This device is a proof of concept prototype designed to apply what appear to be newly discovered principles to the problem of mechanical overunity.
http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/715/pengine.jpg/
While this build is not sophisticated enough to produce an electrical output it does nevertheless make use of a hitherto unknown phenomena to create mass in motion from both an applied force and the associated reactive force. The device consists of an aluminium disk with the axis mounted on one end of a main supporting arm or rotor which in turn is bench mounted at the central point with bearings such that both disk and rotor are able to rotate freely. The opposite end of the rotor is counterbalanced, but it is envisaged that in future designs a disk will be mounted at each end. The disk has 36 permanent magnets arranged regularly around the outer edge and is driven by a tangential linear force supplied by a pulsed electromagnetic drive unit located directly over the axis of the main rotor such that the applied force alone cannot cause the rotor to rotate.
video:
http://youtu.be/Nn09U_c2S7U (http://youtu.be/Nn09U_c2S7U)
Observation of the device in operation confirms that during acceleration of the disk the main rotor rotates in accordance with expectations based on knowledge of the aforementioned phenomena. In addition during deceleration (by application of electromagnetic braking) the motion of the main rotor reverses suggesting a second manifestation of the phenomena as expected. Data from an onboard power logging unit during tests with the main rotor both secure and free confirms that the rotor free mode requires no more power than the rotor secure mode, in fact somewhat less power is used for a significantly higher disk rotation rate as shown in the data from a typical test run in the image below:
http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/145/paratach2watts.jpg/
The phenomena itself manifests as a duality of motion, in that a body subjected to a linear force so as to cause it to rotate is induced also by conservation of momentum to move with the same linear motion as would occur if the initial force were applied at the centre of mass. This understanding can be arrived at theoretically, but as a demonstration of the concept a simple experiment might do better service than a lengthy explanation: (the pegs have equal mass)
http://youtu.be/zi8k3PMUM6k (http://youtu.be/zi8k3PMUM6k)
Since I could find no reference to the phenomena there seemed little choice but to formulate a rule of sorts to explain the concept, which rule appears below:
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.
Clearly this aspect of the work might be previously known, although the phenomena almost begs for application in the field of overunity. It would be an inexplicable oversight if that were the case.
It is envisaged that the operation of the device will be cyclic, alternating between accelerating and decelerating the main disks (allowing a twin disk system). During acceleration power will be taken from the main rotor. During deceleration power will come from the disk itself and also the main rotor, which will turn opposite to the previous cycle. This promises a theoretical overunity of almost 300% but of course there will be mechanical and electromagnetic inefficiencies.
The next phase requires a far more sophisticated build than my own resources allow, at least in a timely manner. Open source seemed the most likely method to advance the concept, and I submit the work done so far in the hope that others will take the necessary steps to realise the full potential of the phenomena.
Hi Tusk,
Thank you for sharing.
It's interesting how it goes backwards as it slows down.
Have you tried putting a single weight on the outer edge of the aluminum disk?
Hi DTB, and thanks for your interest.
The reversal of the main rotor represents the 'third bite of the cherry' so to speak. As the braking force is applied to the disk (in a fully functioning device this would be similar to regenerative braking on an electric vehicle, i.e. recovery of the kinetic energy of the disk) the secondary reactive force of equal measure applies at the axis of the disk driving the main rotor opposite to the initial 'power up' half of the cycle. With two disks running on a lightweight main rotor each of the rotor cycles (disk spool up/disk power out) would theoretically approach the combined kinetic energy of the disks.
As for adding weights to the disk, presumably you are suggesting a balanced donut type mass; certainly there are improvements to be made in efficiency based on established engineering principles, but in this instance my preference would be lightweight and high velocity for maximum kinetic energy.
ummm, Newton's 3rd law, hello!!!!
Apologies for the poor quality of the graph I uploaded, I had not intended for it to be reduced in size. Hopefully this will redress that error. Also I changed the colour of the power curve to red for clarity.
I should probably elaborate on the test method, due to the EM drive having an erratic startup the disk was spooled to just over 1150 rpm on each run then allowed to coast back down to 1100 rpm at which point maximum power was applied for 8 seconds. The time scale of the graphing software has a fault, each small graduation represents 1 second so that at the 0.25 second sampling rate there are approximately 32 data points during each power run.
Note that even if we disallow the potential of the main rotor motion, the main disk exhibits a significant advantage over a static test i.e. main rotor secure.
Now that I know how to do that (attach images) here's a decent size photo of the device:
Hi !
Whats the newly discovered principle ?
As long as the resulting effective point of drive (where the integral of the magnetic fields (el+stat) interact) - is not exactly in the neutral position (main hub bearing point) - energy will be transfered from the rotating disc to the mounting cw/ccw on accelerating/braking.
Due to an electrodynamic effect - this point of drive change with speed and load.
Thats somewhat same as transfer with an 2nd order oscillation.
The losses for this transfer are determined by the bearing friction and dynamic bending.....
rgds.
Hi fritz, good to see someone kicking the tyres and asking questions.
You are correct in your assumption that positioning the drive point over the exact centre of the system is difficult, however any reasonable error in this placement creates such an extremely short moment arm that it has little effect on main rotor motion.
QuoteWhats the newly discovered principle ?
Having not yet exhausted my search of the literature there can be no claim, but as stated earlier in the absence of evidence of prior knowledge there was little choice but to formulate my own rule in order to advance the research. The rule itself having already been stated perhaps I should expand on the concept in the interest of clarity. The simple pendulum demonstration in my OP clearly shows a duality of motion on one side (of the impetus) yet a singular linear motion on the opposite side which is replicated in the motion of the rotating mass. If we were witnessing two bodies simply moving thus with no rotation we would be forgiven for making the assumption that no further motion were possible as a result of the impetus event, since we allow that motion represents kinetic energy and without prior knowledge might easily expect no further energy could manifest.
Nevertheless the duality of motion does manifest, and while the rotation itself is no surprise the preservation of linear motion (insofar as the linear motion applies on the pendulum apparatus) seems at first somewhat paradoxical. Yet if we examine the process in terms of momentum it becomes clear that the linear motion must be preserved else we would be in breach of conservation of momentum.
In short, the pendulum demonstration challenges our perception of Newton's third law. In fact there is no breach there, rather a fundamental annex to the known phenomena. Mass in motion across the threshold from a single frame of reference (in this case linear motion) to two frames of reference (linear + rotation) must by the example of nature manifest in both frames of reference each independent of the other. There can be no loss of energy in the linear motion. Equally the motion of rotation must manifest in accordance with the moment of the applied force.
Thus the paradox, resolved on this occasion only in acceptance of the fact.
As always there are other arrangements of the elements involved here, one of which at least may shed more light on the essential certainties in need of recognition for any thorough understanding. The following simple thought experiment may be of some assistance.
Allow two disks mounted in plane on bearings at opposite ends of a single frame each by the axis: O=O
Allow also a drive system mounted near the centre of the main frame capable of accelerating both disks so as to cause them to rotate in opposite directions in equal measure.
Presuming that the experiment takes place in equilibrium we can assume two possible outcomes; either
1. The device will accelerate in the opposite direction of the applied force or
2. The device will remain stationary
Since outcome 1. suggests a breach of Conservation of Momentum we would assume outcome 2.
Since outcome 2. suggests a breach of Conservation of Energy we would assume outcome 1.
Thus 'blood must be spilled'. I can offer no further solace than to admit my own trepidation at first sight of this monster.
Just adding a link to an earlier thread which features a concept most helpful with the apprehension# of the main thesis (for anyone who missed it).
#duality of meaning appropriate here also.
http://www.overunity.com/13079/the-pendulum-bias-paradox-experiment/#.UK8E92fp5Qw (http://www.overunity.com/13079/the-pendulum-bias-paradox-experiment/#.UK8E92fp5Qw)
Since the original video of the device was recorded prior to the coil rewire I am adding a recent clip which shows a slightly more energetic action (the central theme of our investigation being energy).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dG8YOp_njFs&feature=youtu.be (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dG8YOp_njFs&feature=youtu.be)
Where are the tinkerers and engineers - you know you want one of these.... anyone game for twin 1 metre disks and a half kilowatt drive unit? (stand well clear)
Discussion with other interested parties (not on this forum) has identified the primary cause of confusion. In an attempt to clarify, yet another thought experiment:
The experiment requires two objects and two instances of varied circumstance.
Allow a steel rod in equilibrium, static in the frame of reference of the observer, designate as rod A.
Allow a second steel rod of equal mass and dimensions as rod A in linear motion with respect to the first rod (i.e. no rotation), designate as rod B.
In the first instance allow that rod B collides with rod A at the centre of mass (i.e. in line with) of both rods. The forces on each rod during the collision at the point of contact being equal result in reduced linear motion of rod B and linear motion of rod A according to CoM.
In the second instance allow that the centre of mass of rod B collides with rod A at one end of rod A. Again the forces on each rod during the collision at the point of contact being equal result in reduced linear motion of rod B and in this instance rotational motion of rod A.
If the centre of mass of rod A remains at rest then CoM has been breached.
Since rod B has reduced linear motion according to the force applied to it during the collision an equal reactive force must manifest at the centre of mass of rod A otherwise CoM has been breached. This reactive force must then result in linear motion of rod A according to CoM independent of any rotation of rod A.
Since the force acting on rod A at the point of collision results in rotation, and furthermore any motion beyond the rotational motion of rod A is surplus to the motion accounted for by CoE, therefore rod A having both linear and rotational motion manifests a total potential energy in breach of CoE.
Clearly the forces in the second instance are less than those in the first due to lower inertial resistance. This opens another issue entirely, related to point of force motion and methods of applying force so as to mitigate increased point of force motion. These measures are apparent in the design of the device.
Correction of a minor oversight in the preceding post - technically it was correct but in the interest of clarity:
QuoteIn the first instance allow that rod B collides with rod A at the centre of mass (i.e. in line with) of both rods. The forces on each rod during the collision at the point of contact being equal result in reduced linear motion of rod B and linear motion of rod A according to CoM.
should read:
In the first instance allow that rod B collides with rod A at the centre of mass (i.e. in line with) of both rods. The forces on each rod during the collision at the point of contact being equal result in
rod B coming to a state of rest with rod A assuming the previous linear motion of rod B according to CoM.
(similar to two equal mass steel balls on a Newton's Cradle)
OK, I read through the thread here, as well as the other one referenced about the pendulum - colliding balls and block of wood. You lost me at the end with the mathematics.
Your concept regarding frames of reference intrigued me. In particular the illustration about the baseball and train.
How would the people in the train calculate the kinetic energy of the ball which appears to them as motionless ? Interesting question.
So you are saying that energy is variable. How much energy might be available is relative to your frame of reference. Not an absolute quality.
You seem to be proposing harnessing "overunity" by manipulating frames of reference.
From the point of view of the people in the train the ball appears to have zero kinetic energy. Change the point of reference and the ball might, in theory, contain a nearly infinite amount of kinetic energy no? The guy that hit the ball along with the planet and the ball and the train hurtling away from the center of the big bang at light speed or some such frame of reference.
I've sometimes wondered myself about the nature of energy. Particularly so-called "Potential" energy.
If I carry a ball up a hill it supposedly gains "potential energy" as I can roll it down the hill and extract some energy from it by making it collide with some mechanism. But is this "potential energy" a REAL THING. An inherent quality or quantity. If I continue with the ball over the hill and down the other side where did the "potential energy" I put into it go?
It seems a mistake to think of this "potential energy" as any kind of real thing, more a manner of speaking.
You mentioned something along the lines that what you are attempting to set forth here is your life work. I certainly respect that. I certainly wouldn't pass up an opportunity to have my mind blown.
I don't know if there is really any way to exploit this frame of reference idea but I find it more intriguing than your mechanical experiments. If nothing else it is good mental gymnastics to make an effort to follow your line of reasoning whether it has any real world application in terms of OU or not.
How to get energy from the motionless ball - step off the train. Change the frame of reference. Not sure how that would work outside of a thought experiment but I'm listening.
Please carry on.
QuoteIt seems a mistake to think of this "potential energy" as any kind of real thing, more a manner of speaking.
It helps to temporarily exchange the common perception of energy (as you say, a 'real thing') for a simple perception of mass in motion in full consideration of frame of reference. While energy is perceived as a 'real thing' it is difficult to accept that it may appear and disappear, as it seems to do when the frame of reference changes.
QuoteYou seem to be proposing harnessing "overunity" by manipulating frames of reference.
Indeed. The motion imparted to the disk by the EM drive unit (which itself may rotate but is effectively bench mounted with respect to the disk) must manifest in two frames of reference - the rotation of the disk and the 'linear' motion of the disk, which due to the design of the device converts to rotational motion of the main rotor.
Any attempt to explain the phenomena in terms of energy must fail, due to CoE, unless we are prepared to allow a breach. There is no breach of CoM.
Referring back to the pendulum peg demonstration, which is not difficult to replicate, the total motion of the rotating peg clearly exceeds the total motion of the non-rotating peg since both pegs are displaced equally on the pendulum apparatus. Here also the same impetus (Newton's 3rd) has on the one side produced more motion than on the other. This result can be readily replicated.
Here again a linear motion equal to the linear motion of the non-rotating peg must manifest else CoM would be in breach. Yet any amount of rotation in addition to this linear motion puts us in breach of CoE. The PE device confirms however that this amount is equal to the linear motion imparted to the non-rotating peg, as there is no loss of rotation of the disk as a result of main rotor motion (actually an increased rotation manifests due to an effect first noted in Wuerth's parametric rotator although I may be mistaken in that origin).
Put simply, motion manifests in both frames of reference each independent of the other and according to CoM on the one hand and CoE on the other.
Responding to a request for device specifications:
The steel main rotor arm at 26cm length is bench mounted at the centre by bearings so as to allow rotation. The aluminium 24cm diameter 8mm thick main disk is likewise mounted by bearings so as to allow rotation at one end of the main rotor arm. The opposite end of the rotor arm carries the various equipment associated with the drive unit (battery, radio Rx etc) and some balance weights.
The EM drive unit is comprised of 3 coils of 0.063mm copper wire at 50 turns on a modified transformer core. 36 equally spaced neodymium magnets are embedded near the outer edge of the disk with their poles orientated alternately N/S - S/N perpendicular to the plane of the disk. The EM unit is controlled by a brushless motor ESC system rated at 12 amps and powered by a 3 cell li-poly battery rated at 2200mAh and 11.1V and speed control is provided by a model type radio control system.
The phenomena demonstrates sufficient vigor such that a high precision in replication is unnecessary. Assuming a reasonably powerful applied force from the EM drive unit, any approximation of the basic configuration should produce similar results to those obtained here.
Quote from: Tusk on December 05, 2012, 07:26:22 AM
Indeed. The motion imparted to the disk by the EM drive unit (which itself may rotate but is effectively bench mounted with respect to the disk) must manifest in two frames of reference - the rotation of the disk and the 'linear' motion of the disk, which due to the design of the device converts to rotational motion of the main rotor.
Any attempt to explain the phenomena in terms of energy must fail,...
I think I follow the above paragraph. I'm not so sure about the first line of the next "Any attempt..."
You are powering this thing with some batteries right ?
As a result you get motion. The motor runs and it turns.
This motor is a bit unusual in that it turns in two different ways, spins and revolves simultaneously.
I'm not following exactly how or why you can assert that there is no possibility of explaining this in terms of energy.
Simply put, it seems to me power comes from the battery. Chemical reactions in the battery result in a current through some coils resulting in electromagnetic fields which push the Permanent magnets and make the thing turn. You can imagine sitting on the thing and watching one part of it spin and not notice that what you are sitting on is spinning as well or you can get off and look at the whole contraption from a distance and notice it is actually revolving as well, or you can go further out and see that the whole planet is spinning and further revolving around the sun...
I find this change of reference thing interesting and perhaps the calculations come out different depending on which frame of reference you choose but I don't see how this changes the fact that the energy to make it move is coming from the battery. Without that power source nothing would happen from whatever frame of reference you choose.
I still seem to be missing something fundamental that you are trying to get across I guess.
I assume that from the frame of reference - sitting on the disk watching the motor spin and not taking account of the rotation of the whole platform you are sitting on - that everything can be accounted for mathematically. Simply, the battery is powering the motor in the usual way as if "bench mounted".
Now step back off the thing, change your point of reference and you can see this additional rotation of the whole platform the motor is mounted on. If everything has already been accounted for from the point of view of the first frame of reference then this additional rotating mass, the whole contraption spinning, is something additional and unaccounted for. I'm assuming this to be the jist of the argument. Am I somewhere in the right ball park at least?
Additionally I would think that from the point of view of a point at the center of the disk (spinning at high RPM from another frame of reference), the disk is motionless and the whole universe is in actuality wobbling around it in a very perplexing manner at an enormously high rate of speed, representing some incalculably enormous amount of energy at work, like the strange wobbling of the planets around the earth if the earth is taken as the point of reference, and all this enormous energy from a small battery pack. Just sit here at the center of my disk and throw a little switch and the entire universe is at my command!!!
Ok so far so good Tom; let's pause and make sure we are on the same page.
There is no conventional motor here. The main rotor arm is freewheeling. The EM drive unit provides direct motive force for the disk only. The main disk has permanent magnets embedded around the outside edge which are EM driven by a set of 3 coils fixed to the main rotor directly over the main rotor axis (power supplied by an onboard battery serving dual function as a counterbalance). Since the EM unit rotates with the main rotor, the relationship between the disk and the EM unit is identical to a bench mounted disk (bearing mount at the axis) driven at one point on the disk edge by a bench mounted EM drive. And since the EM unit is located directly above the axis of the main rotor, it has no direct motive influence on the main rotor.
So there is no mechanism for rotating the main rotor other than the reactive force at the axis of the disk (this force is at the heart of the phenomena).
If the disk were bench mounted in the manner described above and brought to a given rate of rotation by a given application of power over a given period, we would hitherto expect such motion to be the maximum motion possible notwithstanding EM and mechanical inefficiencies. Yet we clearly have significant additional motion of the main disk, and furthermore (and more importantly) a secondary motion of the main rotor - which motion occurs not once but twice; firstly in the one direction during acceleration of the disk, the second in the opposite direction (as predicted by the hypothesis) during deceleration of the main disk.
The gentleman I commissioned to manufacture the device (I am no engineer) took every opportunity to advise me during the build that no rotation could possibly manifest at the main rotor. He is a fine professional engineer with a lifetime of experience, and certainly no fool (although he seemed convinced that I was). He is a kind soul of good nature and as the date of completion approached his discomfort was obvious; he clearly believed I was heading for disappointment. Nevertheless he finally completed the work and we did an initial test, mainly to check the viability of the EM drive.
As the disk spooled up and the main rotor began to rotate (quite slowly at first as the coils were incorrectly matched to the task) he became silent for some time. When he finally did speak it was to assure me that 'some motion of the main rotor was to be expected'. I never found out why he expected it, or why he never mentioned these expectations prior to the first test run.
This device was not built to test the main hypothesis; I had long before this been aware of the reactive force at the centre of mass as previously described. What I did not know at that time, at least not with certainty, was whether the universe was prepared to allow additional motion (i.e. 'energy") for the same amount of electrical input energy that would normally be required just to rotate the main disk (some forms of motive force e.g. springs, would certainly not suffice. But this is another issue). Which answer was provided in the affirmative, in fact due to a curious effect first noted (I believe) in the Wuerth Parametric Rotator, it actually requires somewhat less electrical energy.
So hopefully I have given a good account of the key elements involved here. There can be no substitute for 'hands on' experience with this phenomena; I highly recommend making a simple model of the device - the Meccano type construction sets are ideal for such a purpose - and spend some time with the effect before jumping to any conclusions.
At present I'm not in a position to build and test a duplicate of your engine. If I had the resources I'd be working on my own "Ambient Heat" engine instead of spending time here.
I'll say a few things though.
I've always been curious, even as a kid, about gyroscopic force.
Have you ever held a gyroscope in your hand and tried to keep it perfectly still?
It's virtually impossible. The thing twists and turns with such force.
It feels much like trying to arm wrestle with someone. Use all your strength and it is virtually impossible to stop the twisting and turning motion.
On the other hand, the gyroscopes turning wheel can be brought to a stop with relative ease by friction with a slight touch of a finger.
I'm very curious about your "two disk" design which I take it hasn't been built yet.
I ask because it reminds me of a rather disturbing experience I had years ago.
My girlfriend at the time knew I was into some strange things and she told me that there was someone she wanted me to meet.
I don't know how she met this guy. Probably through a friend at her job or something, I don't really know but we went to his apartment.
As soon as we got there and he let us in and we sat down, without any prompting or introduction he immediately went into a lengthy dialog about his UFO abduction experience, as if we were continuing a conversation.
His descriptions were very vivid and rather disturbing. He described children who were hybrid alien/humans he had seen that had no face. Their faces covered by some kind of membrane which had to be surgically removed so they could see. The images he described came to life in vivid detail as if I were recalling some buried or suppressed memories from my own past experience. This disturbed me greatly. But that is rather irrelevant to this discussion.
Towards the end of the meeting he described the propulsion system of the craft.
He drew some sketches.
It consisted of two spinning disks.
He explained how the gyroscopic effect of the two disks spinning in opposite directions created an anti-gravity effect. That strong twisting and turning of one disk set against the second disk. By manipulating this force, presumably by changing the speed or relationship between the two disks in some way the craft could be maneuvered. Made to go forward, backward, up, down etc.
That ended the meeting and my girlfriend and I left. I was rather relieved. But his vivid descriptions stuck in my head for the longest time like a bad dream.
@ Tom Booth
QuoteHave you ever held a gyroscope in your hand and tried to keep it perfectly still?
It's virtually impossible. The thing twists and turns with such force.
Actually keeping it still isn't the issue; it's only when you rotate it out of plane that the fun starts.
QuoteI'm very curious about your "two disk" design which I take it hasn't been built yet.
I think it would be wise to first gain some working knowledge of the single disk unit. Further to this the device itself is secondary to the physics. 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. It might be difficult to grasp the full significance of the device without first being fully aware of the physics behind it. Also there is some merit in approaching this from the skeptic's point of view.
The relevant hypothesis and respective experimental results have been disclosed. This is a relatively simple and accessible issue in which the claimed phenomena of reactive force is pivotal.
Either :
1. a reactive force occurs as claimed, or
2. a reactive force occurs with different characteristics to those claimed, or
3. no reactive force occurs
Since the entire hypothesis rests on this phenomena it should be a simple matter to
1. produce a disproof of the phenomena from the literature, or
2. disprove the phenomena experimentally
I think this exercise will assist your understanding of both the phenomena and the device. If you are able to prove that the reactive force is non-existent, or is in some significant way not as I have described it, then the hypothesis is invalidated or at least in doubt.
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.
QuoteWhat 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.
QuoteWhat 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.
QuoteReactive 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:
Quotethe 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 (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?
Quote from: Tusk on December 06, 2012, 10:12:37 PM
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.
Quote
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 (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.
Quote
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?
Quote
yet observe rotation in one peg only?
Again, how many times has this experiment been repeated ?
Quote
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?
Quote
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 ?
QuoteIf 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.
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.
QuoteA 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.
Quote from: Tusk on December 07, 2012, 12:38:58 AM
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.
Quote
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.
Quote
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.
Another real world example. Have you done much bowling?
I've seen quite often a bowling ball graze the side of a bowling pin. The pin is perhaps kicked to the side a bit, tilts to the side, wobbles, perhaps does a little pirouette but remains standing.
If you watch closely you can see a couple examples of this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xp_LfyyArrE (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xp_LfyyArrE) (around frames 1:14 & 1:36)
The resulting linear motion if any, does not seem to adhere to your postulate, if I understand it correctly:
QuoteA 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.
Sounds like you are saying that in the case of a bowling ball just grazing the side of a bowling pin the pin will or should, if your postulate is correct, be knocked back linearly the same as if it had been hit dead center.
I can't help it if my perceptions have been clouded by a lifetime of indoctrination by conventional thinking.
I'm certainly open to new points of view, new ways of thinking and perceiving. You have what appears to me to be a point of view that is radically different. Outside the norm. I find that intriguing and would very much like to understand how you arrived at your conclusions.
Quote"only if one pits two views against each other can one weasel between them to arrive at the real world." (The Sorcerer's Explanation
From Tales of Power by Carlos Castaneda)
I'm not trying to "debunk" your theory. That isn't my intent.
Take for example, "The Law of Gravity". Some ignorant persons might have objected to Newtons theory by pointing out the fact that birds fly, as well as hot air balloons. Bubbles under water rise to the surface etc.
Perhaps there would be no immediate answer to such objections if we suppose that buoyancy and aerodynamics were not fully understood at the time. A deeper analysis reveals that these things that seem to contradict the "Law" actually depend upon it.
I'm willing to grant that you may be on to something. But if you are going to lead us down the rabbit hole you have to take into consideration the current or prevailing point of view(s) which may indeed be based on ignorance.
For all I know it is not your theory but rather my faulty interpretation of it that is in error. Perhaps my pool game or bowling ball examples have no more validity and carry no more weight against your theory than birds and hot air balloons have against gravity.
I'm willing to set this apparent contradictory evidence aside if you are willing to carry on.
Apparently as yet I only have a tenuous grasp on the tail of the elephant. I hope you can forgive me if at present it seems to be nothing more than a rope dangling in the air. Certainly, if as you say, this is your life's work there is more to it than what I am currently able to grasp. You don't come across as any fool. I've very much enjoyed your thought experiments.
I have a few additional questions or observations regarding your motor.
I take it that the electromagnetic force applied to the embedded magnets is supposed to be balanced. That is, "for every action there is an equal but opposite reaction". The coil is situated directly over the axis so this reactive force should be null.
But an electromagnetic field is not a POINT phenomenon. It is spread out and so may be effecting the other magnets which are not so situated.
Also, I do not know upon what kind of bearings your motor sits but a bearing is generally not a point phenomenon either. Unless the bearing is actually a point, so that your disk is resting on the head of a pin it is not really at the center but rather in a ring surrounding the center. In other words, the bearing is not actually situated at "the center of mass". Or is it ?
I stand by my decision not to defend the material. My current response rests only on a lingering sense of social etiquette, if I allow you the benefit of the doubt. We require another metaphor to illustrate my stance.
The Titanic is steaming through the darkness at full speed, and one of the passengers - perhaps he has exceptional vision or just happens to glance out at the right time - briefly sights what appears to be a large iceberg dead ahead on the horizon. But the 'seeing' (as astronomers would say) is generally poor so the passenger retrieves a small pair of binoculars from his cabin to take a better look. Even so the evidence is slim and retiring to his cabin he performs a rapid analysis of the time of year, the Titanic's current position, the prevailing weather etc against known iceberg data from several reference books he has conveniently to hand. He compares photographs of icebergs and clouds. His conclusion is that icebergs are indeed possible in these waters under the current conditions. This estimate, along with the evidence of his own eyes, convinces him of the danger ahead.
Now we need to 'turn it around' and assess the likely reactions of the captain, crew and other passengers. The Titanic is 'unsinkable'; icebergs have never been seen this far south at this time of year; the crew have access to high power precision binoculars yet can see no iceberg; and this fool has only cheap low power optics. He is neither a professional seaman or meteorologist. Furthermore he is upsetting the other passengers.
How loudly would you have him shout? How fiercely should he defend his hypothesis? If he had sufficient wisdom he would expect an overwhelming negative response to his warning. Yet the danger persists. He can neither remain silent nor will he be inclined to get much excited over the issue; the outcome is inevitable, written in stone before the ship set sail. Chiseled out with all the arrogance and ignorance those responsible could muster.
Likewise this is all rather tiresome from my perspective since the outcome is already known. Your approach to the material seems more one of deliberate obfuscation than open minded curiosity. Apologies in advance if this is not the case but that is the impression you have given.
If you are genuinely curious then walk through the thing in your mind; are you suggesting that the linear effect on the rotating peg is anything other than identical to the linear effect on the non rotating peg? If so then CoM is surely breached; we can manipulate the conditions of the experiment such that an identical force between the two causes neither peg to rotate. In this case we would definitely expect the pegs to demonstrate an equal displacement. I assume you are aware that the displacement on the pendulum apparatus indicates relative linear impetus. If neither peg rotates then I think we can all agree that such displacement is identical. Thus here at least CoM holds true.
It follows that any other circumstance originating in the total mass at rest and resulting in one non rotating peg being displaced an identical amount (to the first instance) must therefore also produce an identical displacement of the second peg - rotating or otherwise - else CoM is breached. And yet the force must also be identical or the displacement of the non rotating peg would differ. Thus (Newton's 3rd) the force at the centre of mass of the rotating peg must be identical - but the applied force must occur at some point other than, or other than in line with, the centre of mass else the peg would not rotate. So there must be an equal reactive force at the centre of mass else CoM is breached.
