The Paradox Engine

[gravityblock]

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

[gravityblock]

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

[Tusk]

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 

[telecom]

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...

[gravityblock]

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.  A paradox on top of a paradox!

Gravock