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: 524110
  • *Total Topics: 15603
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 3
  • *Guests: 12
  • *Total: 15

Author Topic: The Paradox Engine  (Read 97447 times)

Offline gravityblock

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3265
    • Get Dish Now! Free Dish Network System from VMC Satellite
Re: A Proposed Solution For The Paradox Engine
« Reply #180 on: September 09, 2014, 01:03:19 PM »

"Surely you are joking, Mr. Feynman."

Gravock, you have brought that famous quote to my mind. Are you really serious that you don't understand why, according to Newton physics and math, the kinetic energy energy equation has velocity SQUAREd?

Many people don't understand why the 1/2 is there. Do you understand why the 1/2 is there?

And do you really not understand why, within the internal logic of Relativity, Einstein left out the 1/2 in his famous Energy equation?

I am not trying to start a debate with you. I just want you to tell me that you are not joking and really do not understand it.


CANGAS 68

This isn't a scientific or mathematical rebuttal to what I posted.  Please post your rebuttal so we may start the debate in which you do not want to start.

Gravock

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: A Proposed Solution For The Paradox Engine
« Reply #180 on: September 09, 2014, 01:03:19 PM »

Offline tesla2

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 195
Re: The Paradox Engine
« Reply #181 on: September 09, 2014, 01:11:05 PM »
hey i Like design and speak about theory !!!


fast rotation is changing body Q = m*g

problem is  very simple to explain

Posts: 730   



m=1kg

V respect to electric engine's stative

R- earth center distance

R = 6400 000 meters

m*V^2 /R = m*g


V^2 = R * m*g / m

V^2 = R*g = 64000000

V = 8 000 m/s


What mean above equation ? please study Ytube

http://youtu.be/HXKwNvA8VHs

I designed engine and I made test ( Nasa informed about own raport 4 weeks ago - my first test 2012 )

http://tesla4.blogspot.com

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: The Paradox Engine
« Reply #182 on: September 09, 2014, 01:59:43 PM »
You are using g = acceleration of Earth's gravity = about 10 m/s2  ?


It would be helpful to us novices if you would put your units into your calculations. I just spent half an hour trying to figure out your equation using the universal gravitational constant G instead of Earth's gravitational acceleration, and of course the units don't work out in that case.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: The Paradox Engine
« Reply #182 on: September 09, 2014, 01:59:43 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline forest

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3889
Re: The Paradox Engine
« Reply #183 on: September 09, 2014, 03:15:39 PM »
Is there any "law of conservation of work" ? something like : for the same input energy it is always the same amount of work done ? 

Offline Tusk

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 158
Re: The Paradox Engine
« Reply #184 on: September 09, 2014, 05:03:20 PM »
Hi Tesla2, your concept makes no reference to the secondary reaction at the centre of mass for which there is a definition in my OP. The secondary reaction is at the very core of this concept (although there are other vital elements in employing it effectively) and I recommend that you examine it. While there appears to be no mention of it in the literature, I have sufficient data and theoretical support to make a strong claim that it manifests as described.

Quote
Is there any "law of conservation of work" ? something like : for the same input energy it is always the same amount of work done ? 

Hi forest, assuming that was tongue in cheek (if not then apologies) so consider the secondary reaction - i.e. a force equal to the applied force - which has the unique ability to accelerate a mass while maintaining frame of reference with that mass; or more simply, much like a rocket engine, velocity has no impact on either the work done or the acceleration - although the rocket must eject mass to function whereas the secondary reaction does not. The rocket engine (or reaction engine if you prefer) always applies force from the frame of reference of the body on which it acts so that acceleration from say 10m/sec to 20m/sec costs no more than acceleration from 110m/sec to 120m/sec.


Sadly most of the rocket's energy goes out the back with the ejecta. With the secondary reaction there is no such issue, just a 'free' additional force that applies unaffected by the velocity of the mass on which it acts. Therefore work done accelerating the PE apparatus' disk simultaneously accelerates the main rotor arm (which carries the disk) and does so not by simple torque effects but by the secondary reaction at the centre of mass of the disk (the axis) which manifests at no additional cost other than a more rapidly accelerating disk, which would be a curse if we were attempting to motivate the thing with springs but with EM motivation it's more of a blessing. So that due to the nature of the secondary reaction, our main rotor arm accelerates by motivation of a force which recognizes no starting point; accelerating much like a rocket engine, paying no respect whatsoever to the usual cost of the v² in the equation (which typically demands respect when the force is anchored in the initial frame of reference).

I have spent many hours trying to theorise some reason why this extra force might not provide additional energy/work other than CoE; but the theory always comes back around to supporting the experimental data. Once you allow the existence of the secondary reaction the main theme is pretty much self evident. 

