pull, something which can be sustained so long as the next can be pulled by that weight. It seems obvious that a weight on wheels can be pulled by a falling weight of equal mass. When the second mass moves, its weight does the same. |
| Motive Mass Machine: A Perpetual Motion Machine Concept Using See-Saws and a “Difference Weight” Applied to Alternating Sides byVarious Methods-- EXPERIMENTATION PHOTOS PART 1 PART 2 PART 3 PART 4 PART 5 PART 6 PART 7 |
| Photos 1 Photos 2 Photos 3 Photos 4 Photos 5 Photos 6 Photos 7 Motive Mass Prospects Principled Asymmetry Prospects nathancoppedge.com |
NATHAN COPPEDGE--Perpetual Motion Concepts
