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 Members: 83568
  • *Latest: XR IX

  • *Total Posts: 514951
  • *Total Topics: 15320
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 4
  • *Guests: 13
  • *Total: 17

Author Topic: The Paradox Engine  (Read 91050 times)

Offline broli

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2217
Re: The Paradox Engine
« Reply #75 on: December 25, 2013, 12:23:36 AM »
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?

You got stuck on a none issue. That experiment is not guess work, it's a tried and true fact of common day physics backed up by countless experiments.

At no point did anyone say the final energy was more than the initial energy. In a ballistic pendulum experiment you can loose as much as 99.99% of the initial energy while you will conserve 100% of the linear momentum. The Linear momentum of a rigid is always conserved irregardless whether the impact was offset to the center of mass. Sure you end up with more conserved energy which is seen as rotational energy, but still not as much as your initial energy.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: The Paradox Engine
« Reply #75 on: December 25, 2013, 12:23:36 AM »

Offline lumen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1370
Re: The Paradox Engine
« Reply #76 on: December 25, 2013, 12:42:57 AM »
You got stuck on a none issue. That experiment is not guess work, it's a tried and true fact of common day physics backed up by countless experiments.

At no point did anyone say the final energy was more than the initial energy. In a ballistic pendulum experiment you can loose as much as 99.99% of the initial energy while you will conserve 100% of the linear momentum. The Linear momentum of a rigid is always conserved irregardless whether the impact was offset to the center of mass. Sure you end up with more conserved energy which is seen as rotational energy, but still not as much as your initial energy.

Another interesting viewpoint is extracting the conserved energy from the blocks.
The non rotating block lands on a bar directly contacting the center of the block. At this point the most possible gravitational energy is extracted.
 
The rotating block must land on a bar at the same offset as the bullet strike (other side) to counter the rotation in order to conserve the same energy as the non rotating block landing on the center point. (bullet strike point)
 
If the rotation conserved additional energy, why would more energy not be extracted from the rotating block?
If the rotating block landed on the center of the block, less energy would be extracted.
 
The problem does not seem to be fully accounted for.
 

Offline Tusk

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 158
Re: The Paradox Engine
« Reply #77 on: December 25, 2013, 02:48:35 AM »
That's quite a torrent of free thinking infringer  :) I'll basically let you get on with it until the dust settles for you, but this comment:

Quote
I think what we may need is a bit more simplified terms for people.

..... I'll attempt to go down that road a little further but I've discovered that this can lead to picking through the discarded minutia and throwing it back as proof of error.

Quote
I was actually expecting a slight deviation in the vertical plane of the axle for the arm,, so that when looked at straight down it was making a small circle and that this deviation would be close to 90 degrees from the arm position while under acceleration.

I think I see what you're looking for webby1; a reaction for the applied force in the body of the apparatus? If so then I'll just pop a sketch of my original concept, where I was hoping for an inertial drive system (image attached at end of post). Btw it didn't move either, but it did get me thinking ;D

and lumen:

Quote
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?

Because in the period of the collision, the bat moves further at the end than it does with the collision at the centre of mass, which in turn causes the point of force motion to be greater ergo more energy. The simple statement 'having the same force applied' is heavily loaded; applying the same force to say, a bowling ball and a golf ball, first and foremost the period of application of force must be equal else the experiment has no meaning. So over the period of application of force, the bowling ball moves a few inches and the golf ball a few feet (let's allow, at least). So the point of application of force has advanced significantly further for the golf ball, which requires additional energy, which in turn explains why the golf ball exhibits a more energetic motion than the heavy bowling ball. In our case the rotation follows similar lines.

Also if you take a look at the image I attached for webby1, there is no motion of the apparatus despite there being a pair of reactions at the drive units attempting to impart motion to the body of the apparatus. The only possible conclusion is the one I have provided; the secondary reactive forces at the axis of the disks exactly cancel these two primary reactions. Otherwise there would be a breach of CoM (which is initially what I was hoping for btw).

