The Paradox Engine

[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...

I only went as far as comparison between rotor arm secure and rotor arm free to a given RPM telecom; and let's not forget that this phenomenon only manifests during acceleration/deceleration. Data from a typical test run (posted some way back in this thread) suggested somewhat less work to achieve a higher disk RPM with the rotor free, and this without consideration of the additional rotor rotation which is clearly a gain. I would have been content with the same amount of work, and my thinking is that due to the apparent increase in disk RPM in the FoR of the EM drive (which is also the location of the logging sensor) what I was actually seeing was equal disk RPM in both tests in the observer FoR. This falls in line with my initial theory, suggesting the capability to additionally motivate the rotor arm for the same energy expenditure as before.

As for regenerative braking, 70% sounds like a fair starting point although I believe around 90% is considered achievable in sophisticated flywheel technology. But if you take my point on the nature and potential of a force locked in the FoR of the point of force, I believe we can actually live with lower efficiency; repeatedly cycling the disk through it's optimum RPM range until the rotor arm reaches an RPM at which the exponential increase in KE overtakes the linear increase in work done and catapults it into the realm of OU. I might even prefer this mode of operation to those outlined/suggested earlier, it seems a more likely bet in engineering terms - at least for a working prototype.

I'm going to attempt a replication

That's good news gravock 

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. A paradox on top of a paradox!

Hopefully you will be able to identify the source of any advantage amongst all these dark arts? lol. Will you start another thread or post news/results here?

An afterthought gravock - the point of applied force on the disk/s must be at or near the edge and keeping a small footprint for best effect; not sure how you are going to achieve this with the method you outlined.

[CANGAS]

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 

You sure do get easily confused.

Nobody could be a stronger supporter of Overunity Energy than me. I have invented more than one device that appears to be capable.

Your best bro made a statement that was ridiculous. Yo bro said that he did not understand how the "squared" got into the Newtonian physics equation for Kinetic Energy. And the "1/2" was in question too. But it is all splained by waves and half waves and double waves or some kind of rot other than a logical derivation based on arbitrary definitions.

I asked yo bro if he REALLY believed that the "square" and the "1/2" were there by mistake or accident (or if he was trying to fool us).

You leaped up to defend yo bro with absurd hallucinatory imaginings resembling a Clint Eastwood western.

HEY, Jack, all I did was ask yo bro if he REALLY believed that the "squared" and the "1/2" were there by accident. And then I asked you pretty much the same question. I NEVER PROTESTED THE POSSIBILITY OF OU OR THE POSSIBILITY THAT YO BRO AND YOU WERE CORRECT.

His, and your, reaction to throw verbal turds at me rather than to simply answer my question tell me volumes. I am told that you don't really know what you are talking about and are trying desperately to bluff.

I perceive that he and ye do not understand that the standard Newton equation is internally self consistent.

Now, what you clowns have overlooked is that the definition of kinetic energy is simply an ARBITRARY DEFINITION. The "square" and the"1/2" are there because the inventor of Kinetic Energy arbitrarily chose to invent a new science thing and define it in a specific mathematical way. But, of course, within the bounds of mathematical logic, the equation can be shown to make perfect sense in conjunction with the arbitrary definition of WORK and its arbitrary mathematical definition.

After asking you clowns repeated times to tell me that you already this stuff, all you can do is quasi-threaten me in hallucinatory wild west terms.

You guys don't know your used beans from your Shinola.


CANGAS 76

[Tusk]

Well CANGAS, perhaps we are victims of an unfortunate failure in communication; these things happen. I'll go with that explanation in the interests of OU and common decency.

I have invented more than one device that appears to be capable.

I would be happy to look at your work if it is available for public review.

the definition of kinetic energy is simply an ARBITRARY DEFINITION. The "square" and the"1/2" are there because the inventor of Kinetic Energy arbitrarily chose to invent a new science thing and define it in a specific mathematical way.

While I may not entirely agree, your views are encouraging; progress requires a healthy suspicion of convention. You may need to read this twice since it may at first appear deliberately argumentative; I assure you it is not. Firstly, I think you will find that all these equations are born of observed behaviour in the real world. 'Back in the day' when this level of understanding was in it's infancy, the approach to science seems to have been fundamentally grounded in this method, and not by accident. So these equations reflect the experimental data obtained and the assumption that they hold true even beyond the reach of experimental ability at the time. This assumption - as I understand it - was part of scientific discipline and commonly acknowledged. Perhaps not so much today.

