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

A-Ads

MN LiveCoach

Masternodes Live Coaching

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: 83453
  • *Latest: pinotto

  • *Total Posts: 512771
  • *Total Topics: 15259
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 2
  • *Guests: 8
  • *Total: 10

Author Topic: The Paradox Engine  (Read 88687 times)

Offline Tusk

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 158
Re: The Paradox Engine
« Reply #15 on: December 05, 2012, 04:00:30 PM »
Responding to a request for device specifications:

The steel main rotor arm at 26cm length is bench mounted at the centre by bearings so as to allow rotation. The aluminium 24cm diameter 8mm thick main disk is likewise mounted by bearings so as to allow rotation at one end of the main rotor arm. The opposite end of the rotor arm carries the various equipment associated with the drive unit (battery, radio Rx etc) and some balance weights.

The EM drive unit is comprised of 3 coils of 0.063mm copper wire at 50 turns on a modified transformer core. 36 equally spaced neodymium magnets are embedded near the outer edge of the disk with their poles orientated alternately N/S - S/N perpendicular to the plane of the disk. The EM unit is controlled by a brushless motor ESC system rated at 12 amps and powered by a 3 cell li-poly battery rated at 2200mAh and 11.1V and speed control is provided by a model type radio control system.

The phenomena demonstrates sufficient vigor such that a high precision in replication is unnecessary. Assuming a reasonably powerful applied force from the EM drive unit, any approximation of the basic configuration should produce similar results to those obtained here.


 

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: The Paradox Engine
« Reply #15 on: December 05, 2012, 04:00:30 PM »

Offline Tom Booth

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 149
    • My Heat Engine Project
Re: The Paradox Engine
« Reply #16 on: December 05, 2012, 11:33:30 PM »
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,...

I think I follow the above paragraph. I'm not so sure about the first line of the next "Any attempt..."

You are powering this thing with some batteries right ?

As a result you get motion. The motor runs and it turns.

This motor is a bit unusual in that it turns in two different ways, spins and revolves simultaneously.

I'm not following exactly how or why you can assert that there is no possibility of explaining this in terms of energy.

Simply put, it seems to me power comes from the battery. Chemical reactions in the battery result in a current through some coils resulting in electromagnetic fields which push the Permanent magnets and make the thing turn. You can imagine sitting on the thing and watching one part of it spin and not notice that what you are sitting on is spinning as well or you can get off and look at the whole contraption from a distance and notice it is actually revolving as well, or you can go further out and see that the whole planet is spinning and further revolving around the sun...

I find this change of reference thing interesting and perhaps the calculations come out different depending on which frame of reference you choose but I don't see how this changes the fact that the energy to make it move is coming from the battery. Without that power source nothing would happen from whatever frame of reference you choose.

I still seem to be missing something fundamental that you are trying to get across I guess.

I assume that from the frame of reference - sitting on the disk watching the motor spin and not taking account of the rotation of the whole platform you are sitting on - that everything can be accounted for mathematically. Simply, the battery is powering the motor in the usual way as if "bench mounted".

Now step back off the thing, change your point of reference and you can see this additional rotation of the whole platform the motor is mounted on. If everything has already been accounted for from the point of view of the first frame of reference then this additional rotating mass, the whole contraption spinning, is something additional and unaccounted for. I'm assuming this to be the jist of the argument. Am I somewhere in the right ball park at least?

Additionally I would think that from the point of view of a point at the center of the disk (spinning at high RPM from another frame of reference), the disk is motionless and the whole universe is in actuality wobbling around it in a very perplexing manner at an enormously high rate of speed, representing some incalculably enormous amount of energy at work, like the strange wobbling of the planets around the earth if the earth is taken as the point of reference, and all this enormous energy from a small battery pack. Just sit here at the center of my disk and throw a little switch and the entire universe is at my command!!!

Offline Tusk

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 158
Re: The Paradox Engine
« Reply #17 on: December 06, 2012, 02:32:13 AM »
Ok so far so good Tom; let's pause and make sure we are on the same page.

There is no conventional motor here. The main rotor arm is freewheeling. The EM drive unit provides direct motive force for the disk only. The main disk has permanent magnets embedded around the outside edge which are EM driven by a set of 3 coils fixed to the main rotor directly over the main rotor axis (power supplied by an onboard battery serving dual function as a counterbalance). Since the EM unit rotates with the main rotor, the relationship between the disk and the EM unit is identical to a bench mounted disk (bearing mount at the axis) driven at one point on the disk edge by a bench mounted EM drive. And since the EM unit is located directly above the axis of the main rotor, it has no direct motive influence on the main rotor.

