Tricks Potentially Demonstrating PM Principles back to PM Main I've brainstormed some practical dynamics demonstrative of principles which might work in higher-efficiency devices: SIMPLE TRICKS THAT MAY DEMONSTRATE PM PRINCIPLES 1. Gravity and Relation: Adjusting a small oaktag sheet between one’s hands so that the center weighs on alternating sides allows pushing the hands to flex the center in alternate directions, without having to move the hands in relation to the board. Pushing the board in one direction without return might be compared loosely to natural limits on motion, since flexing the board in either direction resists return, if it weren’t for the gravitational force. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SIMPLE EXAMPLES: A coin seemingly suspended on edge (above left) shows how common assumptions may not apply to every case. Here the coin is altered in thickness, resulting in a case where it CAN in fact stand on its own, on a level surface. The second photo (above right) is the case of dominoes which extend a given movement across space and through various twists and turns, without increasing the initial force required. Considering two cases, one in which the first domino struck a short series, and another in which a long one is struck, the potential of energy is extensible independent of initial force. Obviously it takes greater energy to set up a greater number of dominoes, but in the abstract it may be conceived that upright dominoes are symbolic of the potential of mass, whereas a pushed domino is the active or input principle. Thus extension is more a product of mass-energy than of input-energy (for examples of designs attempting advantage on this principle see the Tilt Motor and Motive Mass Type 2). ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2. Slope and Viscocity: in the context of a hoola hoop or a sling, or the center slipping out of a deck of cards, particular methods make enormous differences in effects. This suggests a dynamic whereby special attention of the relationship between slope and viscocity leads to greater energy conservation when compared to the desired result. This has been evident to me particularly when riding a bicycle up a slight incline, where I have found that approaching a slope at an angle is rationally speaking less of a slope, and also that this observation combined with a subtle S-curve in the approach (accounting for balance and speed on the bicycle) results in a near miraculous retention of energy and reduction of frictional resistance. (This is far more difficult at high speeds, in the case of a small ramp). I attribute this to distributing weight at an angle that is not strictly vertical, in spite of a forward directiveness, such that energy is converted not into the angle of the ramp, but at an angle tangential to the angle, such that the angle on the tire is steep, but in relation to the directivity of the energy, is actually quite shallow. If there are means to using less energy going up, presumably it is easier than thought to gain energy going down. For example, I must refer to an argument I have used in the past, that throwing energy into a downward slope is more productive than throwing it into an upward slope. The same is the case with downward trajectories, even if in ballistics this is not an efficient use of distance. This viscous effect may also be demonstrated in a tureen or basin in which water is cycled in a centrifugal manner. 3. Constructs: Houses use energy to remain upright; perhaps the same constant energy might be used towards movement for the same duration; some say inputting for movement is different from input for simple mass, in part because built structures rely on inherent properties of materials; however, one might argue that a windmill that is power-viable takes no more energy to support than a similar structure that doesn't produce; thus, where movement is inherent in structure, this suggests energy inherent in mass. That perpetual motion would follow from this principle is less a matter of the energy-viability of mass than of the mobile properties of structure. RETURN TO N. COPPEDGE'S PM SUMMARY PAGE To offer criticism, commentary, or observations to the inventor, please e-mail me at contact@nathancoppedge.com NATHANCOPPEDGE.COM |
