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

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: 513795
  • *Total Topics: 15342
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 1
  • *Guests: 13
  • *Total: 14

Author Topic: The Paradox Engine  (Read 91765 times)

Offline telecom

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 525
Re: The Paradox Engine
« Reply #165 on: February 04, 2014, 12:29:03 AM »
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.

May be I'm not getting something, as usual, but it appears to me that in the most recent design discs and the rotor arm are mechanically interconnected through a drive wheel, therefor their speeds ratio is set.

In this case we can speak of a torque increase, not a speed increase?

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: The Paradox Engine
« Reply #165 on: February 04, 2014, 12:29:03 AM »

Offline Tusk

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 158
Re: The Paradox Engine
« Reply #166 on: February 04, 2014, 03:56:32 PM »
Quote
In this case we can speak of a torque increase, not a speed increase?

Possibly my failure this time telecom; I don't have even the slightest idea what your meaning is, or where you are going with it. We'd better back up a little, how would you define a mechanical connection, since that's where we seem to have lost the plot?

Also I do feel an obligation to retract the following statement:

Quote
There can be no advantage with a common torque reaction

.... for a couple of reasons. Never say never, for starters. Also I'm familiar enough with the dark art of frame of reference manipulation to suspect there may even be a way to gain an advantage, but I'll leave it at that for now. Another thread perhaps, at some other time, if nobody else chases it down in the meanwhile.

 

Offline telecom

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 525
Re: The Paradox Engine
« Reply #167 on: February 05, 2014, 12:05:59 AM »
Hi Tusk,
what I'm trying to say is that  according to your picture, the drive wheel
which I presume is a gear, meshes up with discs through some kind a gear arrangement,
which makes both discs, drive wheel and rotary arm to be mechanically interconnected,
as a result when we increase the rpm of the discs, rpm of the rotary arm goes up
automatically - or may be I'm wrong?

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: The Paradox Engine
« Reply #167 on: February 05, 2014, 12:05:59 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline Tusk

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 158
Re: The Paradox Engine
« Reply #168 on: February 05, 2014, 03:46:36 AM »
You had me worried there for a minute telecom; but I can see where you are coming from now, I think:

Quote
as a result when we increase the rpm of the discs, rpm of the rotary arm goes up automatically

I assume you are referring to the fact that the drive motor is mounted on the rotor arm, so that the torque reaction to the impetus for driving the disks will drive the rotor arm anti clockwise (according to the diagram currently in use). Which incidentally is counter to the direction of turn due to secondary reaction at the disk axes. Let's have that image up again for a closer look.

Sorry to oversimplify but when two people of identical weight sit on a see-saw, one at the extreme end on one side with the other near the centre, the one with the greater moment arm (i.e. the one at the end) always dominates. Similarly here my intent is to discard the cost of the counter reaction at the centre as insignificant, in the name of simplicity. We could always bench mount the motor, but that would create another problem - we would lose a sizable lump of our FoR advantage with the motor case static. I'm fairly certain that the optimal arrangement is as described, with the motor rotating in the FoR of the rotor arm; such rotation as is caused by the secondary reaction at the disk axes, since the other impetus as mentioned above works counter to the dominant rotation.

In short the answer to your question is no, while there does exist an opposing torque to the rotation the only impetus for the achieved rotation is the secondary reaction at the disk axes.

I'm not sure that covers your question completely; we may be forced to accept that we think about this from different perspectives. First and foremost I see mass in motion and frames of reference; I try to follow the flow of motion through the various frames of reference looking for bias or asymmetry, advantage and disadvantage. Only when things become absolutely clear do I reference against convention looking for error or paradox, so that convention is not my 'first language' as it were, so apologies if I have missed something which seems obvious.

