Revolution-Green would like to encourage all inventors and energy enthusiasts to contribute their ideas and theories to the site. I invited Nathan to do so and he clearly states ” As a disclaimer, I will say that I have not actually built a complete perpetual motion machine.” I may not agree with his analysis and conclusions and I am sure many of our readers will also disagree. I do ask respect be shown in the exchanges that will surely follow in the comments section.
Some of you will ask why we would cover this and its about self promotion on Nathans behalf. I am not sure the answer to that other than no matter how much I disagree with what is claimed we should always defend the right of people to express their ideas and celebrate their imagination.
New Haven. April 20, 2015.
Recently I was doing what I normally do, which is promoting my concepts of perpetual energy on the web. This led to a somewhat lengthy discussion with some of the members of this website. One of them encouraged me to submit an article explaining my ideas to the general public. As a disclaimer, I will say that I have not actually built a complete perpetual motion machine. However, unlike many others, I think I have found experimental evidence. This puts me in one of four categories. Either I have evidence and it’s too complicated to prove, or I’m too naïve to realize it doesn’t work, or I have new forms of evidence, or I will gradually be disproven by sophisticated evidence from the scientific community. Essentially, like all other perpetual motion machine concepts, it boils down to one question: whether it works or does not.
Traditionally, perpetual motion is opposed by two principles from physics and mathematics, called the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics. Some people with experience with physics think that these principles aren’t even required to disprove perpetual motion. They cite friction and the usual inability for a device to gain altitude after it has lost altitude. Wheels, for example, turn efficiently, but take losses from friction. How could I possibly solve these problems, let alone the problems of thermodynamics? There is at least one loophole, called the problem of proportionality. If a system can make special use of geometry to find a special efficiency in the way objects move, then physics laws might be moot, because there might be ‘hidden exponents’.
Proportionality devices were assumed to be disproven in a proof introduced by Emmy Noether as recently as 1915, which states that conservation of energy follows from other laws of physics, including, I think, Newtonian Mechanics. However, while this law has found no widely cited physical exception, if perpetual motion machines had not previously been built, then a new form of mechanical dynamics such as perpetual motion might serve as a legitimate contradiction of the law.
In the abstract, because of the reliance of Noether’s theorem upon the theory of the dissipation of linear momentum (finite energy), the only theory that might be viable to disprove her law is a kind of ‘mass-force.’ Physicists traditionally considered this to be illegitimate, because energy is seen as something separate from the mass of an object. Physics explains that the potential energy of an object on earth in terms of mass has to do with it’s height relative to gravity. According to this view, there cannot be a perpetual motion machine, because altitude is always lost.
However, in my own theories of perpetual energy, I found counter-examples.
Motive Mass Machine
The first major counter-example I found was confirmed in a 2009 experiment. I found a rolling weight of any earthly mass can pull an identical weight vertically, when the second weight is partly supported horizontally. I also designed on paper a device called the Motive Mass Machine Iteration 2.
The device [pictured above], was supposed to make use of the free-falling versus supported weight principle to overcome the problem of proportionality. However, since 2009 I have not built the device, for several reasons. 1. I have been resting on my laurels, thinking it was enough to be the designer without being the builder. 2. I thought it would be better to invest my valuable time as a designer in designing other types of devices, which could also eventually be proven viable. 3. I thought a professional manufacturer might be better at constructing these things (since I had already provided the design, my work was done), citing the crudeness of my experiments as evidence of an inability to build the real thing. And, 4. As I learned later, I feared angels of judgment.
For a two years I fell into a strange kind of stupidity, in which I conducted no experiments. Perhaps it was entropy getting back at me. I had previously found that there was both evidence and no evidence for my Tilt Motor concept. According to my experiments, it was exactly as if the laws of physics had changed in the course of my two experiments. For, in the first experiment, the Tilt Motor appeared to work, whereas in the second experiment, it clearly did not work. Thinking I didn’t want things to get worse, I decided not to build a full-scale model of that device. I knew at this point that if it did work, the construction must be highly specific. It was something I was not capable of building.
However, I did continue my experiments on new concepts. This brings me to my second counter-example to Noether’s Law.
Counterweighted Leverage Apparatus
In Nov. 9th – 10th, 2013, I built a counterweighted leverage apparatus which was designed expressly on the urge to prove that energy extraction could be possible. The device made use of six different 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.
While not a perpetual motion machine, my experiment succeeded. I had proven that it was possible for a device to move up and down from rest. And since all parts could return to the same altitudes, it was at no cost of energy. Since conventional physics said that there were no such thing as ideal systems, I knew that energy could be extracted.
I subsequently designed (on paper), a full mock-up of a device I felt, as a result of the experiment, was proven to be perpetual. It simply made use of the same unit repeated in a horizontal circle. Since the marble didn’t need to gain average altitude in the entire course of the circuit, I reasoned that there was nothing else to prove! I had designed a perpetual motion machine!
My third counter-example did not come for another eight months. In July 3rd, 2014, I conducted an experiment so subtle that I still don’t know if it works. The experiment was inspired by ‘message balls’ which have widely been reported to roll on the Vatican roof (actually, making it much more complicated, this may be a delusion I developed, along with a personal theory that the Masons had invented perpetual motion). And, another inspiration was a device with a poor reputation amongst physicists, that I call the tracked spindle. According to what I thought I found, under highly specific configurations, an object can roll upwards! I tested the simple but subtle device with a level, and found that either the rolling marble (which was the only moving part) was losing a lot of altitude relative to the board (which I thought it wasn’t), or the marble had actually gained altitude! Surely this difference was very subtle! But there was no doubt that the sideboard was angled upwards. And I knew momentum could be provided by the angle of a separate backboard. I reasoned if momentum could be provided, so too, resistance could be overcome, however slight, so long as the marble was supported.
If this third or fourth major experiment worked, then it was possible to build a device called an Escher Machine, in which a marble could roll upwards indefinitely until it ran out of gravity, or was blown by the wind, etc.! I knew this device appeared to contradict physics, but the work that led me to this experiment seemed to me to be belabored enough to justify that ‘something happened’! I felt on top of the world, with the idea that I alone was conducting significant experiments with simple over-unity!
But, perhaps these devices already existed, and no one was talking about them? That was possible, compared to the evidence I had already found.