The fact that a mass with velocity 2v requires four times the distance to stop under constant retarding force F as an equal mass with velocity v is not arbitrary. It simply reflects the reverse condition in which the same mass requires four times the distance to achieve velocity 2v as  it does v and while perhaps not perfect, the application of force over a distance seems a reasonable method of determining work done and the KE equation follows from this logic. The application of springs (for instance) to the task of motivation provides a ready (apparent) confirmation of the theory, also experiments in momentum and the study of objects falling under gravitational influence. But 'back in the day' scientists acknowledged such ideas as theories, useful and applicable in general but not beyond disproof. Again, not so much today.

So I think it a little cavalier to say 'arbitrary', but I will agree that we need to look hard out beyond the limits of what is believed, also revisit what is thought to be 'known'. In particular, to seek new combinations of various phenomena in the belief that these 'laws' may not apply across all conditions. Another thing worth remembering is that concepts like force and energy, while useful, are simply models and may not reflect reality without some small aberration.

I am told that you don't really know what you are talking about and are trying desperately to bluff.

I have no way of knowing where that comes from but I assume someone with an academic background. Astute enough to recognise 'self taught' but not enough to realise that this in itself is insufficient grounds for casual dismissal. I gauge my understanding by experiment, or at least by first attempting an independent understanding then checking the literature where the material is established. And bluff? To what end? Show me a critical error in the material which negates the entire thesis and I will acknowledge it, but so far the skeptics have revealed no such error - a simple matter surely, for an astute academic. The fact is that I have unearthed phenomena either little known, long forgotten or possibly even unknown, and assembled a logical method of application for them. So I am quite content to distance myself from academia, since breaking rules comes easier outside the prison walls.

Anyway, perhaps we are not so very different. If you are offended beyond redress then hopefully you will attend your own affairs and enjoy good fortune. If not feel free to wade in at any level other than personal, since we appear to be pushing in the same general direction.

[telecom]

I only went as far as comparison between rotor arm secure and rotor arm free to a given RPM telecom; and let's not forget that this phenomenon only manifests during acceleration/deceleration. Data from a typical test run (posted some way back in this thread) suggested somewhat less work to achieve a higher disk RPM with the rotor free, and this without consideration of the additional rotor rotation which is clearly a gain. I would have been content with the same amount of work, and my thinking is that due to the apparent increase in disk RPM in the FoR of the EM drive (which is also the location of the logging sensor) what I was actually seeing was equal disk RPM in both tests in the observer FoR. This falls in line with my initial theory, suggesting the capability to additionally motivate the rotor arm for the same energy expenditure as before.

As for regenerative braking, 70% sounds like a fair starting point although I believe around 90% is considered achievable in sophisticated flywheel technology. But if you take my point on the nature and potential of a force locked in the FoR of the point of force, I believe we can actually live with lower efficiency; repeatedly cycling the disk through it's optimum RPM range until the rotor arm reaches an RPM at which the exponential increase in KE overtakes the linear increase in work done and catapults it into the realm of OU. I might even prefer this mode of operation to those outlined/suggested earlier, it seems a more likely bet in engineering terms - at least for a working prototype.

I've estimated that for the disk speed of 100m/sec with the disk's diameter of 30 cm,
it will need to rotate at 6000 rpm.
What would be the rpm of the arm in this case?
How much energy will it produce by cycling between , say, 6000 to 7000 rpm
for the disk?

[tesla2]

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-i0QAJkwDUfU/VBGtJcwO_PI/AAAAAAAAB90/GgkSTBMgMDQ/s1600/CIMG3319.JPG

Do You understant what mean difference between paralel and perpendicular situation



HISTORY  = ACTUAL BOOKS


" Galileo postulated his relativity hypothesis: any two observers moving at constant speed and direction with respect to one another will obtain the same results for all mechanical experiments (it is understood that the apparatuses they use for these experiments move with them).


This idea has a very important consequence: velocity is not absolute. This means that velocity can only be measured in reference to some object(s), and that the result of this measurment changes if we decide to measure the velocity with respect to a diferent refernce point(s). Imagine an observer traveling inside a windowless spaceship moving away from the sun at constant velocity. Galileo asserted that there are no mechanical experiments that can be made inside the rocket that will tell the occupants that the rocket is moving .


The question ``are we moving'' has no meaning unless we specify a reference frame (are we moving with respect to that star'' is meaningful). This fact, formulated in the 1600's remains very true today and is one of the cornerstones of Einstein's theories of relativity."
http://youtu.be/HXKwNvA8VHs