So there is no mechanism for rotating the main rotor other than the reactive force at the axis of the disk (this force is at the heart of the phenomena).

If the disk were bench mounted in the manner described above and brought to a given rate of rotation by a given application of power over a given period, we would hitherto expect such motion to be the maximum motion possible notwithstanding EM and mechanical inefficiencies. Yet we clearly have significant additional motion of the main disk, and furthermore (and more importantly) a secondary motion of the main rotor - which motion occurs not once but twice; firstly in the one direction during acceleration of the disk, the second in the opposite direction (as predicted by the hypothesis) during deceleration of the main disk.

The gentleman I commissioned to manufacture the device (I am no engineer) took every opportunity to advise me during the build that no rotation could possibly manifest at the main rotor. He is a fine professional engineer with a lifetime of experience, and certainly no fool (although he seemed convinced that I was). He is a kind soul of good nature and as the date of completion approached his discomfort was obvious; he clearly believed I was heading for disappointment. Nevertheless he finally completed the work and we did an initial test, mainly to check the viability of the EM drive.

As the disk spooled up and the main rotor began to rotate (quite slowly at first as the coils were incorrectly matched to the task) he became silent for some time. When he finally did speak it was to assure me that 'some motion of the main rotor was to be expected'. I never found out why he expected it, or why he never mentioned these expectations prior to the first test run.

This device was not built to test the main hypothesis; I had long before this been aware of the reactive force at the centre of mass as previously described. What I did not know at that time, at least not with certainty, was whether the universe was prepared to allow additional motion (i.e. 'energy") for the same amount of electrical input energy that would normally be required just to rotate the main disk (some forms of motive force e.g. springs, would certainly not suffice. But this is another issue). Which answer was provided in the affirmative, in fact due to a curious effect first noted (I believe) in the Wuerth Parametric Rotator, it actually requires somewhat less electrical energy.

So hopefully I have given a good account of the key elements involved here. There can be no substitute for 'hands on' experience with this phenomena; I highly recommend making a simple model of the device - the Meccano type construction sets are ideal for such a purpose - and spend some time with the effect before jumping to any conclusions.   

 
   

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: The Paradox Engine
« Reply #17 on: December 06, 2012, 02:32:13 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline Tom Booth

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 149
    • My Heat Engine Project
Re: The Paradox Engine
« Reply #18 on: December 06, 2012, 08:20:49 PM »
At present I'm not in a position to build and test a duplicate of your engine. If I had the resources I'd be working on my own "Ambient Heat" engine instead of spending time here.

I'll say a few things though.

I've always been curious, even as a kid, about gyroscopic force.

Have you ever held a gyroscope in your hand and tried to keep it perfectly still?

It's virtually impossible. The thing twists and turns with such force.

It feels much like trying to arm wrestle with someone. Use all your strength and it is virtually impossible to stop the twisting and turning motion.

On the other hand, the gyroscopes turning wheel can be brought to a stop with relative ease by friction with a slight touch of a finger.

I'm very curious about your "two disk" design which I take it hasn't been built yet.

I ask because it reminds me of a rather disturbing experience I had years ago.

My girlfriend at the time knew I was into some strange things and she told me that there was someone she wanted me to meet.

I don't know how she met this guy. Probably through a friend at her job or something, I don't really know but we went to his apartment.

As soon as we got there and he let us in and we sat down, without any prompting or introduction he immediately went into a lengthy dialog about his UFO abduction experience, as if we were continuing a conversation.

His descriptions were very vivid and rather disturbing. He described children who were hybrid alien/humans he had seen that had no face. Their faces covered by some kind of membrane which had to be surgically removed so they could see. The images he described came to life in vivid detail as if I were recalling some buried or suppressed memories from my own past experience. This disturbed me greatly. But that is rather irrelevant to this discussion.

Towards the end of the meeting he described the propulsion system of the craft.

He drew some sketches.

It consisted of two spinning disks.

He explained how the gyroscopic effect of the two disks spinning in opposite directions created an anti-gravity effect. That strong twisting and turning of one disk set against the second disk. By manipulating this force, presumably by changing the speed or relationship between the two disks in some way the craft could be maneuvered. Made to go forward, backward, up, down etc.

