The Paradox Engine

[jfarmer408]

Have you seen this video, its kind of up your alley!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n_6p-1J551Y

[infringer]

hrmmm very odd the peak is higher and the time it takes to reach the peak is less when it is not fixed quite the anomaly ....

You got me on this one. Very interesting. it is possible that there is less friction during the start and rotation not being fixed rather than not fixed at least this is what the data points to.

Also takes less power to achieve even better results but the amount of power and the gain in speed do not by themselves add up to this 300% until you factor in the reverse spin I assume and this data is for the 2 disc unit that is in the video or is it for the 3 disc unit that there is no video of?

Sorry for the miss on the graph just trying to play a little catchup I suppose. Good stuff though.

[Tusk]

That reaction cube you linked to is excellent jfarmer408. I want one 

takes less power to achieve even better results but the amount of power and the gain in speed do not by themselves add up to this 300% until you factor in the reverse spin I assume and this data is for the 2 disc unit that is in the video or is it for the 3 disc unit that there is no video of?

The data is from what you refer to as the 2 disc unit infringer, but I say single disk since the other rotating element is the main rotor arm. The proposed twin disk unit would approach a 200% return just from the energy in the disks if the rotor arm was relatively lightweight; this because the main rotor arm would rotate almost one turn for every turn of the disks, which would provide even more impressive data than that produced so far. This is possible because the secondary motion - rotor arm rotation - is essentially similar to converted linear motion of the baseball bat as referenced in the M.I.T. document.

We can deduce from this phenomenon (and indeed observe experimentally) that with a mass bias suited to the purpose, a single applied force can cause the resulting linear and rotational energies to be equal (rather than just their momentum). The significant supporting phenomenon of the PE device is to situate the origin of that force such that a continuous application becomes possible without the need to advance the point of application of force i.e. the frame of reference manipulation, or simply put, placing the drive unit at the centre of the system.

[lumen]

Suppose the disk is accelerated to 1000 RPM at the arms center pivot.
At this point the disk is actually going 800 RPM and the arm is doing 200 RPM in the opposite direction.
Total reading at the crossing is 1000 RPM.

Now if you stop the arm the disk is going 800 RPM and the arm 0 RPM.
When you stop the disk, the arm will again accumulate the forces to 200 RPM.
Now you can stop the arm again. It appears as if there was a gain but in both cases the energy applied into the disk or extracted from the disk was never the full potential as it appears at the crossing.
In the first case, you never applied all the energy into the disk to reach 1000 RPM (only 800 RPM because 200 RPM moved into the arm)
Then in the second case you never extracted 800 RPM of energy from the disk. (only 600 RPM because again 200 RPM moved back into the arm)

Do you see this any differently?

[Tusk]

You appear to have misunderstood the nature of the first phenomenon lumen (and consequently missed the point of the second);

Suppose the disk is accelerated to 1000 RPM at the arms center pivot.
At this point the disk is actually going 800 RPM and the arm is doing 200 RPM in the opposite direction.

If we accept those values (which incidentally indicates an approximate mass ratio for the rotor arm to disk of 5:1 although this is subject to mass distribution) we must allow that whatever the applied force, it is adequate to the task of accelerating the disk to 800 RPM under normal circumstances; that it is also adequate to the task of accelerating the rotor arm to 200 RPM under normal circumstances; and that, since the circumstances are abnormal, the single application of that force has caused both rotations simultaneously as defined.

Once you accept the phenomenon, hidden in plain sight as it has been until recently - disguised as simply a consideration of momentum - the additional 200 RPM of the rotor arm in your example immediately reveals itself as stored energy over and above that spent motivating the disk to 800 RPM. This is the converted linear motion as defined in the M.I.T. document, and as I defined it independently after deduction of same, working in isolation prior to discovery of the M.I.T. document.

Take a good look at it. If we apply a force at the centre of mass (of a body) we observe X linear motion. If we apply the same force at one or other end of the same body, we observe Y rotational motion and X linear motion. We might call the rotation 'additional' but in any explanation of the PE device, describing the rotation of the disk as such would only cause more confusion. Therefore I regard the converted linear motion (of the rotor arm + disk) as 'additional'. Under 'normal' conditions this would require an additional input of energy due to the advancing point of force requirement.

With the PE apparatus it costs us nothing, since the second phenomenon (the frame of reference manipulation) allows the first phenomenon to manifest both motions with a single applied force equal to the task under normal conditions of manifesting one or the other but not both together. Since the data obtained from the PE apparatus actually supports this you may be forced at some point to accept the fact. Since it took more than a year of experiment and hard thinking to impose this on my own perception of reality I can sympathise