| STATISTICS: Repeat Lever 4 VOLITION: 3 (3 active u /1 dual-axial u) EQUILIBRIUM: 1 (1 mobile u / (1 stem / 1 cycle)) EFFICIENCY: 3 (3 Ve / 1 VE) VOLITIONAL STATEMENT: Presumably a good ratio of active to activated units (1/1), but unlike RL2 the lever advantage is partially compromised. |
Perpetual Motion Machine Concept Using Repeated Leverage SUMMARY Repeating Leverage Type 1: A system in which a chambered wheel carries spherical weights upward onto a ramp feeding a lever. The lever carries a single ball weight downward some degrees, using that weight towards leverage to cycle the wheel. Since the lever is weighed carefully to approximately equal the weight of the chambered weights, the leverage force of one weight may be sufficient to move the wheel the smaller distance necessary to cycle the weights. Alternately, since I now see a difficulty in returning the lever upward while allowing the wheel to continue uni-directionally, the proportions might be altered so that emphasis is placed on leverage. Then the shorter leverage end could more than equal the weight of the end where weight is applied, yet the application of heavy weights might allow a return on leverage. That way the lever returns upward automatically. Such a design would most likely take advantage of a 70% or greater lever. Repeating Leverage Type 2: A development of the idea that leverage applied to a weight on a ramp is more effective than leverage applied against a weight at a point of greater leverage. So if the leverage on the ramp can be used to return the weight to a point of greater leverage, then the process might repeat. Inspired by the SMOT toy, as well as my own previous work involving tracks. The design makes use of a truly triangular track, on either side of a cylindrical rolling weight supported by a central lever with a heavy counterweight. As usual, I don't yet have a model built. Repeating Lever Type 3: Another lever design in which the lever activates a double-chambered structure through the application of a single ball weight (related to the first design). The specific proportions of the long-to-short ends of the lever, combined with one weight activating two, combined with a pulleyed counterweight are meant to reduce resistance to the point of over-unity. In addition, the short end of the lever is positioned with a spacer bar between it and the lower end of the chambered structure, permitting more lift than would otherwise be possible with a squared-off structure (lifting underneath the center of the lower chamber rather than at the nearest point). Repeating Lever Type 4: The simplest design I have found that might be conceived as a repeating lever, consisting of a curving track circuiting a lever. The lever is positioned such that its short end bisects a vertical drop point in the grade of the track, while the long end nearly touches the midpoint of 90 to 180 degrees of upwards slope. A crescent support bar mounted to the long end partially supports an upward-bound weight, while a second weight unsupported except by the cupped end allows the support bar to gradually push it up the slope. Since the short end of the lever has the usual property of reverse leverage, a greater vertical distance can result from the use of a greater fixed point energy value--e.g.in this case there is less resistance on the long end per unit of movement, since one weight is free-falling and the other is both partially supported, and moving closer to the horizontal Repeating Lever Type 5: A coquette-style lever means to use lateral differences in a similar manner to Repeat Lever Type 2; Bulk compensates for leverage in the upper portion of the track; Ball weight bearing is a correlative to moderated weight differences in the lower portion of the track; The intention is a lever-lever weight bearing that is uni-directional relative to the non-ball-weight-bearing equilibrium of the lower track; this justifies with experiments in which equilibrium alone was enough to cause motion when little fulcrum friction exists (without a ball weight) Repeating Lever Type 6: Sideways Leverage Perhaps force accretes with distance from a fulcrum even in a parallel position; if this is true a "sideways leverage device" could make good on ramps through a stiff fixed member and small return motions at a distance from a mobile wheel, positioned around the fulcrum; Again, useage is made through a single mobile ball weight, which even in an operable device, must be judged in accordance with the value of the counterweighted force; I would say in this case the ball weight should be relatively