That ended the meeting and my girlfriend and I left. I was rather relieved. But his vivid descriptions stuck in my head for the longest time like a bad dream.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy


Offline Tusk

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 158
Re: The Paradox Engine
« Reply #19 on: December 06, 2012, 09:44:44 PM »
@ Tom Booth

Quote
Have you ever held a gyroscope in your hand and tried to keep it perfectly still?

It's virtually impossible. The thing twists and turns with such force.

Actually keeping it still isn't the issue; it's only when you rotate it out of plane that the fun starts.

Quote
I'm very curious about your "two disk" design which I take it hasn't been built yet.

I think it would be wise to first gain some working knowledge of the single disk unit. Further to this the device itself is secondary to the physics. The entire hypothesis rests on the phenomena of reactive force at the centre of mass as described, so you would expect any serious scrutiny to focus at this point. It might be difficult to grasp the full significance of the device without first being fully aware of the physics behind it. Also there is some merit in approaching this from the skeptic's point of view.

The relevant hypothesis and respective experimental results have been disclosed. This is a relatively simple and accessible issue in which the claimed phenomena of reactive force is pivotal.

Either :

1. a reactive force occurs as claimed, or
2. a reactive force occurs with different characteristics to those claimed, or
3. no reactive force occurs

Since the entire hypothesis rests on this phenomena it should be a simple matter to

1. produce a disproof of the phenomena from the literature, or
2. disprove the phenomena experimentally

I think this exercise will assist your understanding of both the phenomena and the device. If you are able to prove that the reactive force is non-existent, or is in some significant way not as I have described it, then the hypothesis is invalidated or at least in doubt.


Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: The Paradox Engine
« Reply #19 on: December 06, 2012, 09:44:44 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline Tom Booth

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 149
    • My Heat Engine Project
Re: The Paradox Engine
« Reply #20 on: December 07, 2012, 01:33:24 AM »
You seem to have one idea in mind, or one hypothesis to explain the results of experiments which to me do not seem related.

What does the rubber ball pendulum experiments have to do with this motor?

You asked on that thread something like - why doesn't the ball with the greater kinetic energy dominate?

One word comes to mind: inertia

The big ball is bigger, heavier, has lets say 4X more inertia. The little ball needs 4X more speed just to break even. The wooden block is made of wood. It probably has less inertia than either ball, then kinetic energy becomes a dominating factor. If you did the experiment with two balls the same size, then I would be scratching my head, but in answer to your question, why doesn't the little ball bump the big ball further to the side instead of meeting in the middle each time, the answer seems quite obvious to me. The big ball is bigger!

What any of this has to do with the rotating disk I have no real idea but you seem to be proposing a theory that explains it all as if all this is related somehow.

You say: "The entire hypothesis rests on the phenomena of reactive force at the centre of mass as described, so you would expect any serious scrutiny to focus at this point."

Reactive force at the center of mass. Hmmm...

I don't know what that means.

I figured I might find out by putting quotes around the phrase and plugging it into Google but get  exactly " No results found for "Reactive force at the center of mass"." so that's no help.

I can't study up on the definition of a phrase or concept that apparently has no existence outside of your hypothesis so I will have to ask that you provide some clear definition.

A "center of mass" it seems to me is simply a mathematical point. It has no width, breadth, height or depth. It has no real existence as a thing in itself. It is merely a coordinate. So how can it carry any units of force? Active or reactive or otherwise.

Offline Tusk

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 158
Re: The Paradox Engine
« Reply #21 on: December 07, 2012, 04:12:37 AM »
Quote
What does the rubber ball pendulum experiments have to do with this motor?

Very little, other than to open a dialogue wherein convention is not held up as a set of defining rules and parameters beyond which we fear to venture. There are greater and lesser concepts in play here, as in all else; but you can afford to ignore the pendulum bias paradox and focus on the device.

Quote
What any of this has to do with the rotating disk I have no real idea but you seem to be proposing a theory that explains it all as if all this is related somehow.

I have no intention of volunteering the entire thesis for at least two good reasons.... most significantly, the work is incomplete.

Quote
Reactive force at the center of mass. Hmmm...

I don't know what that means.

