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

Tesla Paper

Free Energy Book

Get paid

Donations

Please Donate for the Forum.
Many thanks.
Regards, Stefan.(Admin)

A-Ads

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 Posts: 523419
  • *Total Topics: 15585
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 3
  • *Guests: 12
  • *Total: 15

Author Topic: The Paradox Engine  (Read 97049 times)

Offline telecom

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 550
Re: The Paradox Engine
« Reply #105 on: January 02, 2014, 05:24:35 PM »
With a twin disk setup if one disk rotates clockwise then so too the other. This creates opposing secondary reactions at the disk axes on opposite sides of the rotor arm, ergo additive forces (and no excess baggage of a counter balance as with the single disk setup).     

yes, you are absolutely correct - was confused by all these new discoveries. Still can't understand why Sir Isaac wasn't telling the whole truth!

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: The Paradox Engine
« Reply #105 on: January 02, 2014, 05:24:35 PM »

Offline Tusk

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 158
Re: The Paradox Engine
« Reply #106 on: January 02, 2014, 10:38:32 PM »
Quote
Still can't understand why Sir Isaac wasn't telling the whole truth!

Or maybe someone redacted his work telecom (I believe that's the favoured expression these days when there's an inference of foul play). We lost most of da Vinci's work to the mists of time, that's probably under lock and key somewhere too.

Quote
I have been trying to think of a different method of demonstration that does not turn into a big mess,, something simple, I keep getting into an elaborate setup

lol indeed webby1; it's a rare thing to end a brainstorming session on the PE with even the remotest idea of whatever it was you were thinking when the session started  :o

Quote
just like a little electric motor sitting on a desktop,, unrestrained,, when you energize the motor it will spin and move about until it is up to speed,, then it just sits there vibrating,, you are using that moment while it is spinning up.

Correct, my thinking on the PE concept thus far has been restricted to inertial considerations. I could stick my neck out with non inertial variations but I haven't done the experiments or the long term thinking on that possibility, as I stated earlier it's uncharted territory. But for now, having exposed enough of the gold vein to indicate the size of the deposit, for me at least the job description changed from prospector to messenger.

That little electric motor btw; all those balanced torques around the armature, might be worth cutting a few wires to induce a PE type bias, just to see what happens.

Offline Tusk

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 158
Re: The Paradox Engine
« Reply #107 on: January 03, 2014, 03:17:02 AM »
A good 'quick and dirty' experiment webby1, you appear to have built yourself a rudimentary PE  :)

Quote
The motor shaft was spinning CCW and the shaft was moving CW

Ok so far, this is as predicted.

Quote
What was not expected was a constant shift in the CW direction,, I was expecting the motor to settle back into the start position when it reached a constant speed, it would move back a little but stay there until I kept the power off.

Hmmmm; so either you have some resistance in the motor on the non-drive side other than inertia, which apparently sustained an equal secondary reactive force at the axis, OR you have some torque effect in play which does not manifest in the PE apparatus.

Since your motor case effectively becomes a static element of the 'rotor arm' (in respect of the rotor arm) we might be tempted to concede that the counter torque on the case (in respect of the armature accelerating or even sustaining a constant rate of rotation against air resistance etc) will cause a CW torque bias on the rotor arm. This because the moment of force on the 'dead' side of the case is greater than that of the active side, which is nearer to the central axis or main shaft. This type of torque bias (or something akin to it) was thought by many to be responsible for the rotation of the main rotor arm in the PE apparatus, before I was able to establish the authenticity of the secondary motion phenomenon. It should be obvious however, that even a bad bearing would be unlikely to induce such vigorous motion as seen in the PE apparatus, with the radial difference being as small as it is. And that supposes such a torque could be induced at the bearing, which is subjected to a tangential force (as near as possible) on one side only. I suspect that any device designed to rely on a free running bearing to drive or power some other device in this manner, would be sadly lacking in performance. As I understand it, one of the functions of free running bearings is specifically not to transmit torque.

Likewise with your experiment it is difficult to allow a torque on the case since you have a drive side and a 'dead' side. While not entirely a tangential force, neither is it an ideal method for inducing a torque on the case. More likely the drive side of the case reacts in opposition to the motion of the coils of the armature as they pass nearby, while the 'dead' side of the case acts more like an end pivot point and transmits little or no force to the 'rotor arm'.   

