The Paradox Engine

[Tom Booth]

You seem to have one idea in mind, or one hypothesis to explain the results of experiments which to me do not seem related.

What does the rubber ball pendulum experiments have to do with this motor?

You asked on that thread something like - why doesn't the ball with the greater kinetic energy dominate?

One word comes to mind: inertia

The big ball is bigger, heavier, has lets say 4X more inertia. The little ball needs 4X more speed just to break even. The wooden block is made of wood. It probably has less inertia than either ball, then kinetic energy becomes a dominating factor. If you did the experiment with two balls the same size, then I would be scratching my head, but in answer to your question, why doesn't the little ball bump the big ball further to the side instead of meeting in the middle each time, the answer seems quite obvious to me. The big ball is bigger!

What any of this has to do with the rotating disk I have no real idea but you seem to be proposing a theory that explains it all as if all this is related somehow.

You say: "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."

Reactive force at the center of mass. Hmmm...

I don't know what that means.

I figured I might find out by putting quotes around the phrase and plugging it into Google but get  exactly " No results found for "Reactive force at the center of mass"." so that's no help.

I can't study up on the definition of a phrase or concept that apparently has no existence outside of your hypothesis so I will have to ask that you provide some clear definition.

A "center of mass" it seems to me is simply a mathematical point. It has no width, breadth, height or depth. It has no real existence as a thing in itself. It is merely a coordinate. So how can it carry any units of force? Active or reactive or otherwise.

[Tusk]

What does the rubber ball pendulum experiments have to do with this motor?

Very little, other than to open a dialogue wherein convention is not held up as a set of defining rules and parameters beyond which we fear to venture. There are greater and lesser concepts in play here, as in all else; but you can afford to ignore the pendulum bias paradox and focus on the device.

What any of this has to do with the rotating disk I have no real idea but you seem to be proposing a theory that explains it all as if all this is related somehow.

I have no intention of volunteering the entire thesis for at least two good reasons.... most significantly, the work is incomplete.

Reactive force at the center of mass. Hmmm...

I don't know what that means.

My apologies; we all have our own areas of interest - and therefore knowledge - and sometimes forget this in our communications. I did a 'quick Wikki grab' of a concise explanation for you:

the center of mass, or barycenter, of a distribution of mass in space is the unique point where the weighted relative position of the distributed mass sums to zero. The distribution of mass is balanced around the center of mass and the average of the weighted position coordinates of the distributed mass defines its coordinates. Calculations in mechanics are simplified when formulated with respect to the center of mass

(from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_of_mass)

In effect it serves as a model. In fact most of our understanding seems based on models, and herein lay the pitfalls and obstacles. But we should leave that for another thread.

If you want to understand the device then turn your attention to the phenomena. Here again is my statement based on observation:

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.

It must either be true or false. You can easily prove it false. Post an honest video of two pegs of equal mass suspended by pendulum; there should be some form of impetus such as the release of a spring previously in compression between the pegs. The point of contact between the pegs should be such that after the impetus event one peg rotates while the other does not. The rotating peg must demonstrate significantly less displacement on the pendulum than the non-rotating peg.

If this were possible you would have destroyed my hypothesis and proven a breach of the laws of Conservation of Momentum.

Allow me to ask you a few questions; assuming the result obtained is as claimed, and in consideration of Newton's Third Law, why do we observe an equal linear motion of the two pegs post event (linear as translated to the pendulum action) yet observe rotation in one peg only?

Does this not indicate that the rotating peg has more energy?

If so, then where did the extra energy come from?










   

[Tom Booth]

I have no intention of volunteering the entire thesis for at least two good reasons.... most significantly, the work is incomplete.

I hope you'll forgive me for saying so but that seems a bit disingenuous.

My apologies; we all have our own areas of interest - and therefore knowledge - and sometimes forget this in our communications. I did a 'quick Wikki grab' of a concise explanation for you:


(from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_of_mass)

That just confirms what I said. I know what "Center of mass" is. that wasn't the question. The question was; how can you have a "Reactive force" at an abstract coordinate ? What constitutes "Reactive force at the center of mass"?

Personally I would have to say that if two objects collide, the "reactive force" is distributed throughout the objects. How it is distributed would depend upon a host of different factors. I don't think you can have any such thing as "a reactive force at the center of mass". Certainly not literally. The center of mass is a point coordinate. It would be, I think, an impossibility to focus kinetic energy at such an exact point coordinate just by banging two objects together in one way or another. Rubber balls or sticks or whatever. The energy from the collision would spread through the objects more or less like waves produced by dropping a pebble in a pond, the force rebounding and reacting in ways that may be entirely unpredictable at any rate, most certainly not focalized at any one given point.

If you want to understand the device then turn your attention to the phenomena. Here again is my statement based on observation:

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.