I had this aspect sorted and defined long before the M.I.T. paper was discovered, and until that time very few seemed to believe my findings. This is no longer in contention, rather the interaction between the two phenomena seems to be the current stumbling block. There is no doubt that the three linear motions of the baseball bat in the M.I.T. example are equal; and since the motion of rotation must produce greater energy than non rotation, therefore the rotating bat must have had more energy imparted to it, and must also have more energy to yield.


Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: The Paradox Engine
« Reply #77 on: December 25, 2013, 02:48:35 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline Tusk

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 158
Re: The Paradox Engine
« Reply #78 on: December 26, 2013, 09:25:28 AM »
Sounds like you have a mind for 'out of the box' thinking webby1. Presumably you didn't defeat CoM with your designs, or is my faith in that fundamental phenomenon misplaced? That might be my only concern regarding the PE concept, since it depends on CoM to function :)

This for broli:

I had another quick glance over your replies and I may have an answer to your obvious discomfort with the 'extra energy' issue. I'm attaching a graphic below which represents a disk (A), if we can allow that it is mounted on some sort of cart (thus constituting an 'assembly') perhaps with rails to run on; and there is also a 'brake rail' (B) running parallel to the rails. The disk is already rotating at the start of the experiment.

We know that if the brake rail applies a retarding force to the disk a reaction manifests at the point of force on the brake rail; a secondary reaction manifests at the disk axis as shown; and of course the disk rotation is retarded. This arrangement is really quite similar to that already discussed, but with the disk already rotating with X kinetic energy. Finally we can allow that the linear motion of the disk (due to the secondary reaction at the axis) manifests such that all rotation ceases as the disk passes point C on the brake rail. Linear acceleration will also cease at point C, but the disk assembly now has Y kinetic energy.

Note that I have named the applied force and the primary reaction based on the perspective that the brake rail applies force to the disk, mainly to highlight the similarity between this example and those considered previously, and account for the linear motion with more clarity.

If we now allow that a length of steel was in linear motion at velocity V with X KE; we then reform the rod into a circle, mount it as in the example on a weightless disk assembly in a frictionless environment and specify a theoretical 100% efficient brake system (i.e. no heat, sound etc).

Then we rotate the disk such that any point on the reformed rod has circular velocity V, so that it's KE will again be X.

At the end of the experiment the linear velocity of the disk assembly will again be V and therefore the KE will be X (ergo for these conditions Y = X ).

Before proceeding further with this example I will pause for comment, since without your allowance of the above our next point would likely be rejected.


Offline broli

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2217
Re: The Paradox Engine
« Reply #79 on: December 26, 2013, 01:14:10 PM »
Tusk, that's perhaps an easier setup to analyze. However I would like to state that the rotating version is not the same. If you would compare them, for instance accelerating both rod and wheel at the same rate, in the rotating version a rotation of the wheel would arise due to its inertia. While no such "spontaneous" rotation appears in the linear version.

I also performed a simple analysis of the linear setup. it does show an energy gain, but I'm looking forward to some critique pointing out the mistake in the math.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: The Paradox Engine
« Reply #79 on: December 26, 2013, 01:14:10 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline Tusk

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 158
Re: The Paradox Engine
« Reply #80 on: December 26, 2013, 05:05:19 PM »
Quote
the rotating version is not the same

Agreed broli, I was getting to that later, using this first example as a sort of 'base camp'.

Quote
it does show an energy gain, but I'm looking forward to some critique pointing out the mistake in the math

At a glance the maths is ok but there are a couple of other issues (my fault, I should have been more specific). I intended that the brake rail be 'bench mounted', we want to motivate the disk (linear motion) to the maximum (which you seem to have done anyway). Also my mention of the steel rod was an unnecessary complication, I believe you would concede that the proposed ring of steel would have the same KE at a given linear velocity as at an equal rotational velocity.

In your analysis an arbitrary value appears to have been given for a force acting over a specific period without consideration that the inertial resistance of the rod might not be sufficient to manifest it. The event you examined would be best dealt with as a collision between two bodies in equilibrium, but that was not my intention.

