The Paradox Engine

[Tom Booth]

Another real world example. Have you done much bowling?

I've seen quite often a bowling ball graze the side of a bowling pin. The pin is perhaps kicked to the side a bit, tilts to the side, wobbles, perhaps does a little pirouette but remains standing.

If you watch closely you can see a couple examples of this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xp_LfyyArrE (around frames 1:14 & 1:36)

The resulting linear motion if any, does not seem to adhere to your postulate, if I understand it correctly:

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.

Sounds like you are saying that in the case of a bowling ball just grazing the side of a bowling pin the pin will or should, if your postulate is correct, be knocked back linearly the same as if it had been hit dead center.

I can't help it if my perceptions have been clouded by a lifetime of indoctrination by conventional thinking.

I'm certainly open to new points of view, new ways of thinking and perceiving. You have what appears to me to be a point of view that is radically different. Outside the norm. I find that intriguing and would very much like to understand how you arrived at your conclusions.

"only if one pits two views against each other can one weasel between them to arrive at the real world." (The Sorcerer's Explanation
From Tales of Power by Carlos Castaneda)

[Tom Booth]

I'm not trying to "debunk" your theory. That isn't my intent.

Take for example, "The Law of Gravity". Some ignorant persons might have objected to Newtons theory by pointing out the fact that birds fly, as well as hot air balloons. Bubbles under water rise to the surface etc.

Perhaps there would be no immediate answer to such objections if we suppose that buoyancy and aerodynamics were not fully understood at the time. A deeper analysis reveals that these things that seem to contradict the "Law" actually depend upon it.

I'm willing to grant that you may be on to something. But if you are going to lead us down the rabbit hole you have to take into consideration the current or prevailing point of view(s) which may indeed be based on ignorance.

For all I know it is not your theory but rather my faulty interpretation of it that is in error. Perhaps my pool game or bowling ball examples have no more validity and carry no more weight against your theory than birds and hot air balloons have against gravity.

I'm willing to set this apparent contradictory evidence aside if you are willing to carry on.

Apparently as yet I only have a tenuous grasp on the tail of the elephant. I hope you can forgive me if at present it seems to be nothing more than a rope dangling in the air. Certainly, if as you say, this is your life's work there is more to it than what I am currently able to grasp. You don't come across as any fool. I've very much enjoyed your thought experiments.

I have a few additional questions or observations regarding your motor.

I take it that the electromagnetic force applied to the embedded magnets is supposed to be balanced. That is, "for every action there is an equal but opposite reaction". The coil is situated directly over the axis so this reactive force should be null.

But an electromagnetic field is not a POINT phenomenon. It is spread out and so may be effecting the other magnets which are not so situated.

Also, I do not know upon what kind of bearings your motor sits but a bearing is generally not a point phenomenon either. Unless the bearing is actually a point, so that your disk is resting on the head of a pin it is not really at the center but rather in a ring surrounding the center. In other words, the bearing is not actually situated at "the center of mass". Or is it ?

[Tusk]

I stand by my decision not to defend the material. My current response rests only on a lingering sense of social etiquette, if I allow you the benefit of the doubt. We require another metaphor to illustrate my stance.

The Titanic is steaming through the darkness at full speed, and one of the passengers - perhaps he has exceptional vision or just happens to glance out at the right time - briefly sights what appears to be a large iceberg dead ahead on the horizon. But the 'seeing' (as astronomers would say) is generally poor so the passenger retrieves a small pair of binoculars from his cabin to take a better look. Even so the evidence is slim and retiring to his cabin he performs a rapid analysis of the time of year, the Titanic's current position, the prevailing weather etc against known iceberg data from several reference books he has conveniently to hand. He compares photographs of icebergs and clouds. His conclusion is that icebergs are indeed possible in these waters under the current conditions. This estimate, along with the evidence of his own eyes, convinces him of the danger ahead.

Now we need to 'turn it around' and assess the likely reactions of the captain, crew and other passengers. The Titanic is 'unsinkable'; icebergs have never been seen this far south at this time of year; the crew have access to high power precision binoculars yet can see no iceberg; and this fool has only cheap low power optics. He is neither a professional seaman or meteorologist. Furthermore he is upsetting the other passengers.