I realise that intuition infers some divergence resulting in lesser quantities of 'energy' going this way and that (linear and rotational) but this simply can not occur without a breach of CoM. And since we already know that kinetic energy (at least) is 'not invariant' as a result of frame of reference (this from the literature) we should not be too surprised if the total of the divergent 'energy' (linear and rotational) exceeds the initial total prior to the event as we are seeing motion translate from one frame of reference to two.
Quotean electromagnetic field is not a POINT phenomenon. It is spread out and so may be effecting the other magnets which are not so situated.
It has been some time since I worked with vectors but from memory it is acceptable to allow under these circumstances that vector addition would give us a tangential force vector at the centre of electromagnetic influence. If this is approximate then we might allow the excess of mass in motion to originate from poor engineering, an unlikely circumstance considering the availability of a logical alternative.
Quotethe bearing is not actually situated at "the center of mass"
You could make a good case for the internal combustion engine being unworkable; rotation occurs around the axis, or centre of mass. Calling these minutia into question when you fail to understand the key issue really does little to put my mind at rest with respect to your sincerity. Obviously I am incapable of forcing comprehension. If this was an easy concept to grasp it would have been common knowledge many years ago. I can only recommend that you approach the problem independently and pursue it to conclusion according to your own satisfaction.
@ Tusk
If you find yourself sitting there with the theory that your motor is not conserving energy, you have most definitely made a flaw in your calculations, assumtions or imagination of how this device works.
To me this motor looks like a 3-phase brushless motor. The primary rotor is a aluminium disc that is attached to a secondary rotor (Which also is the primary rotors stator). The primary rotor disc will generate torque as soon as you apply power to the EM. It does not matter where the disc is attached to the secondary rotor (Stator), the secondary rotor (Primary rotors stator) will always start to rotate counterwise during acceleration, and turn the other way during retardation due to friction on the primary rotors bearings, or breaks the primary rotor by short the EM.
Even if the EM is located dead center on the secondary rotors axis, the mass in the main disc that is farmost from that center will generate the countertorque that will accelerate the secondary rotor counterwise.
There is no spooky energies here. Just pure simple conserved physics.
Vidar
I am not an engineer, but my understanding is that free rolling bearings are an unsuitable mechanism for the transmission of torque.
Quoteturn the other way during retardation due to friction on the primary rotors bearings
Perhaps a second look at the video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dG8YOp_njFs&feature=youtu.be (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dG8YOp_njFs&feature=youtu.be)
That's some serious friction then. More disappointing is that your point went unchallenged for several weeks on a forum rich with people familiar with bearings and their capabilities.
Nearly a year with no further comment. Disappointing.
Concept Question 17.2.1 :
http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/physics/8-01sc-physics-i-classical-mechanics-fall-2010/momentum/systems-center-of-mass-and-conservation-of-momentum/MIT8_01SC_coursenotes17.pdf (http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/physics/8-01sc-physics-i-classical-mechanics-fall-2010/momentum/systems-center-of-mass-and-conservation-of-momentum/MIT8_01SC_coursenotes17.pdf)
There are a few more obstacles to understanding the device but little point covering them in detail before acceptance of this fundamental issue.
I assume that since what was deemed impossible by most is now shown to be possible, the next order of business will be that other impossibility, overunity (strangely, considering the name of this forum).
I have not seen this thread before but I commend your experimentation skills. Honestly I have not read the the entire thread but I'm up for discussion.
What you refer as to be the paradox seems to me like it's simple conservation of angular momentum. You accelerate the disk ie increase its angular momentum, since the system is not attached to the earth so to speak, it needs to compensate with an equal change of angular momentum, and thus the whole setup starts to rotate in the other direction. You can get more analytical about it and calculate exactly how much initial linear momentum,angular momentum and kinetic energy you start with and end with. That would show you whether you have a paradox or not.
Since the rotation of the apparatus is caused by the reaction,
it should produce energy equal the input less friction losses, IMHO.
If the first premise is accepted then there remains only the frame of reference issue. I assume that everyone would be familiar with those roundabouts often seen in the play areas of suburban parks, no doubt most parents have had occasion to spin one around and remember how much force is required. Therefore this is an ideal common point of reference for a hypothetical experiment.
Allow a lightweight wheeled cart on a straight railway track with a roundabout mounted on the cart horizontally (i.e. normal mount) so as to be free to rotate.
Allow that a man is standing next to the roundabout/cart directly to one side so as to be at either the 3 or 9 o'clock position, given that the 6 and 12 o'clock positions coincide with the line of the railway track.
Allow that both the roundabout and the cart are motionless at the start of the experiment.
If the man proceeds to 'spin' the roundabout with a series of applied forces parallel to the railway track we could expect the cart to accelerate along the track as the roundabout accelerates in rotation with each application of force (allowing that the various frictions etc are not sufficient to impede such motion). This outcome can be confirmed by reference to the M.I.T. link in my previous post (prior to this there was only my word on the issue, which understandably left many in doubt).
As the cart accelerates along the track the man must keep pace if he is to continue applying force to the roundabout. Therefore he must not only expend energy on the application of force on the roundabout, he must also expend energy accelerating his own mass in concert with the linear acceleration of the cart; note that the direct reaction to the applied force on the roundabout works against his efforts to accelerate his own mass in concert with the acceleration of the cart. He must not only accelerate his own mass, he must do so against the reaction of any force he applies to the roundabout.
Indeed if the cart had no mass and the entire mass of the roundabout was situated around the outer edge the linear acceleration would match the rotational acceleration (insofar as circular motion may be compared to linear motion). Which would then require as much effort to keep pace with the cart as to spin the roundabout.
Thus far we get nothing for free; no paradox and everything in accordance with the literature. Our man is both pushing and walking/running (against his own 'push') so there are two distinct and separate types of effort on his part, and two distinct motions, linear and rotational, each accumulating energy and storing it as potential energy, less any of the usual losses.
And now we make a small frame of reference adjustment.
Lay the railway track in a circle such that the man stands at the centre, within continuous reach of the nearmost edge of the roundabout as the cart moves around the track. Since he need no longer move other than to rotate on the spot, his efforts will be halved yet the rotational acceleration of the roundabout will actually increase (due to inertial and geometrical factors) while the linear acceleration - converted now to circular motion - remains comparable to the original linear acceleration (insofar as circular motion may be compared to linear motion).
Put simply, the man is now able to achieve a comparable rate of accumulation of potential energy storage in the linear and rotational motions of the roundabout/cart for approximately half the effort (or energy) required in the first instance. So either he was wasting half his energy somehow in the first instance, or he just discovered OU.
And in view of the time of year I will take this opportunity to wish everyone a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year :)
This thread had me thinking again real deeply about angular momentum and all that is attached to it. After also reading your last post a similar "what-if" popped up in my head. I illustrated this.
What you have in the first setup is a big wheel and smaller wheels with motors undernearth attached to it. When the setup is at rest there is no rotation.
However when you start the motors the smaller wheels begin to spin and will have an angular momentum associated to them (green vector). Now because of newton's third law the stator of the motor, which is attached to the big wheel, will experience a counter torque. This counter torque is felt by the big wheel which will start to rotate too. This rotation too will have an angular momentum. It's obvious that this angular momentum is opposite to that of the smaller wheels. Since we're dealing with a closed system the total angular momentum has to remain 0. So nothing unusual here and all makes sense so far.
Now what if we remove the motor from the axles and flip it sideways and let it rotate the wheels by frictional contact. The torque of the axle of the motor will no longer be parallel to the angular momentum vector. We can also forget about the counter torque of the stator as the motor on the other side will spin in opposite direction canceling this torque.
So the only forces we end up with are the frictional contact forces. Unless my reasoning is wrong the only conclusion I end up with is that the bigger wheel will rotate in such a way that its angular momentum will be in the same direction of that of the smaller wheels. That is to say, the angular momentum of the closed system has increased without any outside forces.
Tusk this is basically your electromagnetic experiment however there you tried to get the force dead on the center. And your setup behaved, empirically at least, according to theory. But what happens if you intentionally positioned the motor "in front" or "behind of" the axle. Will the resulting rotation direction of the whole setup always be the same? That I would like to see :) .
Now I'm eager to hear what high school mistake I made in the previous reasoning :) .
broli,
I believe you have both conditions correct. One interesting result would be to position the friction motor at an angle where it would drive the torque as in the first condition and equally as in the second condition, there would be no rotation of the larger disk at all.
Both force directions would cancel each other with a net zero condition.
Thanks broli, although you appear to have 'missed the boat' somewhere along the way (and since nobody has yet caught the thing this in no way reflects poorly on you, rather my attempts at explanation are no doubt sub par).
There are several important differences in our experiments (and my results/your hypothetical results); while you are apparently attempting to breach CoM, I have claimed no such breach and have inferred that such a breach is highly unlikely, and why. Also while I have stated on many occasions (this most recent instance with supporting reference to an M.I.T. document) that the linear motion of a body due to an applied force will be the same regardless of the point of application of force, you have not taken it into account in your proposed device. Under acceleration your main disk would rotate in the opposite direction to that specified, as a direct result of the phenomenon and I suspect in accordance with CoM.
If alternatively you intended your device to run at a constant velocity against various frictions and resistances it becomes another experiment entirely and completely unrelated to the PE. I did however suggest that the prototype PE have two disks mounted on the main rotor arm, so in this respect there is similarity. But to achieve OU the disk/s must be driven from a point coincident with the central axis for the reasons given in my previous post.
Being dependent on two separate phenomena, the first being the aforementioned linear motion (now confirmed) and the second being the frame of reference adjustment which allows the linear motion to manifest (converted to circular motion) thus avoiding the need to accelerate the drive unit, it is therefore required that both phenomena be understood for a full comprehension of the concept/device.
If you were convinced of the OU potential of the concept prior to such comprehension I assume you would spare no effort to grasp it; so this is really more of a trust issue. Curious that in the modern era someone giving something away for free should be held in so much suspicion; dare I say (in some quarters) even contempt.
Tusk I would much rather work with concrete numbers and examples. So excuse my missing of the boat and let me swim to catch up.
Your "man" that is pushing the round about in the circular system will no doubt experience the same reaction force. However in this case the reaction force will manifest as a torque which will rotate him. His rotation will be in the opposite direction to that of the roundabout he keeps spinning every time it meets his sight. So instead of running behind it he now faces with the problem that the roundabout zooms past him ever so faster and his time to exert a force will go down every time. Am I not right here?
I agree that CoM is quite sacred and have yet to see a violation of it however CoAngularM and CoE is something else. Energy gets seemingly destroyed in a ballistic pendulum type experiment just enough so that CoM can be true no matter the ratio of small or big mass. That is fascinating to me that nature has that kind of calculator. So the question is then if energy can "vanish" so easily when CoM must be conserved can the opposite also be true? So far you did not share any concrete numbers or design that would show this.
I would like to say that the baseball example in that paper did make me realize that the force in my example #2 does act on the center of mass, being the axle of the small wheel. Since both forces are attached to the same base no rotation should occur. So this begs the question if there is a rotation of the bigger wheel, what force caused it?
QuoteI would much rather work with concrete numbers and examples
Fair enough brodi; I can allow that the roundabout be made of concrete if you find that helpful ;D But I will attempt to address your other questions and concerns in a more serious manner:
QuoteYour "man" that is pushing the round about in the circular system will no doubt experience the same reaction force. However in this case the reaction force will manifest as a torque which will rotate him.
And herein lies the problem with thought experiments. If I had specified either a small man or a tall cart we could have avoided this misadventure. So please excuse my failure to cover all the bases, a glance at the PE experimental apparatus will confirm that
1. the edge of the disk passes directly above the drive unit, which is mounted directly over the main axis, and
2. the drive unit rotates along with the main rotor arm (since it is mounted thereon).
Retrospectively then, we should stipulate that the edge of the roundabout passes directly over the head of the man, who stands dead centre and applies the motive force tangentially. As we restrict our model with ever more minutia it's serviceability is reduced and we run the risk of missing that boat yet again.
Quotehe now faces with the problem that the roundabout zooms past him ever so faster and his time to exert a force will go down every time. Am I not right here?
The roundabout would still 'zoom past him' when mounted in the park and unable to manifest linear motion. Any increase due to inertial and geometrical factors (which we can expect) would certainly keep him busy, but the example is intended as a conceptual aid rather than a detailed explanation. Once we transplant the basic concept over to the PE apparatus there can be much more productive discussion about this issue and how the EM drive unit deals with it. At this stage we might allow that the disk accelerating more rapidly seems not to be a hindrance to our stated intentions, which is the creation of a device which manifests more energy than is required to run it.
QuoteSo the question is then if energy can "vanish" so easily when CoM must be conserved can the opposite also be true? So far you did not share any concrete numbers or design that would show this.
Actually I have presented data obtained from tests of the apparatus and also explained the design. Many have complained that the data is insufficient and have clearly failed to understand the design and it's real purpose. While it is true that the data requires some sophisticated logic to arrive at the stated conclusions, short of constructing a well engineered prototype we find ourselves at that stage of research and development where concepts and proofs have yet no offspring.
Quotethe force in my example #2 does act on the center of mass, being the axle of the small wheel. Since both forces are attached to the same base no rotation should occur. So this begs the question if there is a rotation of the bigger wheel, what force caused it?
The secondary reactive force at the axis of the two wheels. It takes time to assimilate new information so there is no shame in neglecting to include it. And in all fairness the M.I.T. reference fails to define the force clearly, but if you study the phenomenon it follows that the force must operate as I defined it. So the applied force on the wheels (by the motors) not only causes rotation of the wheels but also a reaction at the axis in the direction of the applied force and equal to it. Since this force is radially more distant from the main axis than the opposing equal reaction at the motors this would cause the larger wheel to rotate opposite to the direction you specified.
Back with the roundabout example, there exists a clear advantage due to the rearrangement of the frame of reference. But it seems equally clear that the manipulation of frames of reference is an acquired skill and not easily understood by the majority who have no cause to acquire it. Perhaps if you imagine the experiment taking place in space, so we can discard the cart; in the first instance our astronaut might employ a rocket pack to keep pace with the roundabout as it accelerates away. In the second instance, perhaps restricted to a circular path around him by virtue of the gravitational effect of a small black hole (which he must carefully avoid falling into) he can discard the rocket pack yet maintain a comparable rate of acceleration of the roundabout both in rotation and linear motion (converted to circular motion).
Any concerns about suitable purchase for the astronaut's exertions should be put aside; the experiment has many flaws (not least the black hole) but serves to illustrate the salient point, which is that linear acceleration requires more energy than remaining motionless, and converting the linear motion to a circular motion allows this advantage while maintaining a comparable energetic outcome.
Hey you're actually right, speaking of a Freudian slip, for some reason I forgot the very definition of torque, force cross distance. Indeed the "MIT" force acts on a bigger radius than the counter force thus allowing the big wheel to rotate. At least that's cleared up. I would also like to say that I'm getting a condescending vibe from your replies and you are pretty defensive to input too.
I have nothing against being wrong or having my knowledge on things refreshed but you shouldn't treat everyone as blockheads.
I'm genuinely interested in what you have to show and tell as I have a line of research in similar areas of rotational systems and CoM. So I would appreciate it if we could just exchange words of wisdom rather than have this turn out in the nth piss contest.
One thing is still not clear to me in your thought experiment. Is your man, astronaut or alien attached to the main wheel/track, as is the case with your real word experiment, or does he have his own independent axis of rotation?
Please accept my apologies broli, I am not one to engage in brinksmanship or condescension but my attempts to fashion a 'watertight' explanation may camouflage what little of the social graces remain in this battered and rapidly aging skull. I am very happy to be discussing this with someone of an open mind who is able to maintain more than a passing interest. I can't promise lots of smiley faces but let me know if you interpret something as having negative undertones. When I refer to the difficulty experienced by anyone trying to grasp this material do not suppose that I am being 'high handed'; having spent the best part of three years struggling with it myself, I am well aware of how alien it must seem to others who are reading my poor interpretation in their spare time with little or no reason for confidence in the author. Indeed my chief concern is to place the thing in the hands of someone more capable than myself for whatever good may come of it.
So, :)
QuoteIs your man, astronaut or alien attached to the main wheel/track, as is the case with your real word experiment, or does he have his own independent axis of rotation?
I hadn't intended that example to go beyond service as a brief illumination of the basic frame of reference manipulation. If it was a bucket of water we would both be drenched by this time. I may as well say that no, the man/astronaut is independent of the other elements in the experiment and must rotate himself at some small cost in effort; whereas the drive unit on the PE apparatus is (as you mentioned) mounted on the main rotor arm and therefore rotates with it at even lesser cost. And the primary reaction to any force applied to the disk by the drive unit goes back into the bench, since the line of force runs across the central axis which is bench mounted. There have been suggestions that this arrangement is only theoretical, and in practice is not fully realised; which is true enough, but in principle and within practical reason as much as any other machine is imperfect I think we can allow it.
Perhaps I can assume then (based on your replies) that you are 'up to speed' with both the secondary linear motion and also the general idea of frame of reference advantage - actually I'll call it frame of reference manipulation for now, since you may not allow there exists an advantage - at least insofar as the central position of the drive unit/man/astronaut changes things sufficiently to warrant further investigation.
In which case if I may forge ahead, and no doubt you will be aware of the following but I must state it for reasons of clarity; any body, be it static, in motion at a constant velocity or in motion and accelerating, is subject to an equilibrium of forces. When we read that the same force is applied to (e.g.) a bowling ball and a golf ball, this exposes the limitations of simplification in physics tutorials. The acceleration of the bowling ball will be far less than that of the golf ball, thus while the force might be measured as equal there is a point of force motion to consider, since there must be some finite period of time over which the force is applied. And the point of force motion in regards to the golf ball must accelerate at a greater rate, requiring additional energy. While there are certainly other ways to examine it, this may rightly be considered as a frame of reference issue.
When in the first instance our roundabout begins it's linear acceleration, we begin to have problems of the same ilk. Even if the roundabout were a flat disk and our applied force was constant and continuous due to the vigorous application of some hand held rotary tool, the man would still need to 'keep up' with the advancing cart. And we could rightly expect to take the measure of kinetic energy stored in both the rotation and linear motion of the apparatus at some point, and comparing it with the energy expended both in motivating the rotation and keeping pace with the linear motion against the reaction of that motivation there should be no discrepancy.
If I may swing past that one more time; ignoring the minutia whatever energy is expended keeping pace with the linear motion is manifest in the final kinetic energy of the linear motion of the roundabout/cart. And it is not inconceivable that by design this energy might be equal to the energy expended motivating the rotation.
Which might bring a sigh of relief to anyone rooting for UU (Under Unity), since it looked for a while there that we were getting two for the price of one. In reality we were putting two in and getting two out, the second input being the point of force motion.
But with apologies to the UU guys, our little frame of reference manipulation eliminates the point of force motion. Not the disk surface, which always had it's own advancing point of force motion issue, but the linear motion, now converted to circular with the point of application of force now static over the centre of the system. Yes the disk accelerates even more rapidly than before, so the point of force motion for the applied force on the disk itself is greater, but this comes with an increase in motion therefore no loss occurs.
So now we really are getting two for the price of one (ignoring the minutia, most of which can be mitigated in the engineering and design). And looking next to the PE apparatus, if we recover the energy stored in the motion of the rotor arm first so that it comes to a stop, when we then recover the energy stored in the rotation of the disk (from regenerative braking at the drive unit) our quirky little secondary linear motion reappears and the main rotor arm regains it's original motion - in the opposite direction - as the disk is brought to a stop. You can see this bonus feature in action on the PE device video hereunder (although I have no brake on the main rotor arm and must employ the phenomenon to halt the initial rotation; but it manifests well toward the end of the run):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dG8YOp_njFs&feature=youtu.be (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dG8YOp_njFs&feature=youtu.be)
Three for the price of one :)
I agree that the accelerating part and regenerative breaking part of the EM drive should expend/give theoretically the same amount of energy, and if you then end up with any additional rotation you could start to consider it "free". However in both your experiments the inner wheel did have an initial rotational velocity. How can we rule out that this initial kinetic energy is not equal to the final one? Your inner wheel and rotating arm setup is not that complex to calculate its moment of inertia from there you can easily derive the kinetic energy based on final angular velocity. Imo this step is key if you want to do any meaningful energy comparisons.
Quotein both your experiments the inner wheel did have an initial rotational velocity. How can we rule out that this initial kinetic energy is not equal to the final one?
I assume here that you are referring to the two videos of the PE apparatus, due to a stalling effect at low rpm the disk must be hand started. It's not clear to me what point of logic you are employing in this instance; if I had corrected the stalling problem and started from a motionless state using the EM drive unit there could be no such question yet the apparatus would behave as before, unless you are suggesting that by hand starting the device I can somehow induce the reverse rotation at the end of the test? In which case may I suggest that you perform a simple build yourself, I found that a small disk mounted on an arm which in turn is mounted on a handle (both free to rotate) and counterbalanced, allows a 'hands on' experience which demonstrates readily the motions involved both in acceleration and deceleration of the disk.
Quoteif you then end up with any additional rotation you could start to consider it "free"
Working backwards then I expect that the complimentary reverse rotational motion of the main rotor arm under drive unit braking of the disk might seem quite paradoxical. Just viewing the process at the fundamental level it soon becomes obvious that :
1. the total potential energy (or kinetic energy) of the apparatus (disk rotation + main rotor arm rotation) = the total input energy (less inefficiencies).
2. once the energy is recovered from these motions there should be no remaining energy; all motion should cease, not reverse.
3. since the main rotor arm motion does indeed reverse in full measure (in comparison to the original motion) there can be only one conclusion.
Perhaps I should have made this point sooner, instead of attempting to hold back the tide of disbelief regarding both the secondary linear motion and the frame of reference advantage.
QuoteYour inner wheel and rotating arm setup is not that complex to calculate its moment of inertia from there you can easily derive the kinetic energy based on final angular velocity. Imo this step is key if you want to do any meaningful energy comparisons.
It would be significantly easier to run the numbers on a hypothetical apparatus, that way the design can incorporate features (i.e. mass distribution etc) more convenient for the purpose. The input force can be specified arbitrarily, with the secondary reactive force equal to it; the mass of the various elements is again arbitrary, although some value which might reasonably produce realistic values for the various motions might be in order. I think the disk should have a mass bias around the outer edge for best results, ideally all the mass around a single circumference of known radius would make things easier, and actually I would go for two identical disks and a weightless main rotor arm.
While this would represent an idealised apparatus, it would be a good starting point since any result in terms of output close to 100% would suggest no advantage. But if the equations allow a reversal of motion in the main rotor arm in full measure of the original motion then you will have some indication that the numbers are adding up correctly (since this is suggested by observation).
But I'll leave that for someone else. Previous experience presenting mathematical proofs indicates the need to employ another approach; nothing chokes off a thread like a page of equations. If this were a physics forum, maybe; although the typical physicist would likely lose interest at first sight of the abstract, which would appear foolish at best against the background of conventional wisdom, especially considering the simplicity of the concept.
Quote from: Tusk on December 17, 2013, 06:07:28 AM
if I had corrected the stalling problem and started from a motionless state using the EM drive unit there could be no such question yet the apparatus would behave as before, unless you are suggesting that by hand starting the device I can somehow induce the reverse rotation at the end of the test?
These assumptions will make an armchair physicist have a field day.
I watched your video over and over, and yes from an empirical point of view, the nudge you gave it to start the acceleration due to the EM drive SEEMS negligible but details like that matter. At 0:29 particularly when the main wheel comes to rest in order to start spinning the other way is also significant, I can't tell how fast the inner wheel is spinning but it sure looks much faster than the starting condition which would already be a violation of conservation of angular momentum right there, and every other moment when the main wheel reverses, it just LOOKS like the inner wheel has way too much angular momentum than it started with.
So, and I believe I got it wrong again, to conclude everything what you are saying is you ended up with more angular momentum than you started with in a closed system? The reason why I think I got it wrong is because you previously mentioned that CoM was not broken. So if angular momentum is conserved where does the final rotational energy come from?
And I'm actually quite eager to see how the math corroborates your result too. Integrals don't scare me, second order differential equations might do the trick though.
Fair enough broli, I'll backtrack a little since I failed to emphasise an important point. From memory I mentioned the additional energy in the disk (I always refer to the two main components as the disk and the rotor arm btw) which manifests due to the inertia of the disk and (I suppose we could say) basic geometry:
QuoteI can't tell how fast the inner wheel is spinning but it sure looks much faster than the starting condition which would already be a violation of conservation of angular momentum right there, and every other moment when the main wheel reverses, it just LOOKS like the inner wheel has way too much angular momentum than it started with.
So, and I believe I got it wrong again, to conclude everything what you are saying is you ended up with more angular momentum than you started with in a closed system?
I can't recommend strongly enough that you construct a simple freewheeling apparatus; it really does assist in understanding the dynamics. I'll proceed as if you had one to hand, if not then perhaps you can imagine it, else sketch out a quick diagram.
Let's allow that from motionless, the rotor arm begins to accelerate by whatever means (we'll work in a clockwise direction for the rotor arm). Since the disk has inertia it will maintain it's orientation (notwithstanding friction, air resistance etc) so that one turn around on the rotor arm causes one rotation of the disk
in an anticlockwise direction according to the frame of reference of the rotor arm (included in this frame of reference is the axis of the arm thus also the drive unit when dealing with the PE apparatus).
Back with the freewheeling model,
in the observer's frame of reference the disk manifests no rotation. (notwithstanding friction, air resistance etc). But in the frame of reference of the rotor arm (thus the drive unit on the PE) the disk manifests rotational motion.
Note that this anticlockwise rotation serves to advance our efforts to rotate the disk (with the EM drive unit on the PE) since if the rotor arm is compelled to rotate clockwise (by the secondary linear force at the axis of the disk) then we must be driving the disk anticlockwise.
So here again an advantage; if you check the data from a typical experiment you will observe that the 'main rotor free' test uses significantly less power and achieves significantly higher RPM in an equal period.
http://img201.imageshack.us/img201/5488/paratach2.jpg (http://img201.imageshack.us/img201/5488/paratach2.jpg)
As we motivate the disk, the secondary motion of the rotor arm serves to advance the disk rotation in our favour, in the frame of reference of the drive unit.
I imagine if that were the sole advantage of the device it would be enough to attract investors. There are at least two strikes against this however; first and foremost I am not motivated by profit, and running a close second the concept goes so far beyond this simple phenomenon in advantage as to beggar belief.
There is no violation of CoM. This entire concept has it's roots in the manipulation of frames of reference. As such, kinetic energy (which is 'not invariant') seemingly 'pops out of nowhere', in truth I suspect with no actual violation of CoE (apparent but not actual). The frame of reference issue is known, but nobody has taken advantage of it before. So that when energy unexpectedly manifests, is it a violation of CoE if it does so due to a frame of reference manipulation?
Whatever the consensus, energy is gushing out of this device from the several holes it makes in convention. The decision you must make broli, is whether or not you are communicating with a person of sufficient intelligence and integrity to be trusted, since the concept itself seems initially quite incredible and even alien. You may very well be the first to actually grasp it (after my own faltering efforts).
I need to add (without taking anything away from my previous post) that low quality video of a rotating object is not the best indicator of RPM. If the main rotor arm motion is reversing then the EM brakes were being applied to the disk, so I think it unlikely the RPM was high at that time; what you are seeing is probably a video illusion.
The video serves to demonstrate the various motions of the drive and brake cycles, and very little else. You can observe the motion of the main rotor arm being arrested under braking of the disk, and at other times when the arm is nearly motionless it can be seen reversing direction and spooling back up with considerable energy, merely from application of the EM brake to the disk.
Excuse me for not investing a lot of time into this but I would like to add I find this interesting and may do so when I have time however, I do wonder if this could be useful in a generator somehow maybe an axial flux type generator it is interesting to note how this effect translates onto the screen but there are things I would like to see like how this thing operates vertically rather than horizontally or even what was to happen if the rotor was on an arm being horizontal while the bearing was vertical to see exactly what happens it is a good shot at science no matter what anyone says.
The theory I have only skimmed through while the video I have watched both it would be nice if people were to explain the theory in their video no matter how crazy they may seem it helps stimulate conversation much faster as talking then reading through all the postings but it is important to have both for better documentation. Camera shy no problem don't show your face just talk lol!
Anyhow I think a lot of work that goes on here are all baby steps to something someone with an open mind can repurpose anything to fit a specific need or maybe even create something new and super useful.
Thanks for your comments and suggestions infringer, I agree with your inference that my presentation of the material has been lacking in some areas. There have been a number of suggestions not unlike your own, ideas for improvement or even experimental curiosity are a positive influence, but it does rather leave the impression that the salient points have been largely overlooked.
To clarify then, the experiments thus far have given rise to the following conclusions:
Phenomenon 1:
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.
