The Paradox Engine

[Tusk]

For me, most of these interactions are a demonstration of the resistance to a changed condition being manifested.  Mass does not want to speed up or slow down instantly.

Yes I'll agree with that webby1, if it did the entire place would be a woeful shambles; something along the lines of the Quantum Universe I guess 

Taking that cue (thanks) basically the PE disk resists the call to motion from the EM drive unit in two halves; the nearside resists more or less directly, being inclined to move (or not move, as you suggest) in the direction of the applied force. The far side resists in similar fashion but in the opposite direction. Much like a child's seesaw all this to and fro puts a strain on the axis, using it as a pivot point. If the disk is balanced and the axis is at the centre of mass, then this reactive force at the axis exactly equals the applied force and is parallel to it, in the same direction. And it manifests for the same period of the applied force.

I have suggested several methods of gaining advantage from the phenomenon; but in the simplest terms, if we allow that whatever energy we store in the rotation of the disk can be recovered (or 90% thereabouts according to experience with flywheels) then the secondary force, equal as it is to the applied force, may be used in whatever way we choose and for the same period of the applied force producing OU, providing we can engineer more than 10% energy recovery from it.

My design while probably not the ultimate solution does however allow the secondary force to manifest twice, giving us double the period of the applied force to work with. This means we could achieve OU with just over 5% energy recovery at the rotor arm (each way) allowing 90% from the disk by simply recovering energy as with a typical flywheel.

Anyone claiming that this concept doesn't have OU capability needs to come up with a good reason why the disk can't behave like a flywheel and return something like 90% of the energy expended to spin it up. Either that or provide a good argument against the secondary force manifesting as defined, against all the experimental evidence and supporting documentation.

The following is a simplistic example of how the secondary force might be employed to store energy over and above that expended. I could run a similar experiment and submit a video but that should not be necessary. The device clearly has this capability, otherwise the rotor arm would not rotate in the previous experiments. And there is also clearly no obstacle to treating the disk as a flywheel. I'm not using the reverse motion of the rotor arm here either, so this is just another way of laying the concept open for scrutiny.
 

[telecom]

Hi Task,
I can't help but keep thinking that your reactive force simply comes as a result of the 3 rd law of Newton.
You are able to harvest it by making the point of application of it rotational, rather than stationary as it is usually is.
When it is stationary, it is being absorbed by the stresses in the material, and as a result, it is very difficult to harvest, since the
actual deformations are minimal.
In your case you make it easy to harvest, by transforming the rotational motion into the generation of the electricity, for example.
The same principle applies to the proverbial Milcovic pendulum, where the movement of the axis can be harvested. The problem with it is that the pendulum has a small rotational speed since it can't do the full revolution, not as in your device which can be brought up to a considerable speed.
Regards.

[Tusk]

I can't help but keep thinking that your reactive force simply comes as a result of the 3 rd law of Newton

Thanks telecom. I think you'll find that the force pair covered by that law consists of the applied force on the edge of the disk and the equal and opposite reaction on the EM drive unit. The secondary reaction at the centre of mass/axis does not appear to have been mentioned by Newton, and as an inertial phenomenon seems not to have been very closely considered or highly regarded.

Have you evaluated the work done to the disc by the drive unit to the work done by the arm movement?

The forces are equal webby1, and apply over the same period; thus whatever the mass of the body in motion the final momentum will be equal.

I have been noodling this over and I keep coming up with 1\2 the work out while being accelerated and 1\2 the work out while being decelerated.  This is for a simplified thought experiment, but the disc spins a larger arc moment than the arm moves,, I think.

The radius of the disk is equal to the radius of the rotor arm. Mass distribution is important here, and ideally we need to level the playing field by using two disks.

