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

Plug Heater

Powerbox

Smartbox

3D Solar

3D Solar Panels

DC2DC converter

Micro JouleThief

FireMatch

FireMatch

CCKnife

CCKnife

CCTool

CCTool

Magpi Magazine

Magpi Magazine Free Rasberry Pi Magazine

Battery Recondition

Battery Recondition

Arduino

Ultracaps

YT Subscribe

Gravity Machines

Tesla-Ebook

Magnet Secrets

Lindemann Video

Navigation

Products

Products

WaterMotor kit

Statistics


  • *Total Posts: 508931
  • *Total Topics: 15176
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 10
  • *Guests: 10
  • *Total: 20

Author Topic: The Paradox Engine  (Read 87636 times)

Offline Tusk

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 158
Re: The Paradox Engine
« Reply #210 on: September 14, 2014, 09:12:25 AM »
Quote
I've estimated that for the disk speed of 100m/sec with the disk's diameter of 30 cm,
it will need to rotate at 6000 rpm.
What would be the rpm of the arm in this case?
How much energy will it produce by cycling between , say, 6000 to 7000 rpm
for the disk?

Q1. As I've often said telecom, the twin disk setup is probably optimal; also as near as possible to a ring mass rather than a disk, and until recently I've preferred them mounted on a lightweight rotor arm such that we can virtually ignore it's mass. With this latest idea (multiple cycling of the disks to achieve OU with the rotor arm) we may be looking at a deliberately massive arm. But staying with the earlier setup for now, in that configuration the rotor arm RPM matches the disks/rings.

Q2. That would depend on the mass. But with the ring mass you can treat rotation velocity (I.E. the velocity of the mass around the disk/ring axis) much like linear velocity, and if you study the layout of the device you will notice that the radius of the disks/rings is similar to the radius of the rotor arm provided you don't extend it too far beyond the axes of the disks. And you can treat the rotor arm configured in this way like another ring mass, since the disk axes are at their cm and are mounted at the ends of the rotor arm. So popping in some values and calculating the outcome is fairly straightforward.

Quote
Do You understant what mean difference between paralel and perpendicular situation

Was your intent to make my answer quick and simple tesla2, or does friendly scientific inquiry in your first language translate into aggressive insults in English?

I'll make some allowance for the language thing. This is how it works; you find something that doesn't seem 'quite right' in the information I provide, and either pop in a quote of the offending material with your question or rebuttal, or at least mention it as a starting point for your question or rebuttal.

As it stands I have no idea what got stuck in your windpipe, and the very last thing I need right now is a lecture on FoR and Relativity. But just putting myself in your shoes for a minute, considering I got this far it seems a fair bet that I do know the difference between parallel and perpendicular. I'm just taking a wild guess here but are you by any chance referring to my earlier statement re secondary reaction with that question? If so then it's also a fair bet that you haven't even got beyond accepting it, which is a tough one I agree but there you have it. Either provide an alternative or dismiss it as just one more vague and elusive unknown in your life, move on and leave the crazy old guy to his unintelligible raving and ranting.


Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: The Paradox Engine
« Reply #210 on: September 14, 2014, 09:12:25 AM »

Offline CANGAS

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 235
Re: A Proposed Solution For The Paradox Engine
« Reply #211 on: September 14, 2014, 10:10:13 AM »
Tusk, we have definitely suffered from a failure to communicate. Just like the Georgia cracker warden said to Luke. The failure to communicate has been all yours, dear fellow.

A little while, a few days, ago I responded to this specific post. For once, please focus your communication faculties upon the mentions of "squared" and "1/2" in the specific post copied and quoted below.....


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


Upon reading this garbage, I could not believe my eyes and asked the poster if he was serious, if he REALLY did not understand where the "squared" and the "1/2" came from in the standard Newtonian derivation of the formula for Kinetic Energy. Do you remember any of this?

Soon you jumped in to defend the poster and attacked me even to the extent of describing your hallucination of a Wild West shootout in which you would wield a double barrel shotgun. I had simply asked the poster if he really did not understand the "squared " and the "1/2" or was he joking. Since I have derived the Kinetic Energy equation myself, I have long since been completely satisfied that the logic and math , particularly the "squared" and the "1/2" are perfectly logically and mathematically self consistent within the framework of Newtonian physics. You, by vehemently defending the poster obviously took his side that you also did not understand why or how the "squared" or the "1/2" are in the Newtonian Kinetic Energy formula. Your comments in this regard caused me to waste a substantial amount of time and energy which, in my old age, are increasingly important and which I cannot retrieve and you cannot possibly re-supply to me. Do you remember any of THIS, or are you wandering around in your own imaginary world of double barrel shotguns and fake Kinetic Energy equations?

Thanks a lot for all the BullShit.


CANGAS 78

Offline Tusk

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 158
Re: The Paradox Engine
« Reply #212 on: September 14, 2014, 05:09:43 PM »
Indeed I had little real hope (based on the tone of your posts) that you would recognise an olive branch for what it represents, CANGAS.

Since you have quoted gravlock's apparently 'offensive' post several times I must assume that you read and understood that he was himself quoting from another source:

Quote
Below is a copy and paste summary of a publication on the kinetic energy equation, by Miles Mathis (reference link provided below).

It seems fairly self evident that he felt the material he referenced might be of some interest and relevance to this thread, or at least of some general interest; and relevant or not (I have not yet decided) it is certainly an interesting theory, especially taken in context with the vast repository of original work on the source website. So yes, a friendly and informative greeting by gravock and received in kind. I wish there were more like him.

I have explained the playful nature of my wild west 'hallucination' as you call it but you clearly reject that; I have responded to what can only be described as an unpleasant post with the offer of a fresh start and no hard feelings, and you have rejected that. On this occasion, much like yourself I consider my time valuable, so that time spent in reply to your unfortunate hostility has blown out of all proportion to any possible advantage and therefore must be curtailed. Since it's not clear what your true agenda is, and considering the disruption you have caused thus far - to no good purpose other than reinforcing your own sense of superiority and appearing unnecessarily rude - I can only hope that you will make yourself content with a final string of invectives on your way out the door.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: The Paradox Engine
« Reply #212 on: September 14, 2014, 05:09:43 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline telecom

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 485
Re: The Paradox Engine
« Reply #213 on: September 14, 2014, 11:18:47 PM »
Q1. As I've often said telecom, the twin disk setup is probably optimal; also as near as possible to a ring mass rather than a disk, and until recently I've preferred them mounted on a lightweight rotor arm such that we can virtually ignore it's mass. With this latest idea (multiple cycling of the disks to achieve OU with the rotor arm) we may be looking at a deliberately massive arm. But staying with the earlier setup for now, in that configuration the rotor arm RPM matches the disks/rings.

Q2. That would depend on the mass. But with the ring mass you can treat rotation velocity (I.E. the velocity of the mass around the disk/ring axis) much like linear velocity, and if you study the layout of the device you will notice that the radius of the disks/rings is similar to the radius of the rotor arm provided you don't extend it too far beyond the axes of the disks. And you can treat the rotor arm configured in this way like another ring mass, since the disk axes are at their cm and are mounted at the ends of the rotor arm. So popping in some values and calculating the outcome is fairly straightforward.



Hi Tusk,
do you mean that we can use a simple kinetic energy equation E = 1/2 mv^2?
Presuming, that as you said, rpm of the rotary arm is equal the rpm of the disk,
and its mass equals 1 kg,
 E will be 5000 J at 6000 rpm and approx 6800 J at 7000 rpm.
So during the cycling we should be able to harvest from the rotor arm 1800 J during
the acceleration, and equal number during the deacceleration at reverse, 3600 J in total.
At the same time we should spend 1800 J to accelerate the disk, of which we should be
getting back 70 % during the deacceleration, with the losses of 540J.
Total surplus should be 1800 + 1800 - 540 = 3060 j.
Considering that the cycle will take 10 seconds, the device should produce 3060 / 10 =
306 W of power.
Is this within the reasonable margin of error or not???

Offline gravityblock

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3256
    • Get Dish Now! Free Dish Network System from VMC Satellite
Re: The Paradox Engine
« Reply #214 on: September 15, 2014, 08:15:51 AM »

Hopefully you will be able to identify the source of any advantage amongst all these dark arts? lol. Will you start another thread or post news/results here?

An afterthought gravock - the point of applied force on the disk/s must be at or near the edge and keeping a small footprint for best effect; not sure how you are going to achieve this with the method you outlined.

I'm going to use the drive wheel instead of the EM drive.  This eliminates all permanent magnets!  Disk A and disk B will be based around the homopolar principals as discussed previously.  Extracting current from disk A will induce a torque from the edge of the disk to the disk's center of mass which will be applied to the outside edge of the rotor arm and will also be in the same direction as the rotor arm, causing it to further accelerate (either a CW spiral or a CCW spiral according to rotation direction of the drive wheel).  The secondary reaction force will be applied at the outer edge of the rotor arm, which is also the disk's center of mass where the force is applied to the outside edge of the rotor arm in this case, which is an inversion of cause and effect.  In addition to this, disk A will be induced with an additional rotation due to the Lorentz force, further accelerating the disk's rotation.  Disk B will be similar to disc A, and each disc will be accelerating both the rotor arm and it's own disk rotation.  In this way, the rotor arm and both disks are utilizing the secondary reaction force to provide a continuous acceleration for both the disks and the rotor arm.

Gravock

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: The Paradox Engine
« Reply #214 on: September 15, 2014, 08:15:51 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline Tusk

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 158
Re: The Paradox Engine
« Reply #215 on: September 15, 2014, 09:33:05 AM »
Ok telecom, let's just revisit your initial parameters to be sure we're on the same page:

Quote
I've estimated that for the disk speed of 100m/sec with the disk's diameter of 30 cm,
it will need to rotate at 6000 rpm.

I assume you were looking for a circumference of 1m, so we'll go with that value. With your additional data we can allow as an approximation a 1kg ring mass to be considered as having a linear motion, for the purpose of estimating various values. Which in turn allows us to simply calculate the linear acceleration and final velocity and add the two for a 'ballpark' idea of what we are looking at.

Quote
do you mean that we can use a simple kinetic energy equation E = 1/2 mv^2?
Presuming, that as you said, rpm of the rotary arm is equal the rpm of the disk,
and its mass equals 1 kg,
 E will be 5000 J at 6000 rpm and approx 6800 J at 7000 rpm.

Indeed; and yes, those numbers look about right as values for each motion (linear and rotational). So total KE at 6000 RPM = 10,000 J and at 7000 RPM total KE = 13600 J, remembering that we are using 'ballpark' numbers and methods here, in the interests of rapid concept assessment.

Quote
So during the cycling we should be able to harvest from the rotor arm 1800 J during
the acceleration, and equal number during the deacceleration at reverse, 3600 J in total.

Well, there's an interesting new development (I occasionally miss something lol). I had a nagging feeling about the FoR issue with the advancing/retarding disk around the main axis in the FoR of the EM drive unit; with the aforementioned ring mass we would see twice the disk RPM at the axis as the 'true' RPM in the FoR of the observer. While allowing for this quite early in the piece, I hadn't given much thought to the reverse - i.e. under deceleration. And being a new thing, as always it is a bit of a bear to get your head around. My one piece of data on it is 'soft', but I had always felt that the PE apparatus main rotor arm seemed to spool up more rapidly and possibly even to a higher RPM during braking of the disk, although this might just be an illusion.

I would like to think on it some more (and gather more data) before committing, but I am reasonably certain that with this being a FoR issue there will almost certainly be either less or more motion than we expect, which is just one reason this concept has proved so fascinating to work on. It may even be necessary to secure the rotor arm post braking before braking the disk, therefore losing that 'third bite of the cherry', which would be a shame but that's a worst case scenario. During test runs though, at the point when the disk stops rotating in the EM unit FoR with the rotor arm at highest reverse RPM, the disk is rotating in the FoR of the observer, in the same direction of the initial rotation; so it appears we may not see additional advantage, rather a deficit from this element of the dynamics. But losing the rotor arm reversal in no way precludes a significant advantage overall.

Quote
At the same time we should spend 1800 J to accelerate the disk, of which we should be
getting back 70 % during the deacceleration, with the losses of 540J.
Total surplus should be 1800 + 1800 - 540 = 3060 j.
Considering that the cycle will take 10 seconds, the device should produce 3060 / 10 =
306 W of power.
Is this within the reasonable margin of error or not???

For the parameters given, yes I think so; but there are as yet quite a few wrinkles to work out and at this point my main focus is on simply proving the concept rather than building a unit to run a campsite  :) Something along the lines of the PE apparatus built by someone else, used to verify (or otherwise) my own data, would suffice as a next logical step, and a platform for further discussion.
 

   





Offline Tusk

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 158
Re: The Paradox Engine
« Reply #216 on: September 15, 2014, 10:02:12 AM »
Quote
I'm going to use the drive wheel instead of the EM drive.

That's probably going to bring the torque guys down on us, and I've been against it from initial conception. But it does rather simplify the build gravock.

Quote
Extracting current from disk A will induce a torque from the edge of the disk to the disk's center of mass which will be applied to the outside edge of the rotor arm and will also be in the same direction as the rotor arm, causing it to further accelerate

There's that word again. Ok you're scaring me lol. There's way too much going on in your design for my simple mind, the concept was born of inertia and I've tried to maintain that fundamental nature. Cramming additional and unnecessary elements into a new concept may do more harm than good I fear. Looking for the next step in proving the concept gravock, rather than a device that appears to be desperately clutching at every stray force to achieve OU.

Quote
disk A will be induced with an additional rotation due to the Lorentz force, further accelerating the disk's rotation.

I'll have to take your word for that, since EM is rather a dark art for me.

Quote
the rotor arm and both disks are utilizing the secondary reaction force to provide a continuous acceleration for both the disks and the rotor arm.

Hmmmm..... continuous acceleration isn't on the mode menu for this phenomenon gravock; the system needs to be cyclic. I'll take a long hard look at your proposal before making any further observations, but I doubt you have found a way past that obstacle. Not to worry, there are multiple elements to this concept and it may require some adjustments in thinking. Unless you are seeing something I missed, which is always a possibility. I hope you won't take offence (a common reaction around here) but it would be remiss of me not to speak plainly before you disappear into your shed.   

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: The Paradox Engine
« Reply #216 on: September 15, 2014, 10:02:12 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline gravityblock

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3256
    • Get Dish Now! Free Dish Network System from VMC Satellite
Re: The Paradox Engine
« Reply #217 on: September 15, 2014, 10:55:27 AM »
That's probably going to bring the torque guys down on us, and I've been against it from initial conception. But it does rather simplify the build gravock.

There's that word again. Ok you're scaring me lol. There's way too much going on in your design for my simple mind, the concept was born of inertia and I've tried to maintain that fundamental nature. Cramming additional and unnecessary elements into a new concept may do more harm than good I fear. Looking for the next step in proving the concept gravock, rather than a device that appears to be desperately clutching at every stray force to achieve OU.

I'll have to take your word for that, since EM is rather a dark art for me.

Hmmmm..... continuous acceleration isn't on the mode menu for this phenomenon gravock; the system needs to be cyclic. I'll take a long hard look at your proposal before making any further observations, but I doubt you have found a way past that obstacle. Not to worry, there are multiple elements to this concept and it may require some adjustments in thinking. Unless you are seeing something I missed, which is always a possibility. I hope you won't take offence (a common reaction around here) but it would be remiss of me not to speak plainly before you disappear into your shed.

The concepts found in this video will also be part of the design.  In the video, there is both a linear momentum and a rotational momentum in the opposite direction arising from the same applied force, just as we find in the PE.  In fact, it could be argued that this is nothing more than a simple and basic PE displaying the secondary reaction force.  A similar motion as found in the video will be achieved through the brush system.  What I'm talking about isn't much more complicated and different from the original PE.  I understand the concept of the secondary reaction force very well and the center of mass, etc.  You'll have to trust me on this for the time being, for I will need to prove it through experiments.  The video should be helpful in understanding the mechanics a little better.

Gravock

Offline Tusk

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 158
Re: The Paradox Engine
« Reply #218 on: September 15, 2014, 04:39:57 PM »
Quote
You'll have to trust me on this for the time being, for I will need to prove it through experiments.

Trust mode engaged; standing by with considerable interest.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: The Paradox Engine
« Reply #218 on: September 15, 2014, 04:39:57 PM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline tesla2

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 195
Re: The Paradox Engine
« Reply #219 on: September 16, 2014, 11:51:01 PM »
30 km/s and NEWTON NOT EXIST

( Newton was great obserwator we can use his Force but we have to add  small problem )

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-YrUvn5DtJbs/VBVMugI-61I/AAAAAAAAB_A/QmzLUbz-qoY/s1600/CIMG3325.JPG

I very slowly explain all

http://www.scienceagogo.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=52986#Post52986


You can find my engine here ( nobody proved in past tha radial force are able make work )

http://tesla4.blogspot.com



Offline Tusk

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 158
Re: The Paradox Engine
« Reply #220 on: September 17, 2014, 03:01:25 PM »
That all looks very interesting tesla2, but perhaps you should think about starting a thread and putting your ideas into a more user friendly order. Unless there is some specific point of intersection (which I have missed) between your own work and the PE concept, there seems little purpose to posting it here. That said it's clear you are interested in a broad range of physics related ideas, so good luck to you  :)

 

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: The Paradox Engine
« Reply #220 on: September 17, 2014, 03:01:25 PM »
3D Solar Panels

 

OneLink