Actually I also made an error regarding the cessation of rotation of the disk. This is one of the hazards when wandering off the beaten track, then wandering off that track  :)

In order to stop the rotation in the observer frame of reference, the brake must actually continue to apply force beyond the instant when a given point on the disk passes over the brake rail but has no motion from right to left as it does so. Put another way, if we roll a disk along a surface with no slippage, the disk rotates but the aforementioned condition applies (it's a tough one to define with any clarity).

If the brake force stops at this point (i.e. before the rotation is stopped) then not all rotational motion is converted to linear motion. That motion remaining in rotational form is still available to us in this configuration, but now I want to confirm with you that if we allow the brake to convert 50% of the rotational motion to linear motion, then 100% of the initial KE (theoretical) is still available to us in the two motions.

If you agree with this, then I must introduce regenerative braking again (as you no doubt anticipated) and ask where does the resultant harvest of energy originate -  whatever it's value - since we have already accounted for 100% ?

Quote
I would like to state that the rotating version is not the same. If you would compare them, for instance accelerating both rod and wheel at the same rate, in the rotating version a rotation of the wheel would arise due to its inertia. While no such "spontaneous" rotation appears in the linear version.

You may have something there; perhaps between us we will come up with a linear version of the PE apparatus to beat my original version  :o I doubt very much if all the bases are covered, more likely only several of a great many; which makes the scarcity of prospectors all the more surprising.
 

 

Offline telecom

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 522
Re: The Paradox Engine
« Reply #81 on: December 26, 2013, 08:23:05 PM »
Tusk, that's perhaps an easier setup to analyze. However I would like to state that the rotating version is not the same. If you would compare them, for instance accelerating both rod and wheel at the same rate, in the rotating version a rotation of the wheel would arise due to its inertia. While no such "spontaneous" rotation appears in the linear version.

I also performed a simple analysis of the linear setup. it does show an energy gain, but I'm looking forward to some critique pointing out the mistake in the math.
Hi ,
I'm not an expert in this field, but remember from far back that usually for
calculation of the energy of the flywheel people are using moment of inertia instead of the mass. Not sure if this is relevant or already accounted for, though.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flywheel

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: The Paradox Engine
« Reply #81 on: December 26, 2013, 08:23:05 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline Tusk

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 158
Re: The Paradox Engine
« Reply #82 on: December 27, 2013, 04:54:15 AM »
An interesting viewpoint webby1. I can only answer to the following:

Quote
the potential a mass has relative to another mass is the rate change in distance of separation

With the applied force situated at or over the axis we can consider the drive unit (which basically represents the bench/earth ) and the disk/rotor arm as fulfilling your definition (above). As you seem to agree, in this configuration (by virtue of the secondary reaction at the disk axis) we are able to cause a continuous interaction between the two across two frames of reference, the first being the rotation of the disk itself in the rotor arm FoR and the second being the rotor arm rotation in the observers frame of reference.

We are all familiar with the first of these, having a plethora of spinning objects nearly everywhere we look. The second however, wherein the rotation is caused by a 'remote' secondary reaction offset from our point of application of force, appears to be a new concept, most likely due to the significance of the physics having not been recognised (it tends to blow away like mist on the winds of angular momentum theory). This 'remote' reactive force allows us to situate our two masses (as per your definition above) so as to be continuously accelerating away from each other while remaining in fixed and direct contact. This in turn abrogates the conventional requirement for supplying that amount of energy normally needed to accelerate one or other masses in pursuit of point of force acceleration, a significant frame of reference coup but unfortunately one not readily comprehended even by those familiar with physics and the topic of frames of reference.

Quote
This reminds me of a self exciting oscillation.  Could it be that your setup has found a method of doing this?

This is a frame of reference manipulation; I have very little knowledge of oscillation theory but at first glance I shouldn't be surprised if FoR played some part in it.

With the PE apparatus awareness of the first phenomenon is the key to manipulating FoR to our advantage by application of the second phenomenon. It's not too much of a stretch metaphorically to say that this is like the discovery of a new dimension. Everyone (ok, anyone with an interest) wants to crawl around it and take measurements with three dimensional equipment. You need to stand back and fit a metaphorical fish eye lens to get a meaningful look at the thing, then maybe formulate some new equations and perhaps even tack a new law onto the literature.

