The Paradox Engine

[Tusk]

the rotating version is not the same

Agreed broli, I was getting to that later, using this first example as a sort of 'base camp'.

it does show an energy gain, but I'm looking forward to some critique pointing out the mistake in the math

At a glance the maths is ok but there are a couple of other issues (my fault, I should have been more specific). I intended that the brake rail be 'bench mounted', we want to motivate the disk (linear motion) to the maximum (which you seem to have done anyway). Also my mention of the steel rod was an unnecessary complication, I believe you would concede that the proposed ring of steel would have the same KE at a given linear velocity as at an equal rotational velocity.

In your analysis an arbitrary value appears to have been given for a force acting over a specific period without consideration that the inertial resistance of the rod might not be sufficient to manifest it. The event you examined would be best dealt with as a collision between two bodies in equilibrium, but that was not my intention.

Actually I also made an error regarding the cessation of rotation of the disk. This is one of the hazards when wandering off the beaten track, then wandering off that track 

In order to stop the rotation in the observer frame of reference, the brake must actually continue to apply force beyond the instant when a given point on the disk passes over the brake rail but has no motion from right to left as it does so. Put another way, if we roll a disk along a surface with no slippage, the disk rotates but the aforementioned condition applies (it's a tough one to define with any clarity).

If the brake force stops at this point (i.e. before the rotation is stopped) then not all rotational motion is converted to linear motion. That motion remaining in rotational form is still available to us in this configuration, but now I want to confirm with you that if we allow the brake to convert 50% of the rotational motion to linear motion, then 100% of the initial KE (theoretical) is still available to us in the two motions.

If you agree with this, then I must introduce regenerative braking again (as you no doubt anticipated) and ask where does the resultant harvest of energy originate -  whatever it's value - since we have already accounted for 100% ?

I would like to state that the rotating version is not the same. If you would compare them, for instance accelerating both rod and wheel at the same rate, in the rotating version a rotation of the wheel would arise due to its inertia. While no such "spontaneous" rotation appears in the linear version.

You may have something there; perhaps between us we will come up with a linear version of the PE apparatus to beat my original version  I doubt very much if all the bases are covered, more likely only several of a great many; which makes the scarcity of prospectors all the more surprising.
 

 

[telecom]

Tusk, that's perhaps an easier setup to analyze. However I would like to state that the rotating version is not the same. If you would compare them, for instance accelerating both rod and wheel at the same rate, in the rotating version a rotation of the wheel would arise due to its inertia. While no such "spontaneous" rotation appears in the linear version.

I also performed a simple analysis of the linear setup. it does show an energy gain, but I'm looking forward to some critique pointing out the mistake in the math.

Hi ,
I'm not an expert in this field, but remember from far back that usually for
calculation of the energy of the flywheel people are using moment of inertia instead of the mass. Not sure if this is relevant or already accounted for, though.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flywheel

[Tusk]

An interesting viewpoint webby1. I can only answer to the following:

the potential a mass has relative to another mass is the rate change in distance of separation

With the applied force situated at or over the axis we can consider the drive unit (which basically represents the bench/earth ) and the disk/rotor arm as fulfilling your definition (above). As you seem to agree, in this configuration (by virtue of the secondary reaction at the disk axis) we are able to cause a continuous interaction between the two across two frames of reference, the first being the rotation of the disk itself in the rotor arm FoR and the second being the rotor arm rotation in the observers frame of reference.

We are all familiar with the first of these, having a plethora of spinning objects nearly everywhere we look. The second however, wherein the rotation is caused by a 'remote' secondary reaction offset from our point of application of force, appears to be a new concept, most likely due to the significance of the physics having not been recognised (it tends to blow away like mist on the winds of angular momentum theory). This 'remote' reactive force allows us to situate our two masses (as per your definition above) so as to be continuously accelerating away from each other while remaining in fixed and direct contact. This in turn abrogates the conventional requirement for supplying that amount of energy normally needed to accelerate one or other masses in pursuit of point of force acceleration, a significant frame of reference coup but unfortunately one not readily comprehended even by those familiar with physics and the topic of frames of reference.