(This has since been corroborated by discovery of supporting information in the literature)
Phenomenon 2:
Mounting the origin of the applied force (i.e. the EM drive unit) at the central axis of a freewheeling rotor arm on which the disk is mounted (such that the linear acceleration due to the secondary reactive force manifests as rotational acceleration) allows phenomenon 1 to manifest without the requirement to accelerate the drive unit.
Exploitation of phenomenon 1 by employing phenomenon 2 allows more mass in motion (i.e. higher KE) to manifest from a given investment of input energy. While this might appear to breach CoE there is the possibility that a frame of reference defence might be constructed, since 'non invariance' of KE due to the frame of reference issue is already known.
So there are two bones of centention regarding this concept. The first has been explained at length and eventually verified by reference in the literature. The second may require further discussion.
A quick thought experiment then; if we were hand propelling a bicycle wheel along a road by repeated application of force at the top of the wheel, we would need to keep pace with the wheel as the linear velocity of the wheel increased. We must first walk then run alongside as the wheel accelerates, and we must do so while repeatedly applying our force, the reaction to which resists our efforts to move forward.
The PE apparatus converts the linear acceleration of the disk to circular motion, the disk being mounted on the main rotor arm such that the drive unit remains stationary (aside from the rotation of the rotor arm) and therefore requires no linear acceleration to 'keep pace' with the disk. This is the equivalent of allowing us to stand still in the earlier thought experiment, while still achieving both rotational acceleration and linear acceleration of the bicycle wheel, a ballpark saving of 50% energy.
It is not beyond reason to compare the second phenomenon to having the ability of refuelling an accelerating rocket without the need to accelerate the fuel.
There is a further sting in the tail. If we first recover the kinetic energy of the rotor arm following a period of acceleration, then recover the KE of the disk, the secondary reactive force manifests in the opposite direction and the rotor arm accelerates yet again, allowing a further recovery of energy before the device becomes motionless.
Since each of these motions (ideally) have the potential to store 100% of the energy used to create the original applied force I have claimed a theoretical 300% OU for a device similar to the PE apparatus but having two identical disks mounted on opposite ends of the rotor arm. Mass bias of the disks should be to the edges, and the rotor arm be as lightweight as possible to achieve anything near 300% OU in actual conditions. Well engineered flywheels apparently operate at around 90% efficiency, which is encouraging since EM losses appear to be the most significant obstacle to a viable design.
I think the next logical step would be measuring all the outputs. For this
you probably have to attach a sprocket towards the freewheeling arm, coaxial with
the central axis, and connect to a generator. This will cover all the possible outputs,
in addition to what you have already in place!
Great work, overall.
Correct the next step is to physically display beyond reasonable doubt this unit can run at the claimed COE we can sit in theory until we have a theory of everything but in truth what makes something real is a concrete physical representation.
I will say though it does appear that there may be some strange kind of gain as described but I am curious as to why something with a 300% COE cannot run itself and give energy this is the next hurdle to cross and where you should be hedging your bets if the principal is indeed as sound as you describe. So if you wait for someone to do it for you it will likely not happen but 3 years and a belief that large should get you motivated I suggest that if you would like verification builds by others to include the full inner and outer workings of your design from the types of bearings down to the smallest screw over to all the electronics to make this possible. Once you have completed a self runner capable of generation of power it will exponentially increase the amount of feedback and participation with your project.
I say if the work is sound enough after 3 years why not give birth to this method of generation of power this is the ultimate goal is it not?
That is the obvious question isn't it, if the main arm gains rotational energy every time the em drive accelerates and breaks the inner wheel. Why not just keep repeating this process. Shouldn't it keep increasing its rotational energy every cycle to infinity and beyond? If not then the argument of there being an energy gain will be hard to uphold.
Thanks for your continued interest gentlemen, I'll attempt to answer each in turn.
First this from telecom:
QuoteI think the next logical step would be measuring all the outputs. For this
you probably have to attach a sprocket towards the freewheeling arm, coaxial with
the central axis, and connect to a generator.
Operation is by nature cyclic, since we are relying on inertia to provide us with the secondary reactive force, and therefore cannot run at a constant rate. There may very well be a possibility to shift this reliance to EM resistance with a continuous input/output potential but at this point it seems appropriate to keep it simple and maintain sight of the fundamentals. The EM drive will also need to act as a regenerative brake, and there must be a generator capable of switching rotational direction (either electrically or mechanically) to allow for the rotor arm reversal. Also the cyclic operation will require some sort of computer control and switching etc. Therefore the full prototype will require some good electronics engineering in addition to a robust mechanical build.
This from infringer:
QuoteI am curious as to why something with a 300% COE cannot run itself and give energy
Try as I might a method for mechanically directing energy from the three separate motions to achieve self running continues to elude me; it really would be far easier to bite the bullet and build a two disk EM system as described.
and this:
QuoteI suggest that if you would like verification builds by others to include the full inner and outer workings of your design from the types of bearings down to the smallest screw over to all the electronics to make this possible.
If I had the engineering skills to produce such material I would be linking a video of the completed device. :) A year ago I was convinced that the concept would stand on it's own merit, with enough potential builders interested (if not completely convinced) to kick start a discussion and eventually a build. Actual events seem to suggest you are closer to the mark, with most of the interest following inventors who patent their creations rather than offer them freely.
And this from broli:
QuoteThat is the obvious question isn't it, if the main arm gains rotational energy every time the em drive accelerates and breaks the inner wheel. Why not just keep repeating this process. Shouldn't it keep increasing its rotational energy every cycle to infinity and beyond? If not then the argument of there being an energy gain will be hard to uphold.
Since the main rotor arm motion is reversed each cycle the rotational energy cannot increase indefinitely as you suggest. There is of course the possibility of braking at the outer edge of the disk using a static outer ring of coils (bench mounted). Such a layout would initially have the effect you describe, since the braking force at the outer edge would create a secondary reactive force on the rotor arm in the same direction as that created by the drive unit. But a limited rate of turn system would be the better solution in this instance since the rotor arm motion would act contrary to the interaction between the rotating disk and the outer ring as the rotor arm rate of turn increased, eventually reversing the direction of braking thus also reversing the direction of the secondary reactive force.
Any perceived gain in regard to rotation of the disk at that point would be negated in turn (no pun intended) by the retardation of the rotor arm, unless perhaps the intention was to motivate the disk to relatively high rates of rotation. Such an intent seems to require unnecessarily convoluted thinking when the initial design offers a simple cyclic method of operation.
No doubt many find the thought processes required in frame of reference manipulation arduous and foreign, the conclusions often confounding. Like any other field of activity it does eventually become second nature. Contemplate the 'non invariant' energy of a ball thrown onto a passing train; to the observer outside the train, if the ball passes through the carriage and out again (open windows - an old carriage then) the energy of the ball is clearly no more than expected. To an observer inside the carriage the ball might enter through a window at the front and move at high velocity along the carriage, exiting through a rear window on the far side.
A simplistic example but it serves to show the potential for advantage by manipulation of frames of reference. This is the underlying nature of the PE apparatus, which must be understood in these terms to defeat the paradox. Applying the usual litmus tests here may not reveal the veracity of the concept, but (more interestingly) neither can it provide a disproof. If I may roll out an old proverb (in good humour), 'you can lead a horse to water'.
The EM drive will also need to act as a regenerative brake, and there must be a generator capable of switching rotational direction (either electrically or mechanically) to allow for the rotor arm reversal. Also the cyclic operation will require some sort of computer control and switching etc. Therefore the full prototype will require some good electronics engineering in addition to a robust mechanical build.
Hi Task,
I believe that you already have solved the problem of measuring an output from the EM drive based on the power output graphs you presented earlier. In terms of a generator being connected, it will produce current either way its shaft rotates, and to make it flow in one direction, it will be sufficient to add 4 diodes to the output, which is a trivial task, not requiring any specialized knowledge. You just have to attach the pulley, or a sprocket towards the arm. and couple it towards a generator.
Regards.
Tusk I still believe that simple math should show the energy gained. Again I would like to refer to the ballistic pendulum experiment.
Here simply following the law of conservation of momentum leads to vanishing energy, of course the critics will tell you that the energy is lost as heat, sound, deformation but any concrete data to back this claim up has gone missing just like the energy. Miraculously the momentum is conserved perfectly as if nature had a calculator to know how much energy it had to put in "heat, sound, deformation" to achieve this feat.
Just like the energy loss in the ballistic pendulum, an energy gain could be found when momentum is forced to be conserved. This is what happens in your setup too. m*v always over rules mv^2. Before you showed up I was kind of obsessed by this, you might look up the user called pequaide (http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/profile.php?mode=viewprofile&u=1301).
Anyway I made an theoretical analysis of a setup similar to yours on paper and by needing to conserve angular momentum the kinetic energy ratio of start:finish was 1:25. I'm going to redo the exercise a couple of times to rule out any Freudian slips before I can share it.
The spin cycle you are trying to gain energy from is the reverse spin cycle when there is no power applied correct?
If this is so simply add magnets and a small sheet of aluminum and iron sandwich does not have to be as heavy and thick this way and stationary coils underneath and magnets underneath these coils as well with a mounted to the same aluminum and steel sandwich. There is plenty of information on the axial flux design on the net. There may even be better ways to generate power that are better off of the shaft I'm not all seeing all knowing type but a simple method to achieve this is available just research generators and alternators of all types I dunno why but I have a hunch axial flux may not be a bad idea for your project as there may be less friction using this method than say a pulley or gear type system. Now this is just a guess I could be way off not being an expert but direct contact would in my mind exert more friction than magnetic non contact just be sure that the distance between the generation plates the two magnetic plates and the stator coils is adjustable so you can tune it up or down to hit the sweet spot of least friction with the most power.
TO ALL: Please do correct me if I am wrong I have not done enough generator research to know the best solution for this device to generate power from the work it puts out I do however want to help get his ball rolling with so much time invested it would be great to help this fella out and really put it to the test!
I'm not sure how you are driving the wheel but a test should be made on the energy required to spin the disk X RPM when the arm is free, as opposed to the same RPM when the arm is fixed.
It stands to reason that the disk would take less energy to reach X RPM with a fixed arm. The RPM would need to be checked with the arm stationary in both tests since a mark on the disk would pass the center of the arm in only 3/4 turn if the arm rotated 90 degrees before the mark on the disk passed the center of the arm.
It's clear to see that the RPM of the disk's mark passing the center mark would appear the same when the arm is rotating as not rotating, but in the stationary arm case the disk would actually be spinning faster.
So in the end, the energy applied is simply divided between the two rotations.
This is of course only my view and I have not done the testing myself.
This is a rather interesting way to look at it lumen it may in fact take more energy to get to the higher speeds with a lose rig then something that is fixed like a football player playing on artificial turf without cleats the start and the top speed of his run will be far different than if he had cleats.
But it also does make one wonder about stuff like planetary rotation and the forces that keep things going within not only a planetary system but a galaxy as well.
It may just be that this is a more profound discovery than we are giving it credit for.
Either way this theory could easily be proven with a fairly simple but semi expensive measuring device which I assume the builder already has within his toolbox
Now this is collective thinking I am happy for this input to allow the user to take a closer examination this is a fairly simple test simply secure the arm take measurements and then run it loose and take the same very measurements and investigate data for any conflicting information before moving on to power generation and investing more time and money in that.
Thanks a bunch lumen.
Thanks once again, I appreciate all your input. Regarding the suggestions from infringer and telecom - if I attempt any further experimental work I'll keep those ideas in mind.
Also broli, you may be interested in this:
http://www.overunity.com/13079/the-pendulum-bias-paradox-experiment/#.UrZiTPvcDcw (http://www.overunity.com/13079/the-pendulum-bias-paradox-experiment/#.UrZiTPvcDcw)
... and I do believe that if you familiarise yourself with frame of reference manipulation, you will gain a rare clarity of insight on the KE issue. Since you asked for some numbers for the PE apparatus it might be worth running a few for a theoretical idealised example. If we allow a totally frictionless system and distribute the mass for simplicity and greatest effect, we can aim at the best possible result and work backwards from there adding in the usual inefficiencies etc later if need be.
I'll specify a single disk PE device similar to the experimental apparatus already in existence, but with a main rotor arm of mass = 0 (therefore no counterweight). Obviously this would cause some practical problems which we can disregard for the sake of this example. The disk itself has it's total mass concentrated around an outer ring which we will consider as sharing a common radius.
mass of disk = 200gm
circumference of disk = 120cm
We already know that any force applied to the disk at the outer edge will create an equal secondary reactive force in the same direction at the disk axis. We can allow that the total mass of the disk can be considered to act on the rotor arm at the point of the disk axis. Since the disk and the rotor arm have the same radius:
one rotation of the rotor arm = one rotation of the disk
(in terms of mass in motion, whether that be momentum, acceleration or kinetic energy.)
In explanation of the above, both the disk and the rotor arm can be considered as having the same mass rotating around their axis at a radius of (approx) 19cm.
The application of force will be such that the rotor arm accelerates to complete one full revolution; the disk will advance under inertial and geometric advantage thus completing two full revolutions in the same period, since the system is free of any resistance (but subject to inertia which is causal to the additional rate of rotation).
allow the velocity of the disk axis due to rotor arm motion to be (after one full revolution):
v = 100cm/sec
v²-u² = 2as (u = 0)
also F = ma (m = 200)
therefore (approximating) F = 8333dyne
When considering work done we need to interpret the displacement of the point of application of force, which in this instance has a direct relationship with the displacement of the mass (the disk); although not a linear displacement it may be considered as such. So, since 1 erg represents the amount of work done when a force of 1 dyne moves it's point of application a distance of 1 centimetre and the force applied over 120cm:
work done accelerating the rotor arm 1 complete revolution = 999960 ergs
Note that I did not begin with the disk due to the rotation rate being double that normally expected due to the application of the applied force if it were a simple flywheel (i.e. 'rotor arm secure' in my actual experiments) or if you prefer, double the rate of the rotor arm. And as we will be braking the rotor arm motion first, the additional rotation of the disk will be eliminated, reducing to one revolution in the period of time which would have otherwise been one revolution of the rotor arm, which will now be motionless (briefly).
Alternatively we could simply recover energy from the disk at this point and sacrifice the rotor arm reversal under disk braking (the entire system would cease all motion at the conclusion of disk braking under these conditions). In the frame of reference of the drive unit, disk rotation will have been double as noted earlier, but this must have been achieved with an applied force equal to the secondary reactive force since the two are equal; not unlike accelerating a car downhill the reactive force allows us (in this instance) a 'two for one' return on our investment of energy. But we can do better than 'two for one'.
So, adopting the preferred method (and allowing 100% efficiency):
the work potential of the rotor arm = 999960 ergs (primary motion)
and the work potential of the disk after recovery of the energy of the rotor arm = 999960 ergs
and since recovery of the energy of the disk creates another secondary reactive force in opposite direction to the first, the rotor arm accelerates again in opposite direction but as before, therefore:
work potential of the rotor arm = 999960 ergs (secondary motion)
999960 x 3 = 2999880 ergs (from the 3 separate motions)
Thus for the ideal 100% efficient theoretical limit on work potential of the PE apparatus as described with an applied force as defined:
work expended = 999,960 ergs
work recovered = 2,999,880 ergs (300%)
Btw lumen there was an earlier post of just such data, I'll add another here though of a typical test run. In fact the disk gains energy significantly faster with the rotor arm free.
Tusk SI units are a little easier on the brains ;) . However I seem to agree with your cycle, to sum it up.
1) Put in X units of energy to accelerate disk from the arm's reference point
2) Both disk and arm will be rotating now, in opposite directions
3) Break arm from earth's reference point
4) regain X units of energy from this
4) Disk will be still spinning with X units of energy
5) Break disk from arm's reference point
6) regain X units of energy from this
7) this will cause the arm to start rotating with X units of energy
6) Break arm from earth's reference point
9) regain X units of energy from this
10) No motion in the system left
11) repeat 1)
Well done broli, if I had thought to put things so succinctly myself perhaps we could have got to this point sooner. One small criticism, a potential clarity issue for anyone reading through your steps without prior knowledge of the device; in steps 3, 5 and 6 I think you meant to say 'brake' rather than 'break'. So if I may repeat with the corrections and some renumbering, since it's such a fine explanation:
1: Put in X units of energy to accelerate disk from the arm's reference point
2: Both disk and arm will be rotating now, in opposite directions
3: Brake arm from earth's reference point
4: regain X units of energy from this
5: Disk will be still spinning with X units of energy
6: Brake disk from arm's reference point
7: regain X units of energy from this
8: this will cause the arm to start rotating with X units of energy
9: Brake arm from earth's reference point
10: regain X units of energy from this
11: No motion in the system left
12: repeat 1)
(with thanks to broli for this analysis)
Outstanding effort :)
I guess that makes it somewhat easier for anyone looking to find a hole in the plot, so fire away by all means (but please read the entire thread first since I've covered quite a lot of ground already and don't wish to choke the thread with repetition). The most common areas of concern (i.e. disbelief) are as follows:
1. That a secondary force of equal magnitude and acting in the same direction as the applied force manifests at the axis of the disk.
2. That the location of the EM drive unit mounted at the main rotor arm axis allows both disk and rotor to accelerate with a single applied force, sufficient in convention for one or other motions but not both simultaneously.
3. That a second acceleration of the rotor arm equal and opposite to the first manifests due to the secondary force acting when the disk is subjected to braking.
These three issues have been discussed at length, however if any of these or some other aspect of the material continues to elude acceptance after reading through the thread then I will happily attempt a clearer explanation.
Have you seen this video, its kind of up your alley!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n_6p-1J551Y (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n_6p-1J551Y)
:)
hrmmm very odd the peak is higher and the time it takes to reach the peak is less when it is not fixed quite the anomaly ....
You got me on this one. Very interesting. it is possible that there is less friction during the start and rotation not being fixed rather than not fixed at least this is what the data points to.
Also takes less power to achieve even better results but the amount of power and the gain in speed do not by themselves add up to this 300% until you factor in the reverse spin I assume and this data is for the 2 disc unit that is in the video or is it for the 3 disc unit that there is no video of?
Sorry for the miss on the graph just trying to play a little catchup I suppose. Good stuff though.
That reaction cube you linked to is excellent jfarmer408. I want one :)
Quotetakes less power to achieve even better results but the amount of power and the gain in speed do not by themselves add up to this 300% until you factor in the reverse spin I assume and this data is for the 2 disc unit that is in the video or is it for the 3 disc unit that there is no video of?
The data is from what you refer to as the 2 disc unit infringer, but I say single disk since the other rotating element is the main rotor arm. The proposed twin disk unit would approach a 200% return just from the energy in the disks if the rotor arm was relatively lightweight; this because the main rotor arm would rotate almost one turn for every turn of the disks, which would provide even more impressive data than that produced so far. This is possible because the secondary motion - rotor arm rotation - is essentially similar to converted linear motion of the baseball bat as referenced in the M.I.T. document.
We can deduce from this phenomenon (and indeed observe experimentally) that with a mass bias suited to the purpose, a single applied force can cause the resulting linear and rotational energies to be equal (rather than just their momentum). The significant supporting phenomenon of the PE device is to situate the origin of that force such that a continuous application becomes possible without the need to advance the point of application of force i.e. the frame of reference manipulation, or simply put, placing the drive unit at the centre of the system.
Suppose the disk is accelerated to 1000 RPM at the arms center pivot.
At this point the disk is actually going 800 RPM and the arm is doing 200 RPM in the opposite direction.
Total reading at the crossing is 1000 RPM.
Now if you stop the arm the disk is going 800 RPM and the arm 0 RPM.
When you stop the disk, the arm will again accumulate the forces to 200 RPM.
Now you can stop the arm again. It appears as if there was a gain but in both cases the energy applied into the disk or extracted from the disk was never the full potential as it appears at the crossing.
In the first case, you never applied all the energy into the disk to reach 1000 RPM (only 800 RPM because 200 RPM moved into the arm)
Then in the second case you never extracted 800 RPM of energy from the disk. (only 600 RPM because again 200 RPM moved back into the arm)
Do you see this any differently?
You appear to have misunderstood the nature of the first phenomenon lumen (and consequently missed the point of the second);
QuoteSuppose the disk is accelerated to 1000 RPM at the arms center pivot.
At this point the disk is actually going 800 RPM and the arm is doing 200 RPM in the opposite direction.
If we accept those values (which incidentally indicates an approximate mass ratio for the rotor arm to disk of 5:1 although this is subject to mass distribution) we must allow that whatever the applied force, it is adequate to the task of accelerating the disk to 800 RPM under normal circumstances; that it is also adequate to the task of accelerating the rotor arm to 200 RPM under normal circumstances; and that, since the circumstances are abnormal, the single application of that force has caused both rotations simultaneously as defined.
Once you accept the phenomenon, hidden in plain sight as it has been until recently - disguised as simply a consideration of momentum - the additional 200 RPM of the rotor arm in your example immediately reveals itself as stored energy over and above that spent motivating the disk to 800 RPM. This is the converted linear motion as defined in the M.I.T. document, and as I defined it independently after deduction of same, working in isolation prior to discovery of the M.I.T. document.
Take a good look at it. If we apply a force at the centre of mass (of a body) we observe X linear motion. If we apply
the same force at one or other end of the same body, we observe
Y rotational motion and X linear motion. We might call the rotation 'additional' but in any explanation of the PE device, describing the rotation of the disk as such would only cause more confusion. Therefore I regard the converted linear motion (of the rotor arm + disk) as 'additional'. Under 'normal' conditions this would require an additional input of energy due to the advancing point of force requirement.
With the PE apparatus it costs us nothing, since the second phenomenon (the frame of reference manipulation) allows the first phenomenon to manifest both motions with a single applied force equal to the task under normal conditions of manifesting one or the other but not both together. Since the data obtained from the PE apparatus actually supports this you may be forced at some point to accept the fact. Since it took more than a year of experiment and hard thinking to impose this on my own perception of reality I can sympathise :-\
I have kind of reached a conundrum which made the deck of cards fall for me.
It has to do with the inertia of the inner wheel. As you pointed out earlier, the orientation of the inner wheel will try to remain the same when the arm is rotated. For the people that don't understand what tusk means with this, check the attached drawing.
Now when this happens, the wheel, from the arm's reference point, will seem to rotate. The angular velocity of this rotation is equal, but in the opposite direction, to the angular velocity of the arm. This is always the case irregardless of any torque.
The conundrum that is melting my brain is if you start out with a motionless arm and a rotating disk. If you then brake the disk using the arm. We know what the final situation will look like. Namely the arm will be rotating, and the disk from the arm's point of view will be stationary. However from the earth's point of view it's far from stationary. It has the same angular velocity as the arm now. And deriving the angular momentum, and kinetic energy from such a situation is vastly different than not considering the inertia of the inner wheel.
What I do not see being measured is the spin down of the unit.
Is the spin down velocity the same and the length of time it takes to spin down the same when the unit is fixed or not fixed.
Energy depletion just as a spring releasing when power is removed from the disc does the disc maintain the same release when fixed or not I would venture to say this too is an important part of the equation I am not trying to be negative just trying to look for anything you may have missed and I believe that is lumens intent as well.
Every great man can easily be downgraded rather quickly by missing one small thing and we are all vulnerable to overlooking things from time to time the human brain is complex but can be very fragile and imperfect as well at times even within a group small things go unnoticed and oddly I find it is the higher educated ones that overlook the small stuff details so to speak.
It looks like there is a sharper drop from the data in the rotation when the motor is free but I would like to see separate data from the moment the power is released just for the disc alone.
QuoteI have kind of reached a conundrum which made the deck of cards fall for me.
That sounds more of a 'game over' thing than an obstacle to be overcome broli :o
Quoteif you start out with a motionless arm and a rotating disk. If you then brake the disk using the arm. We know what the final situation will look like
However, we are starting out with simultaneous acceleration of both the disk and rotor arm; this we achieve by application of a single force which, if applied to the disk when bench mounted (in our case 'rotor arm secure') is incapable of inducing that same acceleration (of the disk).
Unsurprisingly we now find ourselves with beggared belief at that point of interaction between the two phenomenon, which is itself what we might reasonably call a new concept. Analysis by conventional means is unlikely to succeed since the concept will require acceptance and integration as a new 'dot point' in our overall understanding. If you think about it, anything less could not possibly lead to a method for OU.
Referring back to the baseball bat example provided by M.I.T. let's allow a particle of very small mass moving at very high velocity colliding with the bat (inelastic collision) to produce the two results indicated. Then we can disregard the change of position of centre of mass since the particle has such small mass.
The first collision has the particle impacting in line with the centre of mass of the bat at the centre of the bat. This results in X m/sec² linear acceleration of the bat over a period t (of collision interaction) which in turn produces a linear velocity of Y m/sec (of the bat, not rotating).
The second collision has the particle impacting at one or other end of the bat. This results in X m/sec² linear acceleration of the bat over the same period t (of collision interaction) which in turn produces a linear velocity of Y m/sec, and in addition some rotational motion. The rotational acceleration of the bat over period t will require sophisticated analysis due to the varied accelerations of all points along the length of the bat. But we can afford to let that go for now on the basis that this additional motion manifested seemingly at no additional cost, other than the repositioning of the impact point of the particle which is nothing, as we might just have easily have started with this second collision then moved the point of impact to achieve the non rotational result.
So we might ask where the additional energy come from (for the rotational acceleration); analysis of both collisions will show that both the force and period of acceleration (collision interaction) are identical, while the distance over which that force applies is greater for the collision thus resulting in rotation.
The second motion was indeed 'free' in terms of input energy since we achieved it by simply changing the impact point. The particle was able to induce more motion in the second instance due to point of force motion, which is logical since the end of the bat will clearly accelerate more rapidly than the centre of mass of the bat, given the same applied force.
But shooting small particles at a large mass is not very helpful to us in terms of energy. Having found a potentially useful phenomenon we must yet devise a method which allows the manifestation of both linear and rotational motion without the need for advancing the point of force; since this element of the collision is responsible for the additional motion. Enter the frame of reference manipulation, by which devious dark art we are able to accelerate our disk all the while converting linear motion to circular, thus avoiding the need to 'chase' the disk since our drive unit stands at the centre of the circle.
Obviously the disk now 'runs ahead' rotating more rapidly than if bench mounted. If we were to take that rate of turn and run the numbers according to convention (based on the mass of the disk and mass distribution etc) they would indicate that more energy was expended than in reality. This because the rotation of the rotor arm along with the inertia of the disk causes some percentage of the disk rotation (depending on the various mass values) in the frame of reference of the drive unit/rotor arm and as with the baseball bat it cost us no more in terms of energy than if the disk were bench mounted.
If you drill into hardwood with a power drill the motor is more likely to strain and overheat than when drilling softwood. There can be no serious argument that the disk 'running ahead' to a higher rate of rotation than might typically be expected could possibly impose more resistance on an EM drive unit.
CoM allows nay demands that simply repositioning the point of impact in our baseball bat experiment causes more motion of the bat. We can deduce without access to high speed cameras and sophisticated experimental apparatus that the responsible variable in the collision is point of force motion. By eliminating the need for advancing the point of force, the PE apparatus manifests more mass in motion than could typically be expected from the applied force, thus energy out > energy in although at this stage our energy out takes the form of stored energy (mass in motion).
Quoteyou should be able to run your testbed on an air table and have no other reactions than the disc spinning up and the arm rotating.
Astute observation webby1, this all began with an idea for an inertial propulsion system. For good or bad, CoM disallowed any success and my attempts to furnish a method for travel to the stars ended in OU. Indeed the device (and any variation of it) moves not even a gnat's whisker, some small tendency of rotation of the base due to bearing friction etc maybe but yes you are correct ;D
Apologies infringer, you must have posted while I was replying to broli and webby1.
QuoteIs the spin down velocity the same and the length of time it takes to spin down the same when the unit is fixed or not fixed.
No, this is another frame of reference issue so comparison is not straightforward. Naturally the 'spin down' from the higher RPM of 'rotor free' takes longer; the rate of spin down appears to be similar in both instances. Suffice to say that we can choose either frame of reference but must then remain with it for best results. If we choose to simply spool up the disk then brake it, we gain whatever additional impetus was provided to the disk by the rotor arm motion and sacrifice the rotor arm motion itself. If we choose to forfeit that extra rate of turn (of the disk) we gain the rotor arm motion and also the reverse rotor arm motion (my preferred method).
QuoteEvery great man can easily be downgraded rather quickly by missing one small thing and we are all vulnerable to overlooking things from time to time the human brain is complex but can be very fragile and imperfect as well at times even within a group small things go unnoticed and oddly I find it is the higher educated ones that overlook the small stuff details so to speak.