My apologies; we all have our own areas of interest - and therefore knowledge - and sometimes forget this in our communications. I did a 'quick Wikki grab' of a concise explanation for you:

Quote
the center of mass, or barycenter, of a distribution of mass in space is the unique point where the weighted relative position of the distributed mass sums to zero. The distribution of mass is balanced around the center of mass and the average of the weighted position coordinates of the distributed mass defines its coordinates. Calculations in mechanics are simplified when formulated with respect to the center of mass


(from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_of_mass)

In effect it serves as a model. In fact most of our understanding seems based on models, and herein lay the pitfalls and obstacles. But we should leave that for another thread.

If you want to understand the device then turn your attention to the phenomena. Here again is my statement based on observation:

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.


It must either be true or false. You can easily prove it false. Post an honest video of two pegs of equal mass suspended by pendulum; there should be some form of impetus such as the release of a spring previously in compression between the pegs. The point of contact between the pegs should be such that after the impetus event one peg rotates while the other does not. The rotating peg must demonstrate significantly less displacement on the pendulum than the non-rotating peg.

If this were possible you would have destroyed my hypothesis and proven a breach of the laws of Conservation of Momentum.

Allow me to ask you a few questions; assuming the result obtained is as claimed, and in consideration of Newton's Third Law, why do we observe an equal linear motion of the two pegs post event (linear as translated to the pendulum action) yet observe rotation in one peg only?

Does this not indicate that the rotating peg has more energy?

If so, then where did the extra energy come from?

 








   

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: The Paradox Engine
« Reply #21 on: December 07, 2012, 04:12:37 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline Tom Booth

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 149
    • My Heat Engine Project
Re: The Paradox Engine
« Reply #22 on: December 07, 2012, 05:42:55 AM »

I have no intention of volunteering the entire thesis for at least two good reasons.... most significantly, the work is incomplete.

I hope you'll forgive me for saying so but that seems a bit disingenuous.

Quote
My apologies; we all have our own areas of interest - and therefore knowledge - and sometimes forget this in our communications. I did a 'quick Wikki grab' of a concise explanation for you:
 

(from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_of_mass)

That just confirms what I said. I know what "Center of mass" is. that wasn't the question. The question was; how can you have a "Reactive force" at an abstract coordinate ? What constitutes "Reactive force at the center of mass"?

Personally I would have to say that if two objects collide, the "reactive force" is distributed throughout the objects. How it is distributed would depend upon a host of different factors. I don't think you can have any such thing as "a reactive force at the center of mass". Certainly not literally. The center of mass is a point coordinate. It would be, I think, an impossibility to focus kinetic energy at such an exact point coordinate just by banging two objects together in one way or another. Rubber balls or sticks or whatever. The energy from the collision would spread through the objects more or less like waves produced by dropping a pebble in a pond, the force rebounding and reacting in ways that may be entirely unpredictable at any rate, most certainly not focalized at any one given point.


Quote

If you want to understand the device then turn your attention to the phenomena. Here again is my statement based on observation:

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.


It must either be true or false. You can easily prove it false. Post an honest video of two pegs of equal mass suspended by pendulum; there should be some form of impetus such as the release of a spring previously in compression between the pegs. The point of contact between the pegs should be such that after the impetus event one peg rotates while the other does not. The rotating peg must demonstrate significantly less displacement on the pendulum than the non-rotating peg.

If this were possible you would have destroyed my hypothesis and proven a breach of the laws of Conservation of Momentum.

Allow me to ask you a few questions; assuming the result obtained is as claimed, and in consideration of Newton's Third Law, why do we observe an equal linear motion of the two pegs post event (linear as translated to the pendulum action) yet observe rotation in one peg only?

Does this not indicate that the rotating peg has more energy?

If so, then where did the extra energy come from?

I could not draw any conclusions from one brief video. How many times have you performed this experiment? Always with the same results?

How did you determine that "...we observe an equal linear motion of the two pegs post event "

Such a conclusion would require exacting measurements down to the micron or nanometer. Watching the video I can't quite figure out what you are doing. Looks like you're lighting a firecracker or something then pop, the sticks fly apart. What exactly is going on there?
Quote
yet observe rotation in one peg only?

Again, how many times has this experiment been repeated ?

Quote
Does this not indicate that the rotating peg has more energy?

Not necessarily. Your talking about some wooden pegs. The density may vary. They may not be perfectly balanced or aligned. one may weigh more than the other, one may have an aerodynamic tendency to turn due to some minor defect on its surface or have a slight curve.

