The Paradox Engine

[Tusk]

Responding to a request for device specifications:

The steel main rotor arm at 26cm length is bench mounted at the centre by bearings so as to allow rotation. The aluminium 24cm diameter 8mm thick main disk is likewise mounted by bearings so as to allow rotation at one end of the main rotor arm. The opposite end of the rotor arm carries the various equipment associated with the drive unit (battery, radio Rx etc) and some balance weights.

The EM drive unit is comprised of 3 coils of 0.063mm copper wire at 50 turns on a modified transformer core. 36 equally spaced neodymium magnets are embedded near the outer edge of the disk with their poles orientated alternately N/S - S/N perpendicular to the plane of the disk. The EM unit is controlled by a brushless motor ESC system rated at 12 amps and powered by a 3 cell li-poly battery rated at 2200mAh and 11.1V and speed control is provided by a model type radio control system.

The phenomena demonstrates sufficient vigor such that a high precision in replication is unnecessary. Assuming a reasonably powerful applied force from the EM drive unit, any approximation of the basic configuration should produce similar results to those obtained here.

[Tom Booth]

Indeed. The motion imparted to the disk by the EM drive unit (which itself may rotate but is effectively bench mounted with respect to the disk) must manifest in two frames of reference - the rotation of the disk and the 'linear' motion of the disk, which due to the design of the device converts to rotational motion of the main rotor.

Any attempt to explain the phenomena in terms of energy must fail,...

I think I follow the above paragraph. I'm not so sure about the first line of the next "Any attempt..."

You are powering this thing with some batteries right ?

As a result you get motion. The motor runs and it turns.

This motor is a bit unusual in that it turns in two different ways, spins and revolves simultaneously.

I'm not following exactly how or why you can assert that there is no possibility of explaining this in terms of energy.

Simply put, it seems to me power comes from the battery. Chemical reactions in the battery result in a current through some coils resulting in electromagnetic fields which push the Permanent magnets and make the thing turn. You can imagine sitting on the thing and watching one part of it spin and not notice that what you are sitting on is spinning as well or you can get off and look at the whole contraption from a distance and notice it is actually revolving as well, or you can go further out and see that the whole planet is spinning and further revolving around the sun...

I find this change of reference thing interesting and perhaps the calculations come out different depending on which frame of reference you choose but I don't see how this changes the fact that the energy to make it move is coming from the battery. Without that power source nothing would happen from whatever frame of reference you choose.

I still seem to be missing something fundamental that you are trying to get across I guess.

I assume that from the frame of reference - sitting on the disk watching the motor spin and not taking account of the rotation of the whole platform you are sitting on - that everything can be accounted for mathematically. Simply, the battery is powering the motor in the usual way as if "bench mounted".

Now step back off the thing, change your point of reference and you can see this additional rotation of the whole platform the motor is mounted on. If everything has already been accounted for from the point of view of the first frame of reference then this additional rotating mass, the whole contraption spinning, is something additional and unaccounted for. I'm assuming this to be the jist of the argument. Am I somewhere in the right ball park at least?

Additionally I would think that from the point of view of a point at the center of the disk (spinning at high RPM from another frame of reference), the disk is motionless and the whole universe is in actuality wobbling around it in a very perplexing manner at an enormously high rate of speed, representing some incalculably enormous amount of energy at work, like the strange wobbling of the planets around the earth if the earth is taken as the point of reference, and all this enormous energy from a small battery pack. Just sit here at the center of my disk and throw a little switch and the entire universe is at my command!!!

[Tusk]

Ok so far so good Tom; let's pause and make sure we are on the same page.

There is no conventional motor here. The main rotor arm is freewheeling. The EM drive unit provides direct motive force for the disk only. The main disk has permanent magnets embedded around the outside edge which are EM driven by a set of 3 coils fixed to the main rotor directly over the main rotor axis (power supplied by an onboard battery serving dual function as a counterbalance). Since the EM unit rotates with the main rotor, the relationship between the disk and the EM unit is identical to a bench mounted disk (bearing mount at the axis) driven at one point on the disk edge by a bench mounted EM drive. And since the EM unit is located directly above the axis of the main rotor, it has no direct motive influence on the main rotor.

So there is no mechanism for rotating the main rotor other than the reactive force at the axis of the disk (this force is at the heart of the phenomena).

If the disk were bench mounted in the manner described above and brought to a given rate of rotation by a given application of power over a given period, we would hitherto expect such motion to be the maximum motion possible notwithstanding EM and mechanical inefficiencies. Yet we clearly have significant additional motion of the main disk, and furthermore (and more importantly) a secondary motion of the main rotor - which motion occurs not once but twice; firstly in the one direction during acceleration of the disk, the second in the opposite direction (as predicted by the hypothesis) during deceleration of the main disk.