For what it's worth I don't believe in the 'great man' thing; great ideas maybe. Although anyone fortunate (or unfortunate?) enough to have one will probably tell you that they seem to originate elsewhere. As for mistakes and higher education, I generally have an abundance of the former and insufficient of the latter. Largely self taught and prone to misadventure :) But I'm 100% clear on this beast, and the fact there has been no credible rebuttal since going open source a year ago tells it's own story.
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.
As I said, it is harder to accelerate the disk when the arm does not rotate because it will actually rotate the expected RPM.
The RPM of the arm must be subtracted from the disk's RPM because the disk is now moving around the drive point so the disk's RPM is less, though from the drive point it appears to be the same.
The numbers I used in the example are fictitious and were meant only to show a division of rotation and do not express any of the details of the known masses or leverage points.
Because the energy in moving mass is not linear and the movement is divided between two objects and the measuring is made between the objects, less energy would be applied into the two slower moving objects and would show it reached full RPM faster. Both of these facts are true with what you have shown.
QuoteThe 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 :)
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 ...
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.
Quote from: lumen on December 24, 2013, 02:46:02 PM
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=vWVZ6APXM4w)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BLYoyLcdGPc (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.
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?
Quote from: lumen on December 24, 2013, 05:34:22 PM
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?
You got stuck on a none issue. That experiment is not guess work, it's a tried and true fact of common day physics backed up by countless experiments.
At no point did anyone say the final energy was more than the initial energy. In a ballistic pendulum experiment you can loose as much as 99.99% of the initial energy while you will conserve 100% of the linear momentum. The Linear momentum of a rigid is always conserved irregardless whether the impact was offset to the center of mass. Sure you end up with more conserved energy which is seen as rotational energy, but still not as much as your initial energy.
Quote from: broli on December 24, 2013, 06:23:36 PM
You got stuck on a none issue. That experiment is not guess work, it's a tried and true fact of common day physics backed up by countless experiments.
At no point did anyone say the final energy was more than the initial energy. In a ballistic pendulum experiment you can loose as much as 99.99% of the initial energy while you will conserve 100% of the linear momentum. The Linear momentum of a rigid is always conserved irregardless whether the impact was offset to the center of mass. Sure you end up with more conserved energy which is seen as rotational energy, but still not as much as your initial energy.
Another interesting viewpoint is extracting the conserved energy from the blocks.
The non rotating block lands on a bar directly contacting the center of the block. At this point the most possible gravitational energy is extracted.
The rotating block must land on a bar at the same offset as the bullet strike (other side) to counter the rotation in order to conserve the same energy as the non rotating block landing on the center point. (bullet strike point)
If the rotation conserved additional energy, why would more energy not be extracted from the rotating block?
If the rotating block landed on the center of the block, less energy would be extracted.
The problem does not seem to be fully accounted for.
That's quite a torrent of free thinking infringer :) I'll basically let you get on with it until the dust settles for you, but this comment:
QuoteI think what we may need is a bit more simplified terms for people.
..... I'll attempt to go down that road a little further but I've discovered that this can lead to picking through the discarded minutia and throwing it back as proof of error.
QuoteI was actually expecting a slight deviation in the vertical plane of the axle for the arm,, so that when looked at straight down it was making a small circle and that this deviation would be close to 90 degrees from the arm position while under acceleration.
I think I see what you're looking for webby1; a reaction for the applied force in the body of the apparatus? If so then I'll just pop a sketch of my original concept, where I was hoping for an inertial drive system (image attached at end of post). Btw it didn't move either, but it did get me thinking ;D
and lumen:
QuoteIf 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?
Because in the period of the collision, the bat moves further at the end than it does with the collision at the centre of mass, which in turn causes the point of force motion to be greater ergo more energy. The simple statement 'having the same force applied' is heavily loaded; applying the same force to say, a bowling ball and a golf ball, first and foremost the period of application of force must be equal else the experiment has no meaning. So over the period of application of force, the bowling ball moves a few inches and the golf ball a few feet (let's allow, at least). So the point of application of force has advanced significantly further for the golf ball, which requires additional energy, which in turn explains why the golf ball exhibits a more energetic motion than the heavy bowling ball. In our case the rotation follows similar lines.
Also if you take a look at the image I attached for webby1, there is no motion of the apparatus despite there being a pair of reactions at the drive units attempting to impart motion to the body of the apparatus. The only possible conclusion is the one I have provided; the secondary reactive forces at the axis of the disks exactly cancel these two primary reactions. Otherwise there would be a breach of CoM (which is initially what I was hoping for btw).
I had this aspect sorted and defined long before the M.I.T. paper was discovered, and until that time very few seemed to believe my findings. This is no longer in contention, rather the interaction between the two phenomena seems to be the current stumbling block.
There is no doubt that the three linear motions of the baseball bat in the M.I.T. example are equal; and since the motion of rotation must produce greater energy than non rotation, therefore the rotating bat must have had more energy imparted to it, and must also have more energy to yield.
Sounds like you have a mind for 'out of the box' thinking webby1. Presumably you didn't defeat CoM with your designs, or is my faith in that fundamental phenomenon misplaced? That might be my only concern regarding the PE concept, since it depends on CoM to function :)
This for broli:
I had another quick glance over your replies and I may have an answer to your obvious discomfort with the 'extra energy' issue. I'm attaching a graphic below which represents a disk (A), if we can allow that it is mounted on some sort of cart (thus constituting an 'assembly') perhaps with rails to run on; and there is also a 'brake rail' (B) running parallel to the rails. The disk is already rotating at the start of the experiment.
We know that if the brake rail applies a retarding force to the disk a reaction manifests at the point of force on the brake rail; a secondary reaction manifests at the disk axis as shown; and of course the disk rotation is retarded. This arrangement is really quite similar to that already discussed, but with the disk already rotating with X kinetic energy. Finally we can allow that the linear motion of the disk (due to the secondary reaction at the axis) manifests such that all rotation ceases as the disk passes point C on the brake rail. Linear acceleration will also cease at point C, but the disk assembly now has Y kinetic energy.
Note that I have named the applied force and the primary reaction based on the perspective that the brake rail applies force to the disk, mainly to highlight the similarity between this example and those considered previously, and account for the linear motion with more clarity.
If we now allow that a length of steel was in linear motion at velocity V with X KE; we then reform the rod into a circle, mount it as in the example on a weightless disk assembly in a frictionless environment and specify a theoretical 100% efficient brake system (i.e. no heat, sound etc).
Then we rotate the disk such that any point on the reformed rod has circular velocity V, so that it's KE will again be X.
At the end of the experiment the linear velocity of the disk assembly will again be V and therefore the KE will be X (ergo for these conditions Y = X ).
Before proceeding further with this example I will pause for comment, since without your allowance of the above our next point would likely be rejected.
Tusk, that's perhaps an easier setup to analyze. However I would like to state that the rotating version is not the same. If you would compare them, for instance accelerating both rod and wheel at the same rate, 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.
I also performed a simple analysis of the linear setup. it does show an energy gain, but I'm looking forward to some critique pointing out the mistake in the math.
Quotethe rotating version is not the same
Agreed broli, I was getting to that later, using this first example as a sort of 'base camp'.
Quoteit does show an energy gain, but I'm looking forward to some critique pointing out the mistake in the math
At a glance the maths is ok but there are a couple of other issues (my fault, I should have been more specific). I intended that the brake rail be 'bench mounted', we want to motivate the disk (linear motion) to the maximum (which you seem to have done anyway). Also my mention of the steel rod was an unnecessary complication, I believe you would concede that the proposed ring of steel would have the same KE at a given linear velocity as at an equal rotational velocity.
In your analysis an arbitrary value appears to have been given for a force acting over a specific period without consideration that the inertial resistance of the rod might not be sufficient to manifest it. The event you examined would be best dealt with as a collision between two bodies in equilibrium, but that was not my intention.
Actually I also made an error regarding the cessation of rotation of the disk. This is one of the hazards when wandering off the beaten track, then wandering off that track :)
In order to stop the rotation in the observer frame of reference, the brake must actually continue to apply force beyond the instant when a given point on the disk passes over the brake rail but has no motion from right to left as it does so. Put another way, if we roll a disk along a surface with no slippage, the disk rotates but the aforementioned condition applies (it's a tough one to define with any clarity).
If the brake force stops at this point (i.e. before the rotation is stopped) then not all rotational motion is converted to linear motion. That motion remaining in rotational form is still available to us in this configuration, but now I want to confirm with you that if we allow the brake to convert 50% of the rotational motion to linear motion, then 100% of the initial KE (theoretical) is still available to us in the two motions.
If you agree with this, then I must introduce regenerative braking again (as you no doubt anticipated) and ask where does the resultant harvest of energy originate - whatever it's value - since we have already accounted for 100% ?
QuoteI would like to state that the rotating version is not the same. If you would compare them, for instance accelerating both rod and wheel at the same rate, 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.
You may have something there; perhaps between us we will come up with a linear version of the PE apparatus to beat my original version :o I doubt very much if all the bases are covered, more likely only several of a great many; which makes the scarcity of prospectors all the more surprising.
Quote from: broli on December 26, 2013, 07:14:10 AM
Tusk, that's perhaps an easier setup to analyze. However I would like to state that the rotating version is not the same. If you would compare them, for instance accelerating both rod and wheel at the same rate, 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.
I also performed a simple analysis of the linear setup. it does show an energy gain, but I'm looking forward to some critique pointing out the mistake in the math.
Hi ,
I'm not an expert in this field, but remember from far back that usually for
calculation of the energy of the flywheel people are using moment of inertia instead of the mass. Not sure if this is relevant or already accounted for, though.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flywheel
An interesting viewpoint webby1. I can only answer to the following:
Quotethe potential a mass has relative to another mass is the rate change in distance of separation
With the applied force situated at or over the axis we can consider the drive unit (which basically represents the bench/earth ) and the disk/rotor arm as fulfilling your definition (above). As you seem to agree, in this configuration (by virtue of the secondary reaction at the disk axis) we are able to cause a continuous interaction between the two across two frames of reference, the first being the rotation of the disk itself in the rotor arm FoR and the second being the rotor arm rotation in the observers frame of reference.
We are all familiar with the first of these, having a plethora of spinning objects nearly everywhere we look. The second however, wherein the rotation is caused by a 'remote' secondary reaction offset from our point of application of force, appears to be a new concept, most likely due to the significance of the physics having not been recognised (it tends to blow away like mist on the winds of angular momentum theory). This 'remote' reactive force allows us to situate our two masses (as per your definition above) so as to be continuously accelerating away from each other while remaining in fixed and direct contact. This in turn abrogates the conventional requirement for supplying that amount of energy normally needed to accelerate one or other masses in pursuit of point of force acceleration, a significant frame of reference coup but unfortunately one not readily comprehended even by those familiar with physics and the topic of frames of reference.
QuoteThis reminds me of a self exciting oscillation. Could it be that your setup has found a method of doing this?
This is a frame of reference manipulation; I have very little knowledge of oscillation theory but at first glance I shouldn't be surprised if FoR played some part in it.
With the PE apparatus awareness of the first phenomenon is the key to manipulating FoR to our advantage by application of the second phenomenon. It's not too much of a stretch metaphorically to say that this is like the discovery of a new dimension. Everyone (ok, anyone with an interest) wants to crawl around it and take measurements with three dimensional equipment. You need to stand back and fit a metaphorical fish eye lens to get a meaningful look at the thing, then maybe formulate some new equations and perhaps even tack a new law onto the literature.
Thanks for the link telecom, although you have probably already noted from my previous comments that what is really needed here is a broader view rather than equations. Perhaps we can make better use of those one day, if someone decides to have a go at building the next stage of experimental apparatus. If I go to the grave with no confederates in this, then so be it; and serves me right for gifting the damned thing rather than going for a patent and the usual hush money. If my take on the universe is pointing anywhere near true I'll probably die in a hail of gunfire (or worse lol), even the flimsy umbrella of public awareness having failed to open ???
Let's try this approach; something a little more familiar and 'hands on'.
If we make our disk large enough to serve as one of those fairground rides, seats all around the outer edge with harnesses etc. Drive the disk as specified, but have an identical disk nearby with no rotor arm, with the same weight of riders and the same drive system etc.
First the simple disk ride starts up, consumes X amount of energy with a rate of rotation value of Y and everyone swings out over the watching crowd on their articulated chairs due to the rapid rotation. The power is cut and in a perfect world X amount of energy is reclaimed by regenerative braking and fed back into the massive battery.
Now the PE type ride begins; by the time we have again consumed X amount of energy the disk is rotating as rapidly as before (observer FoR) but now the rotor arm is active, so that the ride rotates simultaneously about two separate axes (and we all know how that feels). The power is then cut. Note that in the FoR of the rotor arm, the rate of rotation of the disk exceeds the first instance ( i.e. > Y ).
While as stated at the central drive unit the disk rotation appears to be faster, when the rotor arm regenerative brake is applied and the rotor arm stops, the disk rotation is seen to be exactly as before, with a rate of rotation of value Y. Reclamation of energy so far is Z amount of energy from the rotor arm motion.
Now the regenerative brake is applied to the disk by the drive unit. Since this is only a single disk system and we require simplicity and clarity, let's lock the rotor arm at this point. The rate of disk rotation now having a value of Y in the rotor arm FoR, which is now the same FoR as the observer, as with the simple ride when the disk rotation comes to a halt the reclaimed energy from the disk must be X (in a perfect world).
The simple ride replaced the energy lost driving the ride. The PE type ride achieved this and also added Y amount of energy to the battery.
The only reason this might not be so is if the cost in energy of motivating an object by EM propulsion were more in the event of the object being propelled having some additional motion in the direction of intended motion (perhaps our point of force motion comes into play, but not in our favour on this occasion). If this is so then we might easily restrict the motion of the rotor arm by gearing, since the secondary force applies for the same duration as the applied force no matter how we direct it; therefore some additional energy exceeding that amount expended will nevertheless be available to us. But considering the astounding energy evident in devices from electric motors through to rail guns, it seems that due to the high rate of creation and collapse of magnetic fields the typical working velocities of our machinery are handled with little regard for point of force motion.
My understanding is that it makes little or no difference to an EM propulsion system whether the motivated mass has an initial velocity of 1cm/sec or 10m/sec, with the cost in energy being virtually equal and having basically the same outcome in terms of acceleration. Please correct me if this is not so.
I'm not familiar with your designs webby1 but that might be an option worth looking at. I had always assumed that electronics was the most efficient way to go for energy recovery, eliminating as much mechanical hardware as possible. Is there a specific reason behind your suggestion or were you thinking out loud? (which is fine, btw) :)
Your mechanical rectifier appears to be both well engineered and a fine idea webby1.
I made several attempts at designing a simple apparatus based on PE principles which employs exclusively mechanical methods to achieve a self running system, but generally I discard any design beyond my own laughable amateur engineering abilities before it even gets from pen to paper. Unfortunately the basic idea while simple, does require the redirection and integration of two independent motions to achieve success. I'll give more thought to that and get back to you if a promising design offers itself up.
Your idea of measuring the output from the main rotor arm has merit. There is still the matter of disk output, although there are different ways of cycling the device and potentially all output might be directed through the rotor arm. Again I'll give it more thought, with thanks for your contribution - this is all very encouraging :)
Quote from: Tusk on December 27, 2013, 06:53:47 PM
Your mechanical rectifier appears to be both well engineered and a fine idea webby1.
I made several attempts at designing a simple apparatus based on PE principles which employs exclusively mechanical methods to achieve a self running system, but generally I discard any design beyond my own laughable amateur engineering abilities before it even gets from pen to paper. Unfortunately the basic idea while simple, does require the redirection and integration of two independent motions to achieve success. I'll give more thought to that and get back to you if a promising design offers itself up.
Your idea of measuring the output from the main rotor arm has merit. There is still the matter of disk output, although there are different ways of cycling the device and potentially all output might be directed through the rotor arm. Again I'll give it more thought, with thanks for your contribution - this is all very encouraging :)
What is disturbing to me in the present design is the fact that everything runs from the battery which is not connected to any wires for charging. May be instead of a battery to use some kind of a sliding contacts to power EM drive from the main?
This way it will be possible to implement the power recovery during the stopping of both the disk and a rotating arm.
I'll reply to your comments first webby1:
QuoteMy thought of using only the arm is that the disc should be a freeby,, that is you pulse the input to accelerate and then you take that back out to decelerate, and these two components move the arm in opposite directions,, so you spin up for the arm moving say 1\4 turn and you spin down for the arm moving 1\4 turn the other way.
Hmmmm. Currently there is no regenerative braking on the drive unit (although it does provide simple EM braking) so that with your idea in place we would still not be getting anything back from the disk rotation (other than the secondary motions of the rotor arm). We could allow (quite rightly I believe) that each braking period has a theoretical return of 100% of the energy supplied to it (during the acceleration period) but if that is acceptable, I wonder why it is apparently not clear to anyone that any energy reclaimed from rotor arm motion takes us into OU.
I like that you have gone with the cyclic nature of the device btw; the universe is supposed to be asymmetric (and appears to be so) therefore a cyclic method of extracting energy somehow seems appropriate. I need to feed each new idea into the alarmingly convoluted spaghetti programming which constitutes the sum of my knowledge, so please forgive any hesitancy on my part :)
also this, from telecom:
QuoteMay be instead of a battery to use some kind of a sliding contacts to power EM drive from the main?
This way it will be possible to implement the power recovery during the stopping of both the disk and a rotating arm.
Beyond my build capability telecom. It pays to know your own limitations... and I get electric shocks from clockwork toys, not to mention blowing up nearly every power supply I own (usually due to incorrect polarity) ;D The fact that the current battery powered apparatus still runs is testimony to my self control, having resisted the temptation to modify it since rewinding the coils.
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. It stems from the homopolar field where a rotation magnet/solenoid exhibits the same effect as if it were stationary. This way you solenoid being torqued, will increase its speed due to the torque without it having any detrimental effect on applied electric power.
Here's a short animation of what I'm talking about:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=umN-6fa5ZEs (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=umN-6fa5ZEs)
refer to the video description for explanation.
Until you realize the Freudian whiplash.
QuoteWhat 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.
Quoterefer 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....... ;D
QuoteIn 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) :o
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):
Quotein 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 ;D
QuoteI 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 (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 :o
QuoteMy 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.
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
First in reply to this from telecom:
QuoteWhat 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.
QuoteRight 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.
Quote from: Tusk on December 31, 2013, 01:35:04 AM
First in reply to this from telecom:
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.
These results make me perplexed, to say the least, but as someone said, facts are the stubborn thing.
After all, nobody really knows what the electricity is, but now can't live w/o it ! So, in your apparatus, Tusk,
you are applying EM pulses towards the disk off centre, and by doing it, you generate two equal motions, one linear
of the centre of mass, which is the axis of the disk, and another rotational, getting two for one.The linear is being converted also into the rotational about the centre of the rotating arm. Nobody limits us by using only one disk, you can put 10 disks if you wish,
and each one should generate twice the input. Am I correct in this observation?
Hi webby1, can you please explain how your force multiplicator works in more details, would like to know more about it.
Best regards.
Hi webby1,
I meant your mechanical rectifier, and its application towards the Tusk's device.
regards.
There is a small problem with this idea webby1:
QuoteThe second ring of induction coils goes around the larger circle described by the outside edge of the disc as the arm rotates, this is the regenerative system.
I did already look at this since (as you observed) the resistance from the regenerative braking will create a rotor arm rotation in the same direction as the applied force from the EM drive unit, but with the disk rotation going in the opposite direction the energy in the system is tending to cancel itself out. In other words, the magnets embedded in the disk might actually pass over the outer ring of induction coils with virtually zero velocity other than the radial motion as both their disk and rotor arm radial directions lined up additively.
If the rotor arm were geared to significantly reduce rotation rate this would be much less of an issue, so yes the idea has merit.
lol webby1, you are starting to get ahead of me; no doubt your mechanical engineering abilities coming into play.
QuoteThe "faster" motion of change between the magnet and induction coil is in a straight line out from the arm axle,, the disc magnet, from the point of view of the induction coil, is popping over and then back away,, I look at like the teeth on a gear set,, they do not have any difference in rotation rate but each tooth face has a fast slide in and out of the valley of the other gear.
I'm not so sure about this. I would have thought the optimum arrangement would be to have the disk magnets racing over the induction coils as fast as possible. Your point that recovering the energy at a lesser rate still allows a full recovery is doubtful to me. That may be so with a strictly mechanical (and frictionless) system but with EM induction isn't it all about velocity (i.e. rotation rate)?
For example, I could set up a flywheel and have the axle/shaft function as a geared output, attached to a dynamo. It would be possible I think to 'waste' the stored energy by setting the gears to a low rate of rotation, with the dynamo turning slowly; or turn the dynamo rapidly and generate a useful voltage. Theoretically the same energy is recovered but from a practical viewpoint the low voltage recovery is less useful. This may be a case of poor knowledge/interpretation of electrical theory on my part, but that is my understanding.
Quotethe resistance from the regenerative system does not have a "direct" negative feedback,, so the disc could spin and the arm could rotate with only a small slip angle over the coils,, yes smaller output but then it just spins down for a longer time
I'm not quite sure what you mean by 'the small slip angle over the coils', you lost me with what I assume to be an engineering term. It would seem however that you have managed to navigate through the material without losing your bearings, and now have a fairly thorough grasp of the thing; which probably means that much of your spare time is spent trying to find the mistake :)
You've given me plenty to think about there webby1 :)
QuoteI will assume that you have used some method to determine the force value of the arm while you are spinning up the disc
Not so much, other experiments with different apparatus were conducted to confirm the equality of the two forces. Unfortunately the PE apparatus was assembled before I had the chance to weigh the various components, but an estimate along with predicted consequent rates of rotation and actual rates suggest that the physics is holding.
Quotein one view the magnet on the disc is moving in two directions at the same time,, it is spinning via it's axle AND the arm is rotating,, this is what I mean by slip.
It comes from flying small aircraft with a buddy that used to be a fighter pilot,, this was years ago,,in a very strong cross-wind he could slip the plane down and onto the runway very smoothly,, seeing the window I was sitting next to heading down the runway and then at the last second snapping the tail around so the plane was lined up straight
Flying gliders (years ago) I employed the technique on many occasions; quite possibly the rather pressing requirement to get it right first time has permeated my approach to other pursuits, thus my caution on this point. Your description becomes more clear, but I'm still not sure about the velocity issue:
Quotethis will be a low resistance induction unit to maximize its resistance to the disc magnet passing,, each coil will see many pulses as the arm is bringing the disc towards it, over it and then taking the disc magnets away from it.
As I admitted earlier, EM theory is not my best suit; it sounds plausible but I'll need to think on it more, and probably consult with an electronics engineer. You seem confident with it and appear to understand the issues so I'll accept the premise tentatively while I look into it further. I can't imagine what an engineering nightmare it would be to design a production version of this, talk about the need to get it right... all these options and no precedent. Serious challenges, thankfully my only concern is furnishing a comprehensible and credible proof of concept.
Perhaps it will be beneficial to use two Tusk's apparatus side by side.
When one EM drive is braking and works as a generator, it sends the energy
to another EM drive to accelerate the disc and vice versa.
I was thinking of 2 discs and 1 arm,, while one disc is being spun up by the drive unit the other disc is being slowed down by the regenerative unit,, creating a more balanced output force maybe.
The discs should have an opposite rotation to help each other?
Still will be needed some kind of a power transfer between the FoR to compensate for the losses...
Quote from: webby1 on January 01, 2014, 03:57:50 PM
The direction you force the magnet\disc into moving is the same direction the arm will move,, that is why I went with the outside regenerative system, it will try and move the disc\magnet such that the arm will move in the same direction while they are trying to slow the disc down as the drive unit trying to speed it up.
Any *forced* change in RPM of the disc will create a change in the arm.
Webby1,
do you have any idea how electrically connect the disks EM drive and the rotating arm's output to make the current circulate?
Quote from: webby1 on January 01, 2014, 08:15:32 PM
You could use induction coupling,, a transformer does not need to have direct contact.
I have a Sonicare toothbrush,, you place the toothbrush handle in the charging cradle and it charges up the battery, no contacts involved, I would suppose that one could take the toothbrush apart and use it,, or it may be much better to build one from scratch.
Wireless power transmission on such a short range is fairly straight forward nowadays,, but all that kind of stuff is outside of my scope of abilities.
Thinking to myself,, the Sonicare has a built in system to run a drive coil to move the magnets that move the brush,, change the frequency of that and you might be able to have the whole drive system and controller,,,
I think what you are talking about only works with a very small air gap.
Probably sliding contacts could do the job...
Wander off for a few hours around here and you have to spend hours trying to catch up :)
(from webby1)
QuoteI am assuming that the rate of rotation of the disc, or its RPM does not matter,, and nor does the RPM of the arm.
I deliberately restricted my thinking to an inertial device, so yes as it stands the disk at least would always be either accelerating or decelerating. If it turns out that the outer ring braking essentially works like inertia we might run the device at a constant rate (disk and/or rotor arm) adjusting the brake force as required. But I will say at this point that we are in uncharted territory here, due to the difficulty just getting the basic idea 'out there' as it stands I had to leave some work undone. But at first glance I don't see any obstacles with this, yet.
Quotein a sense the disc is responding like an object under the influence of gravity, an influence that you are creating
I guess you could think of it that way, since we are dealing with a constant force (at least that is the intention). Similar then to the often proposed 'gravity wheel' where I believe the goal is to somehow manipulate gravity so that it effects one side more than the other. Here we supply the force which creates a bias in the reaction; bias is opportunity.
Quotewhile one disc is being spun up by the drive unit the other disc is being slowed down by the regenerative unit
I imagine there is a myriad of possible arrangements worth considering, with various benefits. I'll need to think about this one, it may just offer a smoother cycle and reduce wear and tear.
QuoteAll you need to do is to be able to demonstrate the effect and that the impact of that effect is less than the cost of the effect,, I think you may be close to, if not being able to, do all that ,, so I think you have it right so far.
Thanks webby1, I would not have rolled this out if I didn't believe that the combined weight of the theory and experimental data was sufficient proof; I had not allowed for the understandable disbelief and difficulty experienced by others attempting to follow my logic. Those aspects of the theory which test credibility are I think covered by the data. But 'joining the dots' as it were, requires some willingness and effort, so I appreciate your tolerance and determination.
(and this from telecom)
QuoteThe discs should have an opposite rotation to help each other?
With a twin disk setup if one disk rotates clockwise then so too the other. This creates opposing secondary reactions at the disk axes on opposite sides of the rotor arm, ergo additive forces (and no excess baggage of a counter balance as with the single disk setup).
With a twin disk setup if one disk rotates clockwise then so too the other. This creates opposing secondary reactions at the disk axes on opposite sides of the rotor arm, ergo additive forces (and no excess baggage of a counter balance as with the single disk setup).
yes, you are absolutely correct - was confused by all these new discoveries. Still can't understand why Sir Isaac wasn't telling the whole truth!
QuoteStill can't understand why Sir Isaac wasn't telling the whole truth!
Or maybe someone redacted his work telecom (I believe that's the favoured expression these days when there's an inference of foul play). We lost most of da Vinci's work to the mists of time, that's probably under lock and key somewhere too.
QuoteI have been trying to think of a different method of demonstration that does not turn into a big mess,, something simple, I keep getting into an elaborate setup
lol indeed webby1; it's a rare thing to end a brainstorming session on the PE with even the remotest idea of whatever it was you were thinking when the session started :o
Quotejust like a little electric motor sitting on a desktop,, unrestrained,, when you energize the motor it will spin and move about until it is up to speed,, then it just sits there vibrating,, you are using that moment while it is spinning up.
Correct, my thinking on the PE concept thus far has been restricted to inertial considerations. I could stick my neck out with non inertial variations but I haven't done the experiments or the long term thinking on that possibility, as I stated earlier it's uncharted territory. But for now, having exposed enough of the gold vein to indicate the size of the deposit, for me at least the job description changed from prospector to messenger.
That little electric motor btw; all those balanced torques around the armature, might be worth cutting a few wires to induce a PE type bias, just to see what happens.
A good 'quick and dirty' experiment webby1, you appear to have built yourself a rudimentary PE :)
QuoteThe motor shaft was spinning CCW and the shaft was moving CW
Ok so far, this is as predicted.
QuoteWhat was not expected was a constant shift in the CW direction,, I was expecting the motor to settle back into the start position when it reached a constant speed, it would move back a little but stay there until I kept the power off.
Hmmmm; so either you have some resistance in the motor on the non-drive side other than inertia, which apparently sustained an equal secondary reactive force at the axis, OR you have some torque effect in play which does not manifest in the PE apparatus.
