The Paradox Engine

[Tusk]

The mistake is thinking that the bat contains more energy because it is rotating. If one was to extract the rotational energy from the bat the bat would be left with less energy and would not move as far as the bat that did not rotate.

I say again, you appear to have misunderstood the nature of the first phenomenon lumen (and consequently missed the point of the second).

The bat most definitely does 'contain more energy' because it is rotating.

If the "acceleration of the centre of mass will be equal in all three cases" (M.I.T. document) then clearly the linear motion of the bat must also be equal; therefore your statement that I am mistaken in thinking the bat "contains more energy because it is rotating" is clearly invalid. I am running out of ways to explain and define the first phenomenon; the fact of it I presented a year since, along with a definition. The literature now reveals confirmation of it. And I have now presented an explanation of the cause.

Try this then:

If we apply the same force to a body at various points, the linear motion (i.e. the motion of the centre of mass) will be identical in every case, regardless of rotational motion (or lack thereof).

It's not entirely 'something for nothing' in my earlier baseball bat/particle collision example (and yet it also is). The advancing point of force over the period of the collisions differ, with the rotation causing the point of force motion to be greater. This we overcome by frame of reference manipulation in the PE apparatus, allowing basic geometry to redefine our advancing point of force as simply rotating on the spot, driven by the rotation of the rotor arm.

Actually quite simple when you step back far enough. But we should not underestimate the inertia of convention I suppose.

Afterthought - lumen, please don't read anything into the 'tone' of my replies other than an attempt at precision and clarity; no offense is intended and certainly anything this unusual is going to take some time to assimilate. I welcome your interest 

[infringer]

So to put in laymens terms ...

Let me make sure I am understanding this correctly.

If the bat went rolling down a steep road 3 times over as a test, and came into contact with a fixed crash test dummy each time at the same point of impact at the bottom of this steep road.

- All of the data measured should be equal no matter which one of the 3 points hit it I don't think this is true but have not tested to verify but I do remember being hit by a spinning bat handle the barrel was spinning the hole bat was spinning and it was coming at me so 3 different accelerations ... And it didn't seem to be a week impact when it hit my shin but I must say it is also a weak spot to get hit at.

But the amount of mass at point of impact would cause different data for instance point 1 would have less mass even though the acelleration may be the same the mass differs on a baseball bat throughout? ,

The bat is like a stretched wheel and a bad example I would much rather use something like a drive shaft in my mind as it is a bit more equal throughout its length.

I am missing what is the real find I guess if this is incorrect.

This is a wheel that is stretched providing leverage points 1 and 3 any small amount of force is going to cause the spin of the bat not just as it sits but as it is pushed as well.

Hrmmm this has got me thinking on other lines as well.

Does the length of the arm effect the amount of counter rotation? This stuff is pretty neat I think there may be something here but it is not easy to pin down we all must keep thinking out loud and let tusk tell us what he can from his findings.



1___________2-----------------------3
  ------------------________________

Sorry for the bad ascii art lol but it should suffice.

Would this be what is being proposed I guess I am thinking of some way to put this with a bit less wording.

I under stand perfectly this principal as it is not new to me I guess a body on or in a body in motion does contain more energy simply the throwing of an object will teach you this it is not all about wind resistance there has to be some force that allows a pitcher to throw a curve ball or a knuckle ball without the rotational forces they would likely not achieve the same results more thought for this I suppose I dunno I may be adding confusion but I do wonder if this somehow correlates.

Hrmmm for lack of a better way of explaining ...

A spinning Ninja star at traveling at the same speed of another ninja star not spinning would likely result in a larger impact due to having two forms of momentum forward momentum and rotational momentum.

Interesting thing I wonder if it would matter if it was spinning vertically or horizontally as to the amount of overall momentum it would have I assume not but have not seen any tests to say either way.

There is quite a bit of thinking out loud here feel free to sort it out Tusk but I think what we may need is a bit more simplified terms for people.


Be back later to check watching the Space Station Pump Module installation final steps ...

[lumen]

If the particle's energy was completely absorbed into the bat in each case then why would you consider that the case with rotation contained any more energy? The particle simply caused the overall mass of the bat to move at a certain rate whether the bat rotates or not.

What I'm saying is that you consider the rotation to indicate the bat contains more energy when it does not. To extract the rotational energy would cause the bat to not move as far.

If the bat that was not rotating impacted a rock on one end as it was moving from the particle impact, then this bat would now rotate also but in fact has given up some energy on impact with the rock and will not travel as far.

So extracting the rotation from the rotating bat will also give up some energy and continue to move without rotation also, only not as far.

The logic is very clear, at least in my thinking.

The reason this appears unusual is that normally in experience anything that strikes another object at a direction that causes spin, never imparts all of it's energy into the other object. In the M.I.T. cases, the particle is fully absorbed in all cases so all of the energy is transferred.

If the energy was imparted into the bat at (2) then (2)=X and points (1) and (3) =X, all point move the same.

If the energy was imparted into the bat at (3) then (2)=X and (3)=X+1 and (1)= X-1, all points average the same but the bat is spinning.

[broli]

If the energy was imparted into the bat at (2) then (2)=X and points (1) and (3) =X, all point move the same.

If the energy was imparted into the bat at (3) then (2)=X and (3)=X+1 and (1)= X-1, all points average the same but is spinning.

This is actually not true. Yes the bat will contain more energy, in both cases linear momentum must be conserved. So, no matter what, the center of mass, of m + M in both cases must have the same ending velocity. And any additional rotation means the block STILL has the same amount of momentum, but different amounts of kinetic energy.

Here's the perfect example:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vWVZ6APXM4w
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BLYoyLcdGPc

However you shouldn't get too hung up on that.

Tusk allowed me to really dig deep into this stuff. And every time, considering everything, like the total moment of inertia, theorem of couples on rigid bodies, reaction torques, the Parallel Axis Theorem, inertia of the inner wheel... I end up with a dead end, where energy cannot be increased.

[lumen]

broil,
I like the bullet experiment!
The explanation that was given is obviously not correct or the results would have been significant enough to be seen.
How can the rotational energy be 50% of the gravitational energy and yet the penetration difference is immeasurable.

What doesn't make sense about this problem?