The Paradox Engine

[lumen]

broli,
I believe you have both conditions correct. One interesting result would be to position the friction motor at an angle where it would drive the torque as in the first condition and equally as in the second condition, there would be no rotation of the larger disk at all.

Both force directions would cancel each other with a net zero condition.

[Tusk]

Thanks broli, although you appear to have 'missed the boat' somewhere along the way (and since nobody has yet caught the thing this in no way reflects poorly on you, rather my attempts at explanation are no doubt sub par).

There are several important differences in our experiments (and my results/your hypothetical results); while you are apparently attempting to breach CoM, I have claimed no such breach and have inferred that such a breach is highly unlikely, and why. Also while I have stated on many occasions (this most recent instance with supporting reference to an M.I.T. document) that the linear motion of a body due to an applied force will be the same regardless of the point of application of force, you have not taken it into account in your proposed device. Under acceleration your main disk would rotate in the opposite direction to that specified, as a direct result of the phenomenon and I suspect in accordance with CoM.

If alternatively you intended your device to run at a constant velocity against various frictions and resistances it becomes another experiment entirely and completely unrelated to the PE. I did however suggest that the prototype PE have two disks mounted on the main rotor arm, so in this respect there is similarity. But to achieve OU the disk/s must be driven from a point coincident with the central axis for the reasons given in my previous post.

Being dependent on two separate phenomena, the first being the aforementioned linear motion (now confirmed) and the second being the frame of reference adjustment which allows the linear motion to manifest (converted to circular motion) thus avoiding the need to accelerate the drive unit, it is therefore required that both phenomena be understood for a full comprehension of the concept/device.

If you were convinced of the OU potential of the concept prior to such comprehension I assume you would spare no effort to grasp it; so this is really more of a trust issue. Curious that in the modern era someone giving something away for free should be held in so much suspicion; dare I say (in some quarters) even contempt.

[broli]

Tusk I would much rather work with concrete numbers and examples. So excuse my missing of the boat and let me swim to catch up.

Your "man" that is pushing the round about in the circular system will no doubt experience the same reaction force. However in this case the reaction force will manifest as a torque which will rotate him. His rotation will be in the opposite direction to that of the roundabout he keeps spinning every time it meets his sight. So instead of running behind it he now faces with the problem that the roundabout zooms past him ever so faster and his time to exert a force will go down every time. Am I not right here?

I agree that CoM is quite sacred and have yet to see a violation of it however CoAngularM and CoE is something else. Energy gets seemingly destroyed in a ballistic pendulum type experiment just enough so that CoM can be true no matter the ratio of small or big mass. That is fascinating to me that nature has that kind of calculator. So the question is then if energy can "vanish" so easily when CoM must be conserved can the opposite also be true? So far you did not share any concrete numbers or design that would show this.

I would like to say that the baseball example in that paper did make me realize that the force in my example #2 does act on the center of mass, being the axle of the small wheel. Since both forces are attached to the same base no rotation should occur. So this begs the question if there is a rotation of the bigger wheel, what force caused it?

[Tusk]

I would much rather work with concrete numbers and examples

Fair enough brodi; I can allow that the roundabout be made of concrete if you find that helpful  But I will attempt to address your other questions and concerns in a more serious manner:

Your "man" that is pushing the round about in the circular system will no doubt experience the same reaction force. However in this case the reaction force will manifest as a torque which will rotate him.

And herein lies the problem with thought experiments. If I had specified either a small man or a tall cart we could have avoided this misadventure. So please excuse my failure to cover all the bases, a glance at the PE experimental apparatus will confirm that

1. the edge of the disk passes directly above the drive unit, which is mounted directly over the main axis, and
2. the drive unit rotates along with the main rotor arm (since it is mounted thereon).

Retrospectively then, we should stipulate that the edge of the roundabout passes directly over the head of the man, who stands dead centre and applies the motive force tangentially. As we restrict our model with ever more minutia it's serviceability is reduced and we run the risk of missing that boat yet again.

he now faces with the problem that the roundabout zooms past him ever so faster and his time to exert a force will go down every time. Am I not right here?

The roundabout would still 'zoom past him' when mounted in the park and unable to manifest linear motion. Any increase due to inertial and geometrical factors (which we can expect) would certainly keep him busy, but the example is intended as a conceptual aid rather than a detailed explanation. Once we transplant the basic concept over to the PE apparatus there can be much more productive discussion about this issue and how the EM drive unit deals with it. At this stage we might allow that the disk accelerating more rapidly seems not to be a hindrance to our stated intentions, which is the creation of a device which manifests more energy than is required to run it.

So the question is then if energy can "vanish" so easily when CoM must be conserved can the opposite also be true? So far you did not share any concrete numbers or design that would show this.

Actually I have presented data obtained from tests of the apparatus and also explained the design. Many have complained that the data is insufficient and have clearly failed to understand the design and it's real purpose. While it is true that the data requires some sophisticated logic to arrive at the stated conclusions, short of constructing a well engineered prototype we find ourselves at that stage of research and development where concepts and proofs have yet no offspring.

the force in my example #2 does act on the center of mass, being the axle of the small wheel. Since both forces are attached to the same base no rotation should occur. So this begs the question if there is a rotation of the bigger wheel, what force caused it?

The secondary reactive force at the axis of the two wheels. It takes time to assimilate new information so there is no shame in neglecting to include it. And in all fairness the M.I.T. reference fails to define the force clearly, but if you study the phenomenon it follows that the force must operate as I defined it. So the applied force on the wheels (by the motors) not only causes rotation of the wheels but also a reaction at the axis in the direction of the applied force and equal to it. Since this force is radially more distant from the main axis than the opposing equal reaction at the motors this would cause the larger wheel to rotate opposite to the direction you specified.

Back with the roundabout example, there exists a clear advantage due to the rearrangement of the frame of reference. But it seems equally clear that the manipulation of frames of reference is an acquired skill and not easily understood by the majority who have no cause to acquire it. Perhaps if you imagine the experiment taking place in space, so we can discard the cart; in the first instance our astronaut might employ a rocket pack to keep pace with the roundabout as it accelerates away. In the second instance, perhaps restricted to a circular path around him by virtue of the gravitational effect of a small black hole (which he must carefully avoid falling into) he can discard the rocket pack yet maintain a comparable rate of acceleration of the roundabout both in rotation and linear motion (converted to circular motion).

Any concerns about suitable purchase for the astronaut's exertions should be put aside; the experiment has many flaws (not least the black hole) but serves to illustrate the salient point, which is that linear acceleration requires more energy than remaining motionless, and converting the linear motion to a circular motion allows this advantage while maintaining a comparable energetic outcome.     

[broli]

Hey you're actually right, speaking of a Freudian slip, for some reason I forgot the very definition of torque, force cross distance. Indeed the "MIT" force acts on a bigger radius than the counter force thus allowing the big wheel to rotate. At least that's cleared up. I would also like to say that I'm getting a condescending vibe from your replies and you are pretty defensive to input too.
I have nothing against being wrong or having my knowledge on things refreshed but you shouldn't treat everyone as blockheads.

I'm genuinely interested in what you have to show and tell as I have a line of research in similar areas of rotational systems and CoM. So I would appreciate it if we could just exchange words of wisdom rather than have this turn out in the nth piss contest.

One thing is still not clear to me in your thought experiment. Is your man, astronaut or alien attached to the main wheel/track, as is the case with your real word experiment, or does he have his own independent axis of rotation?