Since your motor case effectively becomes a static element of the 'rotor arm' (in respect of the rotor arm) we might be tempted to concede that the counter torque on the case (in respect of the armature accelerating or even sustaining a constant rate of rotation against air resistance etc) will cause a CW torque bias on the rotor arm. This because the moment of force on the 'dead' side of the case is greater than that of the active side, which is nearer to the central axis or main shaft. This type of torque bias (or something akin to it) was thought by many to be responsible for the rotation of the main rotor arm in the PE apparatus, before I was able to establish the authenticity of the secondary motion phenomenon. It should be obvious however, that even a bad bearing would be unlikely to induce such vigorous motion as seen in the PE apparatus, with the radial difference being as small as it is. And that supposes such a torque could be induced at the bearing, which is subjected to a tangential force (as near as possible) on one side only. I suspect that any device designed to rely on a free running bearing to drive or power some other device in this manner, would be sadly lacking in performance. As I understand it, one of the functions of free running bearings is specifically not to transmit torque.
Likewise with your experiment it is difficult to allow a torque on the case since you have a drive side and a 'dead' side. While not entirely a tangential force, neither is it an ideal method for inducing a torque on the case. More likely the drive side of the case reacts in opposition to the motion of the coils of the armature as they pass nearby, while the 'dead' side of the case acts more like an end pivot point and transmits little or no force to the 'rotor arm'.
With the magnetic strip removed (on the non-drive side) it is possible that air resistance increases a little due to more airflow around that area. If so, then this might be an example of a constant force performing the same office as inertia. This might account for the unexpected 'constant shift in the CW direction'.
I would have to say 'unconfirmed result' at this point, but an interesting experiment nonetheless. If your method could be refined a little then as you suggested others might try it as a first step to familiarity with (and credibility of) the concept.
Another idea...
QuoteSorry Tusk,, I am a little off-topic but I thought I would share the mods and stuff for those that might want to try it themselves.
No problem webby1, if you can brew up a simplified PE experiment then as you say others may build it and see the phenomena first hand. But you do need to keep a watchful eye on those unexpected interactions which often appear when modifying rather than scratch building. Good luck with version 2, that motor certainly looks adequate to the task; with the remaining magnets that's also quite a long way from a tangential force, but you will get a bias which is hopefully enough to manifest the secondary reaction/motion.
Quotethe power off spin down is very fast and all by itself will move the motor in the other direction
Sounds like you have the 'rotor arm reversal' or as I like to call it, the 'third bite of the cherry' :)
another version of the same idea
Your first thoughts on that second version were correct telecom; the disk rotation is disadvantageous if you are going to drive the rotor arm. But make those outer black rods EM drives and provided both disks rotate CW together or CCW together the secondary reaction will be advantageous to the rotor arm rotation. But then you would need to brake the disks from the centre axis to avoid rotor arm reversal (and increase rotor arm motion) if that was your intention.
Keep looking, there will be many viable configurations, no doubt some far better than my own :)
QuoteOn your testbed are you getting the spin down issue??
I assume you are referring to the rapid spin down you spoke of earlier webby1; the spin up and down seem to take about the same time on my apparatus. There is quite a strong attraction since the embedded magnets are neodymium, but the disk functions well as a flywheel with all that mass around the outer edge, and let's not overlook the advantages of a greater radius ;)
QuoteI do not think that that displays your effect effectively.
Fair enough webby1. When designing the PE apparatus I resisted the temptation to do an easier build and complicate the dynamics (e.g. by using an electric motor to drive the disk via cogs/drive wheels or whatever) because the device had to demonstrate the phenomena as clearly as possible while minimising the possibility of raising concerns over complex interactions between unnecessary elements.
This may seem more complicated than your present line of experimentation but you might want to consider, instead of trashing those electric motors mount one over the central axis of a freewheeling rotor arm (but in this instance not on the rotor arm, rather bench mount it) turning a simple disk (or two disks, even better) by means of a rubber drive wheel. I haven't tried this configuration but I see no problem with it other than :
1. Having an additional element which some might imagine contributes to the additional motion.
2. Since the drive wheel must take up some space the point of applied force will be slightly off the central axis; again there might be a claim of significant interference from this.
I may even knock one of these up myself, it doesn't get much simpler and the data from a twin disk system would be useful. Bench mounting the drive motor over the central axis calls for a serious piece of supporting framework but the thing is straightforward enough. It can't go on the rotor arm due to the counter torque, we don't want the rotor arm going the other way. See I said it would cause trouble ;D
QuoteFor me, most of these interactions are a demonstration of the resistance to a changed condition being manifested. Mass does not want to speed up or slow down instantly.
Yes I'll agree with that webby1, if it did the entire place would be a woeful shambles; something along the lines of the Quantum Universe I guess :)
Taking that cue (thanks) basically the PE disk resists the call to motion from the EM drive unit in two halves; the nearside resists more or less directly, being inclined to move (or not move, as you suggest) in the direction of the applied force. The far side resists in similar fashion but in the opposite direction. Much like a child's seesaw all this to and fro puts a strain on the axis, using it as a pivot point. If the disk is balanced and the axis is at the centre of mass, then this reactive force at the axis exactly equals the applied force and is parallel to it, in the same direction. And it manifests for the same period of the applied force.
I have suggested several methods of gaining advantage from the phenomenon; but in the simplest terms, if we allow that whatever energy we store in the rotation of the disk can be recovered (or 90% thereabouts according to experience with flywheels) then the secondary force, equal as it is to the applied force, may be used in whatever way we choose and for the same period of the applied force producing OU, providing we can engineer more than 10% energy recovery from it.
My design while probably not the ultimate solution does however allow the secondary force to manifest twice, giving us double the period of the applied force to work with. This means we could achieve OU with just over 5% energy recovery at the rotor arm (each way) allowing 90% from the disk by simply recovering energy as with a typical flywheel.
Anyone claiming that this concept doesn't have OU capability needs to come up with a good reason why the disk can't behave like a flywheel and return something like 90% of the energy expended to spin it up. Either that or provide a good argument against the secondary force manifesting as defined, against all the experimental evidence and supporting documentation.
The following is a simplistic example of how the secondary force might be employed to store energy over and above that expended. I could run a similar experiment and submit a video but that should not be necessary. The device clearly has this capability, otherwise the rotor arm would not rotate in the previous experiments. And there is also clearly no obstacle to treating the disk as a flywheel. I'm not using the reverse motion of the rotor arm here either, so this is just another way of laying the concept open for scrutiny.
Hi Task,
I can't help but keep thinking that your reactive force simply comes as a result of the 3 rd law of Newton.
You are able to harvest it by making the point of application of it rotational, rather than stationary as it is usually is.
When it is stationary, it is being absorbed by the stresses in the material, and as a result, it is very difficult to harvest, since the
actual deformations are minimal.
In your case you make it easy to harvest, by transforming the rotational motion into the generation of the electricity, for example.
The same principle applies to the proverbial Milcovic pendulum, where the movement of the axis can be harvested. The problem with it is that the pendulum has a small rotational speed since it can't do the full revolution, not as in your device which can be brought up to a considerable speed.
Regards.
QuoteI can't help but keep thinking that your reactive force simply comes as a result of the 3 rd law of Newton
Thanks telecom. I think you'll find that the force pair covered by that law consists of the applied force on the edge of the disk and the equal and opposite reaction on the EM drive unit. The secondary reaction at the centre of mass/axis does not appear to have been mentioned by Newton, and as an inertial phenomenon seems not to have been very closely considered or highly regarded.
QuoteHave you evaluated the work done to the disc by the drive unit to the work done by the arm movement?
The forces are equal webby1, and apply over the same period; thus whatever the mass of the body in motion the final momentum will be equal.
QuoteI have been noodling this over and I keep coming up with 1\2 the work out while being accelerated and 1\2 the work out while being decelerated. This is for a simplified thought experiment, but the disc spins a larger arc moment than the arm moves,, I think.
The radius of the disk is equal to the radius of the rotor arm. Mass distribution is important here, and ideally we need to level the playing field by using two disks.
Allow the mass of the rotor arm to be so small that we can disregard it. Note that the mass of the disk now becomes the mass of the rotor arm. Situate all the disk mass around the extreme edge, then allow two identical disks mounted at each end of the rotor arm. Effectively we can now motivate the same rate of rotation of mass in the disks as in the rotor arm, with equal momentum and equal KE since the combined mass of the disks = mass of the rotor arm; and while each disk is motivated by an applied force each equal to the other, the rotor arm at 2 X disk mass is motivated by an equal force X 2.
In this configuration the centre of mass/axes of the disks (thus the mass of the rotor arm) describes an arc of motion of equal radius to the mass of each disk.
QuoteI have not worked out if there is a limit at which the arm can rotate relative to the disc rotation
In the previous example with the mass of two disks also constituting the mass of the rotor arm the rates of rotation (disks and arm) will be the same; adding mass to the rotor arm will reduce it's motion, while removing mass will require reducing the mass of the disks, which will increase both disk and rotor arm motions in equal measure. Without changing the geometry I suspect that the rate of rotation of the rotor arm cannot exceed that of the disk/s.
The bottom line here is that we have two equal forces to play with for the price of one. They act remotely from one another and present us with an opportunity to conceive of multiple configurations in design engineered to our advantage. The PE apparatus was intended as a proof of concept device offering one potential solution to the problem of OU deriving from the phenomenon of two equal forces manifesting as a result of the application of a single force of equal value.
Engineering heaven (I would have thought). Published here because a physicist would barely glance at such 'obvious nonsense'; breakthroughs these days are made with expensive high energy apparatus by the most respected learned gentlemen in academia, not by arm chair theorists, tinkerers or engineers. Are they correct I wonder; should we all go back to our day jobs and file this away with Schrödinger's cat, dark energy and the holographic multiverse?
The secondary reaction at the centre of mass/axis does not appear to have been mentioned by Newton, and as an inertial phenomenon seems not to have been very closely considered or highly regarded.
In this case the EM drive doesn't have to be mounted on the rotating arm, since we
are not getting any additional force out of it, only the complications of getting it powered.
Mb instead mount it stationary and drive the discs by the conventional means, such as a roller chain?
Regards.
I may have missed the point in your statement about work done webby1, and so failed to provide a suitable response.
QuoteI keep coming up with 1\2 the work out while being accelerated and 1\2 the work out while being decelerated
Assuming you intended this to mean 1/2 the work out at the rotor arm then we need to look at the work done by the applied force on the disk, and also the work done by the equal secondary force on the rotor arm. With the current single disk apparatus the mass of the rotor arm (which includes the disk) is significantly greater than the disk. Since work done against inertia relates directly to KE we can expect the rotor arm to 'under perform' significantly against the disk in the single disk configuration.
Note here that if you are allowing full energy recovery from the disk (ideally) then your suggested 'half and half' from the rotor arm would bring us up to 200% :)
Quotethe disc spins a larger arc moment than the arm moves,, I think.
Yes the disk should be almost optimally energetic considering the mass distribution and point of applied force. The rotor arm motion is more ponderous than frantic, but for all that it gains considerable momentum along the way. Here again the twin disks combined with a lightweight rotor arm would redress this bias. Also note that my apparent obsession with providing an inertial solution stems from the need for simplicity and clarity in the explanation; the rotor arm of a prototype might do better service rotating slowly against the resistance of a geared generator (as indeed you suggested), certainly this would effectively eliminate any concerns about losses during acceleration of the disk due to the additional rotation of it's inertial reaction to the rotor arm motion in the frame of reference of the rotor arm/drive unit.
Such a configuration would provide a clear demonstration that the energy expended motivating the disk can be recovered as with a typical flywheel, and that additional energy can be recovered from the action of the secondary motion taking the device into OU, with yet more energy available from the reversal.
QuoteIn this case the EM drive doesn't have to be mounted on the rotating arm, since we
are not getting any additional force out of it, only the complications of getting it powered.
Mb instead mount it stationary and drive the discs by the conventional means, such as a roller chain?
That might work quite well telecom, yet another 'mod' to add to the growing list of options :)
QuoteI may have this wrong, which is why I am bringing it up.
Ok webby1 I'll try to retrace your steps and point to any differences between my interpretation and your own.
QuoteIf the disc is not allowed to rotate about its center of mass and the arm were to make one rotation then the arm would see the disc make one rotation, and the disc would see the arm make one rotation.
This first set of conditions is a little unclear; if you mean that the disk is prevented by inertia from rotating as the rotor arm rotates then yes, the observation is correct.
QuoteTo have the arm make one rotation and have the disc make one rotation about is center of mass while it is orbiting the pivot for the arm, the arm would see the disc make 2 rotations and the disc would see the arm make 2 rotations.
Again, based on my interpretation of your first premise this is correct for one direction of rotation but not the other; reverse motion to the opposite you had in mind and each would see the other as motionless (which point actually lends a little more clarity).
QuoteFrom the PoV of the applied force of acceleration against the disc, the edge of the disc will move twice as far as the arm.
Correct.
QuoteI interpret this then that the disc is spun up with full force over twice the distance of reaction from the arm,
And this is where things get tricky; you seem clear on the point that the disk will receive 50% of it's rotation from inertia (due rotor arm motion) and unclear how to proceed regarding determination of work done since this relates to force applied over a distance, but our disk is covering twice as much distance with a 50% assist from inertia.
So here's the interesting part then, since it's no simple matter:
Quotethe arm having an equal force of motion but at 1\2 the distance and the disc is left with an increase in potential due to its rotation which when recovered will impart the full force into the arm over another 1\2 distance.
My thoughts on this lately have me inclined to slow the rotation of the rotor arm using a geared output to a generator. This sidesteps these issues quite tidily :)
Your meaning on this last point is again a little unclear, but if you are defining the motion by distance (which you seem to be doing) then it sounds like it might be correct for the current single disk PE apparatus. Your method of resolving it differs from my own. Also note that everything changes with two disks and a lightweight rotor arm.
Ok this inertial rotation of the disk seems to be causing some concern; let's add another line of code then, and demonstrate the potential to sidestep and maybe even use our opponent's weight against himself :)
If we recover energy at the disk axis (i.e. a geared generator) no secondary reaction manifests and any retarding force on the rotor arm from the disk axis (due to resistance from the generator) is minimised. This gives us the option to recover energy from the disk without significantly reducing rotor arm motion.
Am I right in suggesting this? I'm off the reservation again here, so keep a close eye on things ;D
Additional: I assume this is so due to the disk axis being located at a large enough radius from the rotor arm axis that the (essentially) two opposing forces at the generator will have nearly equal moment arms (depending on the relative size/diameter of the generator with regard to the radius) while noting that some bias will manifest; and that against our purpose.
First glance at this suggests the possibility of 'spinning up' as per usual, then recovery of total rotor arm FoR disk energy at the disk axis (as above) without significant reduction of rotor arm motion. By this (bold print) I refer to the full disk rotation rate as it appears in the frame of reference of the rotor arm. As we already noted this can be as much as double the rotation rate in the observer FoR.
So having brought the disk to a stop (FoR rotor arm) we can now recover energy from the rotor arm, which will induce yet another rotation of the disk (FoR rotor arm) due to inertia (much like our other little issue, but this time in 'reverse'). Recovery of this new disk rotation.... etc etc. I've lost count but this looks like a promising combination, at first glance. I seriously doubt it can go on ad infinitum without some additional input (potentially from all that output) but it seems like an interesting new FoR manipulation.
QuoteI can orientate the magnet any where, not just next to the axle, and have the same reaction to either acceleration or deceleration of the rotor.
I had a quick look for an example of this Tom, a veritable junkyard of spinning tops and swinging doors; no luck so far though ::) Anyway you almost certainly realise that what you are seeing is a simple case of lever arm bias. The rotor goes one way, the stator, case, mounts etc go the other way (let's refer to these as simply 'the case'). Since the 'case' is attempting to rotate regardless of being mounted on a rotor arm, that part furthest from the rotor arm axis will have a greater lever arm advantage than the nearside, resulting in rotation of the rotor arm.
With the PE apparatus (as telecom kindly pointed out recently) the secondary reaction at the disk axis has no force pair, except inertia; unless we provide some other opposition such as that incurred when turning a generator. If we choose not to, and allow the secondary motion to spend itself uselessly, it might easily be interpreted as a lever arm bias with the various forces and motions in balance and accounted for. Two distinct and separate yet equal reactions in the same direction and originating from a single applied force must create an imbalance, or bias (as I prefer it).
So while it seems unlikely we would see OU with a simple lever arm bias, the secondary force which manifests at the disk axis as described owes nothing in terms of the force which created it, that debt having been paid in full with the reaction at and rotation of the disk.
It's a 'freebie' :)
Since this "free" force at axis of the disc doesn't have a reaction pair,
it may be an ideal candidate for a propulsion force!
Quoteit may be an ideal candidate for a propulsion force!
I have to smile at that telecom, since this is full circle on how the investigation began. I was thinking about possible inertial drive systems myself :)
Here's a rough sketch of my original idea, which immediately brought forth the paradox (bearing in mind that no paradox can survive it's own solution).
A quick description then; this is a twin disk system in equilibrium, the disks motivated equally by twin EM drive units as shown. The applied forces (on the disks innermost edges) are indicated in red, with the reactions to same indicated in black at the drive units. Also I have indicated the rotation of the disks.
The question then becomes: does the device accelerate, if so which way and if not then why?
Hi Tusk,
it appears to me that according to a paradox effect you have discovered,
there should be 2 axial forces in the direction and a magnitude of the
EM forces, which should accelerate the whole assembly to the left.
In fact, if they were equal to the weight of the apparatus, they could lift the device
upward, if desired.
Quotethere should be 2 axial forces in the direction and a magnitude of the
EM forces, which should accelerate the whole assembly to the left
Afraid not telecom. If this were so we'd be in breach of CoM and the PE apparatus would not function as stated. It's a perplexing little puzzle is it not? Took me months to work it out, and a variety of inconclusive experiments before I finally came up with the peg pendulum experiment:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zi8k3PMUM6k&feature=youtu.be (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zi8k3PMUM6k&feature=youtu.be)
So minutia aside (and there have been some objections) the bottom line is this: the spring
must impart the same force in each direction (Newton's Third) yet on the one side we observe only linear motion, while the other clearly has both an equal linear motion and rotation. Any dismissal of this outcome based on reference to angular momentum simply fails to address the fact that the force applied to the end of the peg results in more total mass in motion than the other, and therefore more energy.
Note that I do not claim more energy here than is provided by the spring. We require a frame of reference manipulation to take advantage of this phenomenon and achieve OU.
Thus the peg pendulum experiment finally provided good evidence for the secondary effect, which I had already postulated since my supposed inertial drive system failed to move even a gnat's whisker ;D
Which made this seem all the more likely:
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.Perhaps not quite a law, maybe a footnote to a rule?.... at any rate, in the absence of guidance it might help to keep things pointed in the right direction.
There should be enough here to demonstrate why the 'inertial propulsion system' didn't move; I've added the relevant forces in red to the sketch, in the interests of clarity:
So,
all the forces, red and black are balanced, and what we get extra is the
rotational momentum of the discs?
Quotewhat we get extra is the rotational momentum of the discs
That's one way to view it telecom; not the best perspective for anyone unfamiliar with the phenomenon but yes, probably more accurate. Once you have a good grasp of the secondary reactive force your explanation becomes the more preferable I suspect.
I think you have to admit it's quite elegant. The conventional reasoning for it is in angular momentum, but the reality is that by simply shifting our point of applied force (which costs us nothing) we get significantly more mass in motion (thus KE) than for the same applied force at the centre of mass. Who knew?
It took a full year before someone found an MIT reference to support these findings. I have no idea where MIT referenced it from (probably some dusty old leather bound tomb) but I had some expectation that with these 'runs on the board' we could move forward and tackle the frame of reference phenomenon in a more receptive mood ???
For what it's worth I believe that frame of reference manipulation is really the key to 'mass in motion' OU. There seems little doubt (to me at least) that other methods will be found which have no dependence on the secondary reactive force. KE is simply a matter of the relationship between mass in motion and FoR, and the opportunity exists for various advantageous discoveries in this area.
The PE apparatus merely demonstrates mass in motion above and beyond expectations according to static 'rotor arm secure' flywheel tests. We know from the above that (as telecom put it) the rotational momentum of the disk is 'extra'; in this view we have 'paid' for the rotor arm motion and the disk energy is 'free'. But since we achieved disk rotation in the 'rotor arm secure' tests (albeit not as energetic) I actually prefer to say that the rotor arm motion is 'free' :)
Hi Tusk,
does this mean that all the linear forces are balanced by the linear reactions,
and only angular moments are unbalanced, no matter which one is "free"
or "paid for"?
Just want to add that in your apparatus with one disc, all the angular moments are balanced as well!
Quotedoes this mean that all the linear forces are balanced by the linear reactions,
and only angular moments are unbalanced, no matter which one is "free" or "paid for"?
Quoteall the angular moments are balanced as well!
Thanks telecom, I think you are now seeing 2 sets of 'force pairs', is that correct? A simple analysis might be:
1. applied force on disk has it's reaction on the drive unit (which is essentially bench mounted to this line of force)
2. the secondary reaction at the disk axis (being unique) must be considered a special case, being essentially a reaction to the inertia of the opposite side of the disk
A more thorough analysis should probably take inertia into account for both 'force pairs'. The bench mounted drive unit resists the reaction to the applied force with the inertia of the planet; likewise the disk resists the applied force with the inertia of it's own mass.
So the full story for instance 1. is:
1.
inertia of planet on drive unit : reaction to applied force on drive unit : applied force on disk : inertia of disk (total mass)
and when we apply a similar comprehensive analysis on instance 2 we get:
2.
inertia of planet on drive unit : reaction to applied force on drive unit : applied force on disk : inertia of opposite side of disk X2 due lever arm : secondary reaction at disk axis : inertia of rotor arm
I think that either clears things up a little, or not; depending on your initial level of comprehension. But I would definitely call instance 2. a special case.
Importantly (if we allow the introduction of energy in a simplistic yet conventional sense) we should note that the applied force on the disk provides the energy for both motions, or acts as a mechanism of transmission of it, if you prefer. As such it must surely be clear that here at least energy has spontaneously twinned itself to motivate two distinct motions since the applied force is singular, yet double, but not halved.
Thus the paradox, and once again knowing how uncomfortable this can get I stand ready to address the more familiar concerns while the elephant quietly dances around the room lol :)
applied force on disk : inertia of opposite side of disk X2 due lever arm : secondary reaction at disk axis : inertia of rotor arm
THis part is not absolutely clear to me.
Why it comes out as X2? opposite side?
QuoteWhy it comes out as X2? opposite side?
My apologies telecom, I may not have fully explained the origins of the secondary reactive force (I mentioned it in passing but not in great depth). Bear in mind that in the absence of relevant material in the literature the following explanation derives from my own experimentation and analysis, but I believe it to be correct.
In equilibrium then:
In the sketch below (and for simplicity) a rod of zero mass has two objects A and B of equal mass mounted one at each end. A force is applied to one end (A) as shown.
The applied force must motivate both masses. Therefore the force required to motivate the opposite mass (B) is half the applied force. Thus the force of inertia opposing that force is also equal to half the applied force.
The applied force must act through the centre of mass in order to motivate the opposite side, therefore the centre of mass acts as a pivot point situated halfway between the applied force and the resistance of inertia.
Also the inertia of mass A opposes the applied force as shown, such that only half the applied force acts through the centre of mass (see blue annex in diagram).
Thus the resulting force on the 'pivot point' (centre of mass) is the sum of half the applied force and the inertial force on B, or (for simplicity) twice the force of inertia on B; and therefore equal to the applied force.
Here then we see the origins of the secondary motion which, while not in violation of CoE or CoM in it's own right yet offers up opportunities in the quest for OU. With this new 'line of code' might we not reprogram reality with a fresh outlook on the manipulation of frames of reference?
Consider that a constant force applied to a mass in equilibrium results in a constant acceleration, and since Ek = ½ mv² then by application of a constant force the kinetic energy of the mass increases exponentially; a tantilising hint of OU if we could only reduce or eliminate the cost of motivating the point of force to keep pace with the acceleration. This cost of point of force motion under normal circumstances erodes all advantage. Yet we see here in a simple peg pendulum experiment a reaction, indeed an unexpected additional force manifesting remotely from the point of applied force.
This allows us, with careful design and engineering, to apply a force from outside a frame of reference wherein the secondary reaction motivates a mass additionally to the primary motivation caused by the applied force, without the usual requirement to accelerate the point of applied force.
Thus the resulting force on the 'pivot point' (centre of mass) is the sum of half the applied force and the inertial force on B, or (for simplicity) twice the force of inertia on B; and therefore equal to the applied force.
So, the rotational movement is activated by the 1 unit of the applied force, and the linear motion by the 1/2 unit of the applied force + the inertia of the mass B?
Which also totals to 1 unit of the applied force?
In this case we are getting the inertia B working for us for free? And it is equal 1/2
of the applied force?
QuoteIn this case we are getting the inertia B working for us for free? And it is equal 1/2
of the applied force?
Yes you are correct but as always there is more to it telecom, inertia B is half the applied force but it is the combined effort of inertia B and the 'spare' half of the applied force which work together not unlike two equal weights each side of a set of scales, their combined weight double that of each. In this way the secondary motion is equivalent to the primary, each motivated by the applied force or the equal of it. The total 'mass in motion' or momentum is twice what you might expect if you were unaware that simply shifting your point of applied force could cause such additional motion yet not be in breach of CoM.
So,
in relation to your apparatus, this lever with two equal masses represents a disc,
and the centre of mass represents the point of attachment to the rotating arm.
And the applied force represents an EM drive?
Correct again telecom, I took a few liberties in the interest of simplification but in essence they are very similar thanks to the symmetries in the system; a curious serendipity, since what there is so far of the greater hypothesis has the asymmetry of the universe at it's core. But the PE apparatus challenges us sufficiently without the additional burden of the problem of grand unification :)
It appears that this effect of the inertia becoming a driving force only shows up
during the acceleration, since when the rotational speed becomes constant, the inertia
stops playing the role as a force, it only acts as a mass.
I presume that the activating force will become close to 0.
QuoteIt appears that this effect of the inertia becoming a driving force only shows up
during the acceleration
If you also meant deceleration (which I believe is the common intent when referring to acceleration) then yes telecom, but I thought it best to make that clear since the device is cyclic and inertia works for us both ways. I have neglected to investigate if it might be possible to replace the force of inertia with our own resistance (e.g. driving a generator simultaneously) having been more concerned with promoting and explaining the basic concept; no shortage of engineers and inventors capable of taking the idea further so it seemed wise to run with it 'as is' in the hope of an ASAP result.
Inertia does provide us with a handy resistance 'bench mounted' to the universe so to speak. If we do substitute our own resistance the problem of where to mount it arises, but I would not be surprised to see a viable solution, the idea of an outer circle of coils was my first thought (bench mounted of course) but such things are better left to the professionals :)
Lately I have been more curious about the disk energy issue. If we allow the condition where the disk rotates once in the observer FoR for each rotor arm rotation (which can occur with a suitable arrangement) then in the FoR of the rotor arm the disk rotates twice for each rotation of the arm.
Since Ek = ½ mv² this implies we might somehow recover the energy spent motivating the disk X4 but for the problem of rotor arm reversal which if allowed must reduce the rate back to 1 (per arm rotation). I am hesitant to trot out new and untested ideas due to the barely credible nature of the material presented thus far. But here I think is a promising line of investigation, I have a few potential 'quick draw' solutions but this deserves serious unhurried contemplation.
Lately I have been more curious about the disk energy issue. If we allow the condition where the disk rotates once in the observer FoR for each rotor arm rotation (which can occur with a suitable arrangement) then in the FoR of the rotor arm the disk rotates twice for each rotation of the arm.
Hi Tusk.
I'm having a hard time understanding why disk rotates twice as high in a FoR of the rotating arm...
I'll give you two examples telecom, in case one doesn't hit the mark.
Easy one first, hold up one hand like a traffic cop 'stop' gesture. Hold up the other hand about half way out to the first with your index finger extended and gunsight the 6 o'clock position on the first hand with it. Now perform an orbital motion around your 'gunsight' finger with the first or 'stop' hand and note how it appears to rotate one full circle in the FoR of the finger.
With a frictionless bearing a disk orbiting on a rotor arm as in the PE apparatus does the same thing due to inertia, with no motivating force to cause it to do otherwise. If this were not so we might easily achieve OU by simply motivating a rotor arm with disks attached and reclaim the disk rotation energy along with the rotor arm energy. Possibly we might supply some other force at no cost to achieve this, but with Inertia waiting to do our bidding why complicate things and work backwards? ;)
In the illustration the same thing applies using a disk, a central axis and a mark on the disk. The rotor arm is implied but not shown. As the disk orbits clockwise the mark remains at the 6 o'clock position due to the inertia of the disk, so that in the FoR of the main axis the disk rotates twice with each orbit. In the observer FoR it only rotates once in each orbit.
