Language: 
To browser these website, it's necessary to store cookies on your computer.
The cookies contain no personal information, they are required for program control.
  the storage of cookies while browsing this website, on Login and Register.

GDPR and DSGVO law

Storing Cookies (See : http://ec.europa.eu/ipg/basics/legal/cookies/index_en.htm ) help us to bring you our services at overunity.com . If you use this website and our services you declare yourself okay with using cookies .More Infos here:
https://overunity.com/5553/privacy-policy/
If you do not agree with storing cookies, please LEAVE this website now. From the 25th of May 2018, every existing user has to accept the GDPR agreement at first login. If a user is unwilling to accept the GDPR, he should email us and request to erase his account. Many thanks for your understanding.
Amazon Warehouse Deals ! Now even more Deep Discounts ! Check out these great prices on slightly used or just opened once only items.I always buy my gadgets via these great Warehouse deals ! Highly recommended ! Many thanks for supporting OverUnity.com this way.

User Menu

MN LiveCoach

Masternodes Live Coaching

Plug Heater

Powerbox

Smartbox

3D Solar

3D Solar Panels

DC2DC converter

Micro JouleThief

FireMatch

FireMatch

CCKnife

CCKnife

CCTool

CCTool

Magpi Magazine

Magpi Magazine Free Rasberry Pi Magazine

Battery Recondition

Battery Recondition

Arduino

Ultracaps

YT Subscribe

Gravity Machines

Tesla-Ebook

Magnet Secrets

Lindemann Video

Navigation

Products

Products

WaterMotor kit

Statistics

  • *Total Members: 83425
  • *Latest: Major

  • *Total Posts: 511461
  • *Total Topics: 15230
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 11
  • *Guests: 12
  • *Total: 23

Author Topic: The Paradox Engine  (Read 88195 times)

Offline Tusk

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 158
The Paradox Engine
« on: November 16, 2012, 02:20:52 PM »
This device is a proof of concept prototype designed to apply what appear to be newly discovered principles to the problem of mechanical overunity.

http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/715/pengine.jpg/

While this build is not sophisticated enough to produce an electrical output it does nevertheless make use of a hitherto unknown phenomena to create mass in motion from both an applied force and the associated reactive force. The device consists of an aluminium disk with the axis mounted on one end of a main supporting arm or rotor which in turn is bench mounted at the central point with bearings such that both disk and rotor are able to rotate freely. The opposite end of the rotor is counterbalanced, but it is envisaged that in future designs a disk will be mounted at each end. The disk  has 36 permanent magnets arranged regularly around the outer edge and is driven by a tangential linear force supplied by a pulsed electromagnetic drive unit located directly over the axis of the main rotor such that the applied force alone cannot cause the rotor to rotate.

video:

http://youtu.be/Nn09U_c2S7U

Observation of the device in operation confirms that during acceleration of the disk the main rotor rotates in accordance with expectations based on knowledge of the aforementioned phenomena. In addition during deceleration (by application of electromagnetic braking) the motion of the main rotor reverses suggesting a second manifestation of the phenomena as expected. Data from an onboard power logging unit during tests with the main rotor both secure and free confirms that the rotor free mode requires no more power than the rotor secure mode, in fact somewhat less power is used for a significantly higher disk rotation rate as shown in the data from a typical test run in the image below:

http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/145/paratach2watts.jpg/

The phenomena itself manifests as a duality of motion, in that a body subjected to a linear force so as to cause it to rotate is induced also by conservation of momentum to move with the same linear motion as would occur if the initial force were applied at the centre of mass. This understanding can be arrived at theoretically, but as a demonstration of the concept a simple experiment might do better service than a lengthy explanation: (the pegs have equal mass)

http://youtu.be/zi8k3PMUM6k

Since I could find no reference to the phenomena there seemed little choice but to formulate a rule of sorts to explain the concept, which rule appears below:

A force applied at any point on a body in equilibrium results in an equal and parallel reactive force at the centre of mass of the body acting in the direction of the applied force.
This reaction causes such linear motion of the body as would occur if the original force were applied at the centre of mass, independent of any rotational motion produced by the moment of the applied force.

Clearly this aspect of the work might be previously known, although the phenomena almost begs for application in the field of overunity. It would be an inexplicable oversight if that were the case.

It is envisaged that the operation of the device will be cyclic, alternating between accelerating and decelerating the main disks (allowing a twin disk system). During acceleration power will be taken from the main rotor. During deceleration power will come from the disk itself and also the main rotor, which will turn opposite to the previous cycle. This promises a theoretical overunity of almost 300% but of course there will be mechanical and electromagnetic inefficiencies.   

