The Paradox Engine

[Tusk]

What if you could tweak the concept a bit, use some electromagnetic paradoxes to achieve an ever increasing rotation speed with a constant electric input.

I'm up to my neck in paradox already thanks broli  Having grown up with a father who was an electronics engineer (although that was valves and big bakelite knobs) and now with a son likewise qualified, I can admit to not having even a hint of that mental capacity which lends itself to understanding this most perplexing subject. If you suspect there is an improvement to be made in this area, someone else will no doubt be able to follow your line of thinking. My own efforts are simply aimed at presenting the fundamental concept as it presented itself to me, in the hope others might pick up on the potential and take it to the next level.

refer to the video description for explanation.

Until you realize the Freudian whiplash.

Over my head, but I assume the idea has a flaw? From a mechanical/inertial point of view there appears to be no way to secure an advantage, but once those currants start moving around in those pipes....... 

In the real world I would see that the spin up can happen faster than the spin down

The spin up is certainly more rapid webby1, but note that applies only in the FoR of the rotor arm; in the observer FoR the rate of acceleration and final rotation of the disk should be equal, but here again we slip across into EM theory. Does the assist (in the rotor arm FoR) from the inertia of the disk make it easier or more difficult for the EM drive to accelerate the disk as before?

The data suggests that if anything it may make it easier but certainly not more difficult, with peak power being lower for the 'rotor arm free' mode. This is assuming that having the EM drive active for the same period will result in the same final rate of rotation (disk - FoR observer). As I inferred earlier, I can see an argument for and against the rotational acceleration being reduced here.

The argument 'for' involves point of force motion, with the disk 'running away' from the EM point of force more rapidly due to the inertial assist (this seems counter intuitive, would the disk really accelerate less rapidly while having that acceleration assisted?).

The argument 'against' seems to be that with EM effects (and indeed cycles) being so rapid, point of force motion has limited effect, allowing a constant acceleration at little or no additional cost.

Again, data seems to confirm the latter. I'd like to carry on with that linear example, because it presents in a less convoluted way and might be a better vehicle for discussion and comprehension of the various phenomena. With this example I've replaced the EM drive unit with an EM drive rail (like a rail gun I suppose); and allowed that the disk can be accelerated rotationally as shown while having the secondary reaction manifesting linear acceleration along a guide rail, again as shown.

If the 'disk' consisted of an outer circular rod of large mass yet small radial cross section, we might allow that the two equal forces (applied force and secondary reaction) produce a rate of rotation and linear motion which are comparable in terms of KE (since the same mass is accelerated directly by equal force in both instances).

This then (if accepted) leads to the conclusion (by conventional thinking) that the sum of these energies must be equal to the total energy spent producing the two motions. With the point of force motion issue (due to the linear acceleration) the EM effect may be directed along the rail with little effort beyond that of maintaining a single point of force. Any given point of the disk itself will of course have something like twice the velocity (over the EM rail) of that imparted by rotation alone, due to the linear motion. But we can 'chase' the required point of force along as it accelerates electromagnetically, using sensors etc (or so I am told).

So much for my frame of reference manipulation - the 'second phenomenon' - it seems that EM drive systems are not limited by such concerns. Serves me right for initially contemplating application of the first phenomenon using means other than an EM drive system (from memory I was dabbling in springs, collisions and even human power) 

As a benchmark with this example we might first motivate the disk and note the period of time required for the disk to reach point C on the drive rail. Then we might secure the disk and rotate it without allowing linear motion. Applying the same force would result in X rate of rotation after a period equal to the period required for the disk to reach point C in the benchmark linear acceleration test, after which power would be cut. The equivalent of our 'rotor free' test on the PE apparatus we once more allow the disk it's linear motion along the guide rail. Since the force applied would be equal to the previous static test, the secondary reaction at the axis (being equal) would induce a linear acceleration comparable to the rotational acceleration (i.e. equivalent to X rate of rotation converted to linear motion) which in this instance would again result in X rate of rotation at point C. As the secondary reaction manifests regardless of whether or not the linear motion is allowed to manifest, the same energy is expended in both instances.

