|CRITIQUE / "THE CRITICAL MOMENTUM"
What criticisms might be raised, aside from citing the laws of
1. Spinning Top Devices
As I have said, these may have earned the rating of two infinity. One of the two
concepts is not well worked out, but the other is intriquing. A problem that could
emerge with this device (the second one), is that it is prone to the use of a ratchet
rather than natural motion in that direction. A ratchet is not likely to help if there is no
natural motion, which could in turn reduce the capacity for using a spiral ramp
structure. However, the use of a very shallow ramp at the base may accomodate the
principle, since the torque is partly horizontal, it could move outwards and use the
outward motion as a means to return to the beginning. Spinning Top Devices.
2. The Escher Machine
I am in the preliminary stages when it comes to criticizing this design. In some ways it
has been my most promising, and it is deceptively simple to construct. I have observed
that there may be a spring-factor in the cardboard I used, the device may require a
downwards dip which is prohibitive for some reason, or perhaps I am deceiving
myself about gains in acceleration. However, for the most part the evidence has been
confirmative. For example, in part to my surprise, I found that---using separately
tested 'sections' due to bad joinery--- cycles are possible in which there is a proneness
to cyclical motion in spite of an upwards trek through half of the motion. So, good
news, so far. Escher Machine.
3. Tilt Motor
I have had great difficulty criticizing the Tilt Motor, because any flawthat would
prevent it from attaining unity would also prevent it from moving at all. Once it has
been proven to move from a "passive" position, it is difficult to argue that
it would stop moving; the eight levers seem like an adequate chain reaction, and the
horizontal rolling motion seems continuous and plausible. IF leverage is adequate to
create slope, it can be argued that leverage is also adequate to create continuous slope,
and if that is the case it seems difficult to argue that the problem is recovering height.
Afterall, the height stays the same on average, and the lever advantage is the same for
each lever. So essentially, someone would need to argue that the levers provide
resistance which is not overcome at any point.
4. Coquette and the Repeating Leverage Apparatus
Coquette: Here I am suspecting my equations are inadequate. Perhaps I have misjudged
the viability of this device. However, it is promising symbolically as an archetype.
Repeating Leverage: The most promising of these designs is not the first variation,
because in that case three ball weights must be lifted by one, but instead the 2nd, 3rd,
9th, or 10th designs. In the Repeat Lever Type 2, the design depends on the capacity
to lift a weight along a diagonal slope by means of a counterweight which has just
been activated by leverage at the same distance. It seems possible, as may have been
confirmed by experiments, that the slope only works near the horizontal, creating
obscene angularity problems. In Type 3 there is a reliance on a double-stage
mechanism for the returning weights, which may be dubious. In Type 9 greater
motion must occur during the upward swing. In Type 10, also called the Trough
Leverage Device, the initial point of application on the outwards slope must have more
leverage than all points of the more supported return slope. While there is a weight
advantage, it seem possible that it may act only in short proportional differences.
5. 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
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.
6. Grav-Buoy 1 and 2 and the Curve-Rail Device
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 using diagonal buoys could be effective if pressure difference is the
only problem, however this poses the risk of reducing the cumulate strength of the
principle. Grav-Buoy 2
Curve-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
7. Fluid Leverage Wheel and the Grav-Motor
Fluid Leverage: This design 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 inefficiency 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
Grav-Motor: This concept seems to depend on some sort of technology. Grav-Motor.
Theory Basics Theory Applied Critique Essays
Perpetual Motion Concepts nathancoppedge.com