How loudly would you have him shout? How fiercely should he defend his hypothesis? If he had sufficient wisdom he would expect an overwhelming negative response to his warning. Yet the danger persists. He can neither remain silent nor will he be inclined to get much excited over the issue; the outcome is inevitable, written in stone before the ship set sail. Chiseled out with all the arrogance and ignorance those responsible could muster.

Likewise this is all rather tiresome from my perspective since the outcome is already known. Your approach to the material seems more one of deliberate obfuscation than open minded curiosity. Apologies in advance if this is not the case but that is the impression you have given.

If you are genuinely curious then walk through the thing in your mind; are you suggesting that the linear effect on the rotating peg is anything other than identical to the linear effect on the non rotating peg? If so then CoM is surely breached; we can manipulate the conditions of the experiment such that an identical force between the two causes neither peg to rotate. In this case we would definitely expect the pegs to demonstrate an equal displacement. I assume you are aware that the displacement on the pendulum apparatus indicates relative linear impetus. If neither peg rotates then I think we can all agree that such displacement is identical. Thus here at least CoM holds true.

It follows that any other circumstance originating in the total mass at rest and resulting in one non rotating peg being displaced an identical amount (to the first instance) must therefore also produce an identical displacement of the second peg - rotating or otherwise - else CoM is breached. And yet the force must also be identical or the displacement of the non rotating peg would differ. Thus (Newton's 3rd) the force at the centre of mass of the rotating peg must be identical - but the applied force must occur at some point other than, or other than in line with, the centre of mass else the peg would not rotate. So there must be an equal reactive force at the centre of mass else CoM is breached.

I realise that intuition infers some divergence resulting in lesser quantities of 'energy' going this way and that (linear and rotational) but this simply can not occur without a breach of CoM. And since we already know that kinetic energy (at least) is 'not invariant' as a result of frame of reference (this from the literature) we should not be too surprised if the total of the divergent 'energy' (linear and rotational) exceeds the initial total prior to the event as we are seeing motion translate from one frame of reference to two.

an electromagnetic field is not a POINT phenomenon. It is spread out and so may be effecting the other magnets which are not so situated.

It has been some time since I worked with vectors but from memory it is acceptable to allow under these circumstances that vector addition would give us a tangential force vector at the centre of electromagnetic influence. If this is approximate then we might allow the excess of  mass in motion to originate from poor engineering, an unlikely circumstance considering the availability of a logical alternative.

the bearing is not actually situated at "the center of mass"

You could make a good case for the internal combustion engine being unworkable; rotation occurs around the axis, or centre of mass. Calling these minutia into question when you fail to understand the key issue really does little to put my mind at rest with respect to your sincerity. Obviously I am incapable of forcing comprehension. If this was an easy concept to grasp it would have been common knowledge many years ago. I can only recommend that you approach the problem independently and pursue it to conclusion according to your own satisfaction.

[Low-Q]

@ Tusk
If you find yourself sitting there with the theory that your motor is not conserving energy, you have most definitely made a flaw in your calculations, assumtions or imagination of how this device works.


To me this motor looks like a 3-phase brushless motor. The primary rotor is a aluminium disc that is attached to a secondary rotor (Which also is the primary rotors stator). The primary rotor disc will generate torque as soon as you apply power to the EM. It does not matter where the disc is attached to the  secondary rotor (Stator), the secondary rotor (Primary rotors stator) will always start to rotate counterwise during acceleration, and turn the other way during retardation due to friction on the primary rotors bearings, or breaks the primary rotor by short the EM.


Even if the EM is located dead center on the secondary rotors axis, the mass in the main disc that is farmost from that center will generate the countertorque that will accelerate the secondary rotor counterwise.


There is no spooky energies here. Just pure simple conserved physics.


Vidar

[Tusk]

I am not an engineer, but my understanding is that free rolling bearings are an unsuitable mechanism for the transmission of torque.

turn the other way during retardation due to friction on the primary rotors bearings

Perhaps a second look at the video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dG8YOp_njFs&feature=youtu.be

That's some serious friction then. More disappointing is that your point went unchallenged for several weeks on a forum rich with people familiar with bearings and their capabilities.