Have you tried the experiment with different pegs made of different materials with a more uniform structure than wood?
Quote
If so, then where did the extra energy come from?

I'm not dismissing your claim. I'll assume you know what you are doing and have done enough experiments to justify coming to the conclusions you have, and suppose that in these crude appearing experiments you have in fact managed to apply the force at the exact center of mass by some miracle, where does the extra energy come from to cause one peg to turn a bit?

You got me. Random quantum fluctuations ?

Quote
If you want to understand the device then turn your attention to the phenomena. Here again is my statement based on observation:

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.

I haven't done the extensive experimenting that you apparently have done but at present my opinion is that the above statement is false on its face. In particular: "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."

I've played too much pool to believe that. If you give a cue ball a glancing blow with a cue stick it will just spin around. You have missed the "center of mass" by a mile.

Offline Tusk

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 158
Re: The Paradox Engine
« Reply #23 on: December 07, 2012, 06:38:58 AM »
It was made clear earlier that I do not intend to defend the material. Whatever steps taken to produce results sufficient for my own conclusions would not necessarily suffice for those ill disposed to allow such results, or their implications. My only interest is a self imposed obligation to assist where possible those with a genuine interest in the material as provided.

If you believe there is nothing noteworthy here then I thank you for taking an interest and wish you good luck with your own device. I should also offer my apologies for having less art than required in the explanation of the work, perhaps you may come to a better understanding at some later date.

Btw I have also played the occasional game of pool, and have never seen the result you are claiming, unless it was accompanied by a sudden vertical displacement or interference by another object. I recall one time a hustler claiming such a shot, but from memory he could not reproduce it.

 

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: The Paradox Engine
« Reply #23 on: December 07, 2012, 06:38:58 AM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline Tom Booth

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 149
    • My Heat Engine Project
Re: The Paradox Engine
« Reply #24 on: December 07, 2012, 09:14:31 AM »
Quote
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.

What you seem to be saying is; regardless of the point of impact, any "body in equilibrium" (That phrase may need further defining in this context for my sake) will be propelled ("linear motion") as if it were hit dead center at its "center of mass". So if I punch someone they will move linearly "in the direction of the applied force" the exact same distance regardless of where I punch them, the head, the stomach or the kneecap ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XjwO9InuFJk&NR=1&feature=fvwp

Well I just tried an experiment with a cigaret lighter. Put it on the table and flicked it with my finger at one end. It spun around in a circle but did not appear to move linearly. I flicked it again using approximately the same amount of force in the middle at its "center of mass" and it slid across the table linearly about 2 feet.

If I understand you hypothesis correctly, it does not square with my intuition or my experience or my recent experiment. I tried this experiment several times with very little variation in the results.


It was made clear earlier that I do not intend to defend the material.

If you are going to present it in an open forum on the internet, I'm afraid you are going to need thicker skin than that.

Quote
Whatever steps taken to produce results sufficient for my own conclusions would not necessarily suffice for those ill disposed to allow such results, or their implications.

I'm not "ill disposed". I barely have a handle on what your results are supposed to be and no idea regarding their implications.

Quote
My only interest is a self imposed obligation to assist where possible those with a genuine interest in the material as provided.

If you believe there is nothing noteworthy here then I thank you for taking an interest and wish you good luck with your own device. I should also offer my apologies for having less art than required in the explanation of the work, perhaps you may come to a better understanding at some later date.

Btw I have also played the occasional game of pool, and have never seen the result you are claiming, unless it was accompanied by a sudden vertical displacement or interference by another object. I recall one time a hustler claiming such a shot, but from memory he could not reproduce it.

I doubt I could reproduce it either. It was due to a slip while trying to put too much English on the Q ball and missing, just grazing the Q ball. It was never intentional.

But that does not necessarily destroy your theory. Resistance to linear motion might be accounted for by the felt on the pool table. It is a bit harder to account for the lack of linear motion with my cigaret lighter as the table top is Formica and offers little resistance. These "experiments" were not conducted in a vacuum, but then again, neither were yours.


Offline Tom Booth

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 149
    • My Heat Engine Project
Re: The Paradox Engine
« Reply #25 on: December 07, 2012, 06:16:07 PM »
Another real world example. Have you done much bowling?

I've seen quite often a bowling ball graze the side of a bowling pin. The pin is perhaps kicked to the side a bit, tilts to the side, wobbles, perhaps does a little pirouette but remains standing.