Offline telecom

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 525
Re: The Paradox Engine
« Reply #169 on: February 05, 2014, 05:02:43 AM »
Hi Tusk,
never mind, I have nothing against the way you describe the mass distribution and reactions,
I think that this device should work as envisioned by you, just to summarize:
Drive motor's stator with the wires is attached to the rotating arm, and the shaft is stationary;
Generators are connected to the drive motor within the rotor arm FoR
The drive motor goes On and Off making the assembly to cycle:
When its On, generators produce  power to cover most of the drive motor requirements
When Off - generators keep giving and the energy is being stored in the battery,
which in turn is connected to the drive motor?
Is this how you've envisioned the setup?
Regards.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: The Paradox Engine
« Reply #169 on: February 05, 2014, 05:02:43 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline Tusk

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 158
Re: The Paradox Engine
« Reply #170 on: February 05, 2014, 04:00:12 PM »

Quote
The drive motor goes On and Off making the assembly to cycle:
When its On, generators produce  power to cover most of the drive motor requirements
When Off - generators keep giving and the energy is being stored in the battery,
which in turn is connected to the drive motor

Only one major change I would make to that telecom:

You have the generators 'on' all the time, whereas I intended they be open circuit or 'off' during the power half of each cycle. Otherwise the resistance from the generators would interfere with the creation of the secondary reaction. There is no loss incurred by simply allowing a mass to 'spool up' since we can recover the KE after turning the power off. And in this instance because we will probably be getting a second free rotation (or near to it) for every induced rotation of the disks (in the FoR of the rotor arm) it is more than a little advantageous to do so; providing we recover the energy in the same FoR without significantly reducing rotor arm motion, which we can achieve by this method.

I would have liked to develop a system which runs at a constant velocity/rate but realistically with this asymmetric phenomenon it should be no surprise that the device needs to be cyclic. 


Offline telecom

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 525
Re: The Paradox Engine
« Reply #171 on: February 06, 2014, 01:29:04 AM »
I think I understand exactly what you are trying to achieve, and as somebody liked to say:
"Practice is the final criteria of the truth"
So we just have to wait until someone will invest some time and, perhaps, money
into building this machine to find out if it actually works as you envisioned.
Regards.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: The Paradox Engine
« Reply #171 on: February 06, 2014, 01:29:04 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline Tusk

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 158
Re: The Paradox Engine
« Reply #172 on: February 06, 2014, 06:48:47 AM »
Quote
we just have to wait until someone will invest some time and, perhaps, money
into building this machine to find out if it actually works as you envisioned

Belay that telecom, I just found an error in the design of this 'quick and dirty' version; I'm blaming you, always trying to simplify the build lol (just kidding, entirely my mistake).

You got me thinking about torque reactions from a conventional point of view, just as well; I missed something important with all this 'rough and ready' build simplification. Unfortunately we can't mitigate adverse torque effects on the rotor arm by recovering E with generators at the disk axes; it looks like the rotor arm E recovery (both forward and reverse) is the only way to go, so I'm falling back on my original design. The dynamics are a little convoluted but the physics is sound. The aforementioned 'simple build' would just erode rotor arm motion with the result that the additional rotation of the disks would be lost in the recovery half of the cycle.

Not surprising really, if it was that easy someone would have already stumbled on it by chance. But I think that throwing these alternate ideas around doesn't hurt, provided we don't forget to check our sums before changing direction.

The secondary motion manifest in the rotation of the rotor arm is key; best to let it 'do it's thing' and recover the E as originally described, then recover from the disk/s which induces a second (reverse) rotor arm rotation, which is then recovered to finally end the cycle ready to go around again.  I would definitely go for the twin disks though, no point in wasting energy accelerating a counterweight.

 


Offline telecom

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 525
Re: The Paradox Engine
« Reply #173 on: February 06, 2014, 07:45:06 PM »
Hi Tusk,
in this case, can we replace the E drive with the DC motor/generator, located at the same spot,
but transmitting the torque by the gear drive?
It is much more convenient to get an off the shelf component rather than a self-made one.


Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: The Paradox Engine
« Reply #173 on: February 06, 2014, 07:45:06 PM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline Tusk

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 158
Re: The Paradox Engine
« Reply #174 on: February 07, 2014, 11:34:00 AM »
Quote
can we replace the E drive with the DC motor/generator, located at the same spot,
but transmitting the torque by the gear drive?