We are spoilt for choice with the PE concept; I naturally went after those advantageous motions which seemed the more accessible. Which doesn't necessarily mean that this one is permanently out of reach, but we do face the problem of rotor arm reversal when recovering energy from an EM unit situated in the FoR of the rotor arm. I'm still not even certain whether a sudden 'impulse' type recovery would overcome the problem, there would definitely be a reversal but perhaps if this occurs rapidly enough we would not lose the extra energy. I doubt there exists guidance from a precedent due to the unique nature of the secondary reaction. One for future experimentation then.
I'm very sorry, Tusk,
but I'm not getting this!
Perhaps my IQ is not high enough to be able to understand this motion...
May be I should make some kind of a simple model out of cardboard to better see all the mechanics?
In any case, I can trust you that the speed of the disk is in fact 2X of the arm.
We will loose the momentum during the reversal of the arm, this is why may be to
make it to rotate with a constant speed, and yet produce an extra power?
Regards.
QuoteI'm not getting this
Not to worry telecom, we are covering a wide range of unique conditions so nobody could be expected to stay in step throughout the entire parade :)
I wonder if including the driven motion in the illustration would help? I'll also mark up the secondary reaction so you can see what's going on.
QuoteWe will loose the momentum during the reversal of the arm, this is why may be to
make it to rotate with a constant speed, and yet produce an extra power?
That's one solution, if it transpires that we can substitute an EM resistance and get continuous energy recovery. I think this limits the OU potential to 200% theoretical maximum, sacrificing the rotor arm reversal; but the continuous output would probably make that viable, maybe more so. Since we intend to use the rotor arm shaft as an output shaft that half of the system should be straightforward. An outer ring of coils (bench mounted) seems like a viable proposition as an inertial substitute and simultaneous EM recovery method, but this is uncharted territory. More experimentation required, although the current apparatus may suffice with the addition of some external elements.
Hi Tusk,
I think in the first picture you are referring to the disc driven by the rotation
of the arm where the inertia of the disc is keeping it in one position, making it to rotate.
In the second picture you add up a force from an EM drive, which I think
makes it to rotate even faster due to the reaction of the EM drive.
Now, 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?
Quoteit 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.
Quote from: Tusk on January 15, 2014, 11:53:24 PM
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.
Quoteit 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.
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?
QuoteHi Task
Actually (not that it's important) I prefer 'Tusk'. Your idea sounds too laborious :)
Quote
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.
QuoteYou 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.
Hi Tusk,
( finally the right way)
the pulley contact area will be half of the wheel only if they are of the same size,
as my experience with the bike chains tells me.
Quote from: Tusk on January 18, 2014, 10:55:09 PM
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.
In this case we need to use sliding contacts or brushes to retrieve the energy
back from the discs as well as accelerate them. This is not a trivial technical task,
IMHO.
Not necessarily telecom; the generator at the disk axis would be mounted on the rotor arm, so could feed the EM drive unit directly. And the generator at the main (rotor arm) axis might be mounted such that the armature remains stationary in the observer FoR while the stator/case mounted in the FoR of the rotor arm therefore rotates with the rotor arm. This would place all wiring in the FoR of the rotor arm, these ideas firing once again 'from the hip' btw, and largely as a result of your questions and suggestions :)
With regard to the main axis generator we might be looking at lower RPM (this depends on mass ratios, distribution etc) so a stepper motor should do the trick, bearing in mind there's a substantial OU potential here but the prototype need only achieve self running with maybe an LED or two for demonstration purposes. Also some sort of governor/regulator to stop everything 'running away' since a perfect balance of power required and power generated seems unlikely.
Hi Tusk,
so after all, it became a doable task!
This would place all wiring in the FoR of the rotor arm, these ideas firing once again 'from the hip' btw, and largely as a result of your questions and suggestions :)
If I understood your ideas correctly, you are talking about 2 generators:
One is mounted on a rotary arm either coaxial with the disc axis, or driven by the pulley attached to the disk axis
in such a way as to harvest an energy of the disc deceleration and, perhaps, to recharge the battery which
drives the EM drive for the disc acceleration.
The second generator is mounted inversely, where its stator with the wires being coaxial with the central axis of the rotary arm
and being rotated together with it, while the rotor is stationary in our FoR. This will serve to completely recharge the battery, so
the disc can be going On and Off "forever".
Or we can mount the second generator in a normal way attached to the rotating arm, in its FoR, but the rotor is driven by the pulley attached to the central axis of the rotating arm, which has to be stationary in this case in our FoR.
Why not to place an additional pulley on the rotating arm, coaxial to the central axis, and drive a third generator in our FoR, to power a couple of LEDs just for fun?
Also some sort of governor/regulator to stop everything 'running away' since a perfect balance of power required and power generated seems unlikely.
I think Bessler used a mechanical brakes for this purpose...
Regards.
Quoteso after all, it became a doable task!
Indeed, much less intimidating from an engineering perspective. There is still the problem of automatic control of the cycle sequence, timing etc; but not insurmountable even for a kit level electronics hobbyist. So yes, thanks to your input (and that of others such as webby1 and broli) we seem to have cooked up a relatively simple outline for a prototype self runner. I think there's enough information here for anyone to 'have a go' if they so desire. Much more convincing if someone else gets one up and running, although I will attempt it if time and resources permit.
Job done then 8)
May be we don't need a generator driven by the disk since the EM drive can become
a generator during the deceleration. Or instead of the EM drive can be used an
ordinary motor which drives the disc with something like a gear drive? Which
becomes a generator during the decel?
QuoteMay be we don't need a generator driven by the disk since the EM drive can become
a generator during the deceleration
The idea of the generator at the disk axis was to allow rotor arm motion to coast (or close to it) during disk energy recovery; this in the interest of simplicity, sacrificing the rotor arm reversal but reducing the complexity of the cycle. Also it gives you somewhere to go if OU isn't achieved with the first build due to inefficiency.
Quoteinstead of the EM drive can be used an
ordinary motor which drives the disc with something like a gear drive?
Again, probably ok but someone would need to look at that from an engineering viewpoint and establish if it will do the same job or cause some other effect/s. It looks ok at first glance but any departure from the basic concept runs the risk of adding complexity and therefore possibly not achieving OU due to some unnoticed change in the dynamics.
The idea of the generator at the disk axis was to allow rotor arm motion to coast (or close to it) during disk energy recovery; this in the interest of simplicity, sacrificing the rotor arm reversal but reducing the complexity of the cycle. Also it gives you somewhere to go if OU isn't achieved with the first build due to inefficiency.
Ok, now I understand your plan completely - it may do the job, generators aren't that expensive!
Again, probably ok but someone would need to look at that from an engineering viewpoint and establish if it will do the same job or cause some other effect/s. It looks ok at first glance but any departure from the basic concept runs the risk of adding complexity and therefore possibly not achieving OU due to some unnoticed change in the dynamics.
So we have to walk before starting running?
Exactly telecom, to have a simple prototype working which is relatively easy to build (and largely affordable) regardless of efficiency; provided it achieves OU it doesn't need to be useful other than as a technology demonstrator. The current apparatus was intended as 'proof of concept' but apparently the logic of it gets lost amid the convoluted explanations and the counter intuitive phenomenon of the secondary motion/reaction, amongst other things.
I suspect everyone would prefer a straightforward thingamyjig which achieves OU because of a simple effect (previously known and understood) clearly observed when you connect the thingamy to the jig. In reality nothing so simple is likely to achieve anything new and useful, much less OU.
May be you can come up with an actual sketch of the device, to simplify
the building process for DIY people?
Will this suffice?
Just an afterthought; at it's simplest I had recently envisaged a system with generators at the disk axes but not at the main rotor arm axis. By allowing the rotor arm to rotate freely the advantageous disk acceleration can be used to best effect, recovering (almost) the full measure of additional spin caused by rotor arm rotation in the frame of reference of the rotor arm. Some loss could be expected due to torque bias at the generators but with a minimal difference in radius between the inner and outer edge of the generator this should not be significant.
Therefore the following sketch represents a device which cycles 50% power and 50% recovery, operating with optimum efficiency at relatively high RPM. The mass distribution would be biased to the outer edge of the disks with a lightweight rotor arm. The aim here is to achieve as near as possible one full rotation of the rotor arm for each full rotation of the disks at the cost in energy of one full rotation of the disks; and recover almost the full amount in the frame of reference of the rotor arm in the recovery half of the cycle. Effectively that's nearly double the disk rotation, Ek = ½ mv² that's almost '4 out for 1 in' if we consider this in terms of velocity of the disk mass, although how that translates in terms of EM generators is another matter, but it can't be a bad thing.
This might even prove a better method than my original and somewhat convoluted concept, although I'm not entirely certain that the drive wheel at system centre won't affect the outcome in some unforeseen way, but the EM drive unit is a proven system which could replace the drive wheel if necessary.
Hi Tusk,
so no more EM drive, in its place there is a drive wheel?
The acceleration as well as deceleration is done by the generators?
Again, not very clear how to connect the wires to the generators, since they are rotating like crazy together with the rotor arm.
Also, how the energy from the rotation of the rotor arm is being recovered?
Regards.
Quoteso no more EM drive, in its place there is a drive wheel?
That's correct telecom, but as I've not had time to perform all the necessary experiments and/or research, theorising etc I can't be certain we can just drop the drive wheel in place of the EM drive unit without some unforeseen consequence; but it appears ok to do so at first glance.
QuoteThe acceleration as well as deceleration is done by the generators?
Negative, the drive wheel mounts directly on an electric motor which itself mounts on the rotor arm; this replaces the EM drive unit and provides the impetus for accelerating the disks.
Quotenot very clear how to connect the wires to the generators, since they are rotating like crazy together with the rotor arm.
With the drive motor and both generators being mounted on the rotor arm the whole electric/electronics package is in the same FoR.
Quotehow the energy from the rotation of the rotor arm is being recovered?
Well, it isn't and at the same time in a way it is; by working in the FoR of the rotor arm we recover the full additional rotation of the disks (which occurs due to rotor arm rotation and disk inertia and does not manifest in our observer FoR). So although we won't be targeting rotor arm motion specifically as an energy source, the motion itself is responsible for the additional disk rotation and since we will be recovering from this in full measure we lose nothing by the new method.
And as a possible bonus I had forgotten the ramifications of Ek = ½ mv² which in this instance suggests our theoretical x2 disk rotation (ergo velocity of disk mass = x2) should provide us with x4 energy at recovery. All this of course rides on the premise that each full rotation of the disks induced by the drive unit comes with a 'free' full rotation thanks to the motion caused by the secondary reaction at the disk axes.
I guess what you need to be convinced about then is
1. that additional rotation of the disk/s actually does manifest
2. that such additional rotation of the disk/s is 'free' (i.e. requires no additional impetus or expenditure of energy)
3. that by design an optimal mass distribution can be achieved by which one full rotation of the rotor arm manifests for each induced full rotation of the disk/s, or acceptably close to it such that the claimed 'two for one' rotation might be allowed as an approximation.
Since these points have been addressed in some depth the concept will as always be evaluated based on individual perception, at least until the completion of a full working prototype.
Quote from: Tusk on February 02, 2014, 09:29:09 AM
That's correct telecom, but as I've not had time to perform all the necessary experiments and/or research, theorising etc I can't be certain we can just drop the drive wheel in place of the EM drive unit without some unforeseen consequence; but it appears ok to do so at first glance.
I'm not going to shed tears about EM drive - a much better arrangement to get something off the shelf (as long as it works)
Negative, the drive wheel mounts directly on an electric motor which itself mounts on the rotor arm; this replaces the EM drive unit and provides the impetus for accelerating the disks.
With the drive motor and both generators being mounted on the rotor arm the whole electric/electronics package is in the same FoR.
Very clever.
Well, it isn't and at the same time in a way it is; by working in the FoR of the rotor arm we recover the full additional rotation of the disks (which occurs due to rotor arm rotation and disk inertia and does not manifest in our observer FoR). So although we won't be targeting rotor arm motion specifically as an energy source, the motion itself is responsible for the additional disk rotation and since we will be recovering from this in full measure we lose nothing by the new method.
Just want to point out that now we have discs and the rotor arm being mechanically interconnected, quite different from the previous design where they weren't
And as a possible bonus I had forgotten the ramifications of Ek = ½ mv² which in this instance suggests our theoretical x2 disk rotation (ergo velocity of disk mass = x2) should provide us with x4 energy at recovery. All this of course rides on the premise that each full rotation of the disks induced by the drive unit comes with a 'free' full rotation thanks to the motion caused by the secondary reaction at the disk axes.
Then they should induce the drive motor to become a generator?
I guess what you need to be convinced about then is
1. that additional rotation of the disk/s actually does manifest
2. that such additional rotation of the disk/s is 'free' (i.e. requires no additional impetus or expenditure of energy)
3. that by design an optimal mass distribution can be achieved by which one full rotation of the rotor arm manifests for each induced full rotation of the disk/s, or acceptably close to it such that the claimed 'two for one' rotation might be allowed as an approximation.
This can be easily calculated based on the diameters of the disc and drive wheel.
Since these points have been addressed in some depth the concept will as always be evaluated based on individual perception, at least until the completion of a full working prototype.
QuoteJust want to point out that now we have discs and the rotor arm being mechanically interconnected, quite different from the previous design where they weren't
But bear in mind that we have control over these connections telecom; with the generators in open circuit mode (during acceleration) resistance is minimised and the disks can be thought of as freewheeling. Which also applies to your next question:
QuoteThen they should induce the drive motor to become a generator?
To which the answer is no, we need to open circuit the drive motor during recovery at the generators. Otherwise a reversed secondary reaction at the axes would retard rotation of the rotor arm, with the result that we would lose that additional rotation of the disks; in simple terms this would amount to a reversal of the physics and therefore no gain. Bias is good, asymmetry also; we seize the advantage by first going one way, then coming back by a different route.
And in reference to achieving a full additional rotation of the disks for each induced rotation:
QuoteThis can be easily calculated based on the diameters of the disc and drive wheel.
Actually I was thinking more along the lines of mass distribution. As an example, if we biased the mass of the disks toward the centre then a higher rate of rotation may be achieved with the same applied force, yet the rotor arm mass (which includes disk mass) remains unchanged, and will not achieve a higher rate. With the mass bias away from centre we can expect lower disk rates, again no change in rotor arm rates. Therefore our bias should be away from disk centre so we stand a better chance of achieving a '1 for 1' induced rotation to inertial rotation.
I am concerned that if we are not careful someone might build a prototype which fouls itself with common torque reactions, much as webby1 did but more convincingly (i.e. a more sophisticated build yet incorrectly designed). It was for this reason that the current PE apparatus has an EM drive unit. By avoiding the drive wheel option the physics at least is simplified, if not the build. But there seems to be a need to cut corners at this point, and the gamble is an honest one, also quite well informed.
The consideration should always be foremost that the secondary motion manifest in any PE device by virtue of the phenomenon of secondary reaction at the disk axis as previously discussed (in great depth) and not as a result of common torque reaction. The secondary motion as described occurs with no additional input or loss other than the requirement for the original and intended applied force to advance it's point of force more rapidly as a result of the additional acceleration. Deducing exactly what this costs us in terms of energy is not a simple matter, but it is clear that the price can not possibly account for the gain. The data confirms this, as does simple logic:
If we can push a wheelbarrow full of bricks with no assistance at 1mph, then the extra impetus provided by a helpful workmate allowing us to move at 2mph must grant us some advantage, even though we must now increase our forward velocity. Otherwise what value (and indeed fate) the additional impetus supplied by our workmate?
The PE device has the phenomenon of secondary motion (which has it's origins in inertia) as it's workmate. Such motion is additional to that caused by, and accounted for fully by the applied force. There can be no advantage with a common torque reaction, and mistaking one for the other appears to be the likely cause of much of the skepticism surrounding this concept.
Actually I was thinking more along the lines of mass distribution. As an example, if we biased the mass of the disks toward the centre then a higher rate of rotation may be achieved with the same applied force, yet the rotor arm mass (which includes disk mass) remains unchanged, and will not achieve a higher rate. With the mass bias away from centre we can expect lower disk rates, again no change in rotor arm rates. Therefore our bias should be away from disk centre so we stand a better chance of achieving a '1 for 1' induced rotation to inertial rotation.
May be I'm not getting something, as usual, but it appears to me that in the most recent design discs and the rotor arm are mechanically interconnected through a drive wheel, therefor their speeds ratio is set.
In this case we can speak of a torque increase, not a speed increase?
QuoteIn this case we can speak of a torque increase, not a speed increase?
Possibly my failure this time telecom; I don't have even the slightest idea what your meaning is, or where you are going with it. We'd better back up a little, how would you define a mechanical connection, since that's where we seem to have lost the plot?
Also I do feel an obligation to retract the following statement:
QuoteThere can be no advantage with a common torque reaction
.... for a couple of reasons. Never say never, for starters. Also I'm familiar enough with the dark art of frame of reference manipulation to suspect there may even be a way to gain an advantage, but I'll leave it at that for now. Another thread perhaps, at some other time, if nobody else chases it down in the meanwhile.
Hi Tusk,
what I'm trying to say is that according to your picture, the drive wheel
which I presume is a gear, meshes up with discs through some kind a gear arrangement,
which makes both discs, drive wheel and rotary arm to be mechanically interconnected,
as a result when we increase the rpm of the discs, rpm of the rotary arm goes up
automatically - or may be I'm wrong?
You had me worried there for a minute telecom; but I can see where you are coming from now, I think:
Quoteas a result when we increase the rpm of the discs, rpm of the rotary arm goes up automatically
I assume you are referring to the fact that the drive motor is mounted on the rotor arm, so that the torque reaction to the impetus for driving the disks will drive the rotor arm anti clockwise (according to the diagram currently in use). Which incidentally is counter to the direction of turn due to secondary reaction at the disk axes. Let's have that image up again for a closer look.
Sorry to oversimplify but when two people of identical weight sit on a see-saw, one at the extreme end on one side with the other near the centre, the one with the greater moment arm (i.e. the one at the end) always dominates. Similarly here my intent is to discard the cost of the counter reaction at the centre as insignificant, in the name of simplicity. We could always bench mount the motor, but that would create another problem - we would lose a sizable lump of our FoR advantage with the motor case static. I'm fairly certain that the optimal arrangement is as described, with the motor rotating in the FoR of the rotor arm; such rotation as is caused by the secondary reaction at the disk axes, since the other impetus as mentioned above works counter to the dominant rotation.
In short the answer to your question is no, while there does exist an opposing torque to the rotation the only impetus for the achieved rotation is the secondary reaction at the disk axes.
I'm not sure that covers your question completely; we may be forced to accept that we think about this from different perspectives. First and foremost I see mass in motion and frames of reference; I try to follow the flow of motion through the various frames of reference looking for bias or asymmetry, advantage and disadvantage. Only when things become absolutely clear do I reference against convention looking for error or paradox, so that convention is not my 'first language' as it were, so apologies if I have missed something which seems obvious.
Hi Tusk,
never mind, I have nothing against the way you describe the mass distribution and reactions,
I think that this device should work as envisioned by you, just to summarize:
Drive motor's stator with the wires is attached to the rotating arm, and the shaft is stationary;
Generators are connected to the drive motor within the rotor arm FoR
The drive motor goes On and Off making the assembly to cycle:
When its On, generators produce power to cover most of the drive motor requirements
When Off - generators keep giving and the energy is being stored in the battery,
which in turn is connected to the drive motor?
Is this how you've envisioned the setup?
Regards.
QuoteThe drive motor goes On and Off making the assembly to cycle:
When its On, generators produce power to cover most of the drive motor requirements
When Off - generators keep giving and the energy is being stored in the battery,
which in turn is connected to the drive motor
Only one major change I would make to that telecom:
You have the generators 'on' all the time, whereas I intended they be open circuit or 'off' during the power half of each cycle. Otherwise the resistance from the generators would interfere with the creation of the secondary reaction. There is no loss incurred by simply allowing a mass to 'spool up' since we can recover the KE after turning the power off. And in this instance because we will probably be getting a second free rotation (or near to it) for every induced rotation of the disks (in the FoR of the rotor arm) it is more than a little advantageous to do so; providing we recover the energy in the same FoR without significantly reducing rotor arm motion, which we can achieve by this method.
I would have liked to develop a system which runs at a constant velocity/rate but realistically with this asymmetric phenomenon it should be no surprise that the device needs to be cyclic.
I think I understand exactly what you are trying to achieve, and as somebody liked to say:
"Practice is the final criteria of the truth"
So we just have to wait until someone will invest some time and, perhaps, money
into building this machine to find out if it actually works as you envisioned.
Regards.
Quotewe just have to wait until someone will invest some time and, perhaps, money
into building this machine to find out if it actually works as you envisioned
Belay that telecom, I just found an error in the design of this 'quick and dirty' version; I'm blaming you, always trying to simplify the build lol (just kidding, entirely my mistake).
You got me thinking about torque reactions from a conventional point of view, just as well; I missed something important with all this 'rough and ready' build simplification. Unfortunately we can't mitigate adverse torque effects on the rotor arm by recovering E with generators at the disk axes; it looks like the rotor arm E recovery (both forward and reverse) is the only way to go, so I'm falling back on my original design. The dynamics are a little convoluted but the physics is sound. The aforementioned 'simple build' would just erode rotor arm motion with the result that the additional rotation of the disks would be lost in the recovery half of the cycle.
Not surprising really, if it was that easy someone would have already stumbled on it by chance. But I think that throwing these alternate ideas around doesn't hurt, provided we don't forget to check our sums before changing direction.
The secondary motion manifest in the rotation of the rotor arm is key; best to let it 'do it's thing' and recover the E as originally described, then recover from the disk/s which induces a second (reverse) rotor arm rotation, which is then recovered to finally end the cycle ready to go around again. I would definitely go for the twin disks though, no point in wasting energy accelerating a counterweight.
Hi Tusk,
in this case, can we replace the E drive with the DC motor/generator, located at the same spot,
but transmitting the torque by the gear drive?
It is much more convenient to get an off the shelf component rather than a self-made one.
Quotecan we replace the E drive with the DC motor/generator, located at the same spot,
but transmitting the torque by the gear drive?
I have been considering this option for some time and can uncover no serious problems with it. I would opt for a drive wheel of similar diameter to that of the motor's rotor, and once again recommend a twin disk arrangement. Some sort of clutch mechanism might be advisable, to avoid drag on the disks during recovery of rotor arm energy.
With both a generator and motor situated at system centre the engineering challenge increases; but not beyond precedent, we could assume.
This is a really good thread! Keep up the good work Tusk! Below is a copy and paste summary of a publication on the kinetic energy equation, by Miles Mathis (reference link provided below).
Why is the velocity squared in the kinetic energy equation, E = ½mv2? Why should the energy depend on the square of the velocity? We have the same question with the equation E = mc2. Why square the speed of light? Why should the energy depend on c2? Or, to extend the question, why should the energy of any moving object, moving with a constant velocity, depend on the square of that velocity?
In Miles Mathis' paper on photon motion (http://milesmathis.com/photon2.html), he showed how the measured wavelength and the real wavelength of the photon differ by a factor of c2. This is because the linear motion of the photon stretches the spin wavelength. The linear velocity is c, of course, and the circular velocity approaches 1/c. The difference between the two is c2. Energy, like velocity, is a relative measurement. A quantum with a certain energy has that energy only relative to us, since it has its velocity only relative to us. If the wavelength has to be multiplied by c2 in order to match it to our measurements, then the mass or mass equivalence will also. Hence the equation E = mc2. In this way, c2 is not a velocity or a velocity squared, it is a velocity transform. It tells us how much the wavelength is stretched, and therefore how much the mass and energy are stretched, due to the motion of the object.
The same analysis can be applied to any object. The energy of any object is determined by summing the energies of its constituent atomic and quantum particles, and all these particles also have spins. The quanta will impart this spin energy in collision, so this spin energy must be included in the total kinetic energy. So the short answer is that the kinetic energy equation, like the equation E = mc2, always included the spin energy; but no one recognized that. Just as with the photon, all matter has a wavelength (see de Broglie), and the wavelength is determined by spin. The spin has a radius, and this radius is the local wavelength. Any linear velocity of the spinning particle will stretch our measurement of this wavelength, in a simple mechanical manner, as Mathis showed in the photon paper. As the linear velocity increases, the spin velocity relative to the linear velocity decreases, by a factor of 1/v. This makes the difference between the linear velocity and the spin velocity v2. The term v2 transforms the local wavelength into the measured wavelength. This is why we find the term in the energy equation.
The only question remaining is why we have the term ½ in the kinetic energy equation. The reason is simple. We are basically multiplying a wavelength transform by a mass, in order to calculate an energy. So we have to look at how the mass and the wavelength interact. Mathis has shown that the wavelength is caused by stacking several spins (at least two spins), so what we have is a material particle spinning end-over-end. If we look at this spin over any extended time interval, we find that half the time the material particle is moving in the reverse direction of the linear motion. Circular motion cannot follow linear motion, of course, and if we average the circular motion over time, only half the circular motion will match the linear vector. This means that half the effective mass will be lost, hence the equation we have.
Reference: The kinetic Energy equation (http://milesmathis.com/kinetic.html), by Miles Mathis
Additional Resources: Angular Velocity and Angular Momentum (http://milesmathis.com/angle.html), by Miles Mathis (Both current equations are shown to be false)
Gravock
Thanks gravityblock, both for the links and the encouragement. Mr Mathis appears at first glance to have winkled out most of the bugs in the literature already. It will take some serious time to wade through his website, but well worth it I suspect. My own small corner seems trivial by comparison, but we can only do our best. I often wonder that the possibility of a 'free' force fails to spark much interest, other than (largely) skepticism. So it's refreshing when someone has a positive reaction to the concept.
Meanwhile I kept thinking about the implication of the conservation of the momentum, which is correct, vs conservation
of energy, which is false.
There is a very interesting thread about this subject at bessler wheel with some practical examples:
http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2580
Quote from: gravityblock on September 08, 2014, 12:21:52 AM
This is a really good thread! Keep up the good work Tusk! Below is a copy and paste summary of a publication on the kinetic energy equation, by Miles Mathis (reference link provided below).
Why is the velocity squared in the kinetic energy equation, E = ½mv2? Why should the energy depend on the square of the velocity? We have the same question with the equation E = mc2. Why square the speed of light? Why should the energy depend on c2? Or, to extend the question, why should the energy of any moving object, moving with a constant velocity, depend on the square of that velocity?
In Miles Mathis' paper on photon motion (http://milesmathis.com/photon2.html), he showed how the measured wavelength and the real wavelength of the photon differ by a factor of c2. This is because the linear motion of the photon stretches the spin wavelength. The linear velocity is c, of course, and the circular velocity approaches 1/c. The difference between the two is c2. Energy, like velocity, is a relative measurement. A quantum with a certain energy has that energy only relative to us, since it has its velocity only relative to us. If the wavelength has to be multiplied by c2 in order to match it to our measurements, then the mass or mass equivalence will also. Hence the equation E = mc2. In this way, c2 is not a velocity or a velocity squared, it is a velocity transform. It tells us how much the wavelength is stretched, and therefore how much the mass and energy are stretched, due to the motion of the object.
The same analysis can be applied to any object. The energy of any object is determined by summing the energies of its constituent atomic and quantum particles, and all these particles also have spins. The quanta will impart this spin energy in collision, so this spin energy must be included in the total kinetic energy. So the short answer is that the kinetic energy equation, like the equation E = mc2, always included the spin energy; but no one recognized that. Just as with the photon, all matter has a wavelength (see de Broglie), and the wavelength is determined by spin. The spin has a radius, and this radius is the local wavelength. Any linear velocity of the spinning particle will stretch our measurement of this wavelength, in a simple mechanical manner, as Mathis showed in the photon paper. As the linear velocity increases, the spin velocity relative to the linear velocity decreases, by a factor of 1/v. This makes the difference between the linear velocity and the spin velocity v2. The term v2 transforms the local wavelength into the measured wavelength. This is why we find the term in the energy equation.
The only question remaining is why we have the term ½ in the kinetic energy equation. The reason is simple. We are basically multiplying a wavelength transform by a mass, in order to calculate an energy. So we have to look at how the mass and the wavelength interact. Mathis has shown that the wavelength is caused by stacking several spins (at least two spins), so what we have is a material particle spinning end-over-end. If we look at this spin over any extended time interval, we find that half the time the material particle is moving in the reverse direction of the linear motion. Circular motion cannot follow linear motion, of course, and if we average the circular motion over time, only half the circular motion will match the linear vector. This means that half the effective mass will be lost, hence the equation we have.
Reference: The kinetic Energy equation (http://milesmathis.com/kinetic.html), by Miles Mathis
Additional Resources: Angular Velocity and Angular Momentum (http://milesmathis.com/angle.html), by Miles Mathis (Both current equations are shown to be false)
Gravock
"Surely you are joking, Mr. Feynman."