If you watch closely you can see a couple examples of this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xp_LfyyArrE (around frames 1:14 & 1:36)

The resulting linear motion if any, does not seem to adhere to your postulate, if I understand it correctly:

Quote
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.

Sounds like you are saying that in the case of a bowling ball just grazing the side of a bowling pin the pin will or should, if your postulate is correct, be knocked back linearly the same as if it had been hit dead center.

I can't help it if my perceptions have been clouded by a lifetime of indoctrination by conventional thinking.

I'm certainly open to new points of view, new ways of thinking and perceiving. You have what appears to me to be a point of view that is radically different. Outside the norm. I find that intriguing and would very much like to understand how you arrived at your conclusions.

Quote
"only if one pits two views against each other can one weasel between them to arrive at the real world." (The Sorcerer's Explanation
From Tales of Power by Carlos Castaneda)

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: The Paradox Engine
« Reply #25 on: December 07, 2012, 06:16:07 PM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline Tom Booth

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 149
    • My Heat Engine Project
Re: The Paradox Engine
« Reply #26 on: December 08, 2012, 08:29:58 PM »
I'm not trying to "debunk" your theory. That isn't my intent.

Take for example, "The Law of Gravity". Some ignorant persons might have objected to Newtons theory by pointing out the fact that birds fly, as well as hot air balloons. Bubbles under water rise to the surface etc.

Perhaps there would be no immediate answer to such objections if we suppose that buoyancy and aerodynamics were not fully understood at the time. A deeper analysis reveals that these things that seem to contradict the "Law" actually depend upon it.

I'm willing to grant that you may be on to something. But if you are going to lead us down the rabbit hole you have to take into consideration the current or prevailing point of view(s) which may indeed be based on ignorance.

For all I know it is not your theory but rather my faulty interpretation of it that is in error. Perhaps my pool game or bowling ball examples have no more validity and carry no more weight against your theory than birds and hot air balloons have against gravity.

I'm willing to set this apparent contradictory evidence aside if you are willing to carry on.

Apparently as yet I only have a tenuous grasp on the tail of the elephant. I hope you can forgive me if at present it seems to be nothing more than a rope dangling in the air. Certainly, if as you say, this is your life's work there is more to it than what I am currently able to grasp. You don't come across as any fool. I've very much enjoyed your thought experiments.

I have a few additional questions or observations regarding your motor.

I take it that the electromagnetic force applied to the embedded magnets is supposed to be balanced. That is, "for every action there is an equal but opposite reaction". The coil is situated directly over the axis so this reactive force should be null.

But an electromagnetic field is not a POINT phenomenon. It is spread out and so may be effecting the other magnets which are not so situated.

Also, I do not know upon what kind of bearings your motor sits but a bearing is generally not a point phenomenon either. Unless the bearing is actually a point, so that your disk is resting on the head of a pin it is not really at the center but rather in a ring surrounding the center. In other words, the bearing is not actually situated at "the center of mass". Or is it ?

Offline Tusk

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 158
Re: The Paradox Engine
« Reply #27 on: December 10, 2012, 07:18:56 AM »
I stand by my decision not to defend the material. My current response rests only on a lingering sense of social etiquette, if I allow you the benefit of the doubt. We require another metaphor to illustrate my stance.

The Titanic is steaming through the darkness at full speed, and one of the passengers - perhaps he has exceptional vision or just happens to glance out at the right time - briefly sights what appears to be a large iceberg dead ahead on the horizon. But the 'seeing' (as astronomers would say) is generally poor so the passenger retrieves a small pair of binoculars from his cabin to take a better look. Even so the evidence is slim and retiring to his cabin he performs a rapid analysis of the time of year, the Titanic's current position, the prevailing weather etc against known iceberg data from several reference books he has conveniently to hand. He compares photographs of icebergs and clouds. His conclusion is that icebergs are indeed possible in these waters under the current conditions. This estimate, along with the evidence of his own eyes, convinces him of the danger ahead.

Now we need to 'turn it around' and assess the likely reactions of the captain, crew and other passengers. The Titanic is 'unsinkable'; icebergs have never been seen this far south at this time of year; the crew have access to high power precision binoculars yet can see no iceberg; and this fool has only cheap low power optics. He is neither a professional seaman or meteorologist. Furthermore he is upsetting the other passengers.

