SUMMARY--My Best Evidence of Perpetual Motion back to PM Main If I needed to tell you in brief which of my designs I think might actually work, and cite evidence, I would refer you to several arguments: 1. How might the Tilt Motor theoretically perpetuate its own motion in spite of the horizontal disposition of the wheel? 2. How a Motive Mass Machine consisting of a loop of see-saws with difference weights might be a self-perpetuating cycle and 3. How a Repeat Lever using a counterweight and a mobile weight acting by leverage might be a self-perpetuating cycle To a lesser extent, 4. How a certain form of wheel has proven to be unbalanced, potentially providing an excess of momentum provided a supply of energy input. See also my essay in the theory portion of this site, A Defense of Perpetual Motion. and practical "Tricks That May Demonstrate PM Principles" An astute observer noted that the second concept operates by a similar principle to the partially functional Atwood Machine of 1784. To quote a wikipedia article on that machine: Atwood's original illustrations show the main pulley's axle resting on the rims of another four wheels, to minimize friction forces from the bearings. Many historical implementations of the machine follow this design. An elevator with a counterbalance approximates an ideal Atwood machine and thereby relieves the driving motor from the load of holding the elevator car — it has to overcome only weight difference and inertia of the two masses. The same principle is used for funicular railways with two connected railway cars on inclined tracks. RETURN TO N. COPPEDGE'S MAIN PERPETUAL MOTION PAGE To offer criticism, commentary, or observations to the inventor, please e-mail me at contact@nathancoppedge.com NATHANCOPPEDGE.COM |