A Defense of Perpetual Motion by Nathan Coppedge 2008.
Responses to Individual Critics
Based on a critical source at: A Critic:
They take a machine ( A ) and a certain amount of energy ( B )
and expect that somehow the combination will give rise not merely to the
machine itself ( a ) and a total of energy ( b ) equivalent in amount to what
they put in ( B ). They expect not merely a and b; they will look for additionalenergy c.
If they get it, they will get something out of nothing; they will get an effect without a
cause behind it
This assumes that the machine is only a machine. In fact machine is already an
accretion on the concept of matter. By the same logic a more primitive person might
argue that matter with energy cannot be a machine, for it is already a combination of
two things: matter (A) and energy (B), which cannot equal a machine (C).
Interestingly, this is a similar reasoning to the physicists of today. Also, he assumes
that every perpetual motion machine has energy input. In fact the concept of over-unity
assumes minimal input.
My tilt motor design (I think cleverly) requires no energy input aside from
construction. It is a simple product of slope transferred by leverage, without loss of
vertical height. Any energy output comes out of transferring mass on a slope into a
difference in directed tilt. In this case I am tempted to claim that the assumption or
even foundational proof that all energy must be inputed is a fallacy.
For example, consider a pair of airplanes. Each carries a considerable cargo, but one is
far more aerodynamic. The one that is aerodynamic takes less energy to carry the load
a particular distance, and to a particular altitude. If we consider this apart from the
energy required to lift the cargo, it turns out that there is a potential to drop a
considerable weight that only exists when we have an aerodynamic plane.
Now consider theoretically that a machine’s functioning is like the difference between
an aerodynamic plane and a plane that can hardly take off. One device can lift its bulk
until it would have force if it landed, while the other doesn’t get high enough to have
much of a result. In the first case there is some kind of output, if we ignore input. In
the second case, there is no output, since not having gained altitude, the plane is still
mostly inert matter.
Now let me draw an analogy that, since sealevel is in fact an altitude in terms of
gravity, there is energy potential of the matter even when it is on the ground. It is as if,
compared to a canyon, for example, the plane has already taken flight, in terms of the
potential of its own mass. Thus, a theoretical machine may be treated as though it has
For example, if the machine loses weight, this would be like dropping ballast. Note that
losing ballast has nothing to do with how far the ballast falls. For example, a helium
balloon with a rock weighing on the string will take off if the rock/ballast is moved,
even if the rock remains at the same altitude. The energy the balloon might have has
little to do with how much energy it took to detach it from the ground. Similarly, if
leverage is applied to two weights, one attached to the other such that the leverage is
sufficient only to lift one, if one weight is detached, the other may be lifted,
independent of whether the detached weight loses altitude.
Note, however, that in the case of perpetual motion the goal is not to gain more height
than is lost, or to lose or gain weight, but rather to gain energy with a consistent
average of height and weight values. Let’s say that a theoretical device is a like a flying
plane. If it drops ballast at its altitude, it may then gain energy (instead of altitude),
whereupon it acquires its ballast once more (at no disproportionate cost since there is
no loss of altitude), whereupon it drops its ballast once more at the same altitude,
thereby gaining energy. The question becomes not whether this is possible, since my
reasonable examples give evidence of this, but what specific means would allow it.
Unlike an airplane, the perpetual machine is not attempting to leave the ground; it doesn’
t need a huge energy input in order to take off. Sealevel always has altitude in terms of
gravity, the exception being if there is no ground to stand on (we wouldn’t expect a
pencil to hover somewhere in the middle of a one-mile vertical shaft). Therefore it is
reasonable to expect that even at sealevel, mass has potential energy, energy that may
be lost by loss of altitude, but which remains constant given a constant—or constant
If the energy used in a perpetual motion design is partly created simply from mass, this
might be compared to a plane that flies by dropping weight. In the case of the plane,
losing weight certainly would assist flight. However, the perpetual motion machine is
not attempting to fly, it is attempting to generate energy. Consequently—given an
equivalent to aerodynamics, a kind of volitionism—we might equate the mass it has as
energy, energy it does not need in order to take off, (since sealevel has altitude in terms
of gravity). Hence mass might be utilized for a consistent effect, the sort sought after
in perpetual motion design.
For a more philosophical defense concerning the reasoning that "every effect must have
a cause" see Metaphysical Observations.
Theory Basics Theory Applied Critique Essays
Perpetual Motion Concepts nathancoppedge.com