With the magnetic strip removed (on the non-drive side) it is possible that air resistance increases a little due to more airflow around that area. If so, then this might be an example of a constant force performing the same office as inertia. This might account for the unexpected 'constant shift in the CW direction'.

I would have to say 'unconfirmed result' at this point, but an interesting experiment nonetheless. If your method could be refined a little then as you suggested others might try it as a first step to familiarity with (and credibility of) the concept.






 


Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: The Paradox Engine
« Reply #107 on: January 03, 2014, 03:17:02 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline telecom

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 550
Re: The Paradox Engine
« Reply #108 on: January 03, 2014, 03:40:37 AM »
Another idea...

Offline Tusk

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 158
Re: The Paradox Engine
« Reply #109 on: January 03, 2014, 11:32:42 PM »
Quote
Sorry Tusk,, I am a little off-topic but I thought I would share the mods and stuff for those that might want to try it themselves.

No problem webby1, if you can brew up a simplified PE experiment then as you say others may build it and see the phenomena first hand. But you do need to keep a watchful eye on those unexpected interactions which often appear when modifying rather than scratch building. Good luck with version 2, that motor certainly looks adequate to the task; with the remaining magnets that's also quite a long way from a tangential force, but you will get a bias which is hopefully enough to manifest the secondary reaction/motion.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: The Paradox Engine
« Reply #109 on: January 03, 2014, 11:32:42 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline Tusk

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 158
Re: The Paradox Engine
« Reply #110 on: January 04, 2014, 12:42:49 AM »
Quote
the power off spin down is very fast and all by itself will move the motor in the other direction

Sounds like you have the 'rotor arm reversal' or as I like to call it, the 'third bite of the cherry'  :)

Offline telecom

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 550
Re: The Paradox Engine
« Reply #111 on: January 04, 2014, 02:42:49 AM »
another version of the same idea

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: The Paradox Engine
« Reply #111 on: January 04, 2014, 02:42:49 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline Tusk

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 158
Re: The Paradox Engine
« Reply #112 on: January 04, 2014, 08:45:46 AM »
Your first thoughts on that second version were correct telecom; the disk rotation is disadvantageous if you are going to drive the rotor arm. But make those outer black rods EM drives and provided both disks rotate CW together or CCW together the secondary reaction will be advantageous to the rotor arm rotation. But then you would need to brake the disks from the centre axis to avoid rotor arm reversal (and increase rotor arm motion) if that was your intention.

Keep looking, there will be many viable configurations, no doubt some far better than my own  :)

Offline Tusk

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 158
Re: The Paradox Engine
« Reply #113 on: January 05, 2014, 01:25:32 AM »
Quote
On your testbed are you getting the spin down issue??

I assume you are referring to the rapid spin down you spoke of earlier webby1; the spin up and down seem to take about the same time on my apparatus. There is quite a strong attraction since the embedded magnets are neodymium, but the disk functions well as a flywheel with all that mass around the outer edge, and let's not overlook the advantages of a greater radius  ;)

 

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: The Paradox Engine
« Reply #113 on: January 05, 2014, 01:25:32 AM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline Tusk

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 158
Re: The Paradox Engine
« Reply #114 on: January 05, 2014, 04:00:58 PM »
Quote
I do not think that that displays your effect effectively.

Fair enough webby1. When designing the PE apparatus I resisted the temptation to do an easier build and complicate the dynamics (e.g. by using an electric motor to drive the disk via cogs/drive wheels or whatever) because the device had to demonstrate the phenomena as clearly as possible while minimising the possibility of raising concerns over complex interactions between unnecessary elements.

This may seem more complicated than your present line of experimentation but you might want to consider, instead of trashing those electric motors mount one over the central axis of a freewheeling rotor arm (but in this instance not on the rotor arm, rather bench mount it) turning a simple disk (or two disks, even better) by means of a rubber drive wheel. I haven't tried this configuration but I see no problem with it other than :

1. Having an additional element which some might imagine contributes to the additional motion. 

2. Since the drive wheel must take up some space the point of applied force will be slightly off the central axis; again there might be a claim of significant interference from this.

