| MAIN PM THEORY Basics Applied Critique Essays CONCEPTS Grav-Buoy2 Fluid Lever Curving Rail Motive Mass Repeat Lever Tilt Motor Coquette Early Failures DISCLAIMER PM Types |
| Questions, comments, or other inquiries may be directed to: drypress@yahoo.com |
NATHAN COPPEDGE--Perpetual Motion Theory
In the following expositions you may read about the
reasoning behind each of the 5 Concepts in Theory Applied,
consider my personal Critique of the designs, or continue to read
the basis for my pursuit of perpetual motion.
Regarding Perpetual Motion:
1. Has been conventionally conceived as essentially mathematical.
2. Is in reality a highly abstract problem. It must be solved in theory
before it is solved in fact.
3. I will now demonstrate how many pre-existing designs are flawed in
theory, regardless of their respectful application methods.
4. Problem: the inventors conceive of the system as a single cycle
without attending to the necessarily cyclical nature of the individual
unitary components. A perpetual motion machine without unitary
components is impossible, because it cannot cycle. Once a machine
works on two levels--the entire loop, and the function of each
individual unit within the loop-- it must cycle on two
levels.Consideration must be made of how each unit sustains unity.
5. In a realistic PMM, these questions must be answered for the
individual units of the system:
1. Even if output for that unit is less than input, is that output
sufficient to set off the next unit? What about cumulative input
from other units?
If the answer is yes, there is a new meaning to "over-unity".
2. Does it require fuel? It should not.
3. Is there a means to repeat the process? Sustain cumulative
input if cumulative input is required?
6. If each unit of the system can sustain the questions in 5, then there
are several possible ways perpetual motion theoretically might be
achieved, if we make the assumption that thermodynamics applies to
homogeneous sectors, yet not to specific volitional methods:
1. Through a multitude of units unbalanced through a constant,
non-depletable source (vis. Grav-Buoy2, Curving Rail)
2. What I will call a "motive mass" system, a cycle that resets
itself through the use of units each consisting of a pivoting
structure resembling a see-saw triggered by small weights,
the vertical force of each weight being perhaps sufficient to
trigger the partly horizontal motion of a further identical weight.
3. A "Tilt Motor" device in which no initial force is inputed, but
weight is tranferred directly into a constant slope meant to sustain
a continuous horizontal loop.
Defense of Perpetual Motion Theory:
I find the theories of how to build a working device, what I have come
to call Volitional Math, very fascinating, and even valuable apart from
their practical application. This may be my own inflated idea of science
or "enginery", yet somehow the world seems oversimplified without it.
It may be that I'm simply estranged from the "humanity" of science,
yet I continue to believe that there may be a means to create physical
paradoxes, not merely knots of matter, but a means of participating
matter with time.
If I cannot build a device, or find in the end that machines and fire are
separate things, I hope that at least I will have built something of
incidental or novelty value. Yet to me, it is not novelty unless it brings
us into a different notion of the world. Perpetual motion would do that.
NEXT: Application of Perpetual Theory to the 5 Concepts
Theory Basics Critique Essays
Perpetual Motion Concepts MAIN PAGE
reasoning behind each of the 5 Concepts in Theory Applied,
consider my personal Critique of the designs, or continue to read
the basis for my pursuit of perpetual motion.
Regarding Perpetual Motion:
1. Has been conventionally conceived as essentially mathematical.
2. Is in reality a highly abstract problem. It must be solved in theory
before it is solved in fact.
3. I will now demonstrate how many pre-existing designs are flawed in
theory, regardless of their respectful application methods.
4. Problem: the inventors conceive of the system as a single cycle
without attending to the necessarily cyclical nature of the individual
unitary components. A perpetual motion machine without unitary
components is impossible, because it cannot cycle. Once a machine
works on two levels--the entire loop, and the function of each
individual unit within the loop-- it must cycle on two
levels.Consideration must be made of how each unit sustains unity.
5. In a realistic PMM, these questions must be answered for the
individual units of the system:
1. Even if output for that unit is less than input, is that output
sufficient to set off the next unit? What about cumulative input
from other units?
If the answer is yes, there is a new meaning to "over-unity".
2. Does it require fuel? It should not.
3. Is there a means to repeat the process? Sustain cumulative
input if cumulative input is required?
6. If each unit of the system can sustain the questions in 5, then there
are several possible ways perpetual motion theoretically might be
achieved, if we make the assumption that thermodynamics applies to
homogeneous sectors, yet not to specific volitional methods:
1. Through a multitude of units unbalanced through a constant,
non-depletable source (vis. Grav-Buoy2, Curving Rail)
2. What I will call a "motive mass" system, a cycle that resets
itself through the use of units each consisting of a pivoting
structure resembling a see-saw triggered by small weights,
the vertical force of each weight being perhaps sufficient to
trigger the partly horizontal motion of a further identical weight.
3. A "Tilt Motor" device in which no initial force is inputed, but
weight is tranferred directly into a constant slope meant to sustain
a continuous horizontal loop.
Defense of Perpetual Motion Theory:
I find the theories of how to build a working device, what I have come
to call Volitional Math, very fascinating, and even valuable apart from
their practical application. This may be my own inflated idea of science
or "enginery", yet somehow the world seems oversimplified without it.
It may be that I'm simply estranged from the "humanity" of science,
yet I continue to believe that there may be a means to create physical
paradoxes, not merely knots of matter, but a means of participating
matter with time.
If I cannot build a device, or find in the end that machines and fire are
separate things, I hope that at least I will have built something of
incidental or novelty value. Yet to me, it is not novelty unless it brings
us into a different notion of the world. Perpetual motion would do that.
NEXT: Application of Perpetual Theory to the 5 Concepts
Theory Basics Critique Essays
Perpetual Motion Concepts MAIN PAGE