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.
MAIN

PM Theory

CONCEPTS

Grav-Buoy2

Fluid Lever

Curving Rail

Motive Mass

REPEAT LEV
Summary
Diagrams
Experiments
Videos

Tilt Motor

Coquette

Magnet

Bezel Weight

Grav-Motor

Pendulums

Conv. Wheel

Escher Mach

Spin Top

Apollo Device

Early Failures

DISCLAIMER

PM Types

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
NATHANCOPPEDGE.COM

IMPOSSIBLEMACHINE.COM
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.
white elephant
Consideration of simple pivoting objects
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.
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.


SEE REPEAT LEVER DIAGRAMS

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.