 

   




Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: The Paradox Engine
« Reply #184 on: September 09, 2014, 05:03:20 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline gravityblock

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3265
    • Get Dish Now! Free Dish Network System from VMC Satellite
Re: The Paradox Engine
« Reply #185 on: September 10, 2014, 05:33:04 AM »
It appears the force of the secondary reaction is the result of utilizing the portion of the kinetic energy of the object during the time period when the circular motion is in the reverse direction of the linear motion as a result of it's spin energy (see snapshot below for better clarification).  This means that 100% of the effective mass will be utilized, instead of only half of the effective mass, thus we can drop the ½ in our kinetic energy equation, for it doesn't apply in this particular case!  I think this is in-line with what Tusk has been describing and with what the data is showing, which is E = mv2 in regards to this concept, while providing a solution to this paradox by using simple mechanics!  I would love to hear your thoughts!

Gravock

Offline Tusk

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 158
Re: The Paradox Engine
« Reply #186 on: September 10, 2014, 08:29:17 AM »
It's a slightly uncomfortable fit Gravock but certainly under acceleration/deceleration the receding side of the disk still 'pulls it weight' in terms of inertia (or inertial resistance if you prefer) from the point of view of the EM drive unit; and in so doing creates an inertial lever action at the disk cm/axis which I have named the 'secondary reaction'. So in that respect yes, there is a manifest advantage due to the reverse direction of half the disk.

With the disk axis secured this reaction has little or no part to play, but by allowing movement of the disk axis (circular as with the PE apparatus although a linear motion is also possible, since the secondary reaction is linear and parallel to the applied force) our only real problem is keeping up with the advancing disk as it accelerates away from our point of applied force. I went some way towards solving this issue with geometry and an EM drive unit but alas, the apparatus looks like a trick of simple torque effects to all but the most perceptive eyes.

It might have been preferable to have the disk on a carriage mounted on a magnetic rail drive, thus removing torque as an issue. Actually for clarity the disk should be mass biased to it's outer circumference, so then a ring mass, which has the same (or similar) inertial mass in both linear and rotational motion. In such a configuration I am quite confident that the rotating disk (ring mass) would arrive at the limit of travel of the rail with more energy than a non-rotating disk, and for no additional input; since the secondary reaction must accelerate the rotating disk equally to the non-rotating (axis secured) disk, yet the axis free disk must rotate.     




Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: The Paradox Engine
« Reply #186 on: September 10, 2014, 08:29:17 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline CANGAS

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 235
Re: A Proposed Solution For The Paradox Engine
« Reply #187 on: September 10, 2014, 09:14:02 AM »
This isn't a scientific or mathematical rebuttal to what I posted.  Please post your rebuttal so we may start the debate in which you do not want to start.

Gravock


Quote
This isn't a scientific or mathematical rebuttal

LOL! You don't miss a clue, Sherlock. Your guess is correct. My post was actually a simple QUESTION. And you have evaded it, but have have amply answered it by implication.

It looks like you don't have a clue where the v "SQUARED" came from in the Newton physics Kinetic Energy Equation, or, the "1/2" in the same equation. Which therefore explains why you don't have a clue why Einstein left out the "1/2" in his famous Energy Equation.   



CANGAS 69

Offline gravityblock

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3265
    • Get Dish Now! Free Dish Network System from VMC Satellite
Re: A Proposed Solution For The Paradox Engine
« Reply #188 on: September 10, 2014, 01:21:30 PM »

LOL! You don't miss a clue, Sherlock. Your guess is correct. My post was actually a simple QUESTION. And you have evaded it, but have have amply answered it by implication.

It looks like you don't have a clue where the v "SQUARED" came from in the Newton physics Kinetic Energy Equation, or, the "1/2" in the same equation. Which therefore explains why you don't have a clue why Einstein left out the "1/2" in his famous Energy Equation.   



CANGAS 69

The question was answered prior to you asking it, and can be found in the reference links of the papers I have already provided.  Maybe you should read those papers and learn something!

Gravock

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: A Proposed Solution For The Paradox Engine
« Reply #188 on: September 10, 2014, 01:21:30 PM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline Tusk

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 158
Re: The Paradox Engine
« Reply #189 on: September 10, 2014, 02:02:06 PM »
Gentlemen, please; may I suggest pistols at dawn...... spring powered ball bearing type I think, with the following specifications:

Pistol A: 1kg force spring (at max compression) effective force 500g over 10cm (from full compression) loaded with 1 x 50g shot

Pistol B: The same type spring loaded with 1 x 200g shot

No paces, just turn and shoot, point blank range; choose your weapon....... no perhaps not. How about points for best range and most damage (dummy target) ? We might all learn something useful.

