| 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 |
NATHAN COPPEDGE--Perpetual Motion Theory: Critique
CRITIQUE
What criticisms might be raised, aside from citing the laws of
thermodynamics?
1. Rising and Free-Falling Buoys--Grav-Buoy 1 and 2
Grav-buoy 1 is essentially the same as Frank Tatay's design of 1929. Since
his design has not been implemented as a perpetual motion machine, it is fair
to say that it has flaws. According to one website in particular, a string of
buoys rising vertically does not in fact have cumulative pull, due to the nature
of pressure differences in buoyancy. However I have not yet found a second
source for that information. (Grav-Buoy 1)
Grav-buoy 2 only works if we assume that the trouble with Frank Tatay's
design was primarily the issue of entry resistance at the bottom of the tank.
Presumably a variation on Grav-buoy 2 could be effective even in the case of
resistance from pressure difference, provided that pressure differences act
primarily on the vertical (i.e. if less than half of the reduction in buoyancy at a
45 degree tilt is due to pressure differences). Grav-Buoy 2
2. Fluid Leverage Wheel
This designs faces the problems confronted by nearly every perpetual motion
wheel, namely that no design has ever been found where lifting something at a
lesser radius and dropping it at a greater radius is enough to perpetuate the
cycle. This is partly due to the inefficency of moving the weight from the
lesser to the greater radius (minimized because fluid might do this
automatically if enough pull is provided), but also that starting the weight at a
lesser radius means that the leverage arms don't have a great number of
degrees before their weight must be lost. The obvious solution is to add more
leverage arms, but this produces the problem of having a correspondingly
greater number of lesser radius tanks, all of which are carried for a greater
number of degrees. Fluid Leverage
3. Curving Rail Device
The obvious trouble with this design is that its so simple. Anyone designing a
rollercoaster would have thought of it, in fact practically anyone thinking
about rollercoasters must know that it doesn't work. Or I would have heard of
it. Nevertheless the principle that falling weights can pull rolling weights gives
this design a kind of appeal. Rail Device
4. Motive Mass Machine
The greatest criticism I have found of this design (in light of the great virtue
that a falling weight has the force to move an equal weight on wheels) is that
moving a weight along a track that is less than the length of the see-saw on
which it is mounted, produces less force than the mass would create at the
very end of the see-saw. Assuming the see-saw tilts at 45 degrees, the
maximum distance the weight could pull even at the end of the see-saw would
be less than the length of the entire see-saw (as reflected in the well-known
fact that the side of a right triangle is less than the hypotenuse).
Correcting this problem by introducing an upwardly-curved or triangular track
that allows the weight to roll past the midpoint may not be applicable to 45
degree seesaw tilts, as a curved track would be at least vertical at one point
before the weight could conceivably roll. I remain hopeful that a triangular
track mounted end-to-end would allow the weight to roll past the midpoint at
a distance that is less than the maximum allowable height of such a see-saw
when a less than 45-degree tilt is used, as reflected in the truth that the
hypotenuse is less than double the height of a right triangle. Note that when
the weight is pulled as though through the track, height can be attained within
a shorter length of cord. The notion of a dual see-saw as pictured in
Motive Mass diagram 8 is another issue altogether. MMMachine
You may also view photos of my motive mass experiments.
5. Repeating Leverage Apparatus
This is another case of a very simple design that must have been tested before.
The most questionable element is if the weight of the lever can be sufficient to
move the chambered wheel when one ball weight is applied to the end, yet not
heavy enough to resist the weight of the chambered wheel when no ball is
applied. It comes down to the ratio between the strength of leverage and the
distance the leverage can move. Theoretically the number of chambers in the
wheel could be altered, but doing so increases the necessary distance the wheel
must turn every cycle, or it decreases the number of degrees that the lever is
allowed to move. Repeating Leverage
Theory Basics Theory Applied Critique Essays
Perpetual Motion Concepts nathancoppedge.com
E-Mail: contact@nathancoppedge.com
What criticisms might be raised, aside from citing the laws of
thermodynamics?