How loudly would you have him shout? How fiercely should he defend his hypothesis? If he had sufficient wisdom he would expect an overwhelming negative response to his warning. Yet the danger persists. He can neither remain silent nor will he be inclined to get much excited over the issue; the outcome is inevitable, written in stone before the ship set sail. Chiseled out with all the arrogance and ignorance those responsible could muster.

Likewise this is all rather tiresome from my perspective since the outcome is already known. Your approach to the material seems more one of deliberate obfuscation than open minded curiosity. Apologies in advance if this is not the case but that is the impression you have given.

If you are genuinely curious then walk through the thing in your mind; are you suggesting that the linear effect on the rotating peg is anything other than identical to the linear effect on the non rotating peg? If so then CoM is surely breached; we can manipulate the conditions of the experiment such that an identical force between the two causes neither peg to rotate. In this case we would definitely expect the pegs to demonstrate an equal displacement. I assume you are aware that the displacement on the pendulum apparatus indicates relative linear impetus. If neither peg rotates then I think we can all agree that such displacement is identical. Thus here at least CoM holds true.

It follows that any other circumstance originating in the total mass at rest and resulting in one non rotating peg being displaced an identical amount (to the first instance) must therefore also produce an identical displacement of the second peg - rotating or otherwise - else CoM is breached. And yet the force must also be identical or the displacement of the non rotating peg would differ. Thus (Newton's 3rd) the force at the centre of mass of the rotating peg must be identical - but the applied force must occur at some point other than, or other than in line with, the centre of mass else the peg would not rotate. So there must be an equal reactive force at the centre of mass else CoM is breached.

I realise that intuition infers some divergence resulting in lesser quantities of 'energy' going this way and that (linear and rotational) but this simply can not occur without a breach of CoM. And since we already know that kinetic energy (at least) is 'not invariant' as a result of frame of reference (this from the literature) we should not be too surprised if the total of the divergent 'energy' (linear and rotational) exceeds the initial total prior to the event as we are seeing motion translate from one frame of reference to two.

Quote
an electromagnetic field is not a POINT phenomenon. It is spread out and so may be effecting the other magnets which are not so situated.

It has been some time since I worked with vectors but from memory it is acceptable to allow under these circumstances that vector addition would give us a tangential force vector at the centre of electromagnetic influence. If this is approximate then we might allow the excess of  mass in motion to originate from poor engineering, an unlikely circumstance considering the availability of a logical alternative.

Quote
the bearing is not actually situated at "the center of mass"

You could make a good case for the internal combustion engine being unworkable; rotation occurs around the axis, or centre of mass. Calling these minutia into question when you fail to understand the key issue really does little to put my mind at rest with respect to your sincerity. Obviously I am incapable of forcing comprehension. If this was an easy concept to grasp it would have been common knowledge many years ago. I can only recommend that you approach the problem independently and pursue it to conclusion according to your own satisfaction.

Offline Low-Q

  • without_ads
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2811
Re: The Paradox Engine
« Reply #28 on: January 20, 2013, 09:10:47 PM »
@ Tusk
If you find yourself sitting there with the theory that your motor is not conserving energy, you have most definitely made a flaw in your calculations, assumtions or imagination of how this device works.


To me this motor looks like a 3-phase brushless motor. The primary rotor is a aluminium disc that is attached to a secondary rotor (Which also is the primary rotors stator). The primary rotor disc will generate torque as soon as you apply power to the EM. It does not matter where the disc is attached to the  secondary rotor (Stator), the secondary rotor (Primary rotors stator) will always start to rotate counterwise during acceleration, and turn the other way during retardation due to friction on the primary rotors bearings, or breaks the primary rotor by short the EM.


Even if the EM is located dead center on the secondary rotors axis, the mass in the main disc that is farmost from that center will generate the countertorque that will accelerate the secondary rotor counterwise.


There is no spooky energies here. Just pure simple conserved physics.


Vidar

Offline Tusk

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 158
Re: The Paradox Engine
« Reply #29 on: February 08, 2013, 08:57:16 AM »
I am not an engineer, but my understanding is that free rolling bearings are an unsuitable mechanism for the transmission of torque.

Quote
turn the other way during retardation due to friction on the primary rotors bearings

 Perhaps a second look at the video:

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

That's some serious friction then. More disappointing is that your point went unchallenged for several weeks on a forum rich with people familiar with bearings and their capabilities.




 

OneLink