Gravock, you have brought that famous quote to my mind. Are you
really serious that you don't understand why, according to Newton physics and math, the kinetic energy energy equation has velocity SQUAREd?
Many people don't understand why the 1/2 is there. Do you understand why the 1/2 is there?
And do you really not understand why, within the internal logic of Relativity, Einstein left out the 1/2 in his famous Energy equation?
I am not trying to start a debate with you. I just want you to tell me that you are not joking and really do not understand it.
CANGAS 68
I tested similar egnine in home
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-tTKz3l1Nags/U0lU8jd6WQI/AAAAAAAABs4/ibvXKYSBnN4/s1600/d11.jpg
forces
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-afSuLz8Vznw/U0lQvhi6XCI/AAAAAAAABsw/YgXuEaNnTSw/s1600/r2.jpg
Why and how works similar engines ?
http://youtu.be/HXKwNvA8VHs
Quote from: CANGAS on September 09, 2014, 03:26:26 AM
"Surely you are joking, Mr. Feynman."
Gravock, you have brought that famous quote to my mind. Are you really serious that you don't understand why, according to Newton physics and math, the kinetic energy energy equation has velocity SQUAREd?
Many people don't understand why the 1/2 is there. Do you understand why the 1/2 is there?
And do you really not understand why, within the internal logic of Relativity, Einstein left out the 1/2 in his famous Energy equation?
I am not trying to start a debate with you. I just want you to tell me that you are not joking and really do not understand it.
CANGAS 68
This isn't a scientific or mathematical rebuttal to what I posted. Please post your rebuttal so we may start the debate in which you do not want to start.
Gravock
hey i Like design and speak about theory !!!
fast rotation is changing body Q = m*g
problem is very simple to explain
Posts: 730
m=1kg
V respect to electric engine's stative
R- earth center distance
R = 6400 000 meters
m*V^2 /R = m*g
V^2 = R * m*g / m
V^2 = R*g = 64000000
V = 8 000 m/s
What mean above equation ? please study Ytube
http://youtu.be/HXKwNvA8VHs
I designed engine and I made test ( Nasa informed about own raport 4 weeks ago - my first test 2012 )
http://tesla4.blogspot.com
You are using g = acceleration of Earth's gravity = about 10 m/s2 ?
It would be helpful to us novices if you would put your units into your calculations. I just spent half an hour trying to figure out your equation using the universal gravitational constant G instead of Earth's gravitational acceleration, and of course the units don't work out in that case.
Is there any "law of conservation of work" ? something like : for the same input energy it is always the same amount of work done ?
Hi Tesla2, your concept makes no reference to the secondary reaction at the centre of mass for which there is a definition in my OP. The secondary reaction is at the very core of this concept (although there are other vital elements in employing it effectively) and I recommend that you examine it. While there appears to be no mention of it in the literature, I have sufficient data and theoretical support to make a strong claim that it manifests as described.
QuoteIs there any "law of conservation of work" ? something like : for the same input energy it is always the same amount of work done ?
Hi forest, assuming that was tongue in cheek (if not then apologies) so consider the secondary reaction - i.e. a force equal to the applied force - which has the unique ability to accelerate a mass while maintaining frame of reference with that mass; or more simply, much like a rocket engine, velocity has no impact on either the work done or the acceleration - although the rocket must eject mass to function whereas the secondary reaction does not. The rocket engine (or reaction engine if you prefer) always applies force from the frame of reference of the body on which it acts so that acceleration from say 10m/sec to 20m/sec costs no more than acceleration from 110m/sec to 120m/sec.
Sadly most of the rocket's energy goes out the back with the ejecta. With the secondary reaction there is no such issue, just a 'free' additional force that applies unaffected by the velocity of the mass on which it acts. Therefore work done accelerating the PE apparatus' disk simultaneously accelerates the main rotor arm (which carries the disk) and does so not by simple torque effects but by the secondary reaction at the centre of mass of the disk (the axis) which manifests at no additional cost other than a more rapidly accelerating disk, which would be a curse if we were attempting to motivate the thing with springs but with EM motivation it's more of a blessing. So that due to the nature of the secondary reaction, our main rotor arm accelerates by motivation of a force which recognizes no starting point; accelerating much like a rocket engine, paying no respect whatsoever to the usual cost of the v² in the equation (which typically demands respect when the force is anchored in the initial frame of reference).
I have spent many hours trying to theorise some reason why this extra force might not provide additional energy/work other than CoE; but the theory always comes back around to supporting the experimental data. Once you allow the existence of the secondary reaction the main theme is pretty much self evident.
It appears the force of the secondary reaction is the result of utilizing the portion of the kinetic energy of the object during the time period when the circular motion is in the reverse direction of the linear motion as a result of it's spin energy (see snapshot below for better clarification). This means that 100% of the effective mass will be utilized, instead of only half of the effective mass, thus we can drop the ½ in our kinetic energy equation, for it doesn't apply in this particular case! I think this is in-line with what Tusk has been describing and with what the data is showing, which is E = mv2 in regards to this concept, while providing a solution to this paradox by using simple mechanics! I would love to hear your thoughts!
Gravock
It's a slightly uncomfortable fit Gravock but certainly under acceleration/deceleration the receding side of the disk still 'pulls it weight' in terms of inertia (or inertial resistance if you prefer) from the point of view of the EM drive unit; and in so doing creates an inertial lever action at the disk cm/axis which I have named the 'secondary reaction'. So in that respect yes, there is a manifest advantage due to the reverse direction of half the disk.
With the disk axis secured this reaction has little or no part to play, but by allowing movement of the disk axis (circular as with the PE apparatus although a linear motion is also possible, since the secondary reaction is linear and parallel to the applied force) our only real problem is keeping up with the advancing disk as it accelerates away from our point of applied force. I went some way towards solving this issue with geometry and an EM drive unit but alas, the apparatus looks like a trick of simple torque effects to all but the most perceptive eyes.
It might have been preferable to have the disk on a carriage mounted on a magnetic rail drive, thus removing torque as an issue. Actually for clarity the disk should be mass biased to it's outer circumference, so then a ring mass, which has the same (or similar) inertial mass in both linear and rotational motion. In such a configuration I am quite confident that the rotating disk (ring mass) would arrive at the limit of travel of the rail with more energy than a non-rotating disk, and for no additional input; since the secondary reaction must accelerate the rotating disk equally to the non-rotating (axis secured) disk, yet the axis free disk must rotate.
Quote from: gravityblock on September 09, 2014, 07:03:19 AM
This isn't a scientific or mathematical rebuttal to what I posted. Please post your rebuttal so we may start the debate in which you do not want to start.
Gravock
QuoteThis isn't a scientific or mathematical rebuttal
LOL! You don't miss a clue, Sherlock. Your guess is correct. My post was actually a simple QUESTION. And you have evaded it, but have have amply answered it by implication.
It looks like you don't have a clue where the v "SQUARED" came from in the Newton physics Kinetic Energy Equation, or, the "1/2" in the same equation. Which therefore explains why you don't have a clue why Einstein left out the "1/2" in his famous Energy Equation.
CANGAS 69
Quote from: CANGAS on September 10, 2014, 03:14:02 AM
LOL! You don't miss a clue, Sherlock. Your guess is correct. My post was actually a simple QUESTION. And you have evaded it, but have have amply answered it by implication.
It looks like you don't have a clue where the v "SQUARED" came from in the Newton physics Kinetic Energy Equation, or, the "1/2" in the same equation. Which therefore explains why you don't have a clue why Einstein left out the "1/2" in his famous Energy Equation.
CANGAS 69
The question was answered prior to you asking it, and can be found in the reference links of the papers I have already provided. Maybe you should read those papers and learn something!
Gravock
Gentlemen, please; may I suggest pistols at dawn...... spring powered ball bearing type I think, with the following specifications:
Pistol A: 1kg force spring (at max compression) effective force 500g over 10cm (from full compression) loaded with 1 x 50g shot
Pistol B: The same type spring loaded with 1 x 200g shot
No paces, just turn and shoot, point blank range; choose your weapon....... no perhaps not. How about points for best range and most damage (dummy target) ? We might all learn something useful.
Quote from: gravityblock on September 10, 2014, 07:21:30 AM
The question was answered prior to you asking it, and can be found in the reference links of the papers I have already provided. Maybe you should read those papers and learn something!
Gravock
My question was a very simple question, easily answered by YES or NO. I asked if you seriously believe that the "squared" and the "1/2" in the Newton Kinetic Energy Equation are not adequately explained by Newtonian physics.
Instead of simply saying YES or NO, you have fancy-danced and double talked.
Maybe you should answer a simple question with an even simpler answer.
CANGAS 72
Quote from: Tusk on September 10, 2014, 08:02:06 AM
Gentlemen, please; may I suggest pistols at dawn...... spring powered ball bearing type I think, with the following specifications:
Pistol A: 1kg force spring (at max compression) effective force 500g over 10cm (from full compression) loaded with 1 x 50g shot
Pistol B: The same type spring loaded with 1 x 200g shot
No paces, just turn and shoot, point blank range; choose your weapon....... no perhaps not. How about points for best range and most damage (dummy target) ? We might all learn something useful.
Choose my weapon? OK, my 44 revolver.
But what for? Kill a man because he won't answer my simple question? My best friend Jesus would not like that....
What is so volatile about my question? I simply want to know if he does, or, does not, believe that the Newton formula for kinetic energy is internally self consistent. If you have been noticing alertly, you will alertly recognize that I have not stated a pro or con belief, but have simply asked for his belief. I have asked if he understands how the Kinetic Energy Equation was derived and therefore if he understands how the specific terms came to be, and if he understands whether it is all self consistent or not. And he will bend over backwards and whistle Dixie instead of saying YES or NO!!
One to beam up, Scotty.
CANGAS 72
QuoteChoose my weapon? OK, my 44 revolver.
Hmmmm. You have gone beyond the boundaries of the proposed experimental parameters CANGAS. If I may borrow a relevant term from the sporting realm, 'foul!' (blows whistle).
Since your question was aimed specifically at gravock there seems little point in engaging with it. With some relief, bearing in mind the obvious challenge it represents, a clear 'calling out' much like the ornery gunfighter in the saloon scene of an old western. So I guess there's no suprise you went straight for that 44 stuffed down your breeches. And I thought you were just pleased to see me.
But staying with the metaphor, I suppose the job of barkeep in this little drama is down to me. I'm simply trying to keep the peace and help maintain some focus on the main topic. We don't want no trouble around here stranger. This is a quiet town. So quiet there's days you couldn't snuff your cigar in the spittoon.
The raison d'etre for this thread is the PE device and associated concepts, which may well call for a discussion of v² and the "1/2" in the energy equation but would probably be best served by an absence of gunfights. I can either pour you another glass of rotgut or fetch the big double out from under the bar.
So; you skin that smoke wagon and we'll see what happens. ;)
Just a couple of points:
Kinetic energy was introduced not by Newton, but by Leibniz and a Hertz later, who was writing a book on it,
but passed away before finishing.
The conservation of energy doesn't hold - funny, just last week was reading a book in the library about
conservation of the momentum, where they have an example of the elastic collision between two bodies.
When they make a balance of the energy before and after, they find a huge gap - they conclude that the collision was unelastic,
since they can't find any other explanation for the gap...
Quote from: telecom on September 11, 2014, 12:21:50 PM
Just a couple of points:
Kinetic energy was introduced not by Newton, but by Leibniz and a Hertz later, who was writing a book on it,
but passed away before finishing.
The conservation of energy doesn't hold - funny, just last week was reading a book in the library about
conservation of the momentum, where they have an example of the elastic collision between two bodies.
When they make a balance of the energy before and after, they find a huge gap - they conclude that the collision was unelastic,
since they can't find any other explanation for the gap...
Yes, good point! It is shown by experiment the conservation of mass doesn't hold either! So, how can the kinetic energy equation be internally self-consistent when we have a conservation of mass violation, and mass itself is inside the kinetic energy equation?
Gravock
Quote from: gravityblock on September 11, 2014, 01:43:57 PM
Yes, good point! It is shown by experiment the conservation of mass doesn't hold either! So, how can the kinetic energy equation be internally self-consistent when we have a conservation of mass violation, and mass itself is inside the kinetic energy equation?
Gravock
Theoretically, if we can instantly transfer the whole momentum from a heavier object to a lighter object, then we can create as much excess energy as we like according to the kinetic energy equation of KE = ½mv
2.
A 5 kg mass moving 1 m/s has 5 units of momentum and has a kinetic energy of 2.5J. A 1 kg mass moving 5 m/s has 5 units of momentum and has a kinetic energy of 12.5J
12.5J > 2.5J !!! Is this internally self-consistent?
Thanks,
Gravock
Quote from: gravityblock on September 11, 2014, 03:01:54 PM
Theoretically, if we can instantly transfer the whole momentum from a heavier object to a lighter object, then we can create as much excess energy as we like according to the kinetic energy equation of KE = ½mv2.
A 5 kg mass moving 1 m/s has 5 units of momentum and has a kinetic energy of 2.5J. A 1 kg mass moving 5 m/s has 5 units of momentum and has a kinetic energy of 12.5J
12.5J > 2.5J !!! Is this internally self-consistent?
Thanks,
Gravock
from this link:
http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2580&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=1440&sid=124f83a7597ad50ff3c6977aba01a0b2
PostPosted: Tue Jan 14, 2014 9:47 am Post subject: re: energy producing experiments Reply with quote Report Post to Admin
http://video.mit.edu/watch/mit-physics-demo-low-friction-atwood-machine-3138/
Yes: the 10 gram is causing all the motion; it is the only unbalanced force. This is 10 grams accelerating 1110 grams
.
I did not say their experiment made energy. But add to this the experimental concept proven by the double and triple Atwood's and you have a means of making energy. This concept is that the Laws of Levers applies to Atwood's pulleys connected over the same axis but with different radii. As described below.
Let's say that the radius of the pulley is 8cm.
550 grams on the left side at 8 cm places a certain torque on the point of rotation. This torque is perfectly countered with an equal amount of torque from 550 grams on the right side at 8 cm.
The extra 10 grams on the right side is the accelerating force of .01 kg * 9.81 N/kg = .0981N which is expressed as torque upon the center point of rotation. These 10 grams of measured force remains constant throughout the acceleration. There is not one force for the static position and then another force for the acceleration. Acceleration can be determined from F = ma; F/m = a; .0981 N / 1.110 kg = .08838 m/sec²
The individual torque of each 550 grams was caused by the gravitational pull on the mass. The one side's torque canceled the others side's torque but the inertia of the 550 (1100 grams) grams is not canceled. This inertia is proportional to the previously existing torque.
In Newtonian Physics inertia is measured by the change in momentum (linear Newtonian momentum) caused by an applied force. The change in linear Newtonian momentum of both 550 gram sides is equal. The bobs are viewed as going in the same positive direction.
55 grams at 80 cm has an equal amount of torque as 550 grams at 8 cm. If you try to move the 55 grams at 80 cm you will find that it acts like it has an equal amount of inertia from the point of rotation as 550 grams at 8 cm. When moved; it also has an equal amount of linear Newtonian momentum, and an equal amount of centrifugal force. The system is balanced and it acts like it.
The 10 gram will accelerate the 55 g at 80 cm just as easily as 550 g at 8 cm; in fact it will accelerate two 55 grams on each side at 80 cm just as easily as it accelerates two 550 grams at 8 cm on both sides. The final velocity for the 10 grams (left at the 8 cm position) with two 55 grams at 80 cm will be exactly the same as when you had two 550 grams at 8 cm; with the additional 10 grams at the 8 cm position. And the velocity of the 10 grams will be .42 m/sec. Velocity can be determined by a rearrangement of the distance formula: v = the square root of (2 * d * a) = the square root of (2 * 1 m * .08837m/sec²)
After a drop of one meter for the 10 grams; the 110 (55 + 55) grams on a 80 cm wheel will be moving 4.2 m/sec; this (1/2mv²) is .971 joules of energy. The input energy was (10 grams dropped one meter.01 kg * 9.81 N/kg *1 m =) .0981 joules. Roughly 10 times the energy
For a logical proof place 550 grams on one side at 8 cm and 54 grams on the other side at 80 cm. The 550 grams will rotate the 54 grams. Place 550 grams on one side at 8cm and 56 grams on the other side at 80 cm. The 550 grams will be rotated by the 56 grams. With 55 gram on the other side at 80 cm there will be no rotation.
Now place 550 grams on one side at 8cm and 549 grams on the other side at 8 cm. The 550 grams will rotate the 549 grams. Place 550 on one side at 8 cm and 551 grams on the other side at 8 cm. The 550 grams will be rotated by the 551 grams. With 550 grams on both sides there will be no rotation.
Conclusion: the Difficulty of rotating 55 grams at 80 cm is somewhere between the difficulty of rotating 549 grams at 8 cm and 551 grams at 8 cm.
When an outside force is asked to accelerate 55 grams at 80 cm it will find it as difficult (somewhere between 549 grams at 8 cm and 551 grams at 8 cm) as rotating 550 grams at 8 cm. Don't buy into the myth that a different force takes over as soon as motion begins. Their experiment proves that the 10 grams of force starts the motion and it stays with the system throughout the one meter drop. The 4.80 seconds is predicted for the 10 grams of force (.0981 N) by F = ma. d = 1/2at² = 4.757 seconds.
The 110 grams moving 4.2 m/sec could rise .889 meters for .110 kg * 9.81 N/kg * .889 m = .9702 joules
Detractors will try to angular momentum you; but Atwood's are linear and Angular Momentum is for space.
I get the impression from this:
QuoteWhen they make a balance of the energy before and after, they find a huge gap - they conclude that the collision was unelastic,
since they can't find any other explanation for the gap...
and this:
QuoteTheoretically, if we can instantly transfer the whole momentum from a heavier object to a lighter object, then we can create as much excess energy as we like according to the kinetic energy equation of KE = ½mv2.
......that you are both standing at the edge, willing yet not quite ready to take a leap of faith. Very interesting points made, but that OU device still not quite revealing itself. Whilst I am uncomfortable presenting work for which I have not yet formulated a robust explanation perhaps in this instance there should be an exception. Not knowing if you have accepted the secondary reaction at the cm/axis, there is the risk of firing blanks but here goes.
Allow me to repeat an earlier statement re the secondary reaction:
Quotea force equal to the applied force - which has the unique ability to accelerate a mass while maintaining frame of reference with that mass; or more simply, much like a rocket engine, velocity has no impact on either the work done or the acceleration - although the rocket must eject mass to function whereas the secondary reaction does not. The rocket engine (or reaction engine if you prefer) always applies force from the frame of reference of the body on which it acts so that acceleration from say 10m/sec to 20m/sec costs no more than acceleration from 110m/sec to 120m/sec.
In case you missed it, a mass accelerated from 110m/sec to 120m/sec gains substantially more KE than the same mass accelerated from 10m/sec to 20m/sec (thanks v²). Which typically suggests more work is done to achieve that gain (since the distance covered by the point of force is far greater, and this typically costs us dearly). But with the secondary reaction, which manifests in the FoR of the cm regardless of it's velocity, we now have the means to realise this gain. While not actually missing it the first time around, I am culpable in terms of distracted focus; perhaps beguiled by the dynamics of the PE with it's curious motions.
Anyway, since we can easily bring our drive disk/s back to a manageable rate of rotation ready for another acceleration cycle without losing E in the main rotor arm - using regenerative braking btw, therefore much of the disk E is recovered -
it is inevitable that at some point our main rotor arm will achieve OU.In simple terms we have a constant force (although possibly periodic as we cycle the disk/s) applied to a mass (the main rotor arm and all parts thereof) accelerating (therefore) at a constant rate due to a (nearly) constant input. I say nearly because as the rotor arm rotation rate increases the apparent disk rotation rate over the central axis of the unit increases, which will eventually create an upper limit. But I firmly believe this is just a matter of optimal engineering.
Quote from: Tusk on September 11, 2014, 08:11:26 AM
Hmmmm. You have gone beyond the boundaries of the proposed experimental parameters CANGAS. If I may borrow a relevant term from the sporting realm, 'foul!' (blows whistle).
Since your question was aimed specifically at gravock there seems little point in engaging with it. With some relief, bearing in mind the obvious challenge it represents, a clear 'calling out' much like the ornery gunfighter in the saloon scene of an old western. So I guess there's no suprise you went straight for that 44 stuffed down your breeches. And I thought you were just pleased to see me.
But staying with the metaphor, I suppose the job of barkeep in this little drama is down to me. I'm simply trying to keep the peace and help maintain some focus on the main topic. We don't want no trouble around here stranger. This is a quiet town. So quiet there's days you couldn't snuff your cigar in the spittoon.
The raison d'etre for this thread is the PE device and associated concepts, which may well call for a discussion of v² and the "1/2" in the energy equation but would probably be best served by an absence of gunfights. I can either pour you another glass of rotgut or fetch the big double out from under the bar.
So; you skin that smoke wagon and we'll see what happens. ;)
LOL! Better than Groucho Marx!
Now, to help your short memory span break out of your hallucinatory phase and get back to reality.....I asked somebody if he REALLY did not understand, as he had claimed he did not understand, how the v SQUARED belonged in the Newtonian physics based Kinetic Energy Equation, and likewise the 1/2. An alternative being that he could be leading up to try to fool some of us.
It is extremely interesting that he has avoided making a direct statement verifying or denying his previous assertions that the SQUARED and the 1/2 don't really belong there in the framework of Newtonian physics logic.
And it is extremely interesting that you are jumping to try to be his bodyguard.
Maybe YOU don't understand how the SQUARED or the 1/2 got there.
Tell you what, forget about about your imaginary hallucinatory shotgun and explain to us the Newtonian physics derivation of the Kinetic Energy Equation especially pointing out the conventional rationale for the SQUARED and the 1/2.
I'll know if you are lying because I have derived the derivation and I know exactly why everybody (pretty much) accepts the presence of the SQUARED and the 1/2. I'll even give you a strong hint.....it has something to do with ARBITRARY DEFINITIONS.
Start explaining, bad boy.
CANGAS 75
Quote from: CANGAS on September 12, 2014, 02:36:14 AM
LOL! Better than Groucho Marx!
Now, to help your short memory span break out of your hallucinatory phase and get back to reality.....I asked somebody if he REALLY did not understand, as he had claimed he did not understand, how the v SQUARED belonged in the Newtonian physics based Kinetic Energy Equation, and likewise the 1/2. An alternative being that he could be leading up to try to fool some of us.
It is extremely interesting that he has avoided making a direct statement verifying or denying his previous assertions that the SQUARED and the 1/2 don't really belong there in the framework of Newtonian physics logic.
And it is extremely interesting that you are jumping to try to be his bodyguard.
Maybe YOU don't understand how the SQUARED or the 1/2 got there.
Tell you what, forget about about your imaginary hallucinatory shotgun and explain to us the Newtonian physics derivation of the Kinetic Energy Equation especially pointing out the conventional rationale for the SQUARED and the 1/2.
I'll know if you are lying because I have derived the derivation and I know exactly why everybody (pretty much) accepts the presence of the SQUARED and the 1/2. I'll even give you a strong hint.....it has something to do with ARBITRARY DEFINITIONS.
Start explaining, bad boy.
CANGAS 75
Where did I make the claim I do not understand how the v
2 and the 1/2 belonged in the kinetic energy equation, as you wrongly assert? In addition to this, where did I make a previous assertion that the squared and the 1/2 don't really belong in the framework of Newtonian physics logic, as you once again wrongly assert?
Gravock
Quote from: CANGAS on September 11, 2014, 05:03:13 AM
If you have been noticing alertly, you will alertly recognize that I have not stated a pro or con belief, but have simply asked for his belief. I have asked if he understands how the Kinetic Energy Equation was derived and therefore if he understands how the specific terms came to be, and if he understands whether it is all self consistent or not. And he will bend over backwards and whistle Dixie instead of saying YES or NO!!
One to beam up, Scotty.
CANGAS 72
How convenient of you not to state a pro or con belief for yourself, so you may use the position of one or the other as an escape goat down the road. You have bent over backwards and whistled dixie to avoid having to state your own belief. Once again, you have yet to provide a scientific or mathematical rebuttal to what I have previously posted!
Gravock
Quote from: Tusk on September 12, 2014, 02:24:26 AM
I get the impression from this:
and this:
......that you are both standing at the edge, willing yet not quite ready to take a leap of faith. Very interesting points made, but that OU device still not quite revealing itself. Whilst I am uncomfortable presenting work for which I have not yet formulated a robust explanation perhaps in this instance there should be an exception. Not knowing if you have accepted the secondary reaction at the cm/axis, there is the risk of firing blanks but here goes.
Faith is the substance of things hoped for,
the evidence of things not seen (Hebrews 11:1). You see, faith is based on evidence, and this evidence is proof of a person's belief.
Gravock
And so it goes on; does someone pay you to run spoiling attacks like this CANGAS, or do you just have something personal against progress? I make a strong statement concerning OU based on what at first sight looks like a sound theoretical construct and it gets lost in a flurry of posts stirred up by what is clearly a personal attack on gravock, who's crime appears to have been nothing more than posting a quote from another source, which you apparently misread or at least failed to apprehend. And btw, any preferential treatment he gets from me is simply a result of his conducting himself like a gentleman, as opposed to your own approach which is more akin to a drunken glassing attack at an elderly ladies sewing circle. I was hoping my little comedy act earlier might get a laugh out of you and calm things down; alas, I see you are cut from a different cloth.
So here's some ammunition for you, since you seem hell bent on disruption; off the top of my head I have no clue about the history of the energy equation, neither it's formulation or the life and times of those responsible for it. I assume that the v² and the 1/2 are included because if you left them out or replaced them with other variables/values the equation would not equate. Which would make it kind of an oxy moron. But if I had to go deeper, I'd hazard that the v² is due to the exponential increase in distance covered each second during acceleration. As for the 1/2....... hmmmm, that's a tricky one; I can see the obvious formulaic origin (W=mas, v²-u²=2as etc etc) but I assume we are looking for actual causal physics here and not simply painting by numbers.
Ok, I'll go with this; I reckon we might be losing half the energy somewhere. Something to do with momentum maybe, since in reality all collisions take place in that domain. And that's a complete 'fire from the hip' snap shot. Probably rubbish. Blew a big hole in the spittoon, I shouldn't wonder. But I've said enough to suggest that I fly by my wits rather than flapping a bunch of papers written by someone else. So if you really want to get me in a corner then drag out the filing cabinet and start quoting irrelevant minutia and make pointless and insulting challenges...... because clearly what we need in OU research is more adherence to the rules and less of this irresponsible creativity and imagination. But then, I may just choose to ignore you. At the end of the day, I understand certain things which clearly you do not, you are in my thread ostensibly to learn something or impart some wisdom (or then why else?) and quite frankly, I don't have enough time or energy left to be wasting it on the feckless.
Keep the Faith gravock :)
Quote from: Tusk on September 12, 2014, 02:24:26 AM
Allow me to repeat an earlier statement re the secondary reaction:
In case you missed it, a mass accelerated from 110m/sec to 120m/sec gains substantially more KE than the same mass accelerated from 10m/sec to 20m/sec (thanks v²). Which typically suggests more work is done to achieve that gain (since the distance covered by the point of force is far greater, and this typically costs us dearly). But with the secondary reaction, which manifests in the FoR of the cm regardless of it's velocity, we now have the means to realise this gain. While not actually missing it the first time around, I am culpable in terms of distracted focus; perhaps beguiled by the dynamics of the PE with it's curious motions.
Anyway, since we can easily bring our drive disk/s back to a manageable rate of rotation ready for another acceleration cycle without losing E in the main rotor arm - using regenerative braking btw, therefore much of the disk E is recovered - it is inevitable that at some point our main rotor arm will achieve OU.
In simple terms we have a constant force (although possibly periodic as we cycle the disk/s) applied to a mass (the main rotor arm and all parts thereof) accelerating (therefore) at a constant rate due to a (nearly) constant input. I say nearly because as the rotor arm rotation rate increases the apparent disk rotation rate over the central axis of the unit increases, which will eventually create an upper limit. But I firmly believe this is just a matter of optimal engineering.
Hi Tusk,
have you actually tried estimating of extra power for you single disk setup at different RPM?
I presume that the efficiency of regenerative braking shouldn't exceed .7 though...
Everyone should be jumping on this concept! I'm going to attempt a replication and throw a little homopolar action using a conducting logarithmic spiral, which is the shortest spiral with the maximum electromagnetic torque! The emf and torque of the Faraday Disc and the conducting spiral is due to the continuous variation of the electromagnetic angular moment of the continuous current. Electromagnetic Induction and the Conservation of Momentum in the Spiral Paradox (http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0012/0012009.pdf). A paradox on top of a paradox!
Gravock
Quotehave you actually tried estimating of extra power for you single disk setup at different RPM?
