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

MN LiveCoach

Masternodes Live Coaching

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: 83434
  • *Latest: Neo2019

  • *Total Posts: 511680
  • *Total Topics: 15236
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 6
  • *Guests: 16
  • *Total: 22

Author Topic: The Paradox Engine  (Read 88227 times)

Offline Tusk

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 158
Re: The Paradox Engine
« Reply #45 on: December 19, 2013, 01:17:23 AM »
I need to add (without taking anything away from my previous post) that low quality video of a rotating object is not the best indicator of RPM. If the main rotor arm motion is reversing then the EM brakes were being applied to the disk, so I think it unlikely the RPM was high at that time; what you are seeing is probably a video illusion.

The video serves to demonstrate the various motions of the drive and brake cycles, and very little else. You can observe the motion of the main rotor arm being arrested under braking of the disk, and at other times when the arm is nearly motionless it can be seen reversing direction and spooling back up with considerable energy, merely from application of the EM brake to the disk.   

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: The Paradox Engine
« Reply #45 on: December 19, 2013, 01:17:23 AM »

Offline infringer

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 802
    • mopowah
Re: The Paradox Engine
« Reply #46 on: December 19, 2013, 05:28:56 AM »
Excuse me for not investing a lot of time into this but I would like to add I find this interesting and may do so when I have time however, I do wonder if this could be useful in a generator somehow maybe an axial flux type generator it is interesting to note how this effect translates onto the screen but there are things I would like to see like how this thing operates vertically rather than horizontally or even what was to happen if the rotor was on an arm being horizontal while the bearing was vertical to see exactly what happens it is a good shot at science no matter what anyone says.

The theory I have only skimmed through while the video I have watched both it would be nice if people were to explain the theory in their video no matter how crazy they may seem it helps stimulate conversation much faster as talking then reading through all the postings but it is important to have both for better documentation. Camera shy no problem don't show your face just talk lol!

Anyhow I think a lot of work that goes on here are all baby steps to something someone with an open mind can repurpose anything to fit a specific need or maybe even create something new and super useful.

Offline Tusk

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 158
Re: The Paradox Engine
« Reply #47 on: December 20, 2013, 03:49:42 AM »
Thanks for your comments and suggestions infringer, I agree with your inference that my presentation of the material has been lacking in some areas. There have been a number of suggestions not unlike your own, ideas for improvement or even experimental curiosity are a positive influence, but it does rather leave the impression that the salient points have been largely overlooked.

To clarify then, the experiments thus far have given rise to the following conclusions:

Phenomenon 1:

A force applied at any point on a body in equilibrium results in an equal and parallel reactive force at the centre of mass of the body acting in the direction of the applied force.
This reaction causes such linear motion of the body as would occur if the original force were applied at the centre of mass, independent of any rotational motion produced by the moment of the applied force.


(This has since been corroborated by discovery of supporting information in the literature)

Phenomenon 2:

Mounting the origin of the applied force (i.e. the EM drive unit) at the central axis of a freewheeling rotor arm on which the disk is mounted (such that the linear acceleration due to the secondary reactive force manifests as rotational acceleration) allows phenomenon 1 to manifest without the requirement to accelerate the drive unit.
   

Exploitation of phenomenon 1 by employing phenomenon 2 allows more mass in motion (i.e. higher KE) to manifest from a given investment of input energy. While this might appear to breach CoE there is the possibility that a frame of reference defence might be constructed, since 'non invariance' of KE due to the frame of reference issue is already known.

So there are two bones of centention regarding this concept. The first has been explained at length and eventually verified by reference in the literature. The second may require further discussion.

A quick thought experiment then; if we were hand propelling a bicycle wheel along a road by repeated application of force at the top of the wheel, we would need to keep pace with the wheel as the linear velocity of the wheel increased. We must first walk then run alongside as the wheel accelerates, and we must do so while repeatedly applying our force, the reaction to which resists our efforts to move forward.

The PE apparatus converts the linear acceleration of the disk to circular motion, the disk being mounted on the main rotor arm such that the drive unit remains stationary (aside from the rotation of the rotor arm) and therefore requires no linear acceleration to 'keep pace' with the disk. This is the equivalent of allowing us to stand still in the earlier thought experiment, while still achieving both rotational acceleration and linear acceleration of the bicycle wheel, a ballpark saving of 50% energy.

It is not beyond reason to compare the second phenomenon to having the ability of refuelling an accelerating rocket without the need to accelerate the fuel.