Once again, the question of point of force motion arises, except that in this example the disk rotation is unassisted by inertia (as deduced by broli earlier):

in the rotating version a rotation of the wheel would arise due to its inertia. While no such "spontaneous" rotation appears in the linear version.

This is correct, the point of force motion in this instance consists of the normal acceleration of the disk, exactly as it would appear in the static test, and the linear acceleration which is accounted for by rapid EM 'switching' along the EM rail according to the position of the disk, which seems to cost us nothing, or very little; 'rail guns' might be considered a good example of the advantages of this effect.

But then I have admitted to a poor grasp of matters electronic (and therefore EM); so fire away, I still have a human powered version up my sleeve     

 

 

[Tusk]

I just ran a stupid and simple test,, not that it should be needed when you have MIT showing the same stuff.

No better way to come to grips than going 'hands on' to see for yourself webby1. My own curiosity led down a similar path, although admittedly that was long before the M.I.T. document surfaced.

It's really quite magical, don't you agree? While these simple collisions are not manifesting energy above the initial condition, having proof positive that we get two equal forces for the cost of one fairly shouts 'OU potential'.

This is still my personal favourite (it took several months to come up with the idea):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zi8k3PMUM6k&feature=youtu.be

I'm still unsure how it impacts on Newton's Third Law of Motion, or at least the common interpretation of it.

How about 'every action has an equal and opposite reaction, except those actions which have two equal and opposite reactions 

[Tusk]

My take on Inertia,, it is the force of not wanting to see any change.

Thanks webby1; at least we can now put a name to the general lack of enthusiasm.

[telecom]

Hi Tusk and webby1,
can you please explain in a layman terms what you have discovered?
I'm trying to follow the thread, but I can't understand it, need you to shed more light on
something what perhaps  is very clear to you, but vague to me!
What exactly that video is supposed to prove?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zi8k3PMUM6k&feature=youtu.be

[Tusk]

First in reply to this from telecom:

What exactly that video is supposed to prove?

I think webby1 did a reasonable job with his answer. I would add that the additional motion (rotation) manifests simply by shifting the point of application of force. The rotation is justified in CoM by allowing that angular momentum is unchanged; which typically seems to foster the view of 'nothing to see here, please move on' in those less open to possibility. But personally I found the sudden realisation that two forces appear where before there was only one, each with the same value as the first, not only surprising but suggestive of OU potential.

With the rotational condition the point of force motion is of course greater (than the linear only condition) when the resultant linear motion is allowed to manifest. Thus the PE apparatus, which demonstrates one method of overcoming this problem by frame of reference manipulation (another method for advancing point of force motion at little or no cost is EM switching, as with a rail gun).

So at this point we finally manifest two forces for the cost of one, along with the consequent motions. Unfortunately the dynamics of the device are apparently so convoluted, and the phenomena involved so unconventional and poorly understood, that the significance and veracity of the concept becomes unclear at best, and downright laughable for those prepared to venture an opinion after a brief scan of the basic principles and conclusions.

Right now I am mulling over the internal difference in rate of applied force.

From the internal reference frame of the disc, when it is in a constant state it is not in motion, it is only when that constant state is disturbed that the disc observes and reacts to an external thing and that makes me wonder about the observed rate.

The data from the test runs suggests a linear rate webby1, for rotor secure and rotor free. The measurements are taken from the FoR of the rotor arm, but I would expect a linear rate in the observers FoR with the rotor arm free (observer and rotor arm FoR is the same in rotor secure mode). This because the loss of the additional inertial rotational motion (of the disk) in the FoR of the rotor arm (or lack of, as we would observe it) is directly proportional to the rate of rotation of the rotor arm itself; which rate will also prove to be linear due to the constancy of the applied and thus secondary reactive force.

I think the suggested use of your mechanical rectifier along with regenerative braking at the drive unit might actually provide the simplest solution (in engineering terms). I would still like to see two identical disks (for maximum efficiency) but the idea of gearing the rotor arm output in order to reduce the rate of rotation is excellent. In this way, the additional inertial rotation of the disk can be minimised so eliminating any concerns about reduction of disk rotation during rotor arm braking, disk braking and reversal of the rotor arm. A neat solution - engineering opportunities abound.