NATHAN COPPEDGE--Perpetual Motion Concepts
white elephant

Continuous Motion With Conventional Wheels

A conventional perpetual motion wheel is typically a vertically-oriented or
45-degrees oriented wheel, typically with hammers, pendulums, or some other
application designed to influence the wheel and cause it to move. These are
widely discredited, and even in my own work, I consider them to have less
merit than a variety of more original designs. For example, horizontal wheels
and levers operated on the horizontal may have an advantage that the famous
Bhaskara Wheel did not have.

Nonetheless, the wheel of Johann Bessler holds some fascination, because it
supposedly worked. So, the Bessler Wheel is the focus on this section, below
and when you get to the diagrams page.

Conventional wheels, as opposed to some other designs that make use of
clever
geometry or double-principles, encounter several difficulties:

[A] What rises must fall

[B] Degrees of motion

[C] Friction

The devices listed in my diagrams section are intended to overcome these
three difficulties with flying colors (although in the first case, the statistics do
not support the claim).

FIRST DESIGN:

Vertical Wheel Using Spirals and Double-Difference:

     Continuous motion is effocated through use of a spiral wheel,
     in which, as usual, one end rises and the other falls.
     Fixed arms reaching into the middle of the wheel are used
     to support pendulums, one being heavier than the other.
     The lighter pendulum is heavier than the difference between
     the heavy pendulum and the wheel. The pendulums are
     attached using flexible cords or chains, allowing them to
     move in spiral motions, the lighter one dragging upwards
     and counteracting the pressure of the heavy weight upon
     the wheel, and the heavier one spiraling downwards along
     an upwards spiral and moving the wheel in the process.

Note:
I know of no existing example of this device being built.


SECOND DESIGN:

 A Bessler Wheel type design attempting to solve all the
 conventional problems with this type, such as (A) How to
 generate motion, (B) How to continue the motion through
 180 degrees, (C) How to continue the motion through
 360 degrees, and perhaps (D) How to avoid friction
 The device (or apparatus, more accurately), uses a
 bar weight to simulate equilibrium, then uses uniquely
 angled boxes in an attempt to throw the bar weight
 off balance. In spite of these clever techniques, it appears
 that this design is marred by the trouble of the conventional        
 wheel-type designs, distinguished from the lever type
 invented by Nathan Coppedge


     NEXT: Wheels Diagrams                nathancoppedge.com
MAIN

PM Theory

CONCEPTS

Grav-Buoy 2

Fluid Lever

Curving Rail

Motive Mass

Repeat Lever

Tilt Motor

Magnets

Bezel Weight

Grav-Motor

Conv. Wheels
*Diagrams
*Videos

Pendulums

Escher Mach

Spin Top

Apollo Device

Early Failures

DISCLAIMER

PM Types
STATISTICS: Vertical Wheel
Using Spirals and Double
Difference

VOLITION: 2
(2 active u /1 dual-axial u)

EQUILIBRIUM: 16
(1 u / 1 stem / 16 subcycles / cycle)

EFFICIENCY: 1/8 ( 2 Ve / 16 VE )

VOLITIONAL STATEMENT:
Earlier I used faulty math to
defend the idea that this device has
a rating of 8. The revised value
seems more accurate to me (1/8th).
STATISTICS: Bessler Wheel
Without Analyzing Diagram

VOLITION: 1 or 3
(3 active u /1 or 3 dual-axial u)

EQUILIBRIUM: 1 or 1/2
(1 u / 1 or 2 stems / 1 subcycles /
cycle)

EFFICIENCY: 1, 2, 3, or 6 ( 1 or 3
Ve / 1 or 1/2 VE )

VOLITIONAL STATEMENT:
This is the most ambiguous design I
have encountered so far. My
intuition is that if it is a minimum of
1, this actually means that it doesn't
work. The max is impressive, though.
More typically, however, this type of
rotation with rolling balls classifies
as dual-axial, limiting the rating.
STATISTICS: Conventional Wheel
Attempt 2

VOLITION: 1/4 to 2
(2 active u / 1 - 8 dual-axial u)

EQUILIBRIUM: 1
(1 u / 1 stems / 1 subcycles / cycle)

EFFICIENCY:  1/4 to 2 ( 1/4 or 2 Ve
/ 1 VE )

VOLITIONAL STATEMENT:
This is another design that depends
on whether the uni-directionality is
effective. Conceivably the rating
might go up to two infinity if it could
be proven that the device moves on
its own.
STATISTICS: Bessler Wheel Type
Analyzing Diagram

VOLITION: 6
(~6 active u / 1 dual-axial u)

EQUILIBRIUM: 4
(1 u / (1 stems / 4 subcycles / cycle)

EFFICIENCY: 6/4 ( 6 Ve / 4 VE )

VOLITIONAL STATEMENT:
According to my creative equations,
this device might be over-unity if an
infinite rating is not required.
Perhaps if I had more information on
how it operates I would grant it a 7/4
infinity rating instead of 6/4
non-infinity. But that would depend
on making the vertical wheel
principally uni-directional, which in
my formalisms is impossible. Bessler
would have to be very clever to
make this work.