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

Tesla Paper

Free Energy Book

Get paid

Donations

Please Donate for the Forum.
Many thanks.
Regards, Stefan.(Admin)

A-Ads

Powerbox

Smartbox

3D Solar

3D Solar Panels

DC2DC converter

Micro JouleThief

FireMatch

FireMatch

CCKnife

CCKnife

CCTool

CCTool

Magpi Magazine

Magpi Magazine Free Rasberry Pi Magazine

Battery Recondition

Battery Recondition

Arduino

Ultracaps

YT Subscribe

Gravity Machines

Tesla-Ebook

Magnet Secrets

Lindemann Video

Navigation

Products

Products

WaterMotor kit

Statistics


  • *Total Posts: 524109
  • *Total Topics: 15603
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 2
  • *Guests: 16
  • *Total: 18

Author Topic: The Paradox Engine  (Read 97441 times)

Offline Tusk

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 158
Re: The Paradox Engine
« Reply #135 on: January 11, 2014, 10:37:07 PM »
Quote
In this case we are getting the inertia B working for us for free? And it is equal 1/2
of the applied force?

Yes you are correct but as always there is more to it telecom, inertia B is half the applied force but it is the combined effort of inertia B and the 'spare' half of the applied force which work together not unlike two equal weights each side of a set of scales, their combined weight double that of each. In this way the secondary motion is equivalent to the primary, each motivated by the applied force or the equal of it. The total 'mass in motion' or momentum is twice what you might expect if you were unaware that simply shifting your point of applied force could cause such additional motion yet not be in breach of CoM.




Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: The Paradox Engine
« Reply #135 on: January 11, 2014, 10:37:07 PM »

Offline telecom

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 550
Re: The Paradox Engine
« Reply #136 on: January 11, 2014, 11:30:49 PM »
So,
in relation to your apparatus, this lever with two equal masses represents a disc,
and the centre of mass represents the point of attachment to the rotating arm.
And the applied force represents an EM drive?

Offline Tusk

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 158
Re: The Paradox Engine
« Reply #137 on: January 12, 2014, 01:24:13 PM »
Correct again telecom, I took a few liberties in the interest of simplification but in essence they are very similar thanks to the symmetries in the system; a curious serendipity, since what there is so far of the greater hypothesis has the asymmetry of the universe at it's core. But the PE apparatus challenges us sufficiently without the additional burden of the problem of grand unification  :)

 

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: The Paradox Engine
« Reply #137 on: January 12, 2014, 01:24:13 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline telecom

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 550
Re: The Paradox Engine
« Reply #138 on: January 12, 2014, 06:36:37 PM »
It appears that this effect of the inertia becoming a driving force only shows up
during the acceleration, since when the rotational speed becomes constant, the inertia
stops playing the role as a force, it only acts as a mass.
I presume that the activating force will become close to 0.
« Last Edit: January 12, 2014, 09:02:34 PM by telecom »

Offline Tusk

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 158
Re: The Paradox Engine
« Reply #139 on: January 13, 2014, 02:23:50 PM »
Quote
It appears that this effect of the inertia becoming a driving force only shows up
during the acceleration

If you also meant deceleration (which I believe is the common intent when referring to acceleration) then yes telecom, but I thought it best to make that clear since the device is cyclic and inertia works for us both ways. I have neglected to investigate if it might be possible to replace the force of inertia with our own resistance (e.g. driving a generator simultaneously) having been more concerned with promoting and explaining the basic concept; no shortage of engineers and inventors capable of taking the idea further so it seemed wise to run with it 'as is' in the hope of an ASAP result.

Inertia does provide us with a handy resistance 'bench mounted' to the universe so to speak. If we do substitute our own resistance the problem of where to mount it arises, but I would not be surprised to see a viable solution, the idea of an outer circle of coils was my first thought (bench mounted of course) but such things are better left to the professionals  :)

Lately I have been more curious about the disk energy issue. If we allow the condition where the disk rotates once in the observer FoR for each rotor arm rotation (which can occur with a suitable arrangement) then in the FoR of the rotor arm the disk rotates twice for each rotation of the arm.

Since Ek = ½ mv² this implies we might somehow recover the energy spent motivating the disk X4 but for the problem of rotor arm reversal which if allowed must reduce the rate back to 1 (per arm rotation). I am hesitant to trot out new and untested ideas due to the barely credible nature of the material presented thus far. But here I think is a promising line of investigation, I have a few potential 'quick draw' solutions but this deserves serious unhurried contemplation. 

 

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: The Paradox Engine
« Reply #139 on: January 13, 2014, 02:23:50 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline telecom

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 550
Re: The Paradox Engine
« Reply #140 on: January 13, 2014, 09:11:00 PM »
Lately I have been more curious about the disk energy issue. If we allow the condition where the disk rotates once in the observer FoR for each rotor arm rotation (which can occur with a suitable arrangement) then in the FoR of the rotor arm the disk rotates twice for each rotation of the arm.

