The Paradox Engine

[telecom]

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?

[Tusk]

In 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:

There 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.

[telecom]

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?

[Tusk]

You had me worried there for a minute telecom; but I can see where you are coming from now, I think:

as 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.

[telecom]

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.