The gentleman I commissioned to manufacture the device (I am no engineer) took every opportunity to advise me during the build that no rotation could possibly manifest at the main rotor. He is a fine professional engineer with a lifetime of experience, and certainly no fool (although he seemed convinced that I was). He is a kind soul of good nature and as the date of completion approached his discomfort was obvious; he clearly believed I was heading for disappointment. Nevertheless he finally completed the work and we did an initial test, mainly to check the viability of the EM drive.

As the disk spooled up and the main rotor began to rotate (quite slowly at first as the coils were incorrectly matched to the task) he became silent for some time. When he finally did speak it was to assure me that 'some motion of the main rotor was to be expected'. I never found out why he expected it, or why he never mentioned these expectations prior to the first test run.

This device was not built to test the main hypothesis; I had long before this been aware of the reactive force at the centre of mass as previously described. What I did not know at that time, at least not with certainty, was whether the universe was prepared to allow additional motion (i.e. 'energy") for the same amount of electrical input energy that would normally be required just to rotate the main disk (some forms of motive force e.g. springs, would certainly not suffice. But this is another issue). Which answer was provided in the affirmative, in fact due to a curious effect first noted (I believe) in the Wuerth Parametric Rotator, it actually requires somewhat less electrical energy.

So hopefully I have given a good account of the key elements involved here. There can be no substitute for 'hands on' experience with this phenomena; I highly recommend making a simple model of the device - the Meccano type construction sets are ideal for such a purpose - and spend some time with the effect before jumping to any conclusions.   

 
   

[Tom Booth]

At present I'm not in a position to build and test a duplicate of your engine. If I had the resources I'd be working on my own "Ambient Heat" engine instead of spending time here.

I'll say a few things though.

I've always been curious, even as a kid, about gyroscopic force.

Have you ever held a gyroscope in your hand and tried to keep it perfectly still?

It's virtually impossible. The thing twists and turns with such force.

It feels much like trying to arm wrestle with someone. Use all your strength and it is virtually impossible to stop the twisting and turning motion.

On the other hand, the gyroscopes turning wheel can be brought to a stop with relative ease by friction with a slight touch of a finger.

I'm very curious about your "two disk" design which I take it hasn't been built yet.

I ask because it reminds me of a rather disturbing experience I had years ago.

My girlfriend at the time knew I was into some strange things and she told me that there was someone she wanted me to meet.

I don't know how she met this guy. Probably through a friend at her job or something, I don't really know but we went to his apartment.

As soon as we got there and he let us in and we sat down, without any prompting or introduction he immediately went into a lengthy dialog about his UFO abduction experience, as if we were continuing a conversation.

His descriptions were very vivid and rather disturbing. He described children who were hybrid alien/humans he had seen that had no face. Their faces covered by some kind of membrane which had to be surgically removed so they could see. The images he described came to life in vivid detail as if I were recalling some buried or suppressed memories from my own past experience. This disturbed me greatly. But that is rather irrelevant to this discussion.

Towards the end of the meeting he described the propulsion system of the craft.

He drew some sketches.

It consisted of two spinning disks.

He explained how the gyroscopic effect of the two disks spinning in opposite directions created an anti-gravity effect. That strong twisting and turning of one disk set against the second disk. By manipulating this force, presumably by changing the speed or relationship between the two disks in some way the craft could be maneuvered. Made to go forward, backward, up, down etc.

That ended the meeting and my girlfriend and I left. I was rather relieved. But his vivid descriptions stuck in my head for the longest time like a bad dream.

[Tusk]

@ Tom Booth

Have you ever held a gyroscope in your hand and tried to keep it perfectly still?

It's virtually impossible. The thing twists and turns with such force.

Actually keeping it still isn't the issue; it's only when you rotate it out of plane that the fun starts.

I'm very curious about your "two disk" design which I take it hasn't been built yet.

I think it would be wise to first gain some working knowledge of the single disk unit. Further to this the device itself is secondary to the physics. The entire hypothesis rests on the phenomena of reactive force at the centre of mass as described, so you would expect any serious scrutiny to focus at this point. It might be difficult to grasp the full significance of the device without first being fully aware of the physics behind it. Also there is some merit in approaching this from the skeptic's point of view.

The relevant hypothesis and respective experimental results have been disclosed. This is a relatively simple and accessible issue in which the claimed phenomena of reactive force is pivotal.

Either :

1. a reactive force occurs as claimed, or
2. a reactive force occurs with different characteristics to those claimed, or
3. no reactive force occurs

Since the entire hypothesis rests on this phenomena it should be a simple matter to

1. produce a disproof of the phenomena from the literature, or
2. disprove the phenomena experimentally

I think this exercise will assist your understanding of both the phenomena and the device. If you are able to prove that the reactive force is non-existent, or is in some significant way not as I have described it, then the hypothesis is invalidated or at least in doubt.