| STATISTICS: Repeat Lever 4 VOLITION: 3 (3 active u /1 dual-axial u) EQUILIBRIUM: 2 (1 mobile u / (1 stem / 2 cycle)) EFFICIENCY: 1.5 (3 Ve / 2 VE) VOLITIONAL STATEMENT: Presumably a good ratio of active to activated units (1/1), but unlike RL2 the lever advantage is partially compromised. |
| MAIN PM Theory CONCEPTS Grav-Buoy2 Fluid Lever Curving Rail Motive Mass REPEAT LEV Summary Diagrams Experiments Tilt Motor Coquette Early Failures DISCLAIMER PM Types |
| Perpetual Motion Machine Concept Using Repeated Leverage SUMMARY Repeating Leverage Type 1: A system in which a chambered wheel carries spherical weights upward onto a ramp feeding a lever. The lever carries a single ball weight downward some degrees, using that weight towards leverage to cycle the wheel. Since the lever is weighed carefully to approximately equal the weight of the chambered weights, the leverage force of one weight may be sufficient to move the wheel the smaller distance necessary to cycle the weights. Alternately, since I now see a difficulty in returning the lever upward while allowing the wheel to continue uni-directionally, the proportions might be altered so that emphasis is placed on leverage. Then the shorter leverage end could more than equal the weight of the end where weight is applied, yet the application of heavy weights might allow a return on leverage. That way the lever returns upward automatically. Such a design would most likely take advantage of a 70% or greater lever. For criticism of this concept, see my Personal Critique. Repeating Leverage Type 2: A development of the idea that leverage applied to a weight on a ramp is more effective than leverage applied against a weight at a point of greater leverage. So if the leverage on the ramp can be used to return the weight to a point of greater leverage, then the process might repeat. Inspired by the SMOT toy, as well as my own previous work involving tracks. The design makes use of a truly triangular track, on either side of a cylindrical rolling weight supported by a central lever with a heavy counterweight. As usual, I don't yet have a model built. Repeating Leverage Diagrams nathancoppedge.com Repeating Lever Type 3: Another lever design in which the lever activates a double-chambered structure through the application of a single ball weight (related to the first design). The specific proportions of the long-to-short ends of the lever, combined with one weight activating two, combined with a pulleyed counterweight are meant to reduce resistance to the point of over-unity. In addition, the short end of the lever is positioned with a spacer bar between it and the lower end of the chambered structure, permitting more lift than would otherwise be possible with a squared-off structure (lifting underneath the center of the lower chamber rather than at the nearest point). Repeating Lever Type 4: The simplest design I have found that might be conceived as a repeating lever, consisting of a curving track circuiting a lever. The lever is positioned such that its short end bisects a vertical drop point in the grade of the track, while the long end nearly touches the midpoint of 90 to 180 degrees of upwards slope. A crescent support bar mounted to the long end partially supports an upward-bound weight, while a second weight unsupported except by the cupped end allows the support bar to gradually push it up the slope. Since the short end of the lever has the usual property of reverse leverage, a greater vertical distance can result from the use of a greater fixed point energy value--e.g.in this case there is less resistance on the long end per unit of movement, since one weight is free-falling and the other is both partially supported, and moving closer to the horizontal Repeating Lever Type 5: A coquette-style lever means to use lateral differences in a similar manner to Repeat Lever Type 2; Bulk compensates for leverage in the upper portion of the track; Ball weight bearing is a correlative to moderated weight differences in the lower portion of the track; The intention is a lever-lever weight bearing that is