The Paradox Engine

[broli]

I have kind of reached a conundrum which made the deck of cards fall for me.

It has to do with the inertia of the inner wheel. As you pointed out earlier, the orientation of the inner wheel will try to remain the same when the arm is rotated. For the people that don't understand what tusk means with this, check the attached drawing.

Now when this happens, the wheel, from the arm's reference point, will seem to rotate. The angular velocity of this rotation is equal, but in the opposite direction, to the angular velocity of the arm. This is always the case irregardless of any torque.

The conundrum that is melting my brain is if you start out with a motionless arm and a rotating disk. If you then brake the disk using the arm. We know what the final situation will look like. Namely the arm will be rotating, and the disk from the arm's point of view will be stationary. However from the earth's point of view it's far from stationary. It has the same angular velocity as the arm now. And deriving the angular momentum, and kinetic energy from such a situation is vastly different than not considering the inertia of the inner wheel.

[infringer]

What I do not see being measured is the spin down of the unit.

Is the spin down velocity the same and the length of time it takes to spin down the same when the unit is fixed or not fixed.

Energy depletion just as a spring releasing when power is removed from the disc does the disc maintain the same release when fixed or not I would venture to say this too is an important part of the equation I am not trying to be negative just trying to look for anything you may have missed and I believe that is lumens intent as well.

Every great man can easily be downgraded rather quickly by missing one small thing and we are all vulnerable to overlooking things from time to time the human brain is complex but can be very fragile and imperfect as well at times even within a group small things go unnoticed and oddly I find it is the higher educated ones that overlook the small stuff details so to speak.

It looks like there is a sharper drop from the data in the rotation when the motor is free but I would like to see separate data from the moment the power is released just for the disc alone.

[Tusk]

I have kind of reached a conundrum which made the deck of cards fall for me.

That sounds more of a 'game over' thing than an obstacle to be overcome broli 

if you start out with a motionless arm and a rotating disk. If you then brake the disk using the arm. We know what the final situation will look like

However, we are starting out with simultaneous acceleration of both the disk and rotor arm; this we achieve by application of a single force which, if applied to the disk when bench mounted (in our case 'rotor arm secure') is incapable of inducing that same acceleration (of the disk).

Unsurprisingly we now find ourselves with beggared belief at that point of interaction between the two phenomenon, which is itself what we might reasonably call a new concept. Analysis by conventional means is unlikely to succeed since the concept will require acceptance and integration as a new 'dot point' in our overall understanding. If you think about it, anything less could not possibly lead to a method for OU.

Referring back to the baseball bat example provided by M.I.T. let's allow a particle of very small mass moving at very high velocity colliding with the bat (inelastic collision) to produce the two results indicated. Then we can disregard the change of position of centre of mass since the particle has such small mass.

The first collision has the particle impacting in line with the centre of mass of the bat at the centre of the bat. This results in X m/sec² linear acceleration of the bat over a period t (of collision interaction) which in turn produces a linear velocity of Y m/sec (of the bat, not rotating).

The second collision has the particle impacting at one or other end of the bat. This results in X m/sec² linear acceleration of the bat over the same period t (of collision interaction) which in turn produces a linear velocity of Y m/sec, and in addition some rotational motion. The rotational acceleration of the bat over period t will require sophisticated analysis due to the varied accelerations of all points along the length of the bat. But we can afford to let that go for now on the basis that this additional motion manifested seemingly at no additional cost, other than the repositioning of the impact point of the particle which is nothing, as we might just have easily have started with this second collision then moved the point of impact to achieve the non rotational result.

So we might ask where the additional energy come from (for the rotational acceleration); analysis of both collisions will show that both the force and period of acceleration (collision interaction) are identical, while the distance over which that force applies is greater for the collision thus resulting in rotation.

The second motion was indeed 'free' in terms of input energy since we achieved it by simply changing the impact point. The particle was able to induce more motion in the second instance due to point of force motion, which is logical since the end of the bat will clearly accelerate more rapidly than the centre of mass of the bat, given the same applied force.