The next phase requires a far more sophisticated build than my own resources allow, at least in a timely manner. Open source seemed the most likely method to advance the concept, and I submit the work done so far in the hope that others will take the necessary steps to realise the full potential of the phenomena.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

The Paradox Engine
« on: November 16, 2012, 02:20:52 PM »

Offline DreamThinkBuild

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 575
Re: The Paradox Engine
« Reply #1 on: November 17, 2012, 12:06:52 AM »
Hi Tusk,

Thank you for sharing.

It's interesting how it goes backwards as it slows down.

Have you tried putting a single weight on the outer edge of the aluminum disk?

Offline Tusk

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 158
Re: The Paradox Engine
« Reply #2 on: November 17, 2012, 02:20:00 AM »
Hi DTB, and thanks for your interest.

The reversal of the main rotor represents the 'third bite of the cherry' so to speak. As the braking force is applied to the disk (in a fully functioning device this would be similar to regenerative braking on an electric vehicle, i.e. recovery of the kinetic energy of the disk) the secondary reactive force of equal measure applies at the axis of the disk driving the main rotor opposite to the initial 'power up' half of the cycle. With two disks running on a lightweight main rotor each of the rotor cycles (disk spool up/disk power out) would theoretically approach the combined kinetic energy of the disks.

As for adding weights to the disk, presumably you are suggesting a balanced donut type mass; certainly there are improvements to be made in efficiency based on established engineering principles, but in this instance my preference would be lightweight and high velocity for maximum kinetic energy.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: The Paradox Engine
« Reply #2 on: November 17, 2012, 02:20:00 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline onthecuttingedge2005

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1336
Re: The Paradox Engine
« Reply #3 on: November 17, 2012, 01:01:00 PM »
ummm, Newton's 3rd law, hello!!!!

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy


Offline Tusk

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 158
Re: The Paradox Engine
« Reply #4 on: November 19, 2012, 09:15:08 AM »
Apologies for the poor quality of the graph I uploaded, I had not intended for it to be reduced in size. Hopefully this will redress that error. Also I changed the colour of the power curve to red for clarity.

I should probably elaborate on the test method, due to the EM drive having an erratic startup the disk was spooled to just over 1150 rpm on each run then allowed to coast back down to 1100 rpm at which point maximum power was applied for 8 seconds. The time scale of the graphing software has a fault, each small graduation represents 1 second so that at the 0.25 second sampling rate there are approximately 32 data points during each power run.

Note that even if we disallow the potential of the main rotor motion, the main disk exhibits a significant advantage over a static test i.e. main rotor secure.

 


Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: The Paradox Engine
« Reply #4 on: November 19, 2012, 09:15:08 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline Tusk

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 158
Re: The Paradox Engine
« Reply #5 on: November 19, 2012, 09:17:56 AM »
Now that I know how to do that (attach images) here's a decent size photo of the device:


Offline fritz

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 424
Re: The Paradox Engine
« Reply #6 on: November 19, 2012, 11:12:57 AM »
Hi !

Whats the newly discovered principle ?
As long as the resulting effective point of drive (where the integral of the magnetic fields (el+stat) interact) - is not exactly in the neutral position (main hub bearing point) - energy will be transfered from the rotating disc to the mounting cw/ccw on accelerating/braking.
Due to an electrodynamic effect - this point of drive change with speed and load.
Thats somewhat same as transfer with an 2nd order oscillation.
The losses for this transfer are determined by the bearing friction and dynamic bending.....

rgds.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: The Paradox Engine
« Reply #6 on: November 19, 2012, 11:12:57 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline Tusk

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 158
Re: The Paradox Engine
« Reply #7 on: November 19, 2012, 01:30:50 PM »
Hi fritz, good to see someone kicking the tyres and asking questions.

You are correct in your assumption that positioning the drive point over the exact centre of the system is difficult, however any reasonable error in this placement creates such an extremely short moment arm that it has little effect on main rotor motion.

Quote
Whats the newly discovered principle ?

Having not yet exhausted my search of the literature there can be no claim, but as stated earlier in the absence of evidence of prior knowledge there was little choice but to formulate my own rule in order to advance the research. The rule itself having already been stated perhaps I should expand on the concept in the interest of clarity. The simple pendulum demonstration in my OP clearly shows a duality of motion on one side (of the impetus) yet a singular linear motion on the opposite side which is replicated in the motion of the rotating mass. If we were witnessing two bodies simply moving thus with no rotation we would be forgiven for making the assumption that no further motion were possible as a result of the impetus event, since we allow that motion represents kinetic energy and without prior knowledge might easily expect no further energy could manifest.