I have been considering this option for some time and can uncover no serious problems with it. I would opt for a drive wheel of similar diameter to that of the motor's rotor, and once again recommend a twin disk arrangement.  Some sort of clutch mechanism might be advisable, to avoid drag on the disks during recovery of rotor arm energy.

With both a generator and motor situated at system centre the engineering challenge increases; but not beyond precedent, we could assume.

Offline gravityblock

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3259
    • Get Dish Now! Free Dish Network System from VMC Satellite
A Proposed Solution For The Paradox Engine
« Reply #175 on: September 08, 2014, 06:21:52 AM »
This is a really good thread!  Keep up the good work Tusk!  Below is a copy and paste summary of a publication on the kinetic energy equation, by Miles Mathis (reference link provided below).

Why is the velocity squared in the kinetic energy equation, E = ½mv2?  Why should the energy depend on the square of the velocity? We have the same question with the equation E = mc2.  Why square the speed of light? Why should the energy depend on c2?  Or, to extend the question, why should the energy of any moving object, moving with a constant velocity, depend on the square of that velocity?

In Miles Mathis' paper on photon motion, he showed how the measured wavelength and the real wavelength of the photon differ by a factor of c2. This is because the linear motion of the photon stretches the spin wavelength. The linear velocity is c, of course, and the circular velocity approaches 1/c. The difference between the two is c2. Energy, like velocity, is a relative measurement. A quantum with a certain energy has that energy only relative to us, since it has its velocity only relative to us. If the wavelength has to be multiplied by c2 in order to match it to our measurements, then the mass or mass equivalence will also. Hence the equation E = mc2. In this way, c2 is not a velocity or a velocity squared, it is a velocity transform. It tells us how much the wavelength is stretched, and therefore how much the mass and energy are stretched, due to the motion of the object.

The same analysis can be applied to any object. The energy of any object is determined by summing the energies of its constituent atomic and quantum particles, and all these particles also have spins. The quanta will impart this spin energy in collision, so this spin energy must be included in the total kinetic energy.  So the short answer is that the kinetic energy equation, like the equation E = mc2, always included the spin energy; but no one recognized that.  Just as with the photon, all matter has a wavelength (see de Broglie), and the wavelength is determined by spin. The spin has a radius, and this radius is the local wavelength. Any linear velocity of the spinning particle will stretch our measurement of this wavelength, in a simple mechanical manner, as Mathis showed in the photon paper. As the linear velocity increases, the spin velocity relative to the linear velocity decreases, by a factor of 1/v. This makes the difference between the linear velocity and the spin velocity v2. The term v2 transforms the local wavelength into the measured wavelength. This is why we find the term in the energy equation.

The only question remaining is why we have the term ½ in the kinetic energy equation. The reason is simple. We are basically multiplying a wavelength transform by a mass, in order to calculate an energy.  So we have to look at how the mass and the wavelength interact.  Mathis has shown that the wavelength is caused by stacking several spins (at least two spins), so what we have is a material particle spinning end-over-end. If we look at this spin over any extended time interval, we find that half the time the material particle is moving in the reverse direction of the linear motion. Circular motion cannot follow linear motion, of course, and if we average the circular motion over time, only half the circular motion will match the linear vector. This means that half the effective mass will be lost, hence the equation we have.

Reference:  The kinetic Energy equation, by Miles Mathis

Additional Resources:  Angular Velocity and Angular Momentum, by Miles Mathis (Both current equations are shown to be false)

Gravock

 

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

A Proposed Solution For The Paradox Engine
« Reply #175 on: September 08, 2014, 06:21:52 AM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline Tusk

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 158
Re: The Paradox Engine
« Reply #176 on: September 08, 2014, 09:53:01 AM »
Thanks gravityblock, both for the links and the encouragement. Mr Mathis appears at first glance to have winkled out most of the bugs in the literature already. It will take some serious time to wade through his website, but well worth it I suspect. My own small corner seems trivial by comparison, but we can only do our best. I often wonder that the possibility of a 'free' force fails to spark much interest, other than (largely) skepticism. So it's refreshing when someone has a positive reaction to the concept.