But shooting small particles at a large mass is not very helpful to us in terms of energy. Having found a potentially useful phenomenon we must yet devise a method which allows the manifestation of both linear and rotational motion without the need for advancing the point of force; since this element of the collision is responsible for the additional motion. Enter the frame of reference manipulation, by which devious dark art we are able to accelerate our disk all the while converting linear motion to circular, thus avoiding the need to 'chase' the disk since our drive unit stands at the centre of the circle.

Obviously the disk now 'runs ahead' rotating more rapidly than if bench mounted. If we were to take that rate of turn and run the numbers according to convention (based on the mass of the disk and mass distribution etc) they would indicate that more energy was expended than in reality. This because the rotation of the rotor arm along with the inertia of the disk causes some percentage of the disk rotation (depending on the various mass values) in the frame of reference of the drive unit/rotor arm and as with the baseball bat it cost us no more in terms of energy than if the disk were bench mounted.

If you drill into hardwood with a power drill the motor is more likely to strain and overheat than when drilling softwood. There can be no serious argument that the disk 'running ahead' to a higher rate of rotation than might typically be expected could possibly impose more resistance on an EM drive unit.

CoM allows nay demands that simply repositioning the point of impact in our baseball bat experiment causes more motion of the bat. We can deduce without access to high speed cameras and sophisticated experimental apparatus that the responsible variable in the collision is point of force motion. By eliminating the need for advancing the point of force, the PE apparatus manifests more mass in motion than could typically be expected from the applied force, thus energy out > energy in although at this stage our energy out takes the form of stored energy (mass in motion).

you should be able to run your testbed on an air table and have no other reactions than the disc spinning up and the arm rotating.

Astute observation webby1, this all began with an idea for an inertial propulsion system. For good or bad, CoM disallowed any success and my attempts to furnish a method for travel to the stars ended in OU. Indeed the device (and any variation of it) moves not even a gnat's whisker, some small tendency of rotation of the base due to bearing friction etc maybe but yes you are correct          

[Tusk]

Apologies infringer, you must have posted while I was replying to broli and webby1.

Is the spin down velocity the same and the length of time it takes to spin down the same when the unit is fixed or not fixed.

No, this is another frame of reference issue so comparison is not straightforward. Naturally the 'spin down' from the higher RPM of 'rotor free' takes longer; the rate of spin down appears to be similar in both instances. Suffice to say that we can choose either frame of reference but must then remain with it for best results. If we choose to simply spool up the disk then brake it, we gain whatever additional impetus was provided to the disk by the rotor arm motion and sacrifice the rotor arm motion itself. If we choose to forfeit that extra rate of turn (of the disk) we gain the rotor arm motion and also the reverse rotor arm motion (my preferred method).

Every great man can easily be downgraded rather quickly by missing one small thing and we are all vulnerable to overlooking things from time to time the human brain is complex but can be very fragile and imperfect as well at times even within a group small things go unnoticed and oddly I find it is the higher educated ones that overlook the small stuff details so to speak.

For what it's worth I don't believe in the 'great man' thing; great ideas maybe. Although anyone fortunate (or unfortunate?) enough to have one will probably tell you that they seem to originate elsewhere. As for mistakes and higher education, I generally have an abundance of the former and insufficient of the latter. Largely self taught and prone to misadventure  But I'm 100% clear on this beast, and the fact there has been no credible rebuttal since going open source a year ago tells it's own story.

[lumen]

The mistake is thinking that the bat contains more energy because it is rotating. If one was to extract the rotational energy from the bat the bat would be left with less energy and would not move as far as the bat that did not rotate.

As I said, it is harder to accelerate the disk when the arm does not rotate because it will actually rotate the expected RPM.
The RPM of the arm must be subtracted from the disk's RPM because the disk is now moving around the drive point so the disk's RPM is less, though from the drive point it appears to be the same.


The numbers I used in the example are fictitious and were meant only to show a division of rotation and do not express any of the details of the known masses or leverage points.

Because the energy in moving mass is not linear and the movement is divided between two objects and the measuring is made between the objects, less energy would be applied into the two slower moving objects and would show it reached full RPM faster. Both of these facts are true with what you have shown.