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

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.