The Paradox Engine

[broli]

That is the obvious question isn't it, if the main arm gains rotational energy every time the em drive accelerates and breaks the inner wheel. Why not just keep repeating this process. Shouldn't it keep increasing its rotational energy every cycle to infinity and beyond? If not then the argument of there being an energy gain will be hard to uphold.

[Tusk]

Thanks for your continued interest gentlemen, I'll attempt to answer each in turn.

First this from telecom:

I think the next logical step would be measuring all the outputs. For this
you probably have to attach a sprocket towards the freewheeling arm, coaxial with
the central axis, and connect to a generator.

Operation is by nature cyclic, since we are relying on inertia to provide us with the secondary reactive force, and therefore cannot run at a constant rate. There may very well be a possibility to shift this reliance to EM resistance with a continuous input/output potential but at this point it seems appropriate to keep it simple and maintain sight of the fundamentals. The EM drive will also need to act as a regenerative brake, and there must be a generator capable of switching rotational direction (either electrically or mechanically) to allow for the rotor arm reversal. Also the cyclic operation will require some sort of computer control and switching etc. Therefore the full prototype will require some good electronics engineering in addition to a robust mechanical build.

This from infringer:

I am curious as to why something with a 300% COE cannot run itself and give energy

Try as I might a method for mechanically directing energy from the three separate motions to achieve self running continues to elude me; it really would be far easier to bite the bullet and build a two disk EM system as described.

and this:

I suggest that if you would like verification builds by others to include the full inner and outer workings of your design from the types of bearings down to the smallest screw over to all the electronics to make this possible.

If I had the engineering skills to produce such material I would be linking a video of the completed device.  A year ago I was convinced that the concept would stand on it's own merit, with enough potential builders interested (if not completely convinced) to kick start a discussion and eventually a build. Actual events seem to suggest you are closer to the mark, with most of the interest following inventors who patent their creations rather than offer them freely.

And this from broli:

That is the obvious question isn't it, if the main arm gains rotational energy every time the em drive accelerates and breaks the inner wheel. Why not just keep repeating this process. Shouldn't it keep increasing its rotational energy every cycle to infinity and beyond? If not then the argument of there being an energy gain will be hard to uphold.

Since the main rotor arm motion is reversed each cycle the rotational energy cannot increase indefinitely as you suggest. There is of course the possibility of braking at the outer edge of the disk using a static outer ring of coils (bench mounted). Such a layout would initially have the effect you describe, since the braking force at the outer edge would create a secondary reactive force on the rotor arm in the same direction as that created by the drive unit. But a limited rate of turn system would be the better solution in this instance since the rotor arm motion would act contrary to the interaction between the rotating disk and the outer ring as the rotor arm rate of turn increased, eventually reversing the direction of braking thus also reversing the direction of the secondary reactive force.

Any perceived gain in regard to rotation of the disk at that point would be negated in turn (no pun intended) by the retardation of the rotor arm, unless perhaps the intention was to motivate the disk to relatively high rates of rotation. Such an intent seems to require unnecessarily convoluted thinking when the initial design offers a simple cyclic method of operation.

No doubt many find the thought processes required in frame of reference manipulation arduous and foreign, the conclusions often confounding. Like any other field of activity it does eventually become second nature. Contemplate the 'non invariant' energy of a ball thrown onto a passing train; to the observer outside the train, if the ball passes through the carriage and out again (open windows - an old carriage then) the energy of the ball is clearly no more than expected. To an observer inside the carriage the ball might enter through a window at the front and move at high velocity along the carriage, exiting through a rear window on the far side.

A simplistic example but it serves to show the potential for advantage by manipulation of frames of reference. This is the underlying nature of the PE apparatus, which must be understood in these terms to defeat the paradox. Applying the usual litmus tests here may not reveal the veracity of the concept, but (more interestingly) neither can it provide a disproof. If I may roll out an old proverb (in good humour), 'you can lead a horse to water'.   

[telecom]

 The EM drive will also need to act as a regenerative brake, and there must be a generator capable of switching rotational direction (either electrically or mechanically) to allow for the rotor arm reversal. Also the cyclic operation will require some sort of computer control and switching etc. Therefore the full prototype will require some good electronics engineering in addition to a robust mechanical build.

Hi Task,
I believe that you already have solved the problem of measuring an output from the EM drive based on the power output graphs you presented earlier. In terms of a generator being connected, it will produce current either way its shaft rotates, and to make it flow in one direction, it will be sufficient to add 4 diodes to the output, which is a trivial task, not requiring any specialized knowledge. You just have to attach the pulley, or a sprocket towards the arm. and couple it towards a generator.
Regards.

[broli]

Tusk I still believe that simple math should show the energy gained. Again I would like to refer to the ballistic pendulum experiment.

Here simply following the law of conservation of momentum leads to vanishing energy, of course the critics will tell you that the energy is lost as heat, sound, deformation but any concrete data to back this claim up has gone missing just like the energy. Miraculously the momentum is conserved perfectly as if nature had a calculator to know how much energy it had to put in "heat, sound, deformation" to achieve this feat.

Just like the energy loss in the ballistic pendulum, an energy gain could be found when momentum is forced to be conserved. This is what happens in your setup too. m*v always over rules mv^2. Before you showed up I was kind of obsessed by this, you might look up the user called pequaide.


Anyway I made an theoretical analysis of a setup similar to yours on paper and by needing to conserve angular momentum the kinetic energy ratio of start:finish was 1:25. I'm going to redo the exercise a couple of times to rule out any Freudian slips before I can share it.

[infringer]

The spin cycle you are trying to gain energy from is the reverse spin cycle when there is no power applied correct?

If this is so simply add magnets and a small sheet of aluminum and iron sandwich does not have to be as heavy and thick this way and stationary coils underneath and magnets underneath these coils as well with a mounted to the same aluminum and steel sandwich. There is plenty of information on the axial flux design on the net. There may even be better ways to generate power that are better off of the shaft I'm not all seeing all knowing type but a simple method to achieve this is available just research generators and alternators of all types I dunno why but I have a hunch axial flux may not be a bad idea for your project as there may be less friction using this method than say a pulley or gear type system. Now this is just a guess I could be way off not being an expert but direct contact would in my mind exert more friction than magnetic non contact just be sure that the distance between the generation plates the two magnetic plates and the stator coils is adjustable so you can tune it up or down to hit the sweet spot of least friction with the most power.

TO ALL: Please do correct me if I am wrong I have not done enough generator research to know the best solution for this device to generate power from the work it puts out I do however want to help get his ball rolling with so much time invested it would be great to help this fella out and really put it to the test!