Nevertheless the duality of motion does manifest, and while the rotation itself is no surprise the preservation of linear motion (insofar as the linear motion applies on the pendulum apparatus) seems at first somewhat paradoxical. Yet if we examine the process in terms of momentum it becomes clear that the linear motion must be preserved else we would be in breach of conservation of momentum.

In short, the pendulum demonstration challenges our perception of Newton's third law. In fact there is no breach there, rather a fundamental annex to the known phenomena. Mass in motion across the threshold from a single frame of reference (in this case linear motion) to two frames of reference (linear + rotation) must by the example of nature manifest in both frames of reference each independent of the other. There can be no loss of energy in the linear motion. Equally the motion of rotation must manifest in accordance with the moment of the applied force.

Thus the paradox, resolved on this occasion only in acceptance of the fact.


 

 


Offline Tusk

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 158
Re: The Paradox Engine
« Reply #8 on: November 22, 2012, 07:17:56 AM »
As always there are other arrangements of the elements involved here, one of which at least may shed more light on the essential certainties in need of recognition for any thorough understanding. The following simple thought experiment may be of some assistance.

Allow two disks mounted in plane on bearings at opposite ends of a single frame each by the axis:  O=O

Allow also a drive system mounted near the centre of the main frame capable of accelerating both disks so as to cause them to rotate in opposite directions in equal measure.

Presuming that the experiment takes place in equilibrium we can assume two possible outcomes; either

1. The device will accelerate in the opposite direction of the applied force or
2. The device will remain stationary

Since outcome 1. suggests a breach of Conservation of Momentum we would assume outcome 2.

Since outcome 2. suggests a breach of Conservation of Energy we would assume outcome 1.

Thus 'blood must be spilled'. I can offer no further solace than to admit my own trepidation at first sight of this monster.   










Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: The Paradox Engine
« Reply #8 on: November 22, 2012, 07:17:56 AM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline Tusk

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 158
Re: The Paradox Engine
« Reply #9 on: November 23, 2012, 06:17:41 AM »
Just adding a link to an earlier thread which features a concept most helpful with the apprehension# of the main thesis (for anyone who missed it).

#duality of meaning appropriate here also.

http://www.overunity.com/13079/the-pendulum-bias-paradox-experiment/#.UK8E92fp5Qw 

Offline Tusk

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 158
Re: The Paradox Engine
« Reply #10 on: November 24, 2012, 10:08:57 AM »
Since the original video of the device was recorded prior to the coil rewire I am adding a recent clip which shows a slightly more energetic action (the central theme of our investigation being energy).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dG8YOp_njFs&feature=youtu.be

Where are the tinkerers and engineers - you know you want one of these.... anyone game for twin 1 metre disks and a half kilowatt drive unit? (stand well clear)

 

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: The Paradox Engine
« Reply #10 on: November 24, 2012, 10:08:57 AM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline Tusk

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 158
Re: The Paradox Engine
« Reply #11 on: December 01, 2012, 08:22:51 AM »
Discussion with other interested parties (not on this forum) has identified the primary cause of confusion. In an attempt to clarify, yet another thought experiment:

The experiment requires two objects and two instances of varied circumstance.

Allow a steel rod in equilibrium, static in the frame of reference of the observer, designate as rod A.
Allow a second steel rod of equal mass and dimensions as rod A in linear motion with respect to the first rod (i.e. no rotation), designate as rod B.

In the first instance allow that rod B collides with rod A at the centre of mass (i.e. in line with) of both rods. The forces on each rod during the collision at the point of contact being equal result in reduced linear motion of rod B and linear motion of rod A according to CoM.

In the second instance allow that the centre of mass of rod B collides with rod A at one end of rod A. Again the forces on each rod during the collision at the point of contact being equal result in reduced linear motion of rod B and in this instance rotational motion of rod A.

If the centre of mass of rod A remains at rest then CoM has been breached.

Since rod B has reduced linear motion according to the force applied to it during the collision an equal reactive force must manifest at the centre of mass of rod A otherwise CoM has been breached. This reactive force must then result in linear motion of rod A according to CoM independent of any rotation of rod A. 

Since the force acting on rod A at the point of collision results in rotation, and furthermore any motion beyond the rotational motion of rod A is surplus to the motion accounted for by CoE, therefore rod A having both linear and rotational motion manifests a total potential energy in breach of CoE.

Clearly the forces in the second instance are less than those in the first due to lower inertial resistance. This opens another issue entirely, related to point of force motion and methods of applying force so as to mitigate increased point of force motion. These measures are apparent in the design of the device.