This reminds me of a self exciting oscillation.  Could it be that your setup has found a method of doing this?

This is a frame of reference manipulation; I have very little knowledge of oscillation theory but at first glance I shouldn't be surprised if FoR played some part in it.

With the PE apparatus awareness of the first phenomenon is the key to manipulating FoR to our advantage by application of the second phenomenon. It's not too much of a stretch metaphorically to say that this is like the discovery of a new dimension. Everyone (ok, anyone with an interest) wants to crawl around it and take measurements with three dimensional equipment. You need to stand back and fit a metaphorical fish eye lens to get a meaningful look at the thing, then maybe formulate some new equations and perhaps even tack a new law onto the literature.

Thanks for the link telecom, although you have probably already noted from my previous comments that what is really needed here is a broader view rather than equations. Perhaps we can make better use of those one day, if someone decides to have a go at building the next stage of experimental apparatus. If I go to the grave with no confederates in this, then so be it; and serves me right for gifting the damned thing rather than going for a patent and the usual hush money. If my take on the universe is pointing anywhere near true I'll probably die in a hail of gunfire (or worse lol), even the flimsy umbrella of public awareness having failed to open 

     

[Tusk]

Let's try this approach; something a little more familiar and 'hands on'.

If we make our disk large enough to serve as one of those fairground rides, seats all around the outer edge with harnesses etc. Drive the disk as specified, but have an identical disk nearby with no rotor arm, with the same weight of riders and the same drive system etc.

First the simple disk ride starts up, consumes X amount of energy with a rate of rotation value of Y and everyone swings out over the watching crowd on their articulated chairs due to the rapid rotation. The power is cut and in a perfect world X amount of energy is reclaimed by regenerative braking and fed back into the massive battery.

Now the PE type ride begins; by the time we have again consumed X amount of energy the disk is rotating as rapidly as before (observer FoR) but now the rotor arm is active, so that the ride rotates simultaneously about two separate axes (and we all know how that feels). The power is then cut. Note that in the FoR of the rotor arm, the rate of rotation of the disk exceeds the first instance ( i.e. > Y ).

While as stated at the central drive unit the disk rotation appears to be faster, when the rotor arm regenerative brake is applied and the rotor arm stops, the disk rotation is seen to be exactly as before, with a rate of rotation of value Y. Reclamation of energy so far is Z amount of energy from the rotor arm motion.

Now the regenerative brake is applied to the disk by the drive unit. Since this is only a single disk system and we require simplicity and clarity, let's lock the rotor arm at this point. The rate of disk rotation now having a value of Y in the rotor arm FoR, which is now the same FoR as the observer, as with the simple ride when the disk rotation comes to a halt the reclaimed energy from the disk must be X (in a perfect world).

The simple ride replaced the energy lost driving the ride. The PE type ride achieved this and also added Y amount of energy to the battery.

The only reason this might not be so is if the cost in energy of motivating an object by EM propulsion were more in the event of the object being propelled having some additional motion in the direction of intended motion (perhaps our point of force motion comes into play, but not in our favour on this occasion). If this is so then we might easily restrict the motion of the rotor arm by gearing, since the secondary force applies for the same duration as the applied force no matter how we direct it; therefore some additional energy exceeding that amount expended will nevertheless be available to us. But considering the astounding energy evident in devices from electric motors through to rail guns, it seems that due to the high rate of creation and collapse of magnetic fields the typical working velocities of our machinery are handled with little regard for point of force motion.

My understanding is that it makes little or no difference to an EM propulsion system whether the motivated mass has an initial velocity of 1cm/sec or 10m/sec, with the cost in energy being virtually equal and having basically the same outcome in terms of acceleration. Please correct me if this is not so.

[Tusk]

I'm not familiar with your designs webby1 but that might be an option worth looking at. I had always assumed that electronics was the most efficient way to go for energy recovery, eliminating as much mechanical hardware as possible. Is there a specific reason behind your suggestion or were you thinking out loud? (which is fine, btw)