 





Offline CANGAS

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 235
Re: A Proposed Solution For The Paradox Engine
« Reply #190 on: September 11, 2014, 10:49:08 AM »
The question was answered prior to you asking it, and can be found in the reference links of the papers I have already provided.  Maybe you should read those papers and learn something!

Gravock


My question was a very simple question, easily answered by YES or NO. I asked if you seriously believe that the "squared" and the "1/2" in the Newton Kinetic Energy Equation are not adequately explained by Newtonian physics.

Instead of simply saying YES or NO, you have fancy-danced and double talked.

Maybe you should answer a simple question with an even simpler answer.


CANGAS 72

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: A Proposed Solution For The Paradox Engine
« Reply #190 on: September 11, 2014, 10:49:08 AM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline CANGAS

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 235
Re: The Paradox Engine
« Reply #191 on: September 11, 2014, 11:03:13 AM »
Gentlemen, please; may I suggest pistols at dawn...... spring powered ball bearing type I think, with the following specifications:

Pistol A: 1kg force spring (at max compression) effective force 500g over 10cm (from full compression) loaded with 1 x 50g shot

Pistol B: The same type spring loaded with 1 x 200g shot

No paces, just turn and shoot, point blank range; choose your weapon....... no perhaps not. How about points for best range and most damage (dummy target) ? We might all learn something useful.

Choose my weapon? OK, my 44 revolver.

But what for? Kill a man because he won't answer my simple question? My best friend Jesus would not like that....

What is so volatile about my question? I simply want to know if he does, or, does not, believe that the Newton formula for kinetic energy is internally self consistent. If you have been noticing alertly, you will alertly recognize that I have not stated a pro or con belief, but have simply asked for his belief. I have asked if he understands how the Kinetic Energy Equation was derived and therefore if he understands how the specific terms came to be, and if he understands whether it is all self consistent or not. And he will bend over backwards and whistle Dixie instead of saying YES or NO!!

One to beam up, Scotty.


CANGAS 72

Offline Tusk

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 158
Re: The Paradox Engine
« Reply #192 on: September 11, 2014, 02:11:26 PM »
Quote
Choose my weapon? OK, my 44 revolver.

Hmmmm. You have gone beyond the boundaries of the proposed experimental parameters CANGAS. If I may borrow a relevant term from the sporting realm, 'foul!' (blows whistle).

Since your question was aimed specifically at gravock there seems little point in engaging with it. With some relief, bearing in mind the obvious challenge it represents, a clear 'calling out' much like the ornery gunfighter in the saloon scene of an old western. So I guess there's no suprise you went straight for that 44 stuffed down your breeches. And I thought you were just pleased to see me.

But staying with the metaphor, I suppose the job of barkeep in this little drama is down to me. I'm simply trying to keep the peace and help maintain some focus on the main topic. We don't want no trouble around here stranger. This is a quiet town. So quiet there's days you couldn't snuff your cigar in the spittoon.

The raison d'etre for this thread is the PE device and associated concepts, which may well call for a discussion of v² and the "1/2" in the energy equation but would probably be best served by an absence of gunfights. I can either pour you another glass of rotgut or fetch the big double out from under the bar.

So; you skin that smoke wagon and we'll see what happens.   ;)


Offline telecom

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 550
Re: The Paradox Engine
« Reply #193 on: September 11, 2014, 06:21:50 PM »
Just a couple of points:

Kinetic energy was introduced not by Newton, but by Leibniz and a Hertz later, who was writing a book on it,
but passed away before finishing.

The conservation of energy doesn't hold - funny, just last week was reading a book in the library about
conservation of the momentum, where they have an example of the elastic collision between two bodies.
When they make a balance of the energy before and after, they find a huge gap - they conclude that the collision was unelastic,
since they can't find any other explanation for the gap...



Offline gravityblock

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3265
    • Get Dish Now! Free Dish Network System from VMC Satellite
Re: The Paradox Engine
« Reply #194 on: September 11, 2014, 07:43:57 PM »
Just a couple of points:

Kinetic energy was introduced not by Newton, but by Leibniz and a Hertz later, who was writing a book on it,
but passed away before finishing.

The conservation of energy doesn't hold - funny, just last week was reading a book in the library about
conservation of the momentum, where they have an example of the elastic collision between two bodies.
When they make a balance of the energy before and after, they find a huge gap - they conclude that the collision was unelastic,
since they can't find any other explanation for the gap...

Yes, good point!  It is shown by experiment the conservation of mass doesn't hold either!  So, how can the kinetic energy equation be internally self-consistent when we have a conservation of mass violation, and mass itself is inside the kinetic energy equation?

Gravock

 

OneLink