heavy, just as with Repeat Leverage 3 Repeating Lever Type 7: Swivel & Half-Track My first relatively successful design using two rather than one or three lever devices (for an example of three chambers, see Motive Mass, a modular unit design concept); Earlier concepts have used reflections or partial modifications of a double support structure, but not a full implementation; In this case the principle is that a fixed supporting track compromises the resistance to the principle implemented in Repeat Lever 2; The second (and balanced) tilting member or lever serves the purpose of creating slope for the mobile weight, which is slight on the return, and steep from the top-most position; Some chambering augments this. RL Type 8: Fixed and Mobile Tracks In a curious design, some use is made of both differential combination in a modal formula, and advantages in geometry; This is based on another unpublished design that may have had a key flaw in the conjunction of halved rails, here remedied. RL Type 9: Trough Lever Using Partial-Spiral Curve: An early version of the trough lever attempting to gain advantage on the return slope through a curved lever arrangement. Provided that the lever has a means to connect with the mobile weight in combination with the fixed track without losing grip, it might work. Probably requires some kind of slotted arrangement on the return slope. Notably, this takes advantage of mostly horizontal movement like most of these designs. SEE DIAGRAMS |
| Questions, comments, or other inquiries may be directed to: contact@nathancoppedge.com |
| An Interesting Link: A toy dating from pre-1905 uses metal balls and ramps in a sequential method, imitating perpetual motion. However it has no means to reset the cycle other than loading the feed chamber by hand. |
NATHAN COPPEDGE--Perpetual Motion Concepts
| STATISTICS: Repeat Lever 3 VOLITION: 2 (6 active u / 3 dual-axial u) EQUILIBRIUM: 3 (1 mobile u / (1 stem / 3 cycles)) EFFICIENCY: 0.666 (2 Ve / 3 VE) VOLITIONAL STATEMENT: Seems generally to be an improvement on Repeat Lever 1, but multiple subcycles per activating unit remain. |
| STATISTICS: Repeat Lever 2 VOLITION: 2 (2 active u /1 passive u) EQUILIBRIUM: 1 (1 mobile u / 1 stem / 1 cycle) EFFICIENCY: 2 (2 Ve / 1 VE) VOLITIONAL STATEMENT: What effectiveness it has is a product of a fairly good active-to-passive unit ratio. Eloquent theory if it works. |
| STATISTICS: Repeat Lever 1 VOLITION: 2.6 (8 active u / 3 passive or dual-axial u) EQUILIBRIUM: 8 (1 mobile u / (1 stem / 8 cycles)) EFFICIENCY: 0.325 (2.6 Ve / 8 VE) VOLITIONAL STATEMENT: The overall active-to-passive unit ratio is burdened by a large number of subcycles relative to acting units. |
Consideration of simple pivoting objects
encourages an idea of the relationship
between a fulcrum and angularity
encourages an idea of the relationship
between a fulcrum and angularity
| STATISTICS: Repeat Lever 6 VOLITION: 2 (2 active u /1 dual-axial u) EQUILIBRIUM: 1 (1 mobile u / (1 stem / 1 cycle)) EFFICIENCY: 2 (2 Ve / 1 VE) VOLITIONAL STATEMENT: Has an unfortunate assumption about leverage, which compromises the principle idea of having such efficiency. |
| STATISTICS: Repeat Lever 7 VOLITION: 1.5 (3 active u /2 dual-axial u) EQUILIBRIUM: 1 (1 mobile u / (1 stem / 1 cycle)) EFFICIENCY: 1.5 (1.5 Ve / 1 VE) VOLITIONAL STATEMENT: The secret of this device is its partial support fixed half-track, not reflected in any other of my published designs. |
RL Type 10: Secant Lever: A sort of clever seeming theoretical device that uses a sideways angle to create subtle motion in the lever arrangement, permitting a return slope on a fixed track. I think this one might work, but it is subtle for all its simplicity. RL Type 11: Difference Spiral: Perhaps optimistic about effectiveness of lifting along an automatic spiral. Some variation might work, but this is probably impractical in its current design. RL Type 12: This is a key example of a device that does not work due to entropy forces. I'm not sure why I though it would work, as the forces clearly show motion towards the center, and not away. Repeating Lever / Modular Trough Leverage: This device is the first which I feel certain would work in its fully built form. The partial construction has been tested to work in a video, shown HERE. Essentially, certain distances of counterweight have the strength to lift a similar but slightly less heavy weight vertically, and the slightly less heavy weight has the power to trigger the lifting of the counterweight at greater leverage distance. The modular (repeated) form overcomes the difficulty