The Paradox Engine

[Tusk]

Ok telecom, let's just revisit your initial parameters to be sure we're on the same page:

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.

I assume you were looking for a circumference of 1m, so we'll go with that value. With your additional data we can allow as an approximation a 1kg ring mass to be considered as having a linear motion, for the purpose of estimating various values. Which in turn allows us to simply calculate the linear acceleration and final velocity and add the two for a 'ballpark' idea of what we are looking at.

do you mean that we can use a simple kinetic energy equation E = 1/2 mv^2?
Presuming, that as you said, rpm of the rotary arm is equal the rpm of the disk,
and its mass equals 1 kg,
E will be 5000 J at 6000 rpm and approx 6800 J at 7000 rpm.

Indeed; and yes, those numbers look about right as values for each motion (linear and rotational). So total KE at 6000 RPM = 10,000 J and at 7000 RPM total KE = 13600 J, remembering that we are using 'ballpark' numbers and methods here, in the interests of rapid concept assessment.

So during the cycling we should be able to harvest from the rotor arm 1800 J during
the acceleration, and equal number during the deacceleration at reverse, 3600 J in total.

Well, there's an interesting new development (I occasionally miss something lol). I had a nagging feeling about the FoR issue with the advancing/retarding disk around the main axis in the FoR of the EM drive unit; with the aforementioned ring mass we would see twice the disk RPM at the axis as the 'true' RPM in the FoR of the observer. While allowing for this quite early in the piece, I hadn't given much thought to the reverse - i.e. under deceleration. And being a new thing, as always it is a bit of a bear to get your head around. My one piece of data on it is 'soft', but I had always felt that the PE apparatus main rotor arm seemed to spool up more rapidly and possibly even to a higher RPM during braking of the disk, although this might just be an illusion.

I would like to think on it some more (and gather more data) before committing, but I am reasonably certain that with this being a FoR issue there will almost certainly be either less or more motion than we expect, which is just one reason this concept has proved so fascinating to work on. It may even be necessary to secure the rotor arm post braking before braking the disk, therefore losing that 'third bite of the cherry', which would be a shame but that's a worst case scenario. During test runs though, at the point when the disk stops rotating in the EM unit FoR with the rotor arm at highest reverse RPM, the disk is rotating in the FoR of the observer, in the same direction of the initial rotation; so it appears we may not see additional advantage, rather a deficit from this element of the dynamics. But losing the rotor arm reversal in no way precludes a significant advantage overall.

At the same time we should spend 1800 J to accelerate the disk, of which we should be
getting back 70 % during the deacceleration, with the losses of 540J.
Total surplus should be 1800 + 1800 - 540 = 3060 j.
Considering that the cycle will take 10 seconds, the device should produce 3060 / 10 =
306 W of power.
Is this within the reasonable margin of error or not???

For the parameters given, yes I think so; but there are as yet quite a few wrinkles to work out and at this point my main focus is on simply proving the concept rather than building a unit to run a campsite  Something along the lines of the PE apparatus built by someone else, used to verify (or otherwise) my own data, would suffice as a next logical step, and a platform for further discussion.
 

   

[Tusk]

I'm going to use the drive wheel instead of the EM drive.

That's probably going to bring the torque guys down on us, and I've been against it from initial conception. But it does rather simplify the build gravock.

Extracting current from disk A will induce a torque from the edge of the disk to the disk's center of mass which will be applied to the outside edge of the rotor arm and will also be in the same direction as the rotor arm, causing it to further accelerate

There's that word again. Ok you're scaring me lol. There's way too much going on in your design for my simple mind, the concept was born of inertia and I've tried to maintain that fundamental nature. Cramming additional and unnecessary elements into a new concept may do more harm than good I fear. Looking for the next step in proving the concept gravock, rather than a device that appears to be desperately clutching at every stray force to achieve OU.

disk A will be induced with an additional rotation due to the Lorentz force, further accelerating the disk's rotation.

I'll have to take your word for that, since EM is rather a dark art for me.

the rotor arm and both disks are utilizing the secondary reaction force to provide a continuous acceleration for both the disks and the rotor arm.

Hmmmm..... continuous acceleration isn't on the mode menu for this phenomenon gravock; the system needs to be cyclic. I'll take a long hard look at your proposal before making any further observations, but I doubt you have found a way past that obstacle. Not to worry, there are multiple elements to this concept and it may require some adjustments in thinking. Unless you are seeing something I missed, which is always a possibility. I hope you won't take offence (a common reaction around here) but it would be remiss of me not to speak plainly before you disappear into your shed.   

[gravityblock]

That's probably going to bring the torque guys down on us, and I've been against it from initial conception. But it does rather simplify the build gravock.

There's that word again. Ok you're scaring me lol. There's way too much going on in your design for my simple mind, the concept was born of inertia and I've tried to maintain that fundamental nature. Cramming additional and unnecessary elements into a new concept may do more harm than good I fear. Looking for the next step in proving the concept gravock, rather than a device that appears to be desperately clutching at every stray force to achieve OU.

I'll have to take your word for that, since EM is rather a dark art for me.

Hmmmm..... continuous acceleration isn't on the mode menu for this phenomenon gravock; the system needs to be cyclic. I'll take a long hard look at your proposal before making any further observations, but I doubt you have found a way past that obstacle. Not to worry, there are multiple elements to this concept and it may require some adjustments in thinking. Unless you are seeing something I missed, which is always a possibility. I hope you won't take offence (a common reaction around here) but it would be remiss of me not to speak plainly before you disappear into your shed.

The concepts found in this video will also be part of the design.  In the video, there is both a linear momentum and a rotational momentum in the opposite direction arising from the same applied force, just as we find in the PE.  In fact, it could be argued that this is nothing more than a simple and basic PE displaying the secondary reaction force.  A similar motion as found in the video will be achieved through the brush system.  What I'm talking about isn't much more complicated and different from the original PE.  I understand the concept of the secondary reaction force very well and the center of mass, etc.  You'll have to trust me on this for the time being, for I will need to prove it through experiments.  The video should be helpful in understanding the mechanics a little better.

Gravock

[Tusk]

You'll have to trust me on this for the time being, for I will need to prove it through experiments.

Trust mode engaged; standing by with considerable interest.

[tesla2]

30 km/s and NEWTON NOT EXIST

( Newton was great obserwator we can use his Force but we have to add  small problem )

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-YrUvn5DtJbs/VBVMugI-61I/AAAAAAAAB_A/QmzLUbz-qoY/s1600/CIMG3325.JPG

I very slowly explain all

http://www.scienceagogo.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=52986#Post52986


You can find my engine here ( nobody proved in past tha radial force are able make work )

http://tesla4.blogspot.com