Thanks for the link telecom, although you have probably already noted from my previous comments that what is really needed here is a broader view rather than equations. Perhaps we can make better use of those one day, if someone decides to have a go at building the next stage of experimental apparatus. If I go to the grave with no confederates in this, then so be it; and serves me right for gifting the damned thing rather than going for a patent and the usual hush money. If my take on the universe is pointing anywhere near true I'll probably die in a hail of gunfire (or worse lol), even the flimsy umbrella of public awareness having failed to open  ???

     

Offline Tusk

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 158
Re: The Paradox Engine
« Reply #83 on: December 27, 2013, 06:55:06 AM »
Let's try this approach; something a little more familiar and 'hands on'.

If we make our disk large enough to serve as one of those fairground rides, seats all around the outer edge with harnesses etc. Drive the disk as specified, but have an identical disk nearby with no rotor arm, with the same weight of riders and the same drive system etc.

First the simple disk ride starts up, consumes X amount of energy with a rate of rotation value of Y and everyone swings out over the watching crowd on their articulated chairs due to the rapid rotation. The power is cut and in a perfect world X amount of energy is reclaimed by regenerative braking and fed back into the massive battery.

Now the PE type ride begins; by the time we have again consumed X amount of energy the disk is rotating as rapidly as before (observer FoR) but now the rotor arm is active, so that the ride rotates simultaneously about two separate axes (and we all know how that feels). The power is then cut. Note that in the FoR of the rotor arm, the rate of rotation of the disk exceeds the first instance ( i.e. > Y ).

While as stated at the central drive unit the disk rotation appears to be faster, when the rotor arm regenerative brake is applied and the rotor arm stops, the disk rotation is seen to be exactly as before, with a rate of rotation of value Y. Reclamation of energy so far is Z amount of energy from the rotor arm motion.

Now the regenerative brake is applied to the disk by the drive unit. Since this is only a single disk system and we require simplicity and clarity, let's lock the rotor arm at this point. The rate of disk rotation now having a value of Y in the rotor arm FoR, which is now the same FoR as the observer, as with the simple ride when the disk rotation comes to a halt the reclaimed energy from the disk must be X (in a perfect world).

The simple ride replaced the energy lost driving the ride. The PE type ride achieved this and also added Y amount of energy to the battery.

The only reason this might not be so is if the cost in energy of motivating an object by EM propulsion were more in the event of the object being propelled having some additional motion in the direction of intended motion (perhaps our point of force motion comes into play, but not in our favour on this occasion). If this is so then we might easily restrict the motion of the rotor arm by gearing, since the secondary force applies for the same duration as the applied force no matter how we direct it; therefore some additional energy exceeding that amount expended will nevertheless be available to us. But considering the astounding energy evident in devices from electric motors through to rail guns, it seems that due to the high rate of creation and collapse of magnetic fields the typical working velocities of our machinery are handled with little regard for point of force motion.

My understanding is that it makes little or no difference to an EM propulsion system whether the motivated mass has an initial velocity of 1cm/sec or 10m/sec, with the cost in energy being virtually equal and having basically the same outcome in terms of acceleration. Please correct me if this is not so.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: The Paradox Engine
« Reply #83 on: December 27, 2013, 06:55:06 AM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline Tusk

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 158
Re: The Paradox Engine
« Reply #84 on: December 27, 2013, 03:45:49 PM »
I'm not familiar with your designs webby1 but that might be an option worth looking at. I had always assumed that electronics was the most efficient way to go for energy recovery, eliminating as much mechanical hardware as possible. Is there a specific reason behind your suggestion or were you thinking out loud? (which is fine, btw)  :)

Offline Tusk

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 158
Re: The Paradox Engine
« Reply #85 on: December 28, 2013, 12:53:47 AM »
Your mechanical rectifier appears to be both well engineered and a fine idea webby1.

I made several attempts at designing a simple apparatus based on PE principles which employs exclusively mechanical methods to achieve a self running system, but generally I discard any design beyond my own laughable amateur engineering abilities before it even gets from pen to paper. Unfortunately the basic idea while simple, does require the redirection and integration of two independent motions to achieve success. I'll give more thought to that and get back to you if a promising design offers itself up.

