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 Members: 83909
  • *Latest: Solhi

  • *Total Posts: 524153
  • *Total Topics: 15602
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 5
  • *Guests: 8
  • *Total: 13

Author Topic: The Paradox Engine  (Read 97485 times)

Offline telecom

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 550
Re: The Paradox Engine
« Reply #150 on: January 19, 2014, 04:07:27 PM »
Hi Tusk,
( finally the right way)
the pulley contact area will be half of the wheel only if they are of the same size,
as my experience with the bike chains tells me.


I'm more enthusiastic about recovering energy at the disk axis with a generator. Staying with half of the original cyclic system and alternating between power in (at the EM drive unit) and power out at the disk axis and rotor arm axis, I intend to sacrifice rotor arm reversal in the interest of simplicity. Since the retarding force on the rotor arm during regenerative braking will be minimised (due to the lesser lever arm bias across the generator diameter) it should be possible to cycle between power in (with power out at rotor arm axis) and power out at disk axis (rotor arm 'coasting' + minimal retardation from bias at generator).

This appears to offer the best compromise for an actual OU prototype as the next step up from the current apparatus, which proves the concept but apparently not as convincingly as I expected, most likely due to the convoluted and incredible nature of the various phenomena and the interactions thereof; something akin to a trail of breadcrumbs through a bakery.



In this case we need to use sliding contacts or brushes to retrieve the energy
back from the discs as well as accelerate them. This is not a trivial technical task,
IMHO.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: The Paradox Engine
« Reply #150 on: January 19, 2014, 04:07:27 PM »

Offline Tusk

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 158
Re: The Paradox Engine
« Reply #151 on: January 20, 2014, 05:18:00 AM »
Not necessarily telecom; the generator at the disk axis would be mounted on the rotor arm, so could feed the EM drive unit directly. And the generator at the main (rotor arm) axis might be mounted such that the armature remains stationary in the observer FoR while the stator/case mounted in the FoR of the rotor arm therefore rotates with the rotor arm. This would place all wiring in the FoR of the rotor arm, these ideas firing once again 'from the hip' btw, and largely as a result of your questions and suggestions  :)

With regard to the main axis generator we might be looking at lower RPM (this depends on mass ratios, distribution etc) so a stepper motor should do the trick, bearing in mind there's a substantial OU potential here but the prototype need only achieve self running with maybe an LED or two for demonstration purposes. Also some sort of governor/regulator to stop everything 'running away' since a perfect balance of power required and power generated seems unlikely.

Offline telecom

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 550
Re: The Paradox Engine
« Reply #152 on: January 20, 2014, 08:21:33 PM »
Hi Tusk,
so after all, it became a doable task!

This would place all wiring in the FoR of the rotor arm, these ideas firing once again 'from the hip' btw, and largely as a result of your questions and suggestions  :)

If I understood your ideas correctly, you are talking about 2 generators:
One is mounted on a rotary arm either coaxial with the disc axis, or driven by the pulley attached to the disk axis
in such a way as to harvest an energy of the disc deceleration and, perhaps, to recharge the battery which
drives the EM drive for the disc acceleration.

The second generator is mounted inversely, where its stator with the wires being coaxial with the central axis of the rotary arm
and being rotated together with it, while the rotor is stationary in our FoR. This will serve to completely recharge the battery, so
the disc can be going  On and Off "forever".
Or we can mount the second generator in a normal way attached to the rotating arm, in its FoR, but the rotor is driven by the pulley attached to the central axis of the rotating arm, which has to be stationary in this case in our FoR.

Why not to place an additional pulley on  the rotating arm, coaxial to the central axis, and drive a third generator in our FoR, to power a couple of LEDs just for fun?
 Also some sort of governor/regulator to stop everything 'running away' since a perfect balance of power required and power generated seems unlikely.
I think Bessler used a mechanical brakes for this purpose...
Regards.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: The Paradox Engine
« Reply #152 on: January 20, 2014, 08:21:33 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline Tusk

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 158
Re: The Paradox Engine
« Reply #153 on: January 21, 2014, 04:58:44 AM »
Quote
so after all, it became a doable task!