of rolling the weight to its initial position by extending the linear motion in a circle, which maintains altitude on average. Not-If-But-When Machine 1: This is the first design I have used besides the Trough Coquette to make use of differences between angles of fixed supports. The result is deemed highly effective for perpetual motion, and it has a unique cross shape which does not appear in any of the other designs. Not-If-But-When Machine 2: This is a slightly less effective design I have considered for a number of years. It gets a rating of infinity assuming the ramp arrangement works. Originally I assumed it was feasible because the upper ramp could be triggered downwards, creating a slope. However, if the lower end of the triangle is parallel, this would mean the connectors would be upwards-angled, which would not work. So, this device is uncertain until the problem is solved. Not-If-But-When Machine 3: This device is a likely- effective variation on the differential angle principle. It is the simplest design I have found to make use of differential angles effectively. Surprisingly, the double-lever elements are parallel, which is highly unusual, but seems to work in this design. This has many similarities to Repeat Lever 2, but in some ways is much simpler, because of the parallel lever. Not-If-But-When Machine 4: Since the slope is directed slightly upward as permitted by the imbalance between full-support for the rolling ball on the way out, and no support other than the lever (again) on the way back, a slight slope can be permitted between the outward and inward directions of motion, permitting a return to the same condition through the imbalance created by support vs. unsupport. Not-If-But-When Machine 5: Since there is constant support, this device using four modular units and one rolling ball as usual might make use of a very light counterweight for each module, creating an assisted motion making use of differences in the angle of the track sides upon the ball. Not-If-But-When Machine 6: In this case the counterweight is lifted through a steep drop in the fixed support, acting on a less-steep angle in the mobile wire-frame attached to the lever. The less steep angle of the wire-frame is permitted because the angle of the wire-frame does not have to be steep to create motion in the mobile weight while the mobile weight is supported. Fully-Proven Perpetual Motion: This is what I take to be my only fully-proven design, based on my best work with the Successful Over-Unity Experiement 1, visible on Youtube. Three or four mostly-horizontal modules may be required to return the mobile weight to the exact same location, using the same proportions as that experiment, with the exception that the mobile weight is much taller, with the effect of overcoming the 'last barrier' to functionality. SEE DIAGRAMS OR UNIQUE FORMULAS BELOW |
| STATISTICS: Repeat Lever 8 VOLITION: 2 ( 2 active u / 1 dual-axial u) EQUILIBRIUM: 1 (1 mobile u / (1 stem / 1 cycle)) EFFICIENCY: 2 ( 2 Ve / 1 VE) VOLITIONAL STATEMENT: The compilation of leverage and a supporting slope is maximized, in one possible embodiment. |
| STATISTICS: Repeat Lever 9 VOLITION: 2 ( 2 active u / 1 dual-axial u) EQUILIBRIUM: 1 (1 mobile u / (1 stem / 1 cycle)) EFFICIENCY: 2 ( 2 Ve / 1 VE) VOLITIONAL STATEMENT: Potentially a minor improvement on Type 8, but it gets the same rating, since it is just an extension of the principle. |
| STATISTICS: Repeat Lever 10 VOLITION: 2 ( 2 active u / 1 dual-axial u) EQUILIBRIUM: 1 (1 mobile u / (1 stem / 1 cycle)) EFFICIENCY: 2 ( 2 Ve / 1 VE) VOLITIONAL STATEMENT: One of the better designs making use of an upwards-sloping track structure. Potentially simple proof/disproof |
| STATISTICS: Repeat Lever 11 VOLITION: 1.5 ( 3 active u / 2 dual-axial u) EQUILIBRIUM: 1 (1 mobile u / (1 stem / 1 cycle)) EFFICIENCY: 1.5 ( 1.5 Ve / 1 VE) VOLITIONAL STATEMENT: Inspired concept, if the spiral concept would only contribute to movement. |
| STATISTICS: Repeat Lever 12 VOLITION: 1.5 ( 3 active u / 2 dual-axial u) EQUILIBRIUM: 1 (1 mobile u / (1 stem / 1 cycle)) EFFICIENCY:1.5 ( 1.5 Ve / 1 VE) VOLITIONAL STATEMENT: In spite of the low-to-adequate rating, this concept has a lot of conventional proof going for it. |
| STATISTICS: Repeat Lever 5 VOLITION: 2 (2 active u /1 dual-axial u) EQUILIBRIUM: 1 (1 mobile u / (1 stem / 1 cycle)) EFFICIENCY: 2 (2 Ve / 1 VE) VOLITIONAL STATEMENT: The best trough lever design, with partial alternatives in types 8 and 9. |
OVER-UNITY VIDEO
Based on the
trough-leverage concept
Also listed under
'videos' on the left-hand
bar.
