Overunity.com Archives is Temporarily on Read Mode Only!



Free Energy will change the World - Free Energy will stop Climate Change - Free Energy will give us hope
and we will not surrender until free energy will be enabled all over the world, to power planes, cars, ships and trains.
Free energy will help the poor to become independent of needing expensive fuels.
So all in all Free energy will bring far more peace to the world than any other invention has already brought to the world.
Those beautiful words were written by Stefan Hartmann/Owner/Admin at overunity.com
Unfortunately now, Stefan Hartmann is very ill and He needs our help
Stefan wanted that I have all these massive data to get it back online
even being as ill as Stefan is, he transferred all databases and folders
that without his help, this Forum Archives would have never been published here
so, please, as the Webmaster and Creator of these Archives, I am asking that you help him
by making a donation on the Paypal Button above.
You can visit us or register at my main site at:
Overunity Machines Forum



The Paradox Engine

Started by Tusk, November 16, 2012, 08:20:52 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

telecom

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.

Tusk

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

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:

telecom

So,
all the forces, red and black are balanced, and what we get extra is the
rotational momentum of the discs?

Tusk

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'  :)


telecom

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"?