Hi Tusk.
I'm having a hard time understanding why disk rotates twice as high in a FoR of the rotating arm...

Offline Tusk

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 158
Re: The Paradox Engine
« Reply #141 on: January 14, 2014, 05:41:30 AM »
I'll give you two examples telecom, in case one doesn't hit the mark.

Easy one first, hold up one hand like a traffic cop 'stop' gesture. Hold up the other hand about half way out to the first with your index finger extended and gunsight the 6 o'clock position on the first hand with it. Now perform an orbital motion around your 'gunsight' finger with the first or 'stop' hand and note how it appears to rotate one full circle in the FoR of the finger.

With a frictionless bearing a disk orbiting on a rotor arm as in the PE apparatus does the same thing due to inertia, with no motivating force to cause it to do otherwise. If this were not so we might easily achieve OU by simply motivating a rotor arm with disks attached and reclaim the disk rotation energy along with the rotor arm energy. Possibly we might supply some other force at no cost to achieve this, but with Inertia waiting to do our bidding why complicate things and work backwards?   ;)

In the illustration the same thing applies using a disk, a central axis and a mark on the disk. The rotor arm is implied but not shown. As the disk orbits clockwise the mark remains at the 6 o'clock position due to the inertia of the disk, so that in the FoR of the main axis the disk rotates twice with each orbit. In the observer FoR it only rotates once in each orbit.

We are spoilt for choice with the PE concept; I naturally went after those advantageous motions which seemed the more accessible. Which doesn't necessarily mean that this one is permanently out of reach, but we do face the problem of rotor arm reversal when recovering energy from an EM unit situated in the FoR of the rotor arm. I'm still not even certain whether a sudden 'impulse' type recovery would overcome the problem, there would definitely be a reversal but perhaps if this occurs rapidly enough we would not lose the extra energy. I doubt there exists guidance from a precedent due to the unique nature of the secondary reaction. One for future experimentation then.


Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: The Paradox Engine
« Reply #141 on: January 14, 2014, 05:41:30 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline telecom

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 550
Re: The Paradox Engine
« Reply #142 on: January 15, 2014, 03:06:24 AM »
I'm very sorry, Tusk,
but I'm not getting this!
Perhaps my IQ is not high enough to be able to understand this motion...
May be I should make some kind of a simple model out of cardboard to better see all the mechanics?
In any case, I can trust you that the speed of the disk is in fact 2X of the arm.
We will loose the momentum during the reversal of the arm, this is why may be to
make it to rotate with a constant speed, and yet produce an extra power?
Regards.

Offline Tusk

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 158
Re: The Paradox Engine
« Reply #143 on: January 15, 2014, 12:52:07 PM »
Quote
I'm not getting this

Not to worry telecom, we are covering a wide range of unique conditions so nobody could be expected to stay in step throughout the entire parade  :)

I wonder if including the driven motion in the illustration would help? I'll also mark up the secondary reaction so you can see what's going on.

Quote
We will loose the momentum during the reversal of the arm, this is why may be to
make it to rotate with a constant speed, and yet produce an extra power?

That's one solution, if it transpires that we can substitute an EM resistance and get continuous energy recovery. I think this limits the OU potential to 200% theoretical maximum, sacrificing the rotor arm reversal; but the continuous output would probably make that viable, maybe more so. Since we intend to use the rotor arm shaft as an output shaft that half of the system should be straightforward. An outer ring of coils (bench mounted) seems like a viable proposition as an inertial substitute and simultaneous EM recovery method, but this is uncharted territory. More experimentation required, although the current apparatus may suffice with the addition of some external elements.
     

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: The Paradox Engine
« Reply #143 on: January 15, 2014, 12:52:07 PM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline telecom

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 550
Re: The Paradox Engine
« Reply #144 on: January 16, 2014, 05:21:07 AM »
Hi Tusk,
I think in the first picture you are referring to the disc driven by the rotation
of the arm where the inertia of the disc is keeping it in one position, making it to rotate.
In the second picture you add up a force from an EM drive, which I think
makes it to rotate even faster due to the reaction of the EM drive.
Now, it would be interesting to see the disc to be driven externally by the chain.
What would be the rotation of the arm in relation to the disc?

Offline Tusk

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 158
Re: The Paradox Engine
« Reply #145 on: January 16, 2014, 05:53:24 AM »
Quote
it would be interesting to see the disc to be driven externally by the chain.

I'll need an illustration or description of that one telecom, not sure about the arrangement or intent of it.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: The Paradox Engine
« Reply #145 on: January 16, 2014, 05:53:24 AM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline telecom

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 550
Re: The Paradox Engine
« Reply #146 on: January 16, 2014, 10:37:33 PM »
I'll need an illustration or description of that one telecom, not sure about the arrangement or intent of it.
May be something like this?
Each disk is driven by the chain from a central pulley, one for each disc.
The pulleys, in turn, may be driven by a motor.