Indeed, much less intimidating from an engineering perspective. There is still the problem of automatic control of the cycle sequence, timing etc; but not insurmountable even for a kit level electronics hobbyist. So yes, thanks to your input (and that of others such as webby1 and broli) we seem to have cooked up a relatively simple outline for a prototype self runner. I think there's enough information here for anyone to 'have a go' if they so desire. Much more convincing if someone else gets one up and running, although I will attempt it if time and resources permit.

Job done then  8) 

Offline telecom

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 550
Re: The Paradox Engine
« Reply #154 on: January 21, 2014, 09:35:42 AM »
May be we don't need a generator driven by the disk since the EM drive can become
a generator during the deceleration. Or instead of the  EM drive can be used an
ordinary motor which drives the disc with something like a gear drive? Which
becomes a generator during the decel?

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: The Paradox Engine
« Reply #154 on: January 21, 2014, 09:35:42 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline Tusk

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 158
Re: The Paradox Engine
« Reply #155 on: January 22, 2014, 10:05:50 AM »
Quote
May be we don't need a generator driven by the disk since the EM drive can become
a generator during the deceleration

The idea of the generator at the disk axis was to allow rotor arm motion to coast (or close to it) during disk energy recovery; this in the interest of simplicity, sacrificing the rotor arm reversal but reducing the complexity of the cycle. Also it gives you somewhere to go if OU isn't achieved with the first build due to inefficiency.

Quote
instead of the  EM drive can be used an
ordinary motor which drives the disc with something like a gear drive?

Again, probably ok but someone would need to look at that from an engineering viewpoint and establish if it will do the same job or cause some other effect/s. It looks ok at first glance but any departure from the basic concept runs the risk of adding complexity and therefore possibly not achieving OU due to some unnoticed change in the dynamics.

 

Offline telecom

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 550
Re: The Paradox Engine
« Reply #156 on: January 22, 2014, 05:17:23 PM »
The idea of the generator at the disk axis was to allow rotor arm motion to coast (or close to it) during disk energy recovery; this in the interest of simplicity, sacrificing the rotor arm reversal but reducing the complexity of the cycle. Also it gives you somewhere to go if OU isn't achieved with the first build due to inefficiency.

Ok, now I understand your plan completely - it may do the job, generators aren't that expensive!
Again, probably ok but someone would need to look at that from an engineering viewpoint and establish if it will do the same job or cause some other effect/s. It looks ok at first glance but any departure from the basic concept runs the risk of adding complexity and therefore possibly not achieving OU due to some unnoticed change in the dynamics.

 So we have to walk before starting running?

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: The Paradox Engine
« Reply #156 on: January 22, 2014, 05:17:23 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline Tusk

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 158
Re: The Paradox Engine
« Reply #157 on: January 23, 2014, 11:22:39 AM »
Exactly telecom, to have a simple prototype working which is relatively easy to build (and largely affordable) regardless of efficiency; provided it achieves OU it doesn't need to be useful other than as a technology demonstrator. The current apparatus was intended as 'proof of concept' but apparently the logic of it gets lost amid the convoluted explanations and the counter intuitive phenomenon of the secondary motion/reaction, amongst other things.

I suspect everyone would prefer a straightforward thingamyjig which achieves OU because of a simple effect (previously known and understood) clearly observed when you connect the thingamy to the jig. In reality nothing so simple is likely to achieve anything new and useful, much less OU.

Offline telecom

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 550
Re: The Paradox Engine
« Reply #158 on: January 24, 2014, 03:47:52 AM »
May be you can come up with an actual sketch of the device, to simplify
the building process for DIY people?

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: The Paradox Engine
« Reply #158 on: January 24, 2014, 03:47:52 AM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline Tusk

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 158
Re: The Paradox Engine
« Reply #159 on: January 24, 2014, 12:53:20 PM »
Will this suffice?

Offline Tusk

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 158
Re: The Paradox Engine
« Reply #160 on: February 01, 2014, 11:23:59 AM »
Just an afterthought; at it's simplest I had recently envisaged a system with generators at the disk axes but not at the main rotor arm axis. By allowing the rotor arm to rotate freely the advantageous disk acceleration can be used to best effect, recovering (almost) the full measure of additional spin caused by rotor arm rotation in the frame of reference of the rotor arm. Some loss could be expected due to torque bias at the generators but with a minimal difference in radius between the inner and outer edge of the generator this should not be significant.