I may even knock one of these up myself, it doesn't get much simpler and the data from a twin disk system would be useful. Bench mounting the drive motor over the central axis calls for a serious piece of supporting framework but the thing is straightforward enough. It can't go on the rotor arm due to the counter torque, we don't want the rotor arm going the other way. See I said it would cause trouble  ;D

 

 

Offline Tusk

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 158
Re: The Paradox Engine
« Reply #115 on: January 06, 2014, 09:01:30 AM »
Quote
For me, most of these interactions are a demonstration of the resistance to a changed condition being manifested.  Mass does not want to speed up or slow down instantly.

Yes I'll agree with that webby1, if it did the entire place would be a woeful shambles; something along the lines of the Quantum Universe I guess  :)

Taking that cue (thanks) basically the PE disk resists the call to motion from the EM drive unit in two halves; the nearside resists more or less directly, being inclined to move (or not move, as you suggest) in the direction of the applied force. The far side resists in similar fashion but in the opposite direction. Much like a child's seesaw all this to and fro puts a strain on the axis, using it as a pivot point. If the disk is balanced and the axis is at the centre of mass, then this reactive force at the axis exactly equals the applied force and is parallel to it, in the same direction. And it manifests for the same period of the applied force.

I have suggested several methods of gaining advantage from the phenomenon; but in the simplest terms, if we allow that whatever energy we store in the rotation of the disk can be recovered (or 90% thereabouts according to experience with flywheels) then the secondary force, equal as it is to the applied force, may be used in whatever way we choose and for the same period of the applied force producing OU, providing we can engineer more than 10% energy recovery from it.

My design while probably not the ultimate solution does however allow the secondary force to manifest twice, giving us double the period of the applied force to work with. This means we could achieve OU with just over 5% energy recovery at the rotor arm (each way) allowing 90% from the disk by simply recovering energy as with a typical flywheel.

Anyone claiming that this concept doesn't have OU capability needs to come up with a good reason why the disk can't behave like a flywheel and return something like 90% of the energy expended to spin it up. Either that or provide a good argument against the secondary force manifesting as defined, against all the experimental evidence and supporting documentation.

The following is a simplistic example of how the secondary force might be employed to store energy over and above that expended. I could run a similar experiment and submit a video but that should not be necessary. The device clearly has this capability, otherwise the rotor arm would not rotate in the previous experiments. And there is also clearly no obstacle to treating the disk as a flywheel. I'm not using the reverse motion of the rotor arm here either, so this is just another way of laying the concept open for scrutiny.
 

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: The Paradox Engine
« Reply #115 on: January 06, 2014, 09:01:30 AM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline telecom

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 550
Re: The Paradox Engine
« Reply #116 on: January 06, 2014, 05:57:30 PM »
Hi Task,
I can't help but keep thinking that your reactive force simply comes as a result of the 3 rd law of Newton.
You are able to harvest it by making the point of application of it rotational, rather than stationary as it is usually is.
When it is stationary, it is being absorbed by the stresses in the material, and as a result, it is very difficult to harvest, since the
actual deformations are minimal.
In your case you make it easy to harvest, by transforming the rotational motion into the generation of the electricity, for example.
The same principle applies to the proverbial Milcovic pendulum, where the movement of the axis can be harvested. The problem with it is that the pendulum has a small rotational speed since it can't do the full revolution, not as in your device which can be brought up to a considerable speed.
Regards.

Offline Tusk

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 158
Re: The Paradox Engine
« Reply #117 on: January 07, 2014, 04:49:47 AM »
Quote
I can't help but keep thinking that your reactive force simply comes as a result of the 3 rd law of Newton

Thanks telecom. I think you'll find that the force pair covered by that law consists of the applied force on the edge of the disk and the equal and opposite reaction on the EM drive unit. The secondary reaction at the centre of mass/axis does not appear to have been mentioned by Newton, and as an inertial phenomenon seems not to have been very closely considered or highly regarded.

Quote
Have you evaluated the work done to the disc by the drive unit to the work done by the arm movement?

The forces are equal webby1, and apply over the same period; thus whatever the mass of the body in motion the final momentum will be equal.

Quote
I have been noodling this over and I keep coming up with 1\2 the work out while being accelerated and 1\2 the work out while being decelerated.  This is for a simplified thought experiment, but the disc spins a larger arc moment than the arm moves,, I think.

The radius of the disk is equal to the radius of the rotor arm. Mass distribution is important here, and ideally we need to level the playing field by using two disks.

