| 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 |
| 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
Stylistic elements mimick
certain stipulations with
volitional theory;
Machines like stone are both
workable and unworkable, in
any form
certain stipulations with
volitional theory;
Machines like stone are both
workable and unworkable, in
any form
Awkward forms of lever
may be shown to
operate well in one
direction, here by
tweaking the vertical
member to the left (with
other cases however, as
by applying rolling force
to the bottom with a
midst-lever fulcrum), it
may seem both tawdry
and subtle
may be shown to
operate well in one
direction, here by
tweaking the vertical
member to the left (with
other cases however, as
by applying rolling force
to the bottom with a
midst-lever fulcrum), it
may seem both tawdry
and subtle
Hidden proportions reveal only
finite cases where any tools
work to their own effect;
Nonetheless all real-world
tools are effective implements
finite cases where any tools
work to their own effect;
Nonetheless all real-world
tools are effective implements
Subtlety ranges within clean
sheets of potential cause and
effect; perpetual theory
supposes that cause and effect
are the same in distinct and rare
circumstances of "cause" a
self-referring synonym
sheets of potential cause and
effect; perpetual theory
supposes that cause and effect
are the same in distinct and rare
circumstances of "cause" a
self-referring synonym