1. Rising and Free-Falling Buoys--Grav-Buoy 1 and 2
Grav-buoy 1 is essentially the same as Frank Tatay's design of 1929. Since
his design has not been implemented as a perpetual motion machine, it is fair
to say that it has flaws. According to one website in particular, a string of
buoys rising vertically does not in fact have cumulative pull, due to the nature
of pressure differences in buoyancy. However I have not yet found a second
source for that information. (Grav-Buoy 1)
Grav-buoy 2 only works if we assume that the trouble with Frank Tatay's
design was primarily the issue of entry resistance at the bottom of the tank.
Presumably a variation on Grav-buoy 2 could be effective even in the case of
resistance from pressure difference, provided that pressure differences act
primarily on the vertical (i.e. if less than half of the reduction in buoyancy at a
45 degree tilt is due to pressure differences). Grav-Buoy 2
2. Fluid Leverage Wheel
This designs faces the problems confronted by nearly every perpetual motion
wheel, namely that no design has ever been found where lifting something at a
lesser radius and dropping it at a greater radius is enough to perpetuate the
cycle. This is partly due to the inefficency of moving the weight from the
lesser to the greater radius (minimized because fluid might do this
automatically if enough pull is provided), but also that starting the weight at a
lesser radius means that the leverage arms don't have a great number of
degrees before their weight must be lost. The obvious solution is to add more
leverage arms, but this produces the problem of having a correspondingly
greater number of lesser radius tanks, all of which are carried for a greater
number of degrees. Fluid Leverage
3. Curving Rail Device
The obvious trouble with this design is that its so simple. Anyone designing a
rollercoaster would have thought of it, in fact practically anyone thinking
about rollercoasters must know that it doesn't work. Or I would have heard of
it. Nevertheless the principle that falling weights can pull rolling weights gives
this design a kind of appeal. Rail Device
4. Motive Mass Machine
The greatest criticism I have found of this design (in light of the great virtue
that a falling weight has the force to move an equal weight on wheels) is that
moving a weight along a track that is less than the length of the see-saw on
which it is mounted, produces less force than the mass would create at the
very end of the see-saw. Assuming the see-saw tilts at 45 degrees, the
maximum distance the weight could pull even at the end of the see-saw would
be less than the length of the entire see-saw (as reflected in the well-known
fact that the side of a right triangle is less than the hypotenuse).
Correcting this problem by introducing an upwardly-curved or triangular track
that allows the weight to roll past the midpoint may not be applicable to 45
degree seesaw tilts, as a curved track would be at least vertical at one point
before the weight could conceivably roll. I remain hopeful that a triangular
track mounted end-to-end would allow the weight to roll past the midpoint at
a distance that is less than the maximum allowable height of such a see-saw
when a less than 45-degree tilt is used, as reflected in the truth that the
hypotenuse is less than double the height of a right triangle. Note that when
the weight is pulled as though through the track, height can be attained within
a shorter length of cord. The notion of a dual see-saw as pictured in
Motive Mass diagram 8 is another issue altogether. MMMachine
You may also view photos of my motive mass experiments.
5. Repeating Leverage Apparatus
This is another case of a very simple design that must have been tested before.
The most questionable element is if the weight of the lever can be sufficient to
move the chambered wheel when one ball weight is applied to the end, yet not
heavy enough to resist the weight of the chambered wheel when no ball is
applied. It comes down to the ratio between the strength of leverage and the
distance the leverage can move. Theoretically the number of chambers in the
wheel could be altered, but doing so increases the necessary distance the wheel
must turn every cycle, or it decreases the number of degrees that the lever is
allowed to move. Repeating Leverage
Theory Basics Theory Applied Critique Essays
Perpetual Motion Concepts nathancoppedge.com
E-Mail: contact@nathancoppedge.com