There is a further sting in the tail. If we first recover the kinetic energy of the rotor arm following a period of acceleration, then recover the KE of the disk, the secondary reactive force manifests in the opposite direction and the rotor arm accelerates yet again, allowing a further recovery of energy before the device becomes motionless.

Since each of these motions (ideally) have the potential to store 100% of the energy used to create the original applied force I have claimed a theoretical 300% OU for a device similar to the PE apparatus but having two identical disks mounted on opposite ends of the rotor arm. Mass bias of the disks should be to the edges, and the rotor arm be as lightweight as possible to achieve anything near 300% OU in actual conditions. Well engineered flywheels apparently operate at around 90% efficiency, which is encouraging since EM losses appear to be the most significant obstacle to a viable design.

 
 

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: The Paradox Engine
« Reply #47 on: December 20, 2013, 03:49:42 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline telecom

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 494
Re: The Paradox Engine
« Reply #48 on: December 20, 2013, 10:44:20 PM »
I think the next logical step would be measuring all the outputs. For this
you probably have to attach a sprocket towards the freewheeling arm, coaxial with
the central axis, and connect to a generator. This will cover all the possible outputs,
in addition to what you have already in place!
Great work, overall.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy


Offline infringer

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 802
    • mopowah
Re: The Paradox Engine
« Reply #49 on: December 20, 2013, 11:35:47 PM »
Correct the next step is to physically display beyond reasonable doubt this unit can run at the claimed COE we can sit in theory until we have a theory of everything but in truth what makes something real is a concrete physical representation.

I will say though it does appear that there may be some strange kind of gain as described but I am curious as to why something with a 300% COE cannot run itself and give energy this is the next hurdle to cross and where you should be hedging your bets if the principal is indeed as sound as you describe. So if you wait for someone to do it for you it will likely not happen but 3 years and a belief that large should get you motivated I suggest that if you would like verification builds by others to include the full inner and outer workings of your design from the types of bearings down to the smallest screw over to all the electronics to make this possible. Once you have completed a self runner capable of generation of power it will exponentially increase the amount of feedback and participation with your project.

I say if the work is sound enough after 3 years why not give birth to this method of generation of power this is the ultimate goal is it not?



Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: The Paradox Engine
« Reply #49 on: December 20, 2013, 11:35:47 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline broli

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2216
Re: The Paradox Engine
« Reply #50 on: December 21, 2013, 12:39:58 AM »
That is the obvious question isn't it, if the main arm gains rotational energy every time the em drive accelerates and breaks the inner wheel. Why not just keep repeating this process. Shouldn't it keep increasing its rotational energy every cycle to infinity and beyond? If not then the argument of there being an energy gain will be hard to uphold.

Offline Tusk

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 158
Re: The Paradox Engine
« Reply #51 on: December 21, 2013, 02:43:05 PM »
Thanks for your continued interest gentlemen, I'll attempt to answer each in turn.

First this from telecom:

Quote
I think the next logical step would be measuring all the outputs. For this
you probably have to attach a sprocket towards the freewheeling arm, coaxial with
the central axis, and connect to a generator.

Operation is by nature cyclic, since we are relying on inertia to provide us with the secondary reactive force, and therefore cannot run at a constant rate. There may very well be a possibility to shift this reliance to EM resistance with a continuous input/output potential but at this point it seems appropriate to keep it simple and maintain sight of the fundamentals. The EM drive will also need to act as a regenerative brake, and there must be a generator capable of switching rotational direction (either electrically or mechanically) to allow for the rotor arm reversal. Also the cyclic operation will require some sort of computer control and switching etc. Therefore the full prototype will require some good electronics engineering in addition to a robust mechanical build.

This from infringer:

Quote
I am curious as to why something with a 300% COE cannot run itself and give energy

Try as I might a method for mechanically directing energy from the three separate motions to achieve self running continues to elude me; it really would be far easier to bite the bullet and build a two disk EM system as described.

and this:

Quote
I suggest that if you would like verification builds by others to include the full inner and outer workings of your design from the types of bearings down to the smallest screw over to all the electronics to make this possible.

If I had the engineering skills to produce such material I would be linking a video of the completed device.  :) A year ago I was convinced that the concept would stand on it's own merit, with enough potential builders interested (if not completely convinced) to kick start a discussion and eventually a build. Actual events seem to suggest you are closer to the mark, with most of the interest following inventors who patent their creations rather than offer them freely.

And this from broli:

Quote
That is the obvious question isn't it, if the main arm gains rotational energy every time the em drive accelerates and breaks the inner wheel. Why not just keep repeating this process. Shouldn't it keep increasing its rotational energy every cycle to infinity and beyond? If not then the argument of there being an energy gain will be hard to uphold.