Therefore the following sketch represents a device which cycles 50% power and 50% recovery, operating with optimum efficiency at relatively high RPM. The mass distribution would be biased to the outer edge of the disks with a lightweight rotor arm. The aim here is to achieve as near as possible one full rotation of the rotor arm for each full rotation of the disks at the cost in energy of one full rotation of the disks; and recover almost the full amount in the frame of reference of the rotor arm in the recovery half of the cycle. Effectively that's nearly double the disk rotation, Ek = ½ mv² that's almost '4 out for 1 in' if we consider this in terms of velocity of the disk mass, although how that translates in terms of EM generators is another matter, but it can't be a bad thing.

This might even prove a better method than my original and somewhat convoluted concept, although I'm not entirely certain that the drive wheel at system centre won't affect the outcome in some unforeseen way, but the EM drive unit is a proven system which could replace the drive wheel if necessary. 


   

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: The Paradox Engine
« Reply #160 on: February 01, 2014, 11:23:59 AM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline telecom

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 550
Re: The Paradox Engine
« Reply #161 on: February 01, 2014, 09:30:05 PM »
Hi Tusk,
so no more EM drive, in its place there is a drive wheel?
The acceleration as well as deceleration is done by the generators?
 Again, not very clear how to connect the wires to the generators, since they are rotating like crazy together with the rotor arm.
Also, how the energy from the rotation of the rotor arm is being recovered?
Regards.

Offline Tusk

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 158
Re: The Paradox Engine
« Reply #162 on: February 02, 2014, 03:29:09 PM »
Quote
so no more EM drive, in its place there is a drive wheel?

That's correct telecom, but as I've not had time to perform all the necessary experiments and/or research, theorising etc I can't be certain we can just drop the drive wheel in place of the EM drive unit without some unforeseen consequence; but it appears ok to do so at first glance.

Quote
The acceleration as well as deceleration is done by the generators?

Negative, the drive wheel mounts directly on an electric motor which itself mounts on the rotor arm; this replaces the EM drive unit and provides the impetus for accelerating the disks.

Quote
not very clear how to connect the wires to the generators, since they are rotating like crazy together with the rotor arm.

With the drive motor and both generators being mounted on the rotor arm the whole electric/electronics package is in the same FoR.

Quote
how the energy from the rotation of the rotor arm is being recovered?

Well, it isn't and at the same time in a way it is; by working in the FoR of the rotor arm we recover the full additional rotation of the disks (which occurs due to rotor arm rotation and disk inertia and does not manifest in our observer FoR). So although we won't be targeting rotor arm motion specifically as an energy source, the motion itself is responsible for the additional disk rotation and since we will be recovering from this in full measure we lose nothing by the new method.

And as a possible bonus I had forgotten the ramifications of Ek = ½ mv² which in this instance suggests our theoretical x2 disk rotation (ergo velocity of disk mass = x2) should provide us with x4 energy at recovery. All this of course rides on the premise that each full rotation of the disks induced by the drive unit comes with a 'free' full rotation thanks to the motion caused by the secondary reaction at the disk axes.

I guess what you need to be convinced about then is

1.  that additional rotation of the disk/s actually does manifest

2.  that such additional rotation of the disk/s is 'free' (i.e. requires no additional impetus or expenditure of energy)

3.  that by design an optimal mass distribution can be achieved by which one full rotation of the rotor arm manifests for each induced full rotation of the disk/s, or acceptably close to it such that the claimed 'two for one' rotation might be allowed as an approximation.

Since these points have been addressed in some depth the concept will as always be evaluated based on individual perception, at least until the completion of a full working prototype.

Offline telecom

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 550
Re: The Paradox Engine
« Reply #163 on: February 03, 2014, 06:17:45 AM »
That's correct telecom, but as I've not had time to perform all the necessary experiments and/or research, theorising etc I can't be certain we can just drop the drive wheel in place of the EM drive unit without some unforeseen consequence; but it appears ok to do so at first glance.

I'm not going to shed tears about EM drive - a much better arrangement to get something off the shelf (as long as it works)

Negative, the drive wheel mounts directly on an electric motor which itself mounts on the rotor arm; this replaces the EM drive unit and provides the impetus for accelerating the disks.

With the drive motor and both generators being mounted on the rotor arm the whole electric/electronics package is in the same FoR.

Very clever.

