The Paradox Engine

[Tusk]

it would be interesting to see the disc to be driven externally by the chain.

I'll need an illustration or description of that one telecom, not sure about the arrangement or intent of it.

[telecom]

I'll need an illustration or description of that one telecom, not sure about the arrangement or intent of it.

May be something like this?
Each disk is driven by the chain from a central pulley, one for each disc.
The pulleys, in turn, may be driven by a motor.

[Tusk]

it would be interesting to see the disc to be driven externally by the chain.
What would be the rotation of the arm in relation to the disc?

Thanks telecom; not having made a study of the forces in belt driven pulley systems I can only 'shoot from the hip' in the hope of hitting something. The first difference that shouts for attention is the belt/wheel contact area, which accounts for half the disk circumference. In comparison to the EM drive unit on the PE apparatus this is highly significant, assuming that we can allow the entire contact area as driven (?).

If so then the origins of what we might resolve as a secondary reaction at the axis is far more complex. First glance suggests that it should effectively manifest as shown in my modification to your diagram. All this dependent on our treatment of each point of contact between belt and disk as a potential individual point of applied force capable of manifesting a secondary reaction, regardless of all the other points attempting to do likewise. Clearly this is an over simplification, with the obvious potential for interaction with unknown consequences. I strongly suspect that there will be other forces in play here not yet accounted for.

An experiment or two and some homework should point in the right direction, but at this stage I'm not even prepared to indicate the rotor arm motion on the diagram (although I imagine it will be CW). It seems that in attempting to simplify the build we are complicating the theory  I assume that your next step will be to banish inertia and introduce a resistance in it's stead; even further off the reservation and starting to look like ambush country. Since your goal is (I think) to find a simple build perhaps the best solution is to build one along these lines and examine the physics more closely once the results are known.

Afterthought; there is another thread here dealing with belt drives and pulley wheels, several devices under scrutiny supposedly using centrifugal bias in an attempt to achieve OU. The analysis of the various torques in accounting for rotation seemed rather well informed and may shed light on things for us. It may transpire that when using belts as you have proposed all motion can be explained in conventional terms, which would suggest that our secondary reaction does not manifest under these conditions. If not I would certainly like to know the cause.

[telecom]

The first difference that shouts for attention is the belt/wheel contact area, which accounts for half the disk circumference. In comparison to the EM drive unit on the PE apparatus this is highly significant, assuming that we can allow the entire contact area as driven

Hi Task,
this can be corrected by making the diameter of the pulleys bigger than the diameter
of the discs, or by driving a smaller pulleys which in turn drive the discs placed
on the same shaft. Will you be able analyze the paradox effect in this case?
You have mentioned that the resistance in our case takes care of the inertia.
Will the paradox effect be active in this case?
Will we be able to get an extra linear force at the axis of the disc?
Is this what the secondary reaction is?

[Tusk]

Hi Task

Actually (not that it's important) I prefer 'Tusk'. Your idea sounds too laborious 

this can be corrected by making the diameter of the pulleys bigger than the diameter
of the discs, or by driving a smaller pulleys which in turn drive the discs placed
on the same shaft. Will you be able analyze the paradox effect in this case?

I'm not sure that is correct telecom, half the pulley wheel is always going to to be in contact with the belt/chain; is that not so? I'm not saying that the secondary reaction won't manifest under those conditions (although it might not) but that the greater part of the total force on the wheel/disk will not cause a secondary reaction.

You have mentioned that the resistance in our case takes care of the inertia.
Will the paradox effect be active in this case?
Will we be able to get an extra linear force at the axis of the disc?
Is this what the secondary reaction is?

The resistance created by a generator (for instance) may cause a secondary reaction at the axis much the way inertia does. There's a need for experimentation here, I will get around to it myself eventually but feel free (anyone) to jump in and claim first sight of it.

I'm more enthusiastic about recovering energy at the disk axis with a generator. Staying with half of the original cyclic system and alternating between power in (at the EM drive unit) and power out at the disk axis and rotor arm axis, I intend to sacrifice rotor arm reversal in the interest of simplicity. Since the retarding force on the rotor arm during regenerative braking will be minimised (due to the lesser lever arm bias across the generator diameter) it should be possible to cycle between power in (with power out at rotor arm axis) and power out at disk axis (rotor arm 'coasting' + minimal retardation from bias at generator).

This appears to offer the best compromise for an actual OU prototype as the next step up from the current apparatus, which proves the concept but apparently not as convincingly as I expected, most likely due to the convoluted and incredible nature of the various phenomena and the interactions thereof; something akin to a trail of breadcrumbs through a bakery.