 

   

Offline Tusk

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 158
Re: The Paradox Engine
« Reply #12 on: December 03, 2012, 05:25:47 AM »
Correction of a minor oversight in the preceding post - technically it was correct but in the interest of clarity: 

Quote
In the first instance allow that rod B collides with rod A at the centre of mass (i.e. in line with) of both rods. The forces on each rod during the collision at the point of contact being equal result in reduced linear motion of rod B and linear motion of rod A according to CoM.

should read:

In the first instance allow that rod B collides with rod A at the centre of mass (i.e. in line with) of both rods. The forces on each rod during the collision at the point of contact being equal result in rod B coming to a state of rest with rod A assuming the previous linear motion of rod B according to CoM.

(similar to two equal mass steel balls on a Newton's Cradle)



Offline Tom Booth

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 149
    • My Heat Engine Project
Re: The Paradox Engine
« Reply #13 on: December 05, 2012, 09:36:28 AM »
OK, I read through the thread here, as well as the other one referenced about the pendulum - colliding balls and block of wood. You lost me at the end with the mathematics.

Your concept regarding frames of reference intrigued me. In particular the illustration about the baseball and train.

How would the people in the train calculate the kinetic energy of the ball which appears to them as motionless ? Interesting question.

So you are saying that energy is variable. How much energy might be available is relative to your frame of reference. Not an absolute quality.

You seem to be proposing harnessing "overunity" by manipulating frames of reference.

From the point of view of the people in the train the ball appears to have zero kinetic energy. Change the point of reference and the ball might, in theory, contain a nearly infinite amount of kinetic energy no? The guy that hit the ball along with the planet and the ball and the train hurtling away from the center of the big bang at light speed or some such frame of reference.

I've sometimes wondered myself about the nature of energy. Particularly so-called "Potential" energy.

If I carry a ball up a hill it supposedly gains "potential energy" as I can roll it down the hill and extract some energy from it by making it collide with some mechanism. But is this "potential energy" a REAL THING. An inherent quality or quantity. If I continue with the ball over the hill and down the other side where did the "potential energy" I put into it go?

It seems a mistake to think of this "potential energy" as any kind of real thing, more a manner of speaking.

You mentioned something along the lines that what you are attempting to set forth here is your life work. I certainly respect that. I certainly wouldn't pass up an opportunity to have my mind blown.

I don't know if there is really any way to exploit this frame of reference idea but I find it more intriguing than your mechanical experiments. If nothing else it is good mental gymnastics to make an effort to follow your line of reasoning whether it has any real world application in terms of OU or not.

How to get energy from the motionless ball - step off the train. Change the frame of reference. Not sure how that would work outside of a thought experiment but I'm listening.

Please carry on.

Offline Tusk

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 158
Re: The Paradox Engine
« Reply #14 on: December 05, 2012, 01:26:22 PM »
Quote
It seems a mistake to think of this "potential energy" as any kind of real thing, more a manner of speaking.

It helps to temporarily exchange the common perception of energy (as you say, a 'real thing') for a simple perception of mass in motion in full consideration of frame of reference. While energy is perceived as a 'real thing' it is difficult to accept that it may appear and disappear, as it seems to do when the frame of reference changes.

Quote
You seem to be proposing harnessing "overunity" by manipulating frames of reference.

Indeed. The motion imparted to the disk by the EM drive unit (which itself may rotate but is effectively bench mounted with respect to the disk) must manifest in two frames of reference - the rotation of the disk and the 'linear' motion of the disk, which due to the design of the device converts to rotational motion of the main rotor.

Any attempt to explain the phenomena in terms of energy must fail, due to CoE, unless we are prepared to allow a breach. There is no breach of CoM.

Referring back to the pendulum peg demonstration, which is not difficult to replicate, the total motion of the rotating peg clearly exceeds the total motion of the non-rotating peg since both pegs are displaced equally on the pendulum apparatus. Here also the same impetus (Newton's 3rd) has on the one side produced more motion than on the other. This result can be readily replicated.

Here again a linear motion equal to the linear motion of the non-rotating peg must manifest else CoM would be in breach. Yet any amount of rotation in addition to this linear motion puts us in breach of CoE. The PE device confirms however that this amount is equal to the linear motion imparted to the non-rotating peg, as there is no loss of rotation of the disk as a result of main rotor motion (actually an increased rotation manifests due to an effect first noted in Wuerth's parametric rotator although I may be mistaken in that origin).

Put simply, motion manifests in both frames of reference each independent of the other and according to CoM on the one hand and CoE on the other.


 




 


 

OneLink