Since the main rotor arm motion is reversed each cycle the rotational energy cannot increase indefinitely as you suggest. There is of course the possibility of braking at the outer edge of the disk using a static outer ring of coils (bench mounted). Such a layout would initially have the effect you describe, since the braking force at the outer edge would create a secondary reactive force on the rotor arm in the same direction as that created by the drive unit. But a limited rate of turn system would be the better solution in this instance since the rotor arm motion would act contrary to the interaction between the rotating disk and the outer ring as the rotor arm rate of turn increased, eventually reversing the direction of braking thus also reversing the direction of the secondary reactive force.

Any perceived gain in regard to rotation of the disk at that point would be negated in turn (no pun intended) by the retardation of the rotor arm, unless perhaps the intention was to motivate the disk to relatively high rates of rotation. Such an intent seems to require unnecessarily convoluted thinking when the initial design offers a simple cyclic method of operation.

No doubt many find the thought processes required in frame of reference manipulation arduous and foreign, the conclusions often confounding. Like any other field of activity it does eventually become second nature. Contemplate the 'non invariant' energy of a ball thrown onto a passing train; to the observer outside the train, if the ball passes through the carriage and out again (open windows - an old carriage then) the energy of the ball is clearly no more than expected. To an observer inside the carriage the ball might enter through a window at the front and move at high velocity along the carriage, exiting through a rear window on the far side.

A simplistic example but it serves to show the potential for advantage by manipulation of frames of reference. This is the underlying nature of the PE apparatus, which must be understood in these terms to defeat the paradox. Applying the usual litmus tests here may not reveal the veracity of the concept, but (more interestingly) neither can it provide a disproof. If I may roll out an old proverb (in good humour), 'you can lead a horse to water'.   

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: The Paradox Engine
« Reply #51 on: December 21, 2013, 02:43:05 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline telecom

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 494
Re: The Paradox Engine
« Reply #52 on: December 21, 2013, 08:37:32 PM »
 The EM drive will also need to act as a regenerative brake, and there must be a generator capable of switching rotational direction (either electrically or mechanically) to allow for the rotor arm reversal. Also the cyclic operation will require some sort of computer control and switching etc. Therefore the full prototype will require some good electronics engineering in addition to a robust mechanical build.

Hi Task,
I believe that you already have solved the problem of measuring an output from the EM drive based on the power output graphs you presented earlier. In terms of a generator being connected, it will produce current either way its shaft rotates, and to make it flow in one direction, it will be sufficient to add 4 diodes to the output, which is a trivial task, not requiring any specialized knowledge. You just have to attach the pulley, or a sprocket towards the arm. and couple it towards a generator.
Regards.

Offline broli

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2216
Re: The Paradox Engine
« Reply #53 on: December 21, 2013, 10:20:19 PM »
Tusk I still believe that simple math should show the energy gained. Again I would like to refer to the ballistic pendulum experiment.

Here simply following the law of conservation of momentum leads to vanishing energy, of course the critics will tell you that the energy is lost as heat, sound, deformation but any concrete data to back this claim up has gone missing just like the energy. Miraculously the momentum is conserved perfectly as if nature had a calculator to know how much energy it had to put in "heat, sound, deformation" to achieve this feat.

Just like the energy loss in the ballistic pendulum, an energy gain could be found when momentum is forced to be conserved. This is what happens in your setup too. m*v always over rules mv^2. Before you showed up I was kind of obsessed by this, you might look up the user called pequaide.


Anyway I made an theoretical analysis of a setup similar to yours on paper and by needing to conserve angular momentum the kinetic energy ratio of start:finish was 1:25. I'm going to redo the exercise a couple of times to rule out any Freudian slips before I can share it.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: The Paradox Engine
« Reply #53 on: December 21, 2013, 10:20:19 PM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline infringer

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 802
    • mopowah
Re: The Paradox Engine
« Reply #54 on: December 21, 2013, 11:13:38 PM »
The spin cycle you are trying to gain energy from is the reverse spin cycle when there is no power applied correct?

If this is so simply add magnets and a small sheet of aluminum and iron sandwich does not have to be as heavy and thick this way and stationary coils underneath and magnets underneath these coils as well with a mounted to the same aluminum and steel sandwich. There is plenty of information on the axial flux design on the net. There may even be better ways to generate power that are better off of the shaft I'm not all seeing all knowing type but a simple method to achieve this is available just research generators and alternators of all types I dunno why but I have a hunch axial flux may not be a bad idea for your project as there may be less friction using this method than say a pulley or gear type system. Now this is just a guess I could be way off not being an expert but direct contact would in my mind exert more friction than magnetic non contact just be sure that the distance between the generation plates the two magnetic plates and the stator coils is adjustable so you can tune it up or down to hit the sweet spot of least friction with the most power.