Allow the mass of the rotor arm to be so small that we can disregard it. Note that the mass of the disk now becomes the mass of the rotor arm. Situate all the disk mass around the extreme edge, then allow two identical disks mounted at each end of the rotor arm. Effectively we can now motivate the same rate of rotation of mass in the disks as in the rotor arm, with equal momentum and equal KE since the combined mass of the disks = mass of the rotor arm; and while each disk is motivated by an applied force each equal to the other, the rotor arm at 2 X disk mass is motivated by an equal force X 2.

In this configuration the centre of mass/axes of the disks (thus the mass of the rotor arm) describes an arc of motion of equal radius to the mass of each disk.

Quote
I have not worked out if there is a limit at which the arm can rotate relative to the disc rotation

In the previous example with the mass of two disks also constituting the mass of the rotor arm the rates of rotation (disks and arm) will be the same; adding mass to the rotor arm will reduce it's motion, while removing mass will require reducing the mass of the disks, which will increase both disk and rotor arm motions in equal measure. Without changing the geometry I suspect that the rate of rotation of the rotor arm cannot exceed that of the disk/s.

The bottom line here is that we have two equal forces to play with for the price of one. They act remotely from one another and present us with an opportunity to conceive of multiple configurations in design engineered to our advantage. The PE apparatus was intended as a proof of concept device offering one potential solution to the problem of OU deriving from the phenomenon of two equal forces manifesting as a result of the application of a single force of equal value.

Engineering heaven (I would have thought). Published here because a physicist would barely glance at such 'obvious nonsense'; breakthroughs these days are made with expensive high energy apparatus by the most respected learned gentlemen in academia, not by arm chair theorists, tinkerers or engineers. Are they correct I wonder; should we all go back to our day jobs and file this away with Schrödinger's cat, dark energy and the holographic multiverse?

Offline telecom

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 550
Re: The Paradox Engine
« Reply #118 on: January 07, 2014, 03:41:06 PM »
 The secondary reaction at the centre of mass/axis does not appear to have been mentioned by Newton, and as an inertial phenomenon seems not to have been very closely considered or highly regarded.


In this case the EM drive doesn't have to be mounted on the rotating arm, since we
are not getting any additional force out of it, only the complications of getting it powered.
Mb instead mount it stationary and drive the discs by the conventional means, such as a roller chain?
Regards.

Offline Tusk

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 158
Re: The Paradox Engine
« Reply #119 on: January 07, 2014, 03:50:11 PM »
I may have missed the point in your statement about work done webby1, and so failed to provide a suitable response.

Quote
I keep coming up with 1\2 the work out while being accelerated and 1\2 the work out while being decelerated

Assuming you intended this to mean 1/2 the work out at the rotor arm then we need to look at the work done by the applied force on the disk, and also the work done by the equal secondary force on the rotor arm. With the current single disk apparatus the mass of the rotor arm (which includes the disk) is significantly greater than the disk. Since work done against inertia relates directly to KE we can expect the rotor arm to 'under perform' significantly against the disk in the single disk configuration.

Note here that if you are allowing full energy recovery from the disk (ideally) then your suggested 'half and half' from the rotor arm would bring us up to 200%  :)

Quote
the disc spins a larger arc moment than the arm moves,, I think.

Yes the disk should be almost optimally energetic considering the mass distribution and point of applied force. The rotor arm motion is more ponderous than frantic, but for all that it gains considerable momentum along the way. Here again the twin disks combined with a lightweight rotor arm would redress this bias. Also note that my apparent obsession with providing an inertial solution stems from the need for simplicity and clarity in the explanation; the rotor arm of a prototype might do better service rotating slowly against the resistance of a geared generator (as indeed you suggested), certainly this would effectively eliminate any concerns about losses during acceleration of the disk due to the additional rotation of it's inertial reaction to the rotor arm motion in the frame of reference of the rotor arm/drive unit.

Such a configuration would provide a clear demonstration that the energy expended motivating the disk can be recovered as with a typical flywheel, and that additional energy can be recovered from the action of the secondary motion taking the device into OU, with yet more energy available from the reversal.

Quote
In this case the EM drive doesn't have to be mounted on the rotating arm, since we
are not getting any additional force out of it, only the complications of getting it powered.
Mb instead mount it stationary and drive the discs by the conventional means, such as a roller chain?

That might work quite well telecom, yet another 'mod' to add to the growing list of options  :)

 

OneLink