|In the following expositions you may read about the reasoning
behind each of the 5 Concepts in Theory Applied, consider my personal
Critique of the designs, or continue to read the basis for my pursuit of
Regarding Perpetual Motion:
1. Has been conventionally conceived as essentially mathematical.
2. Is in reality a highly abstract problem. It must be solved in theory before it is
solved in fact.
3. I will now demonstrate how many pre-existing designs are flawed in theory,
regardless of their respectful application methods.
4. Problem: the inventors conceive of the system as a single cycle without
attending to the necessarily cyclical nature of the individual unitary
components. A perpetual motion machine without unitary components is
impossible, because it cannot cycle. Once a machine works on two levels--the
entire loop, and the function of each individual unit within the loop-- it must
cycle on two levels.Consideration must be made of how each unit sustains
5. In a realistic PMM, these questions must be answered for the individual units
of the system:
1. Even if output for that unit is less than input, is that output
sufficient to set off the next unit? What about cumulative input
from other units?
If the answer is yes, there is a new meaning to "over-unity".
2. Does it require fuel? It should not.
3. Is there a means to repeat the process? Sustain cumulative
input if cumulative input is required?
6. If each unit of the system can sustain the questions in 5, then there are a
number of possible ways perpetual motion theoretically might be achieved, if
we make the assumption that thermodynamics applies to homogeneous sectors,
yet not to specific volitional methods. These are ranked from most to least
effective, according to my equations:
1. Torque advantages (Theories I am still investigating). See Spinning Top
Devices; These appear to sometimes earn a rating of two infinity.
2. An Escher Machine, which uses a sideways angle to create vertical
movement; These may have a rating of one infinity.
3. A "Tilt Motor" a device in which slope is extended via a periodic lever
advantage; No initial force is inputted, so the movement is meant to be a
product of mass transfer alone, horizontally not vertically; These have a rating
4. A geometric advantage such as that used on the Motive Mass Machine,
where free-falling mass may pull an equally-weighted but supported mass,
creating a re-settable domino series; In this case the transfer is nearly
height-independent, by means of a proven vertical versus horizontal advantage;
Here the rating is three, and the principle has been partly proven.
5. Via an axiometric principle such as that present in the Coquette Device or
Repeating Leverage Apparatus, that is, the use of clever alternations between
counterweight and leverage, making use of slope at every point, and in which
part of the slope occurs at a position of weight disadvantage, creating upwards
climb by special angularity advantage; The rating here may be two to four;
Defense of Perpetual Motion Theory:
I find the theories of how to build a working device, what I have come to call
Volitional Math, very fascinating, and even valuable apart from their practical
application. This may be my own inflated idea of science or "enginery", yet
somehow the world seems oversimplified without it.
It may be that I'm simply estranged from the "humanity" of science, yet I
continue to believe that there may be a means to create physical paradoxes, not
merely knots of matter, but a means of participating matter with time.
If I cannot build a device, or find in the end that machines and fire are separate
things, I hope that at least I will have built something of incidental or novelty
value. Yet to me, it is not novelty unless it brings us into a different notion of
the world. Perpetual motion would do that.
NEXT: Application of Perpetual Theory to the 5 Concepts
Theory Basics Critique Essays
Perpetual Motion Concepts MAIN PAGE
|Questions, comments, or other
inquiries may be directed to: