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

MN LiveCoach

Masternodes Live Coaching

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 Members: 83425
  • *Latest: Major

  • *Total Posts: 511453
  • *Total Topics: 15230
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 10
  • *Guests: 13
  • *Total: 23

Author Topic: The Paradox Engine  (Read 88193 times)

Offline jfarmer408

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 4
Re: The Paradox Engine
« Reply #60 on: December 22, 2013, 06:50:47 PM »
Have you seen this video, its kind of up your alley!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n_6p-1J551Y
 :)

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: The Paradox Engine
« Reply #60 on: December 22, 2013, 06:50:47 PM »

Offline infringer

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 802
    • mopowah
Re: The Paradox Engine
« Reply #61 on: December 23, 2013, 01:00:49 AM »
hrmmm very odd the peak is higher and the time it takes to reach the peak is less when it is not fixed quite the anomaly ....

You got me on this one. Very interesting. it is possible that there is less friction during the start and rotation not being fixed rather than not fixed at least this is what the data points to.

Also takes less power to achieve even better results but the amount of power and the gain in speed do not by themselves add up to this 300% until you factor in the reverse spin I assume and this data is for the 2 disc unit that is in the video or is it for the 3 disc unit that there is no video of?

Sorry for the miss on the graph just trying to play a little catchup I suppose. Good stuff though.

Offline Tusk

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 158
Re: The Paradox Engine
« Reply #62 on: December 23, 2013, 06:31:39 AM »
That reaction cube you linked to is excellent jfarmer408. I want one  :)

Quote
takes less power to achieve even better results but the amount of power and the gain in speed do not by themselves add up to this 300% until you factor in the reverse spin I assume and this data is for the 2 disc unit that is in the video or is it for the 3 disc unit that there is no video of?

The data is from what you refer to as the 2 disc unit infringer, but I say single disk since the other rotating element is the main rotor arm. The proposed twin disk unit would approach a 200% return just from the energy in the disks if the rotor arm was relatively lightweight; this because the main rotor arm would rotate almost one turn for every turn of the disks, which would provide even more impressive data than that produced so far. This is possible because the secondary motion - rotor arm rotation - is essentially similar to converted linear motion of the baseball bat as referenced in the M.I.T. document.

We can deduce from this phenomenon (and indeed observe experimentally) that with a mass bias suited to the purpose, a single applied force can cause the resulting linear and rotational energies to be equal (rather than just their momentum). The significant supporting phenomenon of the PE device is to situate the origin of that force such that a continuous application becomes possible without the need to advance the point of application of force i.e. the frame of reference manipulation, or simply put, placing the drive unit at the centre of the system.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: The Paradox Engine
« Reply #62 on: December 23, 2013, 06:31:39 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline lumen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1364
Re: The Paradox Engine
« Reply #63 on: December 23, 2013, 06:36:05 AM »
Suppose the disk is accelerated to 1000 RPM at the arms center pivot.
At this point the disk is actually going 800 RPM and the arm is doing 200 RPM in the opposite direction.
Total reading at the crossing is 1000 RPM.
 
Now if you stop the arm the disk is going 800 RPM and the arm 0 RPM.
When you stop the disk, the arm will again accumulate the forces to 200 RPM.
Now you can stop the arm again. It appears as if there was a gain but in both cases the energy applied into the disk or extracted from the disk was never the full potential as it appears at the crossing.
In the first case, you never applied all the energy into the disk to reach 1000 RPM (only 800 RPM because 200 RPM moved into the arm)
Then in the second case you never extracted 800 RPM of energy from the disk. (only 600 RPM because again 200 RPM moved back into the arm)
 
Do you see this any differently?
 

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy


Offline Tusk

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 158
Re: The Paradox Engine
« Reply #64 on: December 23, 2013, 07:24:13 AM »
You appear to have misunderstood the nature of the first phenomenon lumen (and consequently missed the point of the second);

Quote
Suppose the disk is accelerated to 1000 RPM at the arms center pivot.
At this point the disk is actually going 800 RPM and the arm is doing 200 RPM in the opposite direction.

If we accept those values (which incidentally indicates an approximate mass ratio for the rotor arm to disk of 5:1 although this is subject to mass distribution) we must allow that whatever the applied force, it is adequate to the task of accelerating the disk to 800 RPM under normal circumstances; that it is also adequate to the task of accelerating the rotor arm to 200 RPM under normal circumstances; and that, since the circumstances are abnormal, the single application of that force has caused both rotations simultaneously as defined.

Once you accept the phenomenon, hidden in plain sight as it has been until recently - disguised as simply a consideration of momentum - the additional 200 RPM of the rotor arm in your example immediately reveals itself as stored energy over and above that spent motivating the disk to 800 RPM. This is the converted linear motion as defined in the M.I.T. document, and as I defined it independently after deduction of same, working in isolation prior to discovery of the M.I.T. document.

Take a good look at it. If we apply a force at the centre of mass (of a body) we observe X linear motion. If we apply the same force at one or other end of the same body, we observe Y rotational motion and X linear motion. We might call the rotation 'additional' but in any explanation of the PE device, describing the rotation of the disk as such would only cause more confusion. Therefore I regard the converted linear motion (of the rotor arm + disk) as 'additional'. Under 'normal' conditions this would require an additional input of energy due to the advancing point of force requirement.

With the PE apparatus it costs us nothing, since the second phenomenon (the frame of reference manipulation) allows the first phenomenon to manifest both motions with a single applied force equal to the task under normal conditions of manifesting one or the other but not both together. Since the data obtained from the PE apparatus actually supports this you may be forced at some point to accept the fact. Since it took more than a year of experiment and hard thinking to impose this on my own perception of reality I can sympathise  :-\



Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: The Paradox Engine
« Reply #64 on: December 23, 2013, 07:24:13 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline broli

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2216
Re: The Paradox Engine
« Reply #65 on: December 23, 2013, 01:06:08 PM »
I have kind of reached a conundrum which made the deck of cards fall for me.

It has to do with the inertia of the inner wheel. As you pointed out earlier, the orientation of the inner wheel will try to remain the same when the arm is rotated. For the people that don't understand what tusk means with this, check the attached drawing.

Now when this happens, the wheel, from the arm's reference point, will seem to rotate. The angular velocity of this rotation is equal, but in the opposite direction, to the angular velocity of the arm. This is always the case irregardless of any torque.

The conundrum that is melting my brain is if you start out with a motionless arm and a rotating disk. If you then brake the disk using the arm. We know what the final situation will look like. Namely the arm will be rotating, and the disk from the arm's point of view will be stationary. However from the earth's point of view it's far from stationary. It has the same angular velocity as the arm now. And deriving the angular momentum, and kinetic energy from such a situation is vastly different than not considering the inertia of the inner wheel.
« Last Edit: December 23, 2013, 06:30:38 PM by broli »

Offline infringer

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 802
    • mopowah
Re: The Paradox Engine
« Reply #66 on: December 24, 2013, 04:00:05 AM »
What I do not see being measured is the spin down of the unit.

Is the spin down velocity the same and the length of time it takes to spin down the same when the unit is fixed or not fixed.

Energy depletion just as a spring releasing when power is removed from the disc does the disc maintain the same release when fixed or not I would venture to say this too is an important part of the equation I am not trying to be negative just trying to look for anything you may have missed and I believe that is lumens intent as well.

Every great man can easily be downgraded rather quickly by missing one small thing and we are all vulnerable to overlooking things from time to time the human brain is complex but can be very fragile and imperfect as well at times even within a group small things go unnoticed and oddly I find it is the higher educated ones that overlook the small stuff details so to speak.

It looks like there is a sharper drop from the data in the rotation when the motor is free but I would like to see separate data from the moment the power is released just for the disc alone.



Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: The Paradox Engine
« Reply #66 on: December 24, 2013, 04:00:05 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline Tusk

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 158
Re: The Paradox Engine
« Reply #67 on: December 24, 2013, 04:56:55 AM »
Quote
I have kind of reached a conundrum which made the deck of cards fall for me.

That sounds more of a 'game over' thing than an obstacle to be overcome broli  :o

Quote
if you start out with a motionless arm and a rotating disk. If you then brake the disk using the arm. We know what the final situation will look like

However, we are starting out with simultaneous acceleration of both the disk and rotor arm; this we achieve by application of a single force which, if applied to the disk when bench mounted (in our case 'rotor arm secure') is incapable of inducing that same acceleration (of the disk).

Unsurprisingly we now find ourselves with beggared belief at that point of interaction between the two phenomenon, which is itself what we might reasonably call a new concept. Analysis by conventional means is unlikely to succeed since the concept will require acceptance and integration as a new 'dot point' in our overall understanding. If you think about it, anything less could not possibly lead to a method for OU.

Referring back to the baseball bat example provided by M.I.T. let's allow a particle of very small mass moving at very high velocity colliding with the bat (inelastic collision) to produce the two results indicated. Then we can disregard the change of position of centre of mass since the particle has such small mass.

The first collision has the particle impacting in line with the centre of mass of the bat at the centre of the bat. This results in X m/secĀ² linear acceleration of the bat over a period t (of collision interaction) which in turn produces a linear velocity of Y m/sec (of the bat, not rotating).

The second collision has the particle impacting at one or other end of the bat. This results in X m/secĀ² linear acceleration of the bat over the same period t (of collision interaction) which in turn produces a linear velocity of Y m/sec, and in addition some rotational motion. The rotational acceleration of the bat over period t will require sophisticated analysis due to the varied accelerations of all points along the length of the bat. But we can afford to let that go for now on the basis that this additional motion manifested seemingly at no additional cost, other than the repositioning of the impact point of the particle which is nothing, as we might just have easily have started with this second collision then moved the point of impact to achieve the non rotational result.

So we might ask where the additional energy come from (for the rotational acceleration); analysis of both collisions will show that both the force and period of acceleration (collision interaction) are identical, while the distance over which that force applies is greater for the collision thus resulting in rotation.

The second motion was indeed 'free' in terms of input energy since we achieved it by simply changing the impact point. The particle was able to induce more motion in the second instance due to point of force motion, which is logical since the end of the bat will clearly accelerate more rapidly than the centre of mass of the bat, given the same applied force.

But shooting small particles at a large mass is not very helpful to us in terms of energy. Having found a potentially useful phenomenon we must yet devise a method which allows the manifestation of both linear and rotational motion without the need for advancing the point of force; since this element of the collision is responsible for the additional motion. Enter the frame of reference manipulation, by which devious dark art we are able to accelerate our disk all the while converting linear motion to circular, thus avoiding the need to 'chase' the disk since our drive unit stands at the centre of the circle.

Obviously the disk now 'runs ahead' rotating more rapidly than if bench mounted. If we were to take that rate of turn and run the numbers according to convention (based on the mass of the disk and mass distribution etc) they would indicate that more energy was expended than in reality. This because the rotation of the rotor arm along with the inertia of the disk causes some percentage of the disk rotation (depending on the various mass values) in the frame of reference of the drive unit/rotor arm and as with the baseball bat it cost us no more in terms of energy than if the disk were bench mounted.

If you drill into hardwood with a power drill the motor is more likely to strain and overheat than when drilling softwood. There can be no serious argument that the disk 'running ahead' to a higher rate of rotation than might typically be expected could possibly impose more resistance on an EM drive unit.

CoM allows nay demands that simply repositioning the point of impact in our baseball bat experiment causes more motion of the bat. We can deduce without access to high speed cameras and sophisticated experimental apparatus that the responsible variable in the collision is point of force motion. By eliminating the need for advancing the point of force, the PE apparatus manifests more mass in motion than could typically be expected from the applied force, thus energy out > energy in although at this stage our energy out takes the form of stored energy (mass in motion).

Quote
you should be able to run your testbed on an air table and have no other reactions than the disc spinning up and the arm rotating.

Astute observation webby1, this all began with an idea for an inertial propulsion system. For good or bad, CoM disallowed any success and my attempts to furnish a method for travel to the stars ended in OU. Indeed the device (and any variation of it) moves not even a gnat's whisker, some small tendency of rotation of the base due to bearing friction etc maybe but yes you are correct   ;D       


Offline Tusk

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 158
Re: The Paradox Engine
« Reply #68 on: December 24, 2013, 05:34:11 AM »
Apologies infringer, you must have posted while I was replying to broli and webby1.

Quote
Is the spin down velocity the same and the length of time it takes to spin down the same when the unit is fixed or not fixed.

No, this is another frame of reference issue so comparison is not straightforward. Naturally the 'spin down' from the higher RPM of 'rotor free' takes longer; the rate of spin down appears to be similar in both instances. Suffice to say that we can choose either frame of reference but must then remain with it for best results. If we choose to simply spool up the disk then brake it, we gain whatever additional impetus was provided to the disk by the rotor arm motion and sacrifice the rotor arm motion itself. If we choose to forfeit that extra rate of turn (of the disk) we gain the rotor arm motion and also the reverse rotor arm motion (my preferred method).

Quote
Every great man can easily be downgraded rather quickly by missing one small thing and we are all vulnerable to overlooking things from time to time the human brain is complex but can be very fragile and imperfect as well at times even within a group small things go unnoticed and oddly I find it is the higher educated ones that overlook the small stuff details so to speak.

For what it's worth I don't believe in the 'great man' thing; great ideas maybe. Although anyone fortunate (or unfortunate?) enough to have one will probably tell you that they seem to originate elsewhere. As for mistakes and higher education, I generally have an abundance of the former and insufficient of the latter. Largely self taught and prone to misadventure  :) But I'm 100% clear on this beast, and the fact there has been no credible rebuttal since going open source a year ago tells it's own story.


 

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: The Paradox Engine
« Reply #68 on: December 24, 2013, 05:34:11 AM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline lumen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1364
Re: The Paradox Engine
« Reply #69 on: December 24, 2013, 05:53:40 AM »
The mistake is thinking that the bat contains more energy because it is rotating. If one was to extract the rotational energy from the bat the bat would be left with less energy and would not move as far as the bat that did not rotate.

As I said, it is harder to accelerate the disk when the arm does not rotate because it will actually rotate the expected RPM.
The RPM of the arm must be subtracted from the disk's RPM because the disk is now moving around the drive point so the disk's RPM is less, though from the drive point it appears to be the same.


The numbers I used in the example are fictitious and were meant only to show a division of rotation and do not express any of the details of the known masses or leverage points.

Because the energy in moving mass is not linear and the movement is divided between two objects and the measuring is made between the objects, less energy would be applied into the two slower moving objects and would show it reached full RPM faster. Both of these facts are true with what you have shown.








Offline Tusk

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 158
Re: The Paradox Engine
« Reply #70 on: December 24, 2013, 06:51:34 AM »
Quote
The mistake is thinking that the bat contains more energy because it is rotating. If one was to extract the rotational energy from the bat the bat would be left with less energy and would not move as far as the bat that did not rotate.

I say again, you appear to have misunderstood the nature of the first phenomenon lumen (and consequently missed the point of the second).

The bat most definitely does 'contain more energy' because it is rotating.

If the "acceleration of the centre of mass will be equal in all three cases" (M.I.T. document) then clearly the linear motion of the bat must also be equal; therefore your statement that I am mistaken in thinking the bat "contains more energy because it is rotating" is clearly invalid. I am running out of ways to explain and define the first phenomenon; the fact of it I presented a year since, along with a definition. The literature now reveals confirmation of it. And I have now presented an explanation of the cause.

Try this then:

If we apply the same force to a body at various points, the linear motion (i.e. the motion of the centre of mass) will be identical in every case, regardless of rotational motion (or lack thereof).

It's not entirely 'something for nothing' in my earlier baseball bat/particle collision example (and yet it also is). The advancing point of force over the period of the collisions differ, with the rotation causing the point of force motion to be greater. This we overcome by frame of reference manipulation in the PE apparatus, allowing basic geometry to redefine our advancing point of force as simply rotating on the spot, driven by the rotation of the rotor arm.

Actually quite simple when you step back far enough. But we should not underestimate the inertia of convention I suppose.

Afterthought - lumen, please don't read anything into the 'tone' of my replies other than an attempt at precision and clarity; no offense is intended and certainly anything this unusual is going to take some time to assimilate. I welcome your interest  :)
« Last Edit: December 24, 2013, 10:14:59 AM by Tusk »

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: The Paradox Engine
« Reply #70 on: December 24, 2013, 06:51:34 AM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline infringer

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 802
    • mopowah
Re: The Paradox Engine
« Reply #71 on: December 24, 2013, 05:17:36 PM »
So to put in laymens terms ...

Let me make sure I am understanding this correctly.

If the bat went rolling down a steep road 3 times over as a test, and came into contact with a fixed crash test dummy each time at the same point of impact at the bottom of this steep road.

- All of the data measured should be equal no matter which one of the 3 points hit it I don't think this is true but have not tested to verify but I do remember being hit by a spinning bat handle the barrel was spinning the hole bat was spinning and it was coming at me so 3 different accelerations ... And it didn't seem to be a week impact when it hit my shin but I must say it is also a weak spot to get hit at.

But the amount of mass at point of impact would cause different data for instance point 1 would have less mass even though the acelleration may be the same the mass differs on a baseball bat throughout? ,

The bat is like a stretched wheel and a bad example I would much rather use something like a drive shaft in my mind as it is a bit more equal throughout its length.

I am missing what is the real find I guess if this is incorrect.

This is a wheel that is stretched providing leverage points 1 and 3 any small amount of force is going to cause the spin of the bat not just as it sits but as it is pushed as well.

Hrmmm this has got me thinking on other lines as well.

Does the length of the arm effect the amount of counter rotation? This stuff is pretty neat I think there may be something here but it is not easy to pin down we all must keep thinking out loud and let tusk tell us what he can from his findings.



1___________2-----------------------3
  ------------------________________

Sorry for the bad ascii art lol but it should suffice.

Would this be what is being proposed I guess I am thinking of some way to put this with a bit less wording.

I under stand perfectly this principal as it is not new to me I guess a body on or in a body in motion does contain more energy simply the throwing of an object will teach you this it is not all about wind resistance there has to be some force that allows a pitcher to throw a curve ball or a knuckle ball without the rotational forces they would likely not achieve the same results more thought for this I suppose I dunno I may be adding confusion but I do wonder if this somehow correlates.

Hrmmm for lack of a better way of explaining ...

A spinning Ninja star at traveling at the same speed of another ninja star not spinning would likely result in a larger impact due to having two forms of momentum forward momentum and rotational momentum.

Interesting thing I wonder if it would matter if it was spinning vertically or horizontally as to the amount of overall momentum it would have I assume not but have not seen any tests to say either way.

There is quite a bit of thinking out loud here feel free to sort it out Tusk but I think what we may need is a bit more simplified terms for people.


Be back later to check watching the Space Station Pump Module installation final steps ...

Offline lumen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1364
Re: The Paradox Engine
« Reply #72 on: December 24, 2013, 08:46:02 PM »
If the particle's energy was completely absorbed into the bat in each case then why would you consider that the case with rotation contained any more energy? The particle simply caused the overall mass of the bat to move at a certain rate whether the bat rotates or not.

What I'm saying is that you consider the rotation to indicate the bat contains more energy when it does not. To extract the rotational energy would cause the bat to not move as far.

If the bat that was not rotating impacted a rock on one end as it was moving from the particle impact, then this bat would now rotate also but in fact has given up some energy on impact with the rock and will not travel as far.

So extracting the rotation from the rotating bat will also give up some energy and continue to move without rotation also, only not as far.

The logic is very clear, at least in my thinking.

The reason this appears unusual is that normally in experience anything that strikes another object at a direction that causes spin, never imparts all of it's energy into the other object. In the M.I.T. cases, the particle is fully absorbed in all cases so all of the energy is transferred.

If the energy was imparted into the bat at (2) then (2)=X and points (1) and (3) =X, all point move the same.

If the energy was imparted into the bat at (3) then (2)=X and (3)=X+1 and (1)= X-1, all points average the same but the bat is spinning.


Offline broli

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2216
Re: The Paradox Engine
« Reply #73 on: December 24, 2013, 09:04:33 PM »
If the energy was imparted into the bat at (2) then (2)=X and points (1) and (3) =X, all point move the same.

If the energy was imparted into the bat at (3) then (2)=X and (3)=X+1 and (1)= X-1, all points average the same but is spinning.

This is actually not true. Yes the bat will contain more energy, in both cases linear momentum must be conserved. So, no matter what, the center of mass, of m + M in both cases must have the same ending velocity. And any additional rotation means the block STILL has the same amount of momentum, but different amounts of kinetic energy.

Here's the perfect example:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vWVZ6APXM4w
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BLYoyLcdGPc

However you shouldn't get too hung up on that.

Tusk allowed me to really dig deep into this stuff. And every time, considering everything, like the total moment of inertia, theorem of couples on rigid bodies, reaction torques, the Parallel Axis Theorem, inertia of the inner wheel... I end up with a dead end, where energy cannot be increased.
« Last Edit: December 24, 2013, 11:17:31 PM by broli »

Offline lumen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1364
Re: The Paradox Engine
« Reply #74 on: December 24, 2013, 11:34:22 PM »
broil,
I like the bullet experiment!
The explanation that was given is obviously not correct or the results would have been significant enough to be seen.
How can the rotational energy be 50% of the gravitational energy and yet the penetration difference is immeasurable.
 
What doesn't make sense about this problem?

 
 

 

OneLink