The Solution vs Hoax equation

[Tusk]

Thanks TK, re your suggestion

If it's a solution, then open a thread and show us how it is.

I may have my wires crossed on forum etiquette; I had assumed that any serious discussion of the Paradox Engine would naturally take place in that thread. If this is not the case I would appreciate further guidance.

I don't really know how to gauge my level of interest appropriately without knowing just what it is you are claiming, in a paragraph or less

(abbreviated quote there but one step at a time) The concept is so simple that perhaps it was overlooked. Everything hinges on the following statement:

A force applied at any point on a body in equilibrium results in an equal and parallel reactive force at the centre of mass of the body acting in the direction of the applied force. This reaction causes such linear motion of the body as would occur if the original force were applied at the centre of mass, independent of any rotational motion produced by the moment of the applied force.


.....which began life as an observation but may very well qualify as a new law (unless it is pre existent in the literature, but I could find no reference to it). In a nutshell any force applied to a body which causes rotation also causes linear motion equal to the linear motion which would otherwise manifest if the body were subjected to the same applied force at it's centre of mass.

Or perhaps you prefer 'the energy imparted to the body causes it to rotate in full measure of that energy, and in addition imparts a linear motion at the centre of mass of the body also in full measure of that energy.'

Two for the price of one; nature's little secret, hidden in plain sight. Check out the peg pendulum demonstration, better still apply some of that robust scientific method and check my results. If you manage to produce a non-rotating object with a higher velocity than the rotating object then my tentative new law will be disproved (not every day you get a chance to do that). Mass of the two objects must be equal, obviously.

I'm not sure how else to put it; I performed a series of various experiments (on a budget, but this is basic stuff) before committing to the expense and trouble of building a device which could exploit the phenomena, which it clearly does - unless someone can provide a convincing argument that despite the main disk actually accelerating more rapidly while the main rotor turns (main rotor has total mass over x3 of the disk - that's a solid steel rotor arm) the disk is somehow losing energy to the main rotor - this while the data suggests less power being drawn during the acceleration of the disk. Also the main rotor turns in the opposite direction with similar vigor during braking of the disk (i.e. regeneration cycle) which must provide yet another opportunity to recover energy.

Apologies, I've gone over my single paragraph limit - not so simple, maybe. Although in my defence I did say basically the same thing three different ways. Was it not clear I have been suggesting a new law? Or possibly a caveat on Newton's Third. Does anyone even know the correct procedure for doing this?



   

[Tusk]

Apologies audiomaker, missed your earlier question:

2. What I am getting from Tusk (correct me if I'm wrong), is simply that he doubts others will understand the phenomena he is describing, therefore not validate it based on misunderstanding, not because it isn't there or until now discovered (is that close?).

Correct. On the basis that it constitutes a key element of the fundamental nature of the universe. Such things always go unnoticed (hidden in plain sight) until someone notices them. They are also usually quite easy to test, i.e. the twin peg experiment. Another explanation for the result might yet be forthcoming, yet it sits there quietly resisting apprehension.

Apologies also for hijacking your fine thread. Once someone points me in the right direction I'll be out of your hair.

[TinselKoala]

@tusk: Linear momentum and angular momentum are separately conserved. If you have observations that indicate otherwise that would be interesting indeed. From your brief description it sounds like you think you are creating angular momentum out of nothing. So I must be misunderstanding.

You said "this thread" and I said to open one discussing your device and claims. If your Paradox Engine thread is already discussing your device to your satisfaction then of course you don't need to open a different one.

One of the most profound things I have learned came to me from a rather strange colleague. He said to me "As a thing is viewed, so it appears."

And I have told you the story of Peter Graneau, professor emeritus Physics, MIT, who has for years espoused a simple, conservation of momentum based argument that claims and predicts anomalous results from water arc discharges. Unfortunately he is using the wrong model, which is why for years his experimental results didn't come up to his expectations. Perhaps there's a lesson in that, for those who have time to smell the nasturtiums.

[audiomaker]

Apologies audiomaker, missed your earlier question:

Correct. On the basis that it constitutes a key element of the fundamental nature of the universe. Such things always go unnoticed (hidden in plain sight) until someone notices them. They are also usually quite easy to test, i.e. the twin peg experiment. Another explanation for the result might yet be forthcoming, yet it sits there quietly resisting apprehension.

Apologies also for hijacking your fine thread. Once someone points me in the right direction I'll be out of your hair.

Well Tusk, I hope you'll forgive me for saying, but that kind of puts you in a bind that will require an enormous amount of patience and effort on your part.

It would not be unlike me saying "I've discovered the falabriganth effect and you can't understand what it does." (I made that word up).  You might as well resign yourself to the idea that very few are going to be able to jump on your boat.

What if what the "falabriganth" effect does is make things smell like strawberries elsewhere in the galaxy?  It may exist, but hey... you see.   In your case, not only will data need to be provided, but there is the risk that there is no way to interpret the data itself.   Tough spot to be in.

I could come up with 100's of examples about being unable to prove that which nobody can understand the effect of.  I might write a book, but that doesn't help you.

I would suggest taking it easy on yourself, and especially others while you formulate the best presentation of your ideas that you can.  There will be some frustration involved, both coming and going.

[audiomaker]

@tusk: Linear momentum and angular momentum are separately conserved. If you have observations that indicate otherwise that would be interesting indeed. From your brief description it sounds like you think you are creating angular momentum out of nothing. So I must be misunderstanding.

You said "this thread" and I said to open one discussing your device and claims. If your Paradox Engine thread is already discussing your device to your satisfaction then of course you don't need to open a different one.

One of the most profound things I have learned came to me from a rather strange colleague. He said to me "As a thing is viewed, so it appears."

And I have told you the story of Peter Graneau, professor emeritus Physics, MIT, who has for years espoused a simple, conservation of momentum based argument that claims and predicts anomalous results from water arc discharges. Unfortunately he is using the wrong model, which is why for years his experimental results didn't come up to his expectations. Perhaps there's a lesson in that, for those who have time to smell the nasturtiums.

I feel myself getting smarter.  I currently only have to Google half of the words TK uses