Based on the
trough-leverage concept
Also listed under
'videos' on the left-hand
bar.
| STATISTICS: Modular Trough Leverage VOLITION: 9 Infinity ( 9 active u / 0 dual-axial u) EQUILIBRIUM: 8 (1 mobile u / (1 stem / 8 sub cycles)) EFFICIENCY: 9/8 Infinity (9 Infinite Ve / 8 VE) VOLITIONAL STATEMENT: My first genuine over-unity device, which I think proves perpetual motion is possible. See the Video. |
| STATISTICS: Beaver Device VOLITION: 2 Infinity ( 2 active u / 0 dual-axial u) EQUILIBRIUM: 1 (1 mobile u / (1 stem / 1 sub cycles)) EFFICIENCY: 2 Infinity (2 Infinite Ve / 1 VE) VOLITIONAL STATEMENT: Deceptively simple device making use of an effective 'cheating' method. Occurred late in my process, and might work. |
More on my concept of Volitional math at IMPOSSIBLEMACHINE.COM |
| STATISTICS: Not-If-But-When Machine #1 VOLITION: 5 Infinity (5 active u / 0 dual-axial u) EQUILIBRIUM: 5 (5 mobile u / (1 stem / 1 sub cycles)) EFFICIENCY: 1 Infinity ( 5 Infinity Ve / 5 VE) VOLITIONAL STATEMENT: This is a very promising design using a differential between angled support and non-support 4X. |
| STATISTICS: Not-If-But-When Machine #2 VOLITION: 2 Infinity (2 active u / 0 dual-axial u) EQUILIBRIUM: 2 (2 mobile u / (1 stem /1 sub cycles)) EFFICIENCY: 1 Infinity ( 2 Infinite Ve / 2 VE) VOLITIONAL STATEMENT: This device is made possible by using upwards-directed slope for both the far and near end of the triangle, with no support or angled wall support on the upper end, and downwards slope on the connector. |
| STATISTICS: Not-If-But-When Machine #3 VOLITION: 2 Infinity (2 active u / 0 dual-axial u) EQUILIBRIUM: 2 (2 mobile u / (1 stem / 1 sub cycles)) EFFICIENCY: 1 Infinity (2 Infinite Ve / 2 VE) VOLITIONAL STATEMENT: Perhaps the cleverest use of angularity to achieve perpetual motion. |
| STATISTICS: Not-If-But-When Machine #4 VOLITION: 2 Infinity (2 active u / 0 dual-axial u) EQUILIBRIUM: 2 (2 mobile u / (1 stem / 1 sub cycles)) EFFICIENCY: 1 Infinity (2 Infinite Ve / 2 VE) VOLITIONAL STATEMENT: A method proven to be duo-directional from rest. |
| STATISTICS: Not-If-But-When Machine #5 VOLITION: 5 Infinity (5 active u / 0 dual-axial u) EQUILIBRIUM: 5 (5 mobile u / (1 stem / 1 sub cycles)) EFFICIENCY: 1 Infinity (5 Infinite Ve / 5 VE) VOLITIONAL STATEMENT: Angles of the sides of the track are used to create an imbalance. The lever angle this time compensates. |
| STATISTICS: Not-If-But-When Machine #6 VOLITION: 2 Infinity (2 active u / 0 dual-axial u) EQUILIBRIUM: 2 (2 mobile u / (1 stem / 1 sub cycles)) EFFICIENCY: 1 Infinity (2 Infinite Ve / 2 VE) VOLITIONAL STATEMENT: The radical difference between free-fall and slight upwards slope is used to create an active slope-lever. |
| STATISTICS: Fully-Proven Perpetual Motion 1 VOLITION: 3+ Infinity (3+ active u / 0 dual-axial u) EQUILIBRIUM: 3 (3+ mobile u / (1 stem / 1 sub cycles)) EFFICIENCY: 1 Infinity (3 Infinite Ve / 3 VE) VOLITIONAL STATEMENT: Fully-proven because the last barrier of how to begin successive cycles was overcome. |