Offline Tusk

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 158
Re: The Paradox Engine
« Reply #147 on: January 17, 2014, 06:21:17 AM »
Quote
it would be interesting to see the disc to be driven externally by the chain.
What would be the rotation of the arm in relation to the disc?

Thanks telecom; not having made a study of the forces in belt driven pulley systems I can only 'shoot from the hip' in the hope of hitting something. The first difference that shouts for attention is the belt/wheel contact area, which accounts for half the disk circumference. In comparison to the EM drive unit on the PE apparatus this is highly significant, assuming that we can allow the entire contact area as driven (?).

If so then the origins of what we might resolve as a secondary reaction at the axis is far more complex. First glance suggests that it should effectively manifest as shown in my modification to your diagram. All this dependent on our treatment of each point of contact between belt and disk as a potential individual point of applied force capable of manifesting a secondary reaction, regardless of all the other points attempting to do likewise. Clearly this is an over simplification, with the obvious potential for interaction with unknown consequences. I strongly suspect that there will be other forces in play here not yet accounted for.

An experiment or two and some homework should point in the right direction, but at this stage I'm not even prepared to indicate the rotor arm motion on the diagram (although I imagine it will be CW). It seems that in attempting to simplify the build we are complicating the theory  ::) I assume that your next step will be to banish inertia and introduce a resistance in it's stead; even further off the reservation and starting to look like ambush country. Since your goal is (I think) to find a simple build perhaps the best solution is to build one along these lines and examine the physics more closely once the results are known.

Afterthought; there is another thread here dealing with belt drives and pulley wheels, several devices under scrutiny supposedly using centrifugal bias in an attempt to achieve OU. The analysis of the various torques in accounting for rotation seemed rather well informed and may shed light on things for us. It may transpire that when using belts as you have proposed all motion can be explained in conventional terms, which would suggest that our secondary reaction does not manifest under these conditions. If not I would certainly like to know the cause.

Offline telecom

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 550
Re: The Paradox Engine
« Reply #148 on: January 17, 2014, 11:23:24 PM »
The first difference that shouts for attention is the belt/wheel contact area, which accounts for half the disk circumference. In comparison to the EM drive unit on the PE apparatus this is highly significant, assuming that we can allow the entire contact area as driven

Hi Task,
this can be corrected by making the diameter of the pulleys bigger than the diameter
of the discs, or by driving a smaller pulleys which in turn drive the discs placed
on the same shaft. Will you be able analyze the paradox effect in this case?
You have mentioned that the resistance in our case takes care of the inertia.
Will the paradox effect be active in this case?
Will we be able to get an extra linear force at the axis of the disc?
Is this what the secondary reaction is?

Offline Tusk

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 158
Re: The Paradox Engine
« Reply #149 on: January 19, 2014, 04:55:09 AM »
Quote
Hi Task

Actually (not that it's important) I prefer 'Tusk'. Your idea sounds too laborious  :)

Quote
this can be corrected by making the diameter of the pulleys bigger than the diameter
of the discs, or by driving a smaller pulleys which in turn drive the discs placed
on the same shaft. Will you be able analyze the paradox effect in this case?

I'm not sure that is correct telecom, half the pulley wheel is always going to to be in contact with the belt/chain; is that not so? I'm not saying that the secondary reaction won't manifest under those conditions (although it might not) but that the greater part of the total force on the wheel/disk will not cause a secondary reaction.

Quote
You have mentioned that the resistance in our case takes care of the inertia.
Will the paradox effect be active in this case?
Will we be able to get an extra linear force at the axis of the disc?
Is this what the secondary reaction is?

The resistance created by a generator (for instance) may cause a secondary reaction at the axis much the way inertia does. There's a need for experimentation here, I will get around to it myself eventually but feel free (anyone) to jump in and claim first sight of it.

I'm more enthusiastic about recovering energy at the disk axis with a generator. Staying with half of the original cyclic system and alternating between power in (at the EM drive unit) and power out at the disk axis and rotor arm axis, I intend to sacrifice rotor arm reversal in the interest of simplicity. Since the retarding force on the rotor arm during regenerative braking will be minimised (due to the lesser lever arm bias across the generator diameter) it should be possible to cycle between power in (with power out at rotor arm axis) and power out at disk axis (rotor arm 'coasting' + minimal retardation from bias at generator).

This appears to offer the best compromise for an actual OU prototype as the next step up from the current apparatus, which proves the concept but apparently not as convincingly as I expected, most likely due to the convoluted and incredible nature of the various phenomena and the interactions thereof; something akin to a trail of breadcrumbs through a bakery.


 

OneLink