I presume that the efficiency of regenerative braking shouldn't exceed .7 though...
I only went as far as comparison between rotor arm secure and rotor arm free to a given RPM telecom; and let's not forget that this phenomenon only manifests during acceleration/deceleration. Data from a typical test run (posted some way back in this thread) suggested somewhat less work to achieve a higher disk RPM with the rotor free, and this without consideration of the additional rotor rotation which is clearly a gain. I would have been content with the same amount of work, and my thinking is that due to the apparent increase in disk RPM in the FoR of the EM drive (which is also the location of the logging sensor) what I was actually seeing was equal disk RPM in both tests in the observer FoR. This falls in line with my initial theory, suggesting the capability to additionally motivate the rotor arm for the same energy expenditure as before.
As for regenerative braking, 70% sounds like a fair starting point although I believe around 90% is considered achievable in sophisticated flywheel technology. But if you take my point on the nature and potential of a force locked in the FoR of the point of force, I believe we can actually live with lower efficiency; repeatedly cycling the disk through it's optimum RPM range until the rotor arm reaches an RPM at which the exponential increase in KE overtakes the linear increase in work done and catapults it into the realm of OU. I might even prefer this mode of operation to those outlined/suggested earlier, it seems a more likely bet in engineering terms - at least for a working prototype.
QuoteI'm going to attempt a replication
That's good news gravock :)
Quoteand throw a little homopolar action using a conducting logarithmic spiral, which is the shortest spiral with the maximum electromagnetic torque! The emf and torque of the Faraday Disc and the conducting spiral is due to the continuous variation of the electromagnetic angular moment of the continuous current. A paradox on top of a paradox!
Hopefully you will be able to identify the source of any advantage amongst all these dark arts? lol. Will you start another thread or post news/results here?
An afterthought gravock - the point of applied force on the disk/s must be at or near the edge and keeping a small footprint for best effect; not sure how you are going to achieve this with the method you outlined.
Quote from: Tusk on September 12, 2014, 10:47:41 AM
And so it goes on; does someone pay you to run spoiling attacks like this CANGAS, or do you just have something personal against progress? I make a strong statement concerning OU based on what at first sight looks like a sound theoretical construct and it gets lost in a flurry of posts stirred up by what is clearly a personal attack on gravock, who's crime appears to have been nothing more than posting a quote from another source, which you apparently misread or at least failed to apprehend. And btw, any preferential treatment he gets from me is simply a result of his conducting himself like a gentleman, as opposed to your own approach which is more akin to a drunken glassing attack at an elderly ladies sewing circle. I was hoping my little comedy act earlier might get a laugh out of you and calm things down; alas, I see you are cut from a different cloth.
So here's some ammunition for you, since you seem hell bent on disruption; off the top of my head I have no clue about the history of the energy equation, neither it's formulation or the life and times of those responsible for it. I assume that the v² and the 1/2 are included because if you left them out or replaced them with other variables/values the equation would not equate. Which would make it kind of an oxy moron. But if I had to go deeper, I'd hazard that the v² is due to the exponential increase in distance covered each second during acceleration. As for the 1/2....... hmmmm, that's a tricky one; I can see the obvious formulaic origin (W=mas, v²-u²=2as etc etc) but I assume we are looking for actual causal physics here and not simply painting by numbers.
Ok, I'll go with this; I reckon we might be losing half the energy somewhere. Something to do with momentum maybe, since in reality all collisions take place in that domain. And that's a complete 'fire from the hip' snap shot. Probably rubbish. Blew a big hole in the spittoon, I shouldn't wonder. But I've said enough to suggest that I fly by my wits rather than flapping a bunch of papers written by someone else. So if you really want to get me in a corner then drag out the filing cabinet and start quoting irrelevant minutia and make pointless and insulting challenges...... because clearly what we need in OU research is more adherence to the rules and less of this irresponsible creativity and imagination. But then, I may just choose to ignore you. At the end of the day, I understand certain things which clearly you do not, you are in my thread ostensibly to learn something or impart some wisdom (or then why else?) and quite frankly, I don't have enough time or energy left to be wasting it on the feckless.
Keep the Faith gravock :)
You sure do get easily confused.
Nobody could be a stronger supporter of Overunity Energy than me. I have invented more than one device that appears to be capable.
Your best bro made a statement that was ridiculous. Yo bro said that he did not understand how the "squared" got into the Newtonian physics equation for Kinetic Energy. And the "1/2" was in question too. But it is all splained by waves and half waves and double waves or some kind of rot other than a logical derivation based on arbitrary definitions.
I asked yo bro if he REALLY believed that the "square" and the "1/2" were there by mistake or accident (or if he was trying to fool us).
You leaped up to defend yo bro with absurd hallucinatory imaginings resembling a Clint Eastwood western.
HEY, Jack, all I did was ask yo bro if he REALLY believed that the "squared" and the "1/2" were there by accident. And then I asked you pretty much the same question. I NEVER PROTESTED THE POSSIBILITY OF OU OR THE POSSIBILITY THAT YO BRO AND YOU WERE CORRECT.
His, and your, reaction to throw verbal turds at me rather than to simply answer my question tell me volumes. I am told that you don't really know what you are talking about and are trying desperately to bluff.
I perceive that he and ye do not understand that the standard Newton equation is internally self consistent.
Now, what you clowns have overlooked is that the definition of kinetic energy is simply an ARBITRARY DEFINITION. The "square" and the"1/2" are there because the inventor of Kinetic Energy arbitrarily chose to invent a new science thing and define it in a specific mathematical way. But, of course, within the bounds of mathematical logic, the equation can be shown to make perfect sense in conjunction with the arbitrary definition of WORK and its arbitrary mathematical definition.
After asking you clowns repeated times to tell me that you already this stuff, all you can do is quasi-threaten me in hallucinatory wild west terms.
You guys don't know your used beans from your Shinola.
CANGAS 76
Well CANGAS, perhaps we are victims of an unfortunate failure in communication; these things happen. I'll go with that explanation in the interests of OU and common decency.
QuoteI have invented more than one device that appears to be capable.
I would be happy to look at your work if it is available for public review.
Quotethe definition of kinetic energy is simply an ARBITRARY DEFINITION. The "square" and the"1/2" are there because the inventor of Kinetic Energy arbitrarily chose to invent a new science thing and define it in a specific mathematical way.
While I may not entirely agree, your views are encouraging; progress requires a healthy suspicion of convention. You may need to read this twice since it may at first appear deliberately argumentative; I assure you it is not. Firstly, I think you will find that all these equations are born of observed behaviour in the real world. 'Back in the day' when this level of understanding was in it's infancy, the approach to science seems to have been fundamentally grounded in this method, and not by accident. So these equations reflect the experimental data obtained and the assumption that they hold true even beyond the reach of experimental ability at the time. This assumption - as I understand it - was part of scientific discipline and commonly acknowledged. Perhaps not so much today.
The fact that a mass with velocity 2v requires four times the distance to stop under constant retarding force F as an equal mass with velocity v is not arbitrary. It simply reflects the reverse condition in which the same mass requires four times the distance to achieve velocity 2v as it does v and while perhaps not perfect, the application of force over a distance seems a reasonable method of determining work done and the KE equation follows from this logic. The application of springs (for instance) to the task of motivation provides a ready (apparent) confirmation of the theory, also experiments in momentum and the study of objects falling under gravitational influence. But 'back in the day' scientists acknowledged such ideas as theories, useful and applicable in general but not beyond disproof. Again, not so much today.
So I think it a little cavalier to say 'arbitrary', but I will agree that we need to look hard out beyond the limits of what is believed, also revisit what is thought to be 'known'. In particular, to seek new combinations of various phenomena in the belief that these 'laws' may not apply across all conditions. Another thing worth remembering is that concepts like force and energy, while useful, are simply models and may not reflect reality without some small aberration.
QuoteI am told that you don't really know what you are talking about and are trying desperately to bluff.
I have no way of knowing where that comes from but I assume someone with an academic background. Astute enough to recognise 'self taught' but not enough to realise that this in itself is insufficient grounds for casual dismissal. I gauge my understanding by experiment, or at least by first attempting an independent understanding then checking the literature where the material is established. And bluff? To what end? Show me a critical error in the material which negates the entire thesis and I will acknowledge it, but so far the skeptics have revealed no such error - a simple matter surely, for an astute academic. The fact is that I have unearthed phenomena either little known, long forgotten or possibly even unknown, and assembled a logical method of application for them. So I am quite content to distance myself from academia, since breaking rules comes easier outside the prison walls.
Anyway, perhaps we are not so very different. If you are offended beyond redress then hopefully you will attend your own affairs and enjoy good fortune. If not feel free to wade in at any level other than personal, since we appear to be pushing in the same general direction.
Quote from: Tusk on September 12, 2014, 11:30:56 PM
I only went as far as comparison between rotor arm secure and rotor arm free to a given RPM telecom; and let's not forget that this phenomenon only manifests during acceleration/deceleration. Data from a typical test run (posted some way back in this thread) suggested somewhat less work to achieve a higher disk RPM with the rotor free, and this without consideration of the additional rotor rotation which is clearly a gain. I would have been content with the same amount of work, and my thinking is that due to the apparent increase in disk RPM in the FoR of the EM drive (which is also the location of the logging sensor) what I was actually seeing was equal disk RPM in both tests in the observer FoR. This falls in line with my initial theory, suggesting the capability to additionally motivate the rotor arm for the same energy expenditure as before.
As for regenerative braking, 70% sounds like a fair starting point although I believe around 90% is considered achievable in sophisticated flywheel technology. But if you take my point on the nature and potential of a force locked in the FoR of the point of force, I believe we can actually live with lower efficiency; repeatedly cycling the disk through it's optimum RPM range until the rotor arm reaches an RPM at which the exponential increase in KE overtakes the linear increase in work done and catapults it into the realm of OU. I might even prefer this mode of operation to those outlined/suggested earlier, it seems a more likely bet in engineering terms - at least for a working prototype.
I've estimated that for the disk speed of 100m/sec with the disk's diameter of 30 cm,
it will need to rotate at 6000 rpm.
What would be the rpm of the arm in this case?
How much energy will it produce by cycling between , say, 6000 to 7000 rpm
for the disk?
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-i0QAJkwDUfU/VBGtJcwO_PI/AAAAAAAAB90/GgkSTBMgMDQ/s1600/CIMG3319.JPG
Do You understant what mean difference between paralel and perpendicular situation
HISTORY = ACTUAL BOOKS
" Galileo postulated his relativity hypothesis: any two observers moving at constant speed and direction with respect to one another will obtain the same results for all mechanical experiments (it is understood that the apparatuses they use for these experiments move with them).
This idea has a very important consequence: velocity is not absolute. This means that velocity can only be measured in reference to some object(s), and that the result of this measurment changes if we decide to measure the velocity with respect to a diferent refernce point(s). Imagine an observer traveling inside a windowless spaceship moving away from the sun at constant velocity. Galileo asserted that there are no mechanical experiments that can be made inside the rocket that will tell the occupants that the rocket is moving .
The question ``are we moving'' has no meaning unless we specify a reference frame (are we moving with respect to that star'' is meaningful). This fact, formulated in the 1600's remains very true today and is one of the cornerstones of Einstein's theories of relativity."
http://youtu.be/HXKwNvA8VHs
QuoteI've estimated that for the disk speed of 100m/sec with the disk's diameter of 30 cm,
it will need to rotate at 6000 rpm.
What would be the rpm of the arm in this case?
How much energy will it produce by cycling between , say, 6000 to 7000 rpm
for the disk?
Q1. As I've often said telecom, the twin disk setup is probably optimal; also as near as possible to a ring mass rather than a disk, and until recently I've preferred them mounted on a lightweight rotor arm such that we can virtually ignore it's mass. With this latest idea (multiple cycling of the disks to achieve OU with the rotor arm) we may be looking at a deliberately massive arm. But staying with the earlier setup for now, in that configuration the rotor arm RPM matches the disks/rings.
Q2. That would depend on the mass. But with the ring mass you can treat rotation velocity (I.E. the velocity of the mass around the disk/ring axis) much like linear velocity, and if you study the layout of the device you will notice that the radius of the disks/rings is similar to the radius of the rotor arm provided you don't extend it too far beyond the axes of the disks. And you can treat the rotor arm configured in this way like another ring mass, since the disk axes are at their cm and are mounted at the ends of the rotor arm. So popping in some values and calculating the outcome is fairly straightforward.
QuoteDo You understant what mean difference between paralel and perpendicular situation
Was your intent to make my answer quick and simple tesla2, or does friendly scientific inquiry in your first language translate into aggressive insults in English?
I'll make some allowance for the language thing. This is how it works; you find something that doesn't seem 'quite right' in the information I provide, and either pop in a quote of the offending material with your question or rebuttal, or at least mention it as a starting point for your question or rebuttal.
As it stands I have no idea what got stuck in your windpipe, and the very last thing I need right now is a lecture on FoR and Relativity. But just putting myself in your shoes for a minute, considering I got this far it seems a fair bet that I do know the difference between parallel and perpendicular. I'm just taking a wild guess here but are you by any chance referring to my earlier statement re secondary reaction with that question? If so then it's also a fair bet that you haven't even got beyond accepting it, which is a tough one I agree but there you have it. Either provide an alternative or dismiss it as just one more vague and elusive unknown in your life, move on and leave the crazy old guy to his unintelligible raving and ranting.
Tusk, we have definitely suffered from a failure to communicate. Just like the Georgia cracker warden said to Luke. The failure to communicate has been all yours, dear fellow.
A little while, a few days, ago I responded to this specific post. For once, please focus your communication faculties upon the mentions of "squared" and "1/2" in the specific post copied and quoted below.....
Quote from: gravityblock on September 08, 2014, 12:21:52 AM
This is a really good thread! Keep up the good work Tusk! Below is a copy and paste summary of a publication on the kinetic energy equation, by Miles Mathis (reference link provided below).
Why is the velocity squared in the kinetic energy equation, E = ½mv2? Why should the energy depend on the square of the velocity? We have the same question with the equation E = mc2. Why square the speed of light? Why should the energy depend on c2? Or, to extend the question, why should the energy of any moving object, moving with a constant velocity, depend on the square of that velocity?
In Miles Mathis' paper on photon motion (http://milesmathis.com/photon2.html), he showed how the measured wavelength and the real wavelength of the photon differ by a factor of c2. This is because the linear motion of the photon stretches the spin wavelength. The linear velocity is c, of course, and the circular velocity approaches 1/c. The difference between the two is c2. Energy, like velocity, is a relative measurement. A quantum with a certain energy has that energy only relative to us, since it has its velocity only relative to us. If the wavelength has to be multiplied by c2 in order to match it to our measurements, then the mass or mass equivalence will also. Hence the equation E = mc2. In this way, c2 is not a velocity or a velocity squared, it is a velocity transform. It tells us how much the wavelength is stretched, and therefore how much the mass and energy are stretched, due to the motion of the object.
The same analysis can be applied to any object. The energy of any object is determined by summing the energies of its constituent atomic and quantum particles, and all these particles also have spins. The quanta will impart this spin energy in collision, so this spin energy must be included in the total kinetic energy. So the short answer is that the kinetic energy equation, like the equation E = mc2, always included the spin energy; but no one recognized that. Just as with the photon, all matter has a wavelength (see de Broglie), and the wavelength is determined by spin. The spin has a radius, and this radius is the local wavelength. Any linear velocity of the spinning particle will stretch our measurement of this wavelength, in a simple mechanical manner, as Mathis showed in the photon paper. As the linear velocity increases, the spin velocity relative to the linear velocity decreases, by a factor of 1/v. This makes the difference between the linear velocity and the spin velocity v2. The term v2 transforms the local wavelength into the measured wavelength. This is why we find the term in the energy equation.
The only question remaining is why we have the term ½ in the kinetic energy equation. The reason is simple. We are basically multiplying a wavelength transform by a mass, in order to calculate an energy. So we have to look at how the mass and the wavelength interact. Mathis has shown that the wavelength is caused by stacking several spins (at least two spins), so what we have is a material particle spinning end-over-end. If we look at this spin over any extended time interval, we find that half the time the material particle is moving in the reverse direction of the linear motion. Circular motion cannot follow linear motion, of course, and if we average the circular motion over time, only half the circular motion will match the linear vector. This means that half the effective mass will be lost, hence the equation we have.
Reference: The kinetic Energy equation (http://milesmathis.com/kinetic.html), by Miles Mathis
Additional Resources: Angular Velocity and Angular Momentum (http://milesmathis.com/angle.html), by Miles Mathis (Both current equations are shown to be false)
Gravock
Upon reading this garbage, I could not believe my eyes and asked the poster if he was serious, if he REALLY did not understand where the "squared" and the "1/2" came from in the standard Newtonian derivation of the formula for Kinetic Energy. Do you remember any of this?
Soon you jumped in to defend the poster and attacked me even to the extent of describing your hallucination of a Wild West shootout in which you would wield a double barrel shotgun. I had simply asked the poster if he really did not understand the "squared " and the "1/2" or was he joking. Since I have derived the Kinetic Energy equation myself, I have long since been completely satisfied that the logic and math , particularly the "squared" and the "1/2" are perfectly logically and mathematically self consistent within the framework of Newtonian physics. You, by vehemently defending the poster obviously took his side that you also did not understand why or how the "squared" or the "1/2" are in the Newtonian Kinetic Energy formula. Your comments in this regard caused me to waste a substantial amount of time and energy which, in my old age, are increasingly important and which I cannot retrieve and you cannot possibly re-supply to me. Do you remember any of THIS, or are you wandering around in your own imaginary world of double barrel shotguns and fake Kinetic Energy equations?
Thanks a lot for all the BullShit.
CANGAS 78
Indeed I had little real hope (based on the tone of your posts) that you would recognise an olive branch for what it represents, CANGAS.
Since you have quoted gravlock's apparently 'offensive' post several times I must assume that you read and understood that he was himself quoting from another source:
QuoteBelow is a copy and paste summary of a publication on the kinetic energy equation, by Miles Mathis (reference link provided below).
It seems fairly self evident that he felt the material he referenced might be of some interest and relevance to this thread, or at least of some general interest; and relevant or not (I have not yet decided) it is certainly an interesting theory, especially taken in context with the vast repository of original work on the source website. So yes, a friendly and informative greeting by gravock and received in kind. I wish there were more like him.
I have explained the playful nature of my wild west 'hallucination' as you call it but you clearly reject that; I have responded to what can only be described as an unpleasant post with the offer of a fresh start and no hard feelings, and you have rejected that. On this occasion, much like yourself I consider my time valuable, so that time spent in reply to your unfortunate hostility has blown out of all proportion to any possible advantage and therefore must be curtailed. Since it's not clear what your true agenda is, and considering the disruption you have caused thus far - to no good purpose other than reinforcing your own sense of superiority and appearing unnecessarily rude - I can only hope that you will make yourself content with a final string of invectives on your way out the door.
Quote from: Tusk on September 14, 2014, 03:12:25 AM
Q1. As I've often said telecom, the twin disk setup is probably optimal; also as near as possible to a ring mass rather than a disk, and until recently I've preferred them mounted on a lightweight rotor arm such that we can virtually ignore it's mass. With this latest idea (multiple cycling of the disks to achieve OU with the rotor arm) we may be looking at a deliberately massive arm. But staying with the earlier setup for now, in that configuration the rotor arm RPM matches the disks/rings.
Q2. That would depend on the mass. But with the ring mass you can treat rotation velocity (I.E. the velocity of the mass around the disk/ring axis) much like linear velocity, and if you study the layout of the device you will notice that the radius of the disks/rings is similar to the radius of the rotor arm provided you don't extend it too far beyond the axes of the disks. And you can treat the rotor arm configured in this way like another ring mass, since the disk axes are at their cm and are mounted at the ends of the rotor arm. So popping in some values and calculating the outcome is fairly straightforward.
Hi Tusk,
do you mean that we can use a simple kinetic energy equation E = 1/2 mv^2?
Presuming, that as you said, rpm of the rotary arm is equal the rpm of the disk,
and its mass equals 1 kg,
E will be 5000 J at 6000 rpm and approx 6800 J at 7000 rpm.
So during the cycling we should be able to harvest from the rotor arm 1800 J during
the acceleration, and equal number during the deacceleration at reverse, 3600 J in total.
At the same time we should spend 1800 J to accelerate the disk, of which we should be
getting back 70 % during the deacceleration, with the losses of 540J.
Total surplus should be 1800 + 1800 - 540 = 3060 j.
Considering that the cycle will take 10 seconds, the device should produce 3060 / 10 =
306 W of power.
Is this within the reasonable margin of error or not???
Quote from: Tusk on September 12, 2014, 11:30:56 PM
Hopefully you will be able to identify the source of any advantage amongst all these dark arts? lol. Will you start another thread or post news/results here?
An afterthought gravock - the point of applied force on the disk/s must be at or near the edge and keeping a small footprint for best effect; not sure how you are going to achieve this with the method you outlined.
I'm going to use the drive wheel instead of the EM drive. This eliminates all permanent magnets! Disk A and disk B will be based around the homopolar principals as discussed previously. Extracting current from disk A will induce a torque from the edge of the disk to the disk's center of mass which will be applied to the outside edge of the rotor arm and will also be in the same direction as the rotor arm, causing it to further accelerate (either a CW spiral or a CCW spiral according to rotation direction of the drive wheel). The secondary reaction force will be applied at the outer edge of the rotor arm, which is also the disk's center of mass where the force is applied to the outside edge of the rotor arm in this case, which is an inversion of cause and effect. In addition to this, disk A will be induced with an additional rotation due to the Lorentz force, further accelerating the disk's rotation. Disk B will be similar to disc A, and each disc will be accelerating both the rotor arm and it's own disk rotation. In this way, the rotor arm and both disks are utilizing the secondary reaction force to provide a continuous acceleration for both the disks and the rotor arm.
Gravock
Ok telecom, let's just revisit your initial parameters to be sure we're on the same page:
QuoteI've estimated that for the disk speed of 100m/sec with the disk's diameter of 30 cm,
it will need to rotate at 6000 rpm.
I assume you were looking for a circumference of 1m, so we'll go with that value. With your additional data we can allow as an approximation a 1kg ring mass to be considered as having a linear motion, for the purpose of estimating various values. Which in turn allows us to simply calculate the linear acceleration and final velocity and add the two for a 'ballpark' idea of what we are looking at.
Quotedo you mean that we can use a simple kinetic energy equation E = 1/2 mv^2?
Presuming, that as you said, rpm of the rotary arm is equal the rpm of the disk,
and its mass equals 1 kg,
E will be 5000 J at 6000 rpm and approx 6800 J at 7000 rpm.
Indeed; and yes, those numbers look about right as values for each motion (linear and rotational). So total KE at 6000 RPM = 10,000 J and at 7000 RPM total KE = 13600 J, remembering that we are using 'ballpark' numbers and methods here, in the interests of rapid concept assessment.
QuoteSo during the cycling we should be able to harvest from the rotor arm 1800 J during
the acceleration, and equal number during the deacceleration at reverse, 3600 J in total.
Well, there's an interesting new development (I occasionally miss something lol). I had a nagging feeling about the FoR issue with the advancing/retarding disk around the main axis in the FoR of the EM drive unit; with the aforementioned ring mass we would see twice the disk RPM at the axis as the 'true' RPM in the FoR of the observer. While allowing for this quite early in the piece, I hadn't given much thought to the reverse - i.e. under deceleration. And being a new thing, as always it is a bit of a bear to get your head around. My one piece of data on it is 'soft', but I had always felt that the PE apparatus main rotor arm seemed to spool up more rapidly and possibly even to a higher RPM during braking of the disk, although this might just be an illusion.
I would like to think on it some more (and gather more data) before committing, but I am reasonably certain that with this being a FoR issue there will almost certainly be either less or more motion than we expect, which is just one reason this concept has proved so fascinating to work on. It may even be necessary to secure the rotor arm post braking before braking the disk, therefore losing that 'third bite of the cherry', which would be a shame but that's a worst case scenario. During test runs though, at the point when the disk stops rotating in the EM unit FoR with the rotor arm at highest reverse RPM, the disk is rotating in the FoR of the observer, in the same direction of the initial rotation; so it appears we may not see additional advantage, rather a deficit from this element of the dynamics. But losing the rotor arm reversal in no way precludes a significant advantage overall.
QuoteAt the same time we should spend 1800 J to accelerate the disk, of which we should be
getting back 70 % during the deacceleration, with the losses of 540J.
Total surplus should be 1800 + 1800 - 540 = 3060 j.
Considering that the cycle will take 10 seconds, the device should produce 3060 / 10 =
306 W of power.
Is this within the reasonable margin of error or not???
For the parameters given, yes I think so; but there are as yet quite a few wrinkles to work out and at this point my main focus is on simply proving the concept rather than building a unit to run a campsite :) Something along the lines of the PE apparatus built by someone else, used to verify (or otherwise) my own data, would suffice as a next logical step, and a platform for further discussion.
QuoteI'm going to use the drive wheel instead of the EM drive.
That's probably going to bring the torque guys down on us, and I've been against it from initial conception. But it does rather simplify the build gravock.
QuoteExtracting current from disk A will induce a torque from the edge of the disk to the disk's center of mass which will be applied to the outside edge of the rotor arm and will also be in the same direction as the rotor arm, causing it to further accelerate
There's that word again. Ok you're scaring me lol. There's way too much going on in your design for my simple mind, the concept was born of inertia and I've tried to maintain that fundamental nature. Cramming additional and unnecessary elements into a new concept may do more harm than good I fear. Looking for the next step in proving the concept gravock, rather than a device that appears to be desperately clutching at every stray force to achieve OU.
Quotedisk A will be induced with an additional rotation due to the Lorentz force, further accelerating the disk's rotation.
I'll have to take your word for that, since EM is rather a dark art for me.
Quotethe rotor arm and both disks are utilizing the secondary reaction force to provide a continuous acceleration for both the disks and the rotor arm.
Hmmmm..... continuous acceleration isn't on the mode menu for this phenomenon gravock; the system needs to be cyclic. I'll take a long hard look at your proposal before making any further observations, but I doubt you have found a way past that obstacle. Not to worry, there are multiple elements to this concept and it may require some adjustments in thinking. Unless you are seeing something I missed, which is always a possibility. I hope you won't take offence (a common reaction around here) but it would be remiss of me not to speak plainly before you disappear into your shed.
Quote from: Tusk on September 15, 2014, 04:02:12 AM
That's probably going to bring the torque guys down on us, and I've been against it from initial conception. But it does rather simplify the build gravock.
There's that word again. Ok you're scaring me lol. There's way too much going on in your design for my simple mind, the concept was born of inertia and I've tried to maintain that fundamental nature. Cramming additional and unnecessary elements into a new concept may do more harm than good I fear. Looking for the next step in proving the concept gravock, rather than a device that appears to be desperately clutching at every stray force to achieve OU.
I'll have to take your word for that, since EM is rather a dark art for me.
Hmmmm..... continuous acceleration isn't on the mode menu for this phenomenon gravock; the system needs to be cyclic. I'll take a long hard look at your proposal before making any further observations, but I doubt you have found a way past that obstacle. Not to worry, there are multiple elements to this concept and it may require some adjustments in thinking. Unless you are seeing something I missed, which is always a possibility. I hope you won't take offence (a common reaction around here) but it would be remiss of me not to speak plainly before you disappear into your shed.
The concepts found in this video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9CJ8TPjL9t8&feature=youtu.be) will also be part of the design. In the video, there is both a linear momentum and a rotational momentum in the opposite direction arising from the same applied force, just as we find in the PE. In fact, it could be argued that this is nothing more than a simple and basic PE displaying the secondary reaction force. A similar motion as found in the video will be achieved through the brush system. What I'm talking about isn't much more complicated and different from the original PE. I understand the concept of the secondary reaction force very well and the center of mass, etc. You'll have to trust me on this for the time being, for I will need to prove it through experiments. The video should be helpful in understanding the mechanics a little better.
Gravock
QuoteYou'll have to trust me on this for the time being, for I will need to prove it through experiments.
Trust mode engaged; standing by with considerable interest.
30 km/s and NEWTON NOT EXIST
( Newton was great obserwator we can use his Force but we have to add small problem )
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-YrUvn5DtJbs/VBVMugI-61I/AAAAAAAAB_A/QmzLUbz-qoY/s1600/CIMG3325.JPG
I very slowly explain all
http://www.scienceagogo.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=52986#Post52986
You can find my engine here ( nobody proved in past tha radial force are able make work )
http://tesla4.blogspot.com
That all looks very interesting tesla2, but perhaps you should think about starting a thread and putting your ideas into a more user friendly order. Unless there is some specific point of intersection (which I have missed) between your own work and the PE concept, there seems little purpose to posting it here. That said it's clear you are interested in a broad range of physics related ideas, so good luck to you :)