uni-directional relative to the non-ball-weight-bearing equilibrium of the lower track; this justifies with experiments in which equilibrium alone was enough to cause motion when little fulcrum friction exists (without a ball weight) Repeating Lever Type 6: Sideways Leverage Perhaps force accretes with distance from a fulcrum even in a parallel position; if this is true a "sideways leverage device" could make good on ramps through a stiff fixed member and small return motions at a distance from a mobile wheel, positioned around the fulcrum; Again, useage is made through a single mobile ball weight, which even in an operable device, must be judged in accordance with the value of the counterweighted force; I would say in this case the ball weight should be relatively heavy, just as with Repeat Leverage 3 SEE DIAGRAMS |
| Questions, comments, or other inquiries may be directed to: contact@nathancoppedge.com |
| An Interesting Link: A toy dating from pre-1905 uses metal balls and ramps in a sequential method, imitating perpetual motion. However it has no means to reset the cycle other than loading the feed chamber by hand. |
NATHAN COPPEDGE--Perpetual Motion Concepts
| STATISTICS: Repeat Lever 3 VOLITION: 2 (6 active u / 3 dual-axial u) EQUILIBRIUM: 3 (1 mobile u / (1 stem / 3 cycles)) EFFICIENCY: 0.666 (2 Ve / 3 VE) VOLITIONAL STATEMENT: Seems generally to be an improvement on Repeat Lever 1, but multiple subcycles per activating unit remain. |
More on my concept of Volitional math at IMPOSSIBLEMACHINE.COM |
| STATISTICS: Repeat Lever 2 VOLITION: 2 (2 active u /1 passive u) EQUILIBRIUM: 1 (1 mobile u / 1 stem / 1 cycle) EFFICIENCY: 2 (2 Ve / 1 VE) VOLITIONAL STATEMENT: What effectiveness it has is a product of a fairly good active-to-passive unit ratio. Eloquent theory if it works. |
| STATISTICS: Repeat Lever 1 VOLITION: 2.6 (8 active u / 3 passive or dual-axial u) EQUILIBRIUM: 8 (1 mobile u / (1 stem / 8 cycles)) EFFICIENCY: 0.325 (2.6 Ve / 8 VE) VOLITIONAL STATEMENT: The overall active-to-passive unit ratio is burdened by a large number of subcycles relative to acting units. |
Consideration of simple pivot objects
encourages an idea of the relationship
between a fulcrum and angularity
encourages an idea of the relationship
between a fulcrum and angularity
| STATISTICS: Repeat Lever 6 VOLITION: 2 (2 active u /1 dual-axial u) EQUILIBRIUM: 1 (1 mobile u / (1 stem / 1 cycle)) EFFICIENCY: 2 (2 Ve / 1 VE) VOLITIONAL STATEMENT: Has an unfortunate assumption about leverage, which compromises the principle idea of having such efficiency. |
| STATISTICS: Repeat Lever 7 VOLITION: 1.5 (3 active u /2 dual-axial u) EQUILIBRIUM: 1 (1 mobile u / (1 stem / 1 cycle)) EFFICIENCY: 1.5 (1.5 Ve / 1 VE) VOLITIONAL STATEMENT: The secret of this device is its partial support fixed half-track, not reflected in any other of my published designs. |
Repeating Lever Type 7: Swivel & Half-Track My first relatively successful design using two rather than one or three lever devices (for an example of three chambers, see Motive Mass, a modular unit design concept); Earlier concepts have used reflections or partial modifications of a double support structure, but not a full implementation; In this case the principle is that a fixed supporting track compromises the resistance to the principle implemented in Repeat Lever 2; The second (and balanced) tilting member or lever serves the purpose of creating slope for the mobile weight, which is slight on the return, and steep from the top-most position; Some chambering augments this RL Type 7: Fixed and Mobile Tracks In a curious design, some use is made of both differential combination in a modal formula, and advantages in geometry; This is based on another unpublished design that may have had a key flaw in the conjunction of halved rails, here remedied. SEE DIAGRAMS |
| STATISTICS: Repeat Lever 8 VOLITION: 2 ( 2 active u / 1 dual-axial u) EQUILIBRIUM: 1 (1 mobile u / (1 stem / 1 cycle)) EFFICIENCY: 2 ( 2 Ve / 1 VE) VOLITIONAL STATEMENT: The compilation of leverage and a supporting slope is maximized, in one possible embodiment. |