The Paradox Engine

[wayne.ct]

Peace and Best Wishes

@ wayne.ct



While I am always open to initiating new friendships, forgive me for being somewhat cautious at this point. Already it seems you are attempting to move the thread on past a critical issue into territory apparently more to your liking, assuming the role of a tutor with a particularly slow student.

Let me assure you therefore that I require no lecture in conventional physics, certainly not in relation to frames of reference. Key issues become lost quite easily in this format, as I am sure you are well aware. If your intentions are indeed honest and based in scientific curiosity then please address the points I have already put forward. Everything here hinges on one simple observation:

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.

So I have made it easy for you; I have demonstrated this reactive force in action by various means, and offered a method for utilising it as a source of energy.

Therefore feel free to challenge the thesis at it's very core; if you have what you consider an alternative explanation then produce it, mindful that the torque argument has had it's day. You would be looking for some reason other than my proposed force for the rotating peg to be displaced the same amount on the pendulum apparatus as the non-rotating peg; and for the twin disk apparatus to remain motionless regardless of the reaction at the disk drive points on the main frame, while the action itself causes disk rotation and therefore cannot by itself provide sufficient counter force to arrest main frame motion.

I think you have made yourself clear. You understand what you are doing and don't wish to understand the opposing view. The case is closed. I wish you the best in your future endeavors.

[Tusk]

You understand what you are doing and don't wish to understand the opposing view.

Provided the opposing view has it's basis in a reasonable comprehension of the material then I'm quite certain that I understand it, since I didn't simply wake up one morning from a vacuum and suddenly come upon the material in my waste bin. Every question and doubt that could be brought into meaningful consideration was treated as valid until proven otherwise. Yet I am expected to take comments such as this seriously:

As I have already told you your machine is not an engine, it is a flywheel that stores energy, because you have not loaded it and have no intention of doing so. Most probably because you have realised you cannot without stalling it, pretty rubbish engine, right?

If the author of that particular gem had taken the time to read the thesis he would have known that the only load intended for the device is applied after spin-up; the system is intended to be cyclic. Power in/power out (main rotor)/power out (main disk)/secondary power out (main rotor) - this last on the main rotor reversal. Furthermore a load is actually applied to the main disk as described, by way of EM 'braking' simulating at least that aspect of the proposed energy recovery method as seen in the video. And any load applied to the main rotor would have little effect on the operation of the main disk. So forgive me for being somewhat short with or even ignoring 'opposing views' which do not address the real issues, lately reduced to simplicity itself.

You are attempting to limit the investigation to the device and a single frame of reference, parking your mathematical model somewhere safe while ignoring the true complexity of the system, which at any rate should not be the first point of investigation. Challenge the aforementioned experimental results, the conclusions, the experiments themselves if you like; there is a video of one, the other was conducted but the record lost (aside from the result) amid the myriad and various experiments performed over time. But I stand by them, either may be replicated, or perhaps reference found in the literature since I keep reading that the results 'can be explained by conventional physics'. Therefore explain them if you are able, else perhaps have the decency to say that you can not, in that event, rather than retire from the field in feigned offence or disinterest.

[evolvingape]

Pretender to knowledge

You are right about emotion. But, unfortunately, you are WAY overboard. That is why you are a HOT HEAD, Mr. Ape. It only took you, let me count, four sentences, and your emotions have affected your reason. With regard to your definition of OU. It is ENERGY, not POWER, that is the criterion of OU. By YOUR definition of OU, a JT (Joule Thief) is OU. And, every single cell LED flash light is a working example of OU! You seriously need to calm down. Go take your Prozac.

Now, I will read the rest of the thread.

I did not define OU as POWER. I never said a JT or an LED flashlight is OU. In this thread I was talking about the ENERGY of a FLYWHEEL, it's properties of RPM and TORQUE which manifest as POWER to do work. I am not going through the entire process of Joules and conversion efficiency's with someone who is confused by two pegs dangling on a bit of string. You have no depth of knowledge in this subject Wayne, despite your claims, you are a pretender to knowledge.

[evolvingape]

Too stupid to know your stupid!

Provided the opposing view has it's basis in a reasonable comprehension of the material then I'm quite certain that I understand it, since I didn't simply wake up one morning from a vacuum and suddenly come upon the material in my waste bin. Every question and doubt that could be brought into meaningful consideration was treated as valid until proven otherwise. Yet I am expected to take comments such as this seriously:

As I have already told you your machine is not an engine, it is a flywheel that stores energy, because you have not loaded it and have no intention of doing so. Most probably because you have realised you cannot without stalling it, pretty rubbish engine, right?

If the author of that particular gem had taken the time to read the thesis he would have known that the only load intended for the device is applied after spin-up; the system is intended to be cyclic. Power in/power out (main rotor)/power out (main disk)/secondary power out (main rotor) - this last on the main rotor reversal. Furthermore a load is actually applied to the main disk as described, by way of EM 'braking' simulating at least that aspect of the proposed energy recovery method as seen in the video. And any load applied to the main rotor would have little effect on the operation of the main disk. So forgive me for being somewhat short with or even ignoring 'opposing views' which do not address the real issues, lately reduced to simplicity itself.

The correct term is REGENERATIVE BRAKING:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regenerative_braking

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_brake

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flywheel

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flywheel_energy_storage

You have no data showing the ENERGY recovered from REGENERATIVE BRAKING!

[Tusk]

You have no data showing the ENERGY recovered from REGENERATIVE BRAKING!

Correct; since only the main disk is configured for this. Also there is the matter of efficiency.... I might manage 55% whereas someone else might achieve 75% through superior engineering. The main issue at this stage is the clear evidence of significantly more mass in motion than one would expect as a result of accelerating a disk as specified, and the data does in fact support that observation.

But once again the key issues are sidestepped; if no one is prepared to tackle the fundamental physics of this head-on, then we are all wasting our time.

[evolvingape]

we are all wasting our time.

Agreed.

I hope you can find people who are more inclined to your point of view, good luck.