Successful Experiment Pointing Towards Perpetual Motion

Otherwise known as, Successful Over-Unity Experiment 1, is an experiment I filmed on Nov. 9–10, 2013 which I believe proves certain unbalanced principles of perpetual motion are actually possible.

Unlike other videos it has a real strategy, the use of mostly horizontal motion, and a mixture between free-falling (unsupported) motion, and another segment of motion in which the mobile weight is supported, and thus less resistive.

A number of ostensibly amateur scientists have resisted the idea (e.g. at Revolution-Green), arguing that the mobile weight does not gain altitude. This is actually against the evidence. At any rate, if they are not such amateur scientists, it is hard to believe that they would disagree with a level when it tells them that ‘up is up’ and ‘down is down’.

The experiment, which simply consists of a lightweight lever passing through a slotted cardboard arrangement, proved conclusively this most important fact: (1) That a counterweight can lift a mobile weight along a mostly horizontal surface, and (2) That the mobile weight can then LIFT the counterweight.

Whether the mobile weight loses altitude in this process is less certain, but it IS certain that it gains altitude at one point, so by all accounts this is real progress in a field in which progress has often been doubted.

For those interested in more information about how it works, the experiment makes use of ‘Six Principles’: (1) It begins from rest and uses no electricity or stored energy, except a counterweight, (2) It moves upwards and then downwards on its own, (3) It uses a principle of weight versus leverage, with the weight at a lesser leverage distance, (4) It makes use of a supporting track, which creates in imbalance between the mobile weight and the counterweight, (5) The lever is unbalanced at every point of motion, and (6) All parts may return to their initial altitudes after motion.

The subtlest aspect of the design that I don’t like to mention is that it is possible that the mobile weight has to activate the next unit from a (very slightly) lower position. The difference is slight because the mobile weight has already recovered part of its motion. I think the difference can be overcome by introducing a dip in the lever that allows the mobile weight to lower most of the lever even thought most of the lever is in a higher position.

Does anyone think this is an ingenious design for perpetual motion, linking these arrangements in a circle, since the experiment is proven, and no additional change in altitude will be necessary?

More concepts at: http://www.nathancoppedge.com/Perpetual_Motion.html

One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.