TO ALL: Please do correct me if I am wrong I have not done enough generator research to know the best solution for this device to generate power from the work it puts out I do however want to help get his ball rolling with so much time invested it would be great to help this fella out and really put it to the test!

Offline lumen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1366
Re: The Paradox Engine
« Reply #55 on: December 22, 2013, 04:46:24 AM »
I'm not sure how you are driving the wheel but a test should be made on the energy required to spin the disk X RPM when the arm is free, as opposed to the same RPM when the arm is fixed.

It stands to reason that the disk would take less energy to reach X RPM with a fixed arm. The RPM would need to be checked with the arm stationary in both tests since a mark on the disk would pass the center of the arm in only 3/4 turn if the arm rotated 90 degrees before the mark on the disk passed the center of the arm.

It's clear to see that the RPM of the disk's mark passing the center mark would appear the same when the arm is rotating as not rotating, but in the stationary arm case the disk would actually be spinning faster.

So in the end, the energy applied is simply divided between the two rotations.

This is of course only my view and I have not done the testing myself.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: The Paradox Engine
« Reply #55 on: December 22, 2013, 04:46:24 AM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline infringer

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 802
    • mopowah
Re: The Paradox Engine
« Reply #56 on: December 22, 2013, 05:04:04 AM »
This is a rather interesting way to look at it lumen it may in fact take more energy to get to the higher speeds with a lose rig then something that is fixed like a football player playing on artificial turf without cleats the start and the top speed of his run will be far different than if he had cleats.

But it also does make one wonder about stuff like planetary rotation and the forces that keep things going within not only a planetary system but a galaxy as well.

It may just be that this is a more profound discovery than we are giving it credit for.

Either way this theory could easily be proven with a fairly simple but semi expensive measuring device which I assume the builder already has within his toolbox

Now this is collective thinking I am happy for this input to allow the user to take a closer examination this is a fairly simple test simply secure the arm take measurements and then run it loose and take the same very measurements and investigate data for any conflicting information before moving on to power generation and investing more time and money in that.

Thanks a bunch lumen.

Offline Tusk

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 158
Re: The Paradox Engine
« Reply #57 on: December 22, 2013, 05:10:29 AM »
Thanks once again, I appreciate all your input. Regarding the suggestions from infringer and telecom - if I attempt any further experimental work I'll keep those ideas in mind.

Also broli, you may be interested in this:

http://www.overunity.com/13079/the-pendulum-bias-paradox-experiment/#.UrZiTPvcDcw

... and I do believe that if you familiarise yourself with frame of reference manipulation, you will gain a rare clarity of insight on the KE issue. Since you asked for some numbers for the PE apparatus it might be worth running a few for a theoretical idealised example. If we allow a totally frictionless system and distribute the mass for simplicity and greatest effect, we can aim at the best possible result and work backwards from there adding in the usual inefficiencies etc later if need be.

I'll specify a single disk PE device similar to the experimental apparatus already in existence, but with a main rotor arm of mass = 0 (therefore no counterweight). Obviously this would cause some practical problems which we can disregard for the sake of this example. The disk itself has it's total mass concentrated around an outer ring which we will consider as sharing a common radius.

mass of disk = 200gm
circumference of disk = 120cm

We already know that any force applied to the disk at the outer edge will create an equal secondary reactive force in the same direction at the disk axis. We can allow that the total mass of the disk can be considered to act on the rotor arm at the point of the disk axis. Since the disk and the rotor arm have the same radius:

one rotation of the rotor arm = one rotation of the disk

(in terms of mass in motion, whether that be momentum, acceleration or kinetic energy.)

In explanation of the above, both the disk and the rotor arm can be considered as having the same mass rotating around their axis at a radius of (approx) 19cm.
The application of force will be such that the rotor arm accelerates to complete one full revolution; the disk will advance under inertial and geometric advantage thus completing two full revolutions in the same period, since the system is free of any resistance (but subject to inertia which is causal to the additional rate of rotation).

allow the velocity of the disk axis due to rotor arm motion to be  (after one full revolution):

v = 100cm/sec

v²-u² = 2as              (u = 0)

also      F = ma       (m = 200)

therefore (approximating)      F = 8333dyne

When considering work done we need to interpret the displacement of the point of application of force, which in this instance has a direct relationship with the displacement of the mass (the disk);  although not a linear displacement it may be considered as such. So, since 1 erg represents the amount of work done when a force of 1 dyne moves it's point of application a distance of 1 centimetre and the force applied over 120cm:

work done accelerating the rotor arm 1 complete revolution = 999960 ergs

Note that I did not begin with the disk due to the rotation rate being double that normally expected due to the application of the applied force if it were a simple flywheel (i.e. 'rotor arm secure' in my actual experiments) or if you prefer, double the rate of the rotor arm. And as we will be braking the rotor arm motion first, the additional rotation of the disk will be eliminated, reducing to one revolution in the period of time which would have otherwise been one revolution of the rotor arm, which will now be motionless (briefly).