Your idea of measuring the output from the main rotor arm has merit. There is still the matter of disk output, although there are different ways of cycling the device and potentially all output might be directed through the rotor arm. Again I'll give it more thought, with thanks for your contribution - this is all very encouraging  :)



   










 

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: The Paradox Engine
« Reply #85 on: December 28, 2013, 12:53:47 AM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline telecom

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 522
Re: The Paradox Engine
« Reply #86 on: December 28, 2013, 03:00:50 AM »
Your mechanical rectifier appears to be both well engineered and a fine idea webby1.

I made several attempts at designing a simple apparatus based on PE principles which employs exclusively mechanical methods to achieve a self running system, but generally I discard any design beyond my own laughable amateur engineering abilities before it even gets from pen to paper. Unfortunately the basic idea while simple, does require the redirection and integration of two independent motions to achieve success. I'll give more thought to that and get back to you if a promising design offers itself up.

Your idea of measuring the output from the main rotor arm has merit. There is still the matter of disk output, although there are different ways of cycling the device and potentially all output might be directed through the rotor arm. Again I'll give it more thought, with thanks for your contribution - this is all very encouraging  :)



 

What is disturbing to me in the present design is the fact that everything runs from the battery which is not connected to any wires for charging. May be instead of a battery to use some kind of a sliding contacts to power EM drive from the main?
This way it will be possible to implement the power recovery during the stopping of both the disk and a rotating arm.

Offline Tusk

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 158
Re: The Paradox Engine
« Reply #87 on: December 28, 2013, 05:42:44 AM »
I'll reply to your comments first webby1:

Quote
My thought of using only the arm is that the disc should be a freeby,, that is you pulse the input to accelerate and then you take that back out to decelerate, and these two components move the arm in opposite directions,, so you spin up for the arm moving say 1\4 turn and you spin down for the arm moving 1\4 turn the other way.

Hmmmm. Currently there is no regenerative braking on the drive unit (although it does provide simple EM braking) so that with your idea in place we would still not be getting anything back from the disk rotation (other than the secondary motions of the rotor arm). We could allow (quite rightly I believe) that each braking period has a theoretical return of 100% of the energy supplied to it (during the acceleration period) but if that is acceptable, I wonder why it is apparently not clear to anyone that any energy reclaimed from rotor arm motion takes us into OU.

I like that you have gone with the cyclic nature of the device btw; the universe is supposed to be asymmetric (and appears to be so) therefore a cyclic method of extracting energy somehow seems appropriate. I need to feed each new idea into the alarmingly convoluted spaghetti programming which constitutes the sum of my knowledge, so please forgive any hesitancy on my part  :)

also this, from telecom:

Quote
May be instead of a battery to use some kind of a sliding contacts to power EM drive from the main?
This way it will be possible to implement the power recovery during the stopping of both the disk and a rotating arm.

Beyond my build capability telecom. It pays to know your own limitations... and I get electric shocks from clockwork toys, not to mention blowing up nearly every power supply I own (usually due to incorrect polarity)  ;D The fact that the current battery powered apparatus still runs is testimony to my self control, having resisted the temptation to modify it since rewinding the coils.

Offline broli

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2217
Re: The Paradox Engine
« Reply #88 on: December 28, 2013, 12:44:31 PM »
What if you could tweak the concept a bit, use some electromagnetic paradoxes to achieve an ever increasing rotation speed with a constant electric input. It stems from the homopolar field where a rotation magnet/solenoid exhibits the same effect as if it were stationary. This way you solenoid being torqued, will increase its speed due to the torque without it having any detrimental effect on applied electric power.

Offline broli

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2217
Re: The Paradox Engine
« Reply #89 on: December 28, 2013, 03:28:32 PM »
Here's a short animation of what I'm talking about:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=umN-6fa5ZEs

refer to the video description for explanation.

Until you realize the Freudian whiplash.
« Last Edit: December 29, 2013, 12:14:05 AM by broli »

 

OneLink