It must either be true or false. You can easily prove it false. Post an honest video of two pegs of equal mass suspended by pendulum; there should be some form of impetus such as the release of a spring previously in compression between the pegs. The point of contact between the pegs should be such that after the impetus event one peg rotates while the other does not. The rotating peg must demonstrate significantly less displacement on the pendulum than the non-rotating peg.

If this were possible you would have destroyed my hypothesis and proven a breach of the laws of Conservation of Momentum.

Allow me to ask you a few questions; assuming the result obtained is as claimed, and in consideration of Newton's Third Law, why do we observe an equal linear motion of the two pegs post event (linear as translated to the pendulum action) yet observe rotation in one peg only?

Does this not indicate that the rotating peg has more energy?

If so, then where did the extra energy come from?

I could not draw any conclusions from one brief video. How many times have you performed this experiment? Always with the same results?

How did you determine that "...we observe an equal linear motion of the two pegs post event "

Such a conclusion would require exacting measurements down to the micron or nanometer. Watching the video I can't quite figure out what you are doing. Looks like you're lighting a firecracker or something then pop, the sticks fly apart. What exactly is going on there?

yet observe rotation in one peg only?

Again, how many times has this experiment been repeated ?

Does this not indicate that the rotating peg has more energy?

Not necessarily. Your talking about some wooden pegs. The density may vary. They may not be perfectly balanced or aligned. one may weigh more than the other, one may have an aerodynamic tendency to turn due to some minor defect on its surface or have a slight curve.

Have you tried the experiment with different pegs made of different materials with a more uniform structure than wood?

If so, then where did the extra energy come from?

I'm not dismissing your claim. I'll assume you know what you are doing and have done enough experiments to justify coming to the conclusions you have, and suppose that in these crude appearing experiments you have in fact managed to apply the force at the exact center of mass by some miracle, where does the extra energy come from to cause one peg to turn a bit?

You got me. Random quantum fluctuations ?

If you want to understand the device then turn your attention to the phenomena. Here again is my statement based on observation:

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.

I haven't done the extensive experimenting that you apparently have done but at present my opinion is that the above statement is false on its face. In particular: "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."

I've played too much pool to believe that. If you give a cue ball a glancing blow with a cue stick it will just spin around. You have missed the "center of mass" by a mile.

[Tusk]

It was made clear earlier that I do not intend to defend the material. Whatever steps taken to produce results sufficient for my own conclusions would not necessarily suffice for those ill disposed to allow such results, or their implications. My only interest is a self imposed obligation to assist where possible those with a genuine interest in the material as provided.

If you believe there is nothing noteworthy here then I thank you for taking an interest and wish you good luck with your own device. I should also offer my apologies for having less art than required in the explanation of the work, perhaps you may come to a better understanding at some later date.

Btw I have also played the occasional game of pool, and have never seen the result you are claiming, unless it was accompanied by a sudden vertical displacement or interference by another object. I recall one time a hustler claiming such a shot, but from memory he could not reproduce it.

[Tom Booth]

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.

What you seem to be saying is; regardless of the point of impact, any "body in equilibrium" (That phrase may need further defining in this context for my sake) will be propelled ("linear motion") as if it were hit dead center at its "center of mass". So if I punch someone they will move linearly "in the direction of the applied force" the exact same distance regardless of where I punch them, the head, the stomach or the kneecap ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XjwO9InuFJk&NR=1&feature=fvwp

Well I just tried an experiment with a cigaret lighter. Put it on the table and flicked it with my finger at one end. It spun around in a circle but did not appear to move linearly. I flicked it again using approximately the same amount of force in the middle at its "center of mass" and it slid across the table linearly about 2 feet.

If I understand you hypothesis correctly, it does not square with my intuition or my experience or my recent experiment. I tried this experiment several times with very little variation in the results.

It was made clear earlier that I do not intend to defend the material.

If you are going to present it in an open forum on the internet, I'm afraid you are going to need thicker skin than that.

Whatever steps taken to produce results sufficient for my own conclusions would not necessarily suffice for those ill disposed to allow such results, or their implications.

I'm not "ill disposed". I barely have a handle on what your results are supposed to be and no idea regarding their implications.

My only interest is a self imposed obligation to assist where possible those with a genuine interest in the material as provided.

If you believe there is nothing noteworthy here then I thank you for taking an interest and wish you good luck with your own device. I should also offer my apologies for having less art than required in the explanation of the work, perhaps you may come to a better understanding at some later date.

Btw I have also played the occasional game of pool, and have never seen the result you are claiming, unless it was accompanied by a sudden vertical displacement or interference by another object. I recall one time a hustler claiming such a shot, but from memory he could not reproduce it.

I doubt I could reproduce it either. It was due to a slip while trying to put too much English on the Q ball and missing, just grazing the Q ball. It was never intentional.

But that does not necessarily destroy your theory. Resistance to linear motion might be accounted for by the felt on the pool table. It is a bit harder to account for the lack of linear motion with my cigaret lighter as the table top is Formica and offers little resistance. These "experiments" were not conducted in a vacuum, but then again, neither were yours.