Alternatively we could simply recover energy from the disk at this point and sacrifice the rotor arm reversal under disk braking (the entire system would cease all motion at the conclusion of disk braking under these conditions). In the frame of reference of the drive unit, disk rotation will have been double as noted earlier, but this must have been achieved with an applied force equal to the secondary reactive force since the two are equal; not unlike accelerating a car downhill the reactive force allows us (in this instance)  a 'two for one' return on our investment of energy. But we can do better than 'two for one'.

So, adopting the preferred method (and allowing 100% efficiency):

the work potential of the rotor arm = 999960 ergs (primary motion)

and the work potential of the disk after recovery of the energy of the rotor arm = 999960 ergs

and since recovery of the energy of the disk creates another secondary reactive force in opposite direction to the first, the rotor arm accelerates again in opposite direction but as before, therefore:

work potential of the rotor arm = 999960 ergs (secondary motion)

999960 x 3 = 2999880 ergs (from the 3 separate motions)

Thus for the ideal 100% efficient theoretical limit on work potential of the PE apparatus as described with an applied force as defined:

work expended = 999,960 ergs

work recovered = 2,999,880 ergs (300%)

Btw lumen there was an earlier post of just such data, I'll add another here though of a typical test run. In fact the disk gains energy significantly faster with the rotor arm free.







Offline broli

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2216
Re: The Paradox Engine
« Reply #58 on: December 22, 2013, 08:53:21 AM »
Tusk SI units are a little easier on the brains ;) . However I seem to agree with your cycle, to sum it up.

1) Put in X units of energy to accelerate disk from the arm's reference point
2) Both disk and arm will be rotating now, in opposite directions
3) Break arm from earth's reference point
4) regain X units of energy from this
4) Disk will be still spinning with X units of energy
5) Break disk from arm's reference point
6) regain X units of energy from this
7) this will cause the arm to start rotating with X units of energy
6) Break arm from earth's reference point
9) regain X units of energy from this
10) No motion in the system left
11) repeat 1)

Offline Tusk

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 158
Re: The Paradox Engine
« Reply #59 on: December 22, 2013, 11:04:31 AM »
Well done broli, if I had thought to put things so succinctly myself perhaps we could have got to this point sooner. One small criticism, a potential clarity issue for anyone reading through your steps without prior knowledge of the device; in steps 3, 5 and 6 I think you meant to say 'brake' rather than 'break'. So if I may repeat with the corrections and some renumbering, since it's such a fine explanation:

1: Put in X units of energy to accelerate disk from the arm's reference point
2: Both disk and arm will be rotating now, in opposite directions
3: Brake arm from earth's reference point
4: regain X units of energy from this
5: Disk will be still spinning with X units of energy
6: Brake disk from arm's reference point
7: regain X units of energy from this
8: this will cause the arm to start rotating with X units of energy
9: Brake arm from earth's reference point
10: regain X units of energy from this
11: No motion in the system left
12: repeat 1)


(with thanks to broli for this analysis)


Outstanding effort  :)

I guess that makes it somewhat easier for anyone looking to find a hole in the plot, so fire away by all means (but please read the entire thread first since I've covered quite a lot of ground already and don't wish to choke the thread with repetition). The most common areas of concern (i.e. disbelief) are as follows:

1. That a secondary force of equal magnitude and acting in the same direction as the applied force manifests at the axis of the disk.

2. That the location of the EM drive unit mounted at the main rotor arm axis allows both disk and rotor to accelerate with a single applied force, sufficient in convention for one or other motions but not both simultaneously.

3. That a second acceleration of the rotor arm equal and opposite to the first manifests due to the secondary force acting when the disk is subjected to braking.

These three issues have been discussed at length, however if any of these or some other aspect of the material continues to elude acceptance after reading through the thread then I will happily attempt a clearer explanation.
« Last Edit: December 22, 2013, 01:11:35 PM by Tusk »

 

OneLink