Well, it isn't and at the same time in a way it is; by working in the FoR of the rotor arm we recover the full additional rotation of the disks (which occurs due to rotor arm rotation and disk inertia and does not manifest in our observer FoR). So although we won't be targeting rotor arm motion specifically as an energy source, the motion itself is responsible for the additional disk rotation and since we will be recovering from this in full measure we lose nothing by the new method.

Just want to point out that now we have discs and the rotor arm being mechanically interconnected, quite different from the previous design where they weren't

And as a possible bonus I had forgotten the ramifications of Ek = ½ mv² which in this instance suggests our theoretical x2 disk rotation (ergo velocity of disk mass = x2) should provide us with x4 energy at recovery. All this of course rides on the premise that each full rotation of the disks induced by the drive unit comes with a 'free' full rotation thanks to the motion caused by the secondary reaction at the disk axes.

Then they should induce  the drive motor to become a generator?



I guess what you need to be convinced about then is

1.  that additional rotation of the disk/s actually does manifest

2.  that such additional rotation of the disk/s is 'free' (i.e. requires no additional impetus or expenditure of energy)

3.  that by design an optimal mass distribution can be achieved by which one full rotation of the rotor arm manifests for each induced full rotation of the disk/s, or acceptably close to it such that the claimed 'two for one' rotation might be allowed as an approximation.

This can be easily calculated based on the diameters of the disc and drive wheel.

Since these points have been addressed in some depth the concept will as always be evaluated based on individual perception, at least until the completion of a full working prototype.

Offline Tusk

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 158
Re: The Paradox Engine
« Reply #164 on: February 03, 2014, 01:44:20 PM »
Quote
Just want to point out that now we have discs and the rotor arm being mechanically interconnected, quite different from the previous design where they weren't

But bear in mind that we have control over these connections telecom; with the generators in open circuit mode (during acceleration) resistance is minimised and the disks can be thought of as freewheeling. Which also applies to your next question:

Quote
Then they should induce  the drive motor to become a generator?

To which the answer is no, we need to open circuit the drive motor during recovery at the generators. Otherwise a reversed secondary reaction at the axes would retard rotation of the rotor arm, with the result that we would lose that additional rotation of the disks; in simple terms this would amount to a reversal of the physics and therefore no gain. Bias is good, asymmetry also; we seize the advantage by first going one way, then coming back by a different route.

And in reference to achieving a full additional rotation of the disks for each induced rotation:

Quote
This can be easily calculated based on the diameters of the disc and drive wheel.

Actually I was thinking more along the lines of mass distribution. As an example, if we biased the mass of the disks toward the centre then a higher rate of rotation may be achieved with the same applied force, yet the rotor arm mass (which includes disk mass) remains unchanged, and will not achieve a higher rate. With the mass bias away from centre we can expect lower disk rates, again no change in rotor arm rates. Therefore our bias should be away from disk centre so we stand a better chance of achieving a '1 for 1' induced rotation to inertial rotation.

I am concerned that if we are not careful someone might build a prototype which fouls itself with common torque reactions, much as webby1 did but more convincingly (i.e. a more sophisticated build yet incorrectly designed). It was for this reason that the current PE apparatus has an EM drive unit. By avoiding the drive wheel option the physics at least is simplified, if not the build. But there seems to be a need to cut corners at this point, and the gamble is an honest one, also quite well informed.

The consideration should always be foremost that the secondary motion manifest in any PE device by virtue of the phenomenon of secondary reaction at the disk axis as previously discussed (in great depth) and not as a result of common torque reaction. The secondary motion as described occurs with no additional input or loss other than the requirement for the original and intended applied force to advance it's point of force more rapidly as a result of the additional acceleration. Deducing exactly what this costs us in terms of energy is not a simple matter, but it is clear that the price can not possibly account for the gain. The data confirms this, as does simple logic:

If we can push a wheelbarrow full of bricks with no assistance at 1mph, then the extra impetus provided by a helpful workmate allowing us to move at 2mph must grant us some advantage, even though we must now increase our forward velocity. Otherwise what value (and indeed fate) the additional impetus supplied by our workmate?

The PE device has the phenomenon of secondary motion (which has it's origins in inertia) as it's workmate. Such motion is additional to that caused by, and accounted for fully by the applied force. There can be no advantage with a common torque reaction, and mistaking one for the other appears to be the likely cause of much of the skepticism surrounding this concept.         




 

OneLink