Physics Group

Disciplines: Physical Sciences: Physics:
Curators: John McIntosh
Started: Jul 10, 2012
Nathan Coppedge
Started by: Nathan Coppedge
I have experimentally proven over-unity, according to my knowledge

I welcome comments on my video of an experiment, which I have posted under Philosophy, Physics, and Engineering:

According to my analysis this device, which I think is over-unity, has no less than six principles of advantage:

 1. The lever is seeking equilibrium (minus the weight differential), thus taking advantage of the standard property of a balance to seek level with equivalent weights. 2. The device is at 6 - 5 degree-below-level angularity (256 - 255 standard degree angle) during its entire motion (blocks or stops would be provided in a real device to prevent the wrong motions), after which the device or the next in the series is operated by leverage. Either way, the lever returns to its initial height. 3. The principle is weight versus leverage, so there is a slight weight advantage on the counterweight end, and the ball weight (marble) moves because it is supported by a nearly horizontal track, through which the lever passes through a slot. Thus, the position of the marble is actually on two or three points, rather than one. 4. There is a principle of total imbalance, by positioning the supporting track at 2 - 3 times the fulcrum distance of the counterweight, so that the mobile ball activates the lever (moves it downwards) at every position except when it is supported, via the limited opposing leverage. 5. The device makes use of highly lightweight materials, which might be ignored by paying attention to the main weight differentials. 6. The device begins from a position of rest, and so the only way that it loses energy is if energy is inserted, or if any mass loses altitude. The altitude loss can be prevented, and energy certainly isn't inserted.

Again, I welcome comments on the video page. There is no denying that, however complex the physics, this over-unity device operates. For example, it is not often thought that weights in equilibrium could cause one or the other to move upwards. But in this case, it does, through support from a nearly horizontal track. The leverage difference also allows for the same lifted weight to operate the lever, because the counterweight is at a lesser distance.

Anyone agree with me? Other comments or lessons?

  • Recommend Us