The Solution vs Hoax equation

[Tusk]

@TK

Linear momentum and angular momentum are separately conserved.

Since the pegs demonstrate equal velocity certainly linear momentum is conserved.

From your brief description it sounds like you think you are creating angular momentum out of nothing. So I must be misunderstanding.

Angular momentum is not the issue here. The kinetic energy of the rotational motion has more significance. However it is not created 'out of nothing'. It is the action or reaction (you choose) of Newton's Third Law.

So on the one hand we have linear momentum conserved at the centre of mass; on the other Newton's Third Law provides an equivalent energy of rotation to the linear energy of the non rotating peg. The sum total of which, in consideration of the energy of the linear motion, exceeds expectation. Fully explained however, if you allow my earlier observation as fact.

In support of these findings, the data collected from the device shows that the kinetic energy of rotation is at least equal to that evident in a fixed disk bench test. Which suggests that the kinetic energy of the event manifests in rotation while the linear momentum manifests at the centre of mass.

[Tusk]

Missed your post yet again audiomaker 

Well Tusk, I hope you'll forgive me for saying, but that kind of puts you in a bind that will require an enormous amount of patience and effort on your part.

It would not be unlike me saying "I've discovered the falabriganth effect and you can't understand what it does." (I made that word up).  You might as well resign yourself to the idea that very few are going to be able to jump on your boat.

That's Fallabriganth with a double L, and I'll thank you to check the name on the patent application before trying to capitalise on the idea.

As for the difficulties of the situation, I sympathise with anyone struggling to grasp the concept - don't think for one moment that a lightbulb came on one day and there was immediate understanding and acceptance on my part.

What if what the "falabriganth" effect does is make things smell like strawberries elsewhere in the galaxy?  It may exist, but hey... you see.   In your case, not only will data need to be provided, but there is the risk that there is no way to interpret the data itself.   Tough spot to be in.

Since the effects of this phenomena are right here in plain sight I don't expect quite so much trouble as you are suggesting. But there is a definite blind spot with this, and no doubt many other phenomena as yet undetected. If you want to write a book, there's your story - how to 'look around' your personal blind spot (by audiomaker). I can provide some background information there, if you decide to proceed with it.

I would suggest taking it easy on yourself, and especially others while you formulate the best presentation of your ideas that you can.  There will be some frustration involved, both coming and going.

You are very considerate. Due to a personal firmly held belief in a universe which goes about it's business regardless of our uninformed expectations, I have no concerns about either the rate of progress or the final outcome itself. I will of course do whatever possible to assist others in their understanding of the material, if they show an interest. Those who do not, or demonstrate an interest only in confrontation for it's own sake, will find me unusually passive and content to let matters 'slide'. 

[audiomaker]

"nasturtiums" ... a type of flower.

I should have known that.

[TinselKoala]

There are a lot of "experiments" being done all around us that can inform us "amateurs" about kinematics and dynamics. For example, consider the Cassini spacecraft mission to Saturn.

This robot spacecraft journeyed for years on a complicated looping path thru the Solar system before eventually arriving at Saturn. The spacecraft itself was put on such an accurate track that some scheduled mid-course corrections weren't even needed. The craft has a solar PV panel that sticks out to one side, asymmetrically with respect to the CofM of the spacecraft itself. During its long journey, the thrust from the Sun onto this panel creates a couple resulting in a torque which tends to rotate the spacecraft about its CofM, changing the aim of its antennae and etc. To compensate for this small but continuing torque, the designers included a gyroscope/flywheel arrangement. This gyro rotor/flywheel is slowly accelerated by its electric motor, and the reaction against the spacecraft structure offsets the torque caused by the Sun hitting the offcenter panel. But this can't go on forever; the flywheel has a maximum RPM. So at that point, the spacecraft fires its attitude thrusters to offset the reaction as the gyro rotor is braked quickly to a standstill.... and the process begins again.

Nine hundred million miles.... actually well over that due to the slingshot navigation...... and it arrived on time, antennae properly oriented, and dropped a robot lander which navigated to a soft landing on Titan.

Now, Tusk ... tell me again what part of the dynamics of angular momentum, linear momentum, and energy conservation that we have "missed"?

If that's not enough, consider Gravity Probe B. Its gyro spheres are the most accurate spherical objects that humans have ever made. They spin in a chamber with very little wall clearance. When the clearance needs adjustment, how is it done, since they are free-floating and spun by gas jets?
The entire spacecraft is nudged slightly by its attitude jets, thus moving the chamber, not the sphere itself which is spinning rapidly but is  "motionless" in free fall space.

What I am saying here, to put a fine point on it, is that physicists and engineers are pretty good at doing things involving angular momentum, linear momentum, total energy and resultant forces. If there is really something significant that they "haven't noticed".... how come they can do these amazing things with such accuracy and confidence?

Further, as the story of Peter and Neal Graneau indicates, and hopefully the Adam Curtis documentary drives home, fully intellgent and accomplished people working in academic contexts, surrounded by colleagues of similar smarts and education.... can be utterly and completely wrong about the interpretation of their observations, to the point of wasting entire careers barking up the wrong "tree"... or cell line as the case may be. What makes you so sure that you are immune to this kind of cognitive blindness?

[Tusk]

What makes you so sure that you are immune to this kind of cognitive blindness?

The spinning of the disk^# + the rotation of the main rotor + the counter rotation of the main rotor

^#at a higher rate for lower power than when bench mounted     

All of which was predicted in the hypothesis prior to the build. I understand how, why, and how much.

It should be obvious that if the disk rotates at X RPM at Y power for Z seconds when bench mounted, that achieving an even higher RPM with less power over the same period, and then over and above this gain we get an acceleration of the main rotor in one direction, then again in the other direction, that something interesting is taking place. And by interesting I mean significantly more mass in motion than we would normally expect; and that means more energy.

I do not think it reasonable to hold me responsible for the lack of insight of others. Since the hypothesis is quite straightforward, as are the experiments, and considering the full disclosure with the offer to provide whatever details or specifications I have at my disposal, it should be a relatively simple matter to mount a devastating rebuttal supported by your own experimental results and hypothesis. I do understand your skepticism under the circumstances and I sympathise. What I don't understand is why you are wasting time and energy on posturing when you could be near to reaching your own conclusion by now based on your own experimental data, given your extensive experience in such matters.