Allow the mass of the rotor arm to be so small that we can disregard it. Note that the mass of the disk now becomes the mass of the rotor arm. Situate all the disk mass around the extreme edge, then allow two identical disks mounted at each end of the rotor arm. Effectively we can now motivate the same rate of rotation of mass in the disks as in the rotor arm, with equal momentum and equal KE since the combined mass of the disks = mass of the rotor arm; and while each disk is motivated by an applied force each equal to the other, the rotor arm at 2 X disk mass is motivated by an equal force X 2.

In this configuration the centre of mass/axes of the disks (thus the mass of the rotor arm) describes an arc of motion of equal radius to the mass of each disk.

I have not worked out if there is a limit at which the arm can rotate relative to the disc rotation

In the previous example with the mass of two disks also constituting the mass of the rotor arm the rates of rotation (disks and arm) will be the same; adding mass to the rotor arm will reduce it's motion, while removing mass will require reducing the mass of the disks, which will increase both disk and rotor arm motions in equal measure. Without changing the geometry I suspect that the rate of rotation of the rotor arm cannot exceed that of the disk/s.

The bottom line here is that we have two equal forces to play with for the price of one. They act remotely from one another and present us with an opportunity to conceive of multiple configurations in design engineered to our advantage. The PE apparatus was intended as a proof of concept device offering one potential solution to the problem of OU deriving from the phenomenon of two equal forces manifesting as a result of the application of a single force of equal value.

Engineering heaven (I would have thought). Published here because a physicist would barely glance at such 'obvious nonsense'; breakthroughs these days are made with expensive high energy apparatus by the most respected learned gentlemen in academia, not by arm chair theorists, tinkerers or engineers. Are they correct I wonder; should we all go back to our day jobs and file this away with Schrödinger's cat, dark energy and the holographic multiverse?

[telecom]

 The secondary reaction at the centre of mass/axis does not appear to have been mentioned by Newton, and as an inertial phenomenon seems not to have been very closely considered or highly regarded.


In this case the EM drive doesn't have to be mounted on the rotating arm, since we
are not getting any additional force out of it, only the complications of getting it powered.
Mb instead mount it stationary and drive the discs by the conventional means, such as a roller chain?
Regards.

[Tusk]

I may have missed the point in your statement about work done webby1, and so failed to provide a suitable response.

I keep coming up with 1\2 the work out while being accelerated and 1\2 the work out while being decelerated

Assuming you intended this to mean 1/2 the work out at the rotor arm then we need to look at the work done by the applied force on the disk, and also the work done by the equal secondary force on the rotor arm. With the current single disk apparatus the mass of the rotor arm (which includes the disk) is significantly greater than the disk. Since work done against inertia relates directly to KE we can expect the rotor arm to 'under perform' significantly against the disk in the single disk configuration.

Note here that if you are allowing full energy recovery from the disk (ideally) then your suggested 'half and half' from the rotor arm would bring us up to 200% 

the disc spins a larger arc moment than the arm moves,, I think.

Yes the disk should be almost optimally energetic considering the mass distribution and point of applied force. The rotor arm motion is more ponderous than frantic, but for all that it gains considerable momentum along the way. Here again the twin disks combined with a lightweight rotor arm would redress this bias. Also note that my apparent obsession with providing an inertial solution stems from the need for simplicity and clarity in the explanation; the rotor arm of a prototype might do better service rotating slowly against the resistance of a geared generator (as indeed you suggested), certainly this would effectively eliminate any concerns about losses during acceleration of the disk due to the additional rotation of it's inertial reaction to the rotor arm motion in the frame of reference of the rotor arm/drive unit.

Such a configuration would provide a clear demonstration that the energy expended motivating the disk can be recovered as with a typical flywheel, and that additional energy can be recovered from the action of the secondary motion taking the device into OU, with yet more energy available from the reversal.

In this case the EM drive doesn't have to be mounted on the rotating arm, since we
are not getting any additional force out of it, only the complications of getting it powered.
Mb instead mount it stationary and drive the discs by the conventional means, such as a roller chain?

That might work quite well telecom, yet another 'mod' to add to the growing list of options