The Paradox Engine

[Tusk]

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. 


   

[telecom]

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.

[Tusk]

so 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.

The 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.

not 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.

how 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.

[telecom]

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.

[Tusk]

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

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:

Then 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:

This 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.