 

   



 

Offline telecom

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 525
Re: The Paradox Engine
« Reply #177 on: September 08, 2014, 06:06:59 PM »
Meanwhile I kept thinking about the implication of the conservation of the momentum, which is correct, vs conservation
of energy, which is false.
There is a very interesting thread about this subject at bessler wheel with some practical examples:
http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2580

Offline CANGAS

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 235
Re: A Proposed Solution For The Paradox Engine
« Reply #178 on: September 09, 2014, 09:26:26 AM »
This is a really good thread!  Keep up the good work Tusk!  Below is a copy and paste summary of a publication on the kinetic energy equation, by Miles Mathis (reference link provided below).

Why is the velocity squared in the kinetic energy equation, E = ½mv2?  Why should the energy depend on the square of the velocity? We have the same question with the equation E = mc2.  Why square the speed of light? Why should the energy depend on c2?  Or, to extend the question, why should the energy of any moving object, moving with a constant velocity, depend on the square of that velocity?

In Miles Mathis' paper on photon motion, he showed how the measured wavelength and the real wavelength of the photon differ by a factor of c2. This is because the linear motion of the photon stretches the spin wavelength. The linear velocity is c, of course, and the circular velocity approaches 1/c. The difference between the two is c2. Energy, like velocity, is a relative measurement. A quantum with a certain energy has that energy only relative to us, since it has its velocity only relative to us. If the wavelength has to be multiplied by c2 in order to match it to our measurements, then the mass or mass equivalence will also. Hence the equation E = mc2. In this way, c2 is not a velocity or a velocity squared, it is a velocity transform. It tells us how much the wavelength is stretched, and therefore how much the mass and energy are stretched, due to the motion of the object.

The same analysis can be applied to any object. The energy of any object is determined by summing the energies of its constituent atomic and quantum particles, and all these particles also have spins. The quanta will impart this spin energy in collision, so this spin energy must be included in the total kinetic energy.  So the short answer is that the kinetic energy equation, like the equation E = mc2, always included the spin energy; but no one recognized that.  Just as with the photon, all matter has a wavelength (see de Broglie), and the wavelength is determined by spin. The spin has a radius, and this radius is the local wavelength. Any linear velocity of the spinning particle will stretch our measurement of this wavelength, in a simple mechanical manner, as Mathis showed in the photon paper. As the linear velocity increases, the spin velocity relative to the linear velocity decreases, by a factor of 1/v. This makes the difference between the linear velocity and the spin velocity v2. The term v2 transforms the local wavelength into the measured wavelength. This is why we find the term in the energy equation.

The only question remaining is why we have the term ½ in the kinetic energy equation. The reason is simple. We are basically multiplying a wavelength transform by a mass, in order to calculate an energy.  So we have to look at how the mass and the wavelength interact.  Mathis has shown that the wavelength is caused by stacking several spins (at least two spins), so what we have is a material particle spinning end-over-end. If we look at this spin over any extended time interval, we find that half the time the material particle is moving in the reverse direction of the linear motion. Circular motion cannot follow linear motion, of course, and if we average the circular motion over time, only half the circular motion will match the linear vector. This means that half the effective mass will be lost, hence the equation we have.

Reference:  The kinetic Energy equation, by Miles Mathis

Additional Resources:  Angular Velocity and Angular Momentum, by Miles Mathis (Both current equations are shown to be false)

Gravock


"Surely you are joking, Mr. Feynman."

Gravock, you have brought that famous quote to my mind. Are you really serious that you don't understand why, according to Newton physics and math, the kinetic energy energy equation has velocity SQUAREd?

Many people don't understand why the 1/2 is there. Do you understand why the 1/2 is there?

And do you really not understand why, within the internal logic of Relativity, Einstein left out the 1/2 in his famous Energy equation?

I am not trying to start a debate with you. I just want you to tell me that you are not joking and really do not understand it.


CANGAS 68

Offline tesla2

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 195

 

OneLink