| MAIN PM THEORY Basics Applied Critique Essays *Meta *Inspira * Defense -Extension CONCEPTS Grav-Buoy2 Fluid Lever Curving Rail Motive Mass Repeat Lever Tilt Motor Coquette Early Failures DISCLAIMER PM Types |
NATHAN COPPEDGE--Perpetual Motion Theory: Essays
A Defense of Perpetual Motion
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 additional
energy 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 similar properties.
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 average—
altitude.
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
E-Mail: contact@nathancoppedge.com