INDEX
PERPETUAL MOTION MACHINES!!!










12 JULY 2016 --- [ABOVE] Significant update 2017-10-11 more
accurately reflecting successful experiment by Nathan Coppedge:
Ratios in partial experiment are workable, but are somewhat
different than originally thought. Ball gains diabolical advantage
by using a higher midpoint of the ball at the end of each module
than height of the track at the start of the track for the ball. All
motion occurs by weight and counterweight application, in a
simple, repeatable process. Construction requires something close
to 10.8 : 6.25 leverage at the beginning of each track, and 14: 6.25
leverage at the end of each, with counterweight being a ratio of "a
quarter, a standard penny, a standard marble, and 5 inches of duct
tape"- this being the ratio of heaviness compared to a standard
marble, and the lever itself must be extremely lightweight relative
to both weights. Motion occurs through a mixture of
equilibrization, weight application on both ends, and differences in
leverage power. Many other principles are also operating. The first
fully defensible perpetual motion machine, dating from ~6pm, July
12, 2016. By Nathan Larkin Coppedge: philosopher, artist,
inventor, poet. Note: A small weight may need to be added  to the
end of the lever for balance, much like a rapier sword, as shown in
the
Successful Over-Unity Experiment 1 video.

















18 MARCH 2016 -- [ABOVE] A design by Nathan Coppedge.
Known more officially as the "Not-If-But-When" Machine
#4, this design is virtually proven to return the ball at the
same altitude, as per (an)... experiment building on the
Successful Over-Unity Experiment 1. He called this second
successfuly experiment Successful Perpetual Motion
Experiment 2, because it is the second experiment he
conducted that points towards highly-qualified design of the
machines. The Successful Perpetual Motion Experiment 1 ---
a third experiment --- simply showed a likelihood for
maintaining equal altitude in a specific design. The
experiment for this design was more general in its
implications.


















10 JANUARY 2016 -- [ABOVE] This device concept is a
second design making use of the differential angle concept,
and is dubbed the Not-If-But-When Machine #3 (It is the
third design of this series. The second design was of a
different type), by Nathan Coppedge from 2016. In Nathan
Coppedge's differential angle concepts, there are two
segments: in the first segment, significant support is offered
from a fixed member (a straight half-track sloped to
accomodate the moving ball), and a second segment involves
less fixed support, permitting the ball to activate the lever.
Meanwhile, the mobile element, usually a counterweighted
lever, is designed to permit constant motion between the two
or more segments. In other designs multiple levers are
required, but here the hurdle is the question of how to prevent
the spiraling effect which would require net loss of altitude.
Perhaps short sloped connecting ramps are not required
between the two members because of momentum provided by
the counterweighted lever (?).





















3 JULY 2014 -- Experiment purportedly proved that an object
could roll upwards using a 'master angle,' raising the
possibility of a real working 'M.C. Escher machine' in which a
spherical object rolls perpetually. Nathan Coppedge tested  
his small model with a level, and found it was possible for all
four connected slopes --- running in four different directions in
a parallelogram shape --- to be independently prone to linear
motion in the same cyclical direction.  This was in spite of the
fact that half of the slopes were directed slightly upwards,
using a sideways or horizontal angle and momentum from the
angled backboard.  He considered this to be a seminal
achievement, if it was not already proved in some other
example. The complete working model remains unproven as
of October 2014, although his experimentation with the
master angel concept shows at least by conjecture that
upward motion may be possible with minimal input.




















9 - 10 NOV 2013 -- The Modular Trough Leverage Device, a
simple theoretical over-unity device consisting of horizontally
repeated  units, each of which according to a recorded video is
proven to work. The small difference between the initial
height of the lever is accommodated using an upwards motion.
Further, the mostly horizontal distance traveled in each unit is
permitted because the marble or spherical weight is coasting
along a nearly horizontal surface, with support coming from a
fixed two-sided track support, for each modular unit or lever
arrangement. The rising motion which occurs through the use
of a counterweight is designed to permit the downwards
motion to operate the levers at the beginning of each cycle,
like a permanent spring.


















CIRCA 2007 - 2010 [ABOVE]. Repeat Leverage Variation 1.
This is the design that later led to the Nov 2013 Trough Lever
experiments, as a result of frustrations with the construction
of this design. If you observe the direction of the leverage
through its motion in this case, you observe that it is barely
possible --- perhaps possible --- to see it working! The
operation is designed to occur as usual through a 1:1
compensated ratio between weights, and a difference between
supported and unsupported weight on the mobile side, e.g.
through ramps connected somehow.
















29 MARCH 2007 -- [ABOVE] Motive Mass Machine.
Designed to work provided an unbalanced principle between
each of the three units. The principle is, in principle, a result
of using unsupported mass to create supported,
partially-horizontal motion. The unsupported mass has more
potential energy than the uspported mass. This version is
Type / Iteration 2. In other variations each of the three units
is a double-seesaw with the top of each being much smaller.
This is meant ot limit the major constraint, which is the ratio
between the small heavy unsupported mass and the following
equal mass in relation to the vertical distance moved by each
seesaw unit. The pulley arrangement is designed to permit
automatic chain reactions if only the unbalanced principle
works. The theory has been partially proven by experiment as
early as 2007.

















30 OCT 2006 -- [ABOVE] Perhaps the first concept for a
horizontal as opposed to horizontally-rolling wheel  applied to
perpetual motion, the concept was conceived by Nathan
Coppedge... shortly after the founding of his website at
nathancopedge.com. It is inspired by a coffee cup rolling on
its side. Previous perpetual motion machine designs such as
the Bhaskara Wheel required much more vertical motion.



"Say... you talk about pulling something up an
inclined plane with an equal weight. You're right.
This is possible. And not at all a violation of
conservation of energy."
---Ian Switzer, CEO of a Cornell
engineering company



THE BEST PMM AT NATHANCOPPEDGE.COM

NATHAN COPPEDGES PMMS ON QUORA

ADDITIONAL MATERIALS AT OLD PMM SITE

              INDEX
Not-If-But-When 4
Not-If-But-When 3
Tilt Motor
Escher
MTLD
Motive Mass
RL Var 1
Perpetual motion