The Paradox Engine

[Tusk]

Hi all, my name is Steven C. Ross and this is my first time on your excellent forum.

Not long ago I 'open sourced' the results of two years of personal research at OverUnity.com. Since the material is controversial and will remain so until replication of the results, there has been an ambivalent response (understandably).

Everyone seems to expect a breakthrough (in overunity) with no collateral damage to established physical paradigms. I put it to you that such damage should be a requirement of any potential OU device or theory.

Another issue is that of complexity. Most believe that a viable OU device must surely be complex else it would have been devised already. Here I point to the majority of significant advances throughout history, which were fundamental in nature and therefore seem simple in hindsight.

The clock is ticking. I ask that if you care about the planet and have an interest in overunity, please check out my thread on the OU forum:

The Paradox Engine

I also ask regardless of your initial impressions of the material, that you make a copy of it and leave a reply to that effect. If you are concerned about exposing yourself to possible risk then at least examine the evidence. There are no tricks or ulterior motives, the material is now open source and I ask for nothing more than a fair appraisal of the work.

[dward]

cool engine, If this thing produces torque I could see several applications in flying gyroscope type craft. Seems like there is a multiplication effect going on here. I don't have the resources or time to build this right now but i hope someone takes you up on your request for research and verification.

[Tusk]

Hi dward, thanks very much for your positive response. The device certainly is capable of producing torque at the main rotor hub, but due to the cyclic nature of the system (accelerate disk/decelerate disk) the continual reversal of the main rotor motion will require a bidirectional generator.

The main disk itself will operate much like a simple EM driven flywheel, the EM drive unit doing double duty as a regenerative braking type generator. As both the data and observation suggest, this (main disk) element of the system will provide a theoretical 100% return on energy, minus electromagnetic and mechanical inefficiencies (think of it in the first instance as a stand alone unit).

Therefore any additional energy manifesting due to main rotor motion takes the device theoretically into OU territory. Since a twin disk system will increase the effect of the reactive force on the main rotor (x2) we can expect a theoretical OU approaching 300% (due to the cyclic reversal of the main rotor i.e. 'two bites of the cherry' as seen in the video). I expect this to resolve into at least 150% OU in even a modest build.

The mass in motion evident in the device is already OU untapped; there is more mass moving about than can be accounted for by convention. It only requires someone with the necessary skills and resources to develop the concept to it's inevitable conclusion.

[wayne.ct]

Very nice build

Hi Steven,
Welcome to this forum. I would like to commend you for your excellent construction. Since you are interested in the conventional explanation of the phenomenon you are observing, I suggest you consider the laws of conservation of energy and conservation of momentum. Applying the accelleration directly over the axis of the rotor is very clever and it seems you are asking good questions. Basically what you have is static balance and dynamic imbalance. I believe you will find the answer you are seeking if you explore these key words in your search for classic analysis.

[Tusk]

Thanks for your comments wayne.ct

Apologies if my OP was misleading. I require no classical explanation, indeed there can be none since the potential energy of the disk alone exceeds conventional prediction. When you also consider the additional energy of the main rotor which operates in both directions during the full cycle, the theoretical OU of the device approaches 300%

The required new physics is available for scrutiny on the same thread. Simple enough for a clear rebuttal if there were errors in the material.

I welcome ANY input. The concept is viable and I will answer questions as needed.

[bhaas]

What if you put some collection coils under the rotating disk to charge a cap
and when fully charged have the cap dump thru a diode to eliminate load and feed it back to the motor???

I believe it can be done.

Brad

[michaelser]

I wonder if there is an over unity device possible.
Maybe our knowledge is not there yet now for us to understand all the physics possible.
All I see is that we have to consider the systems as closed systems which is not what reality is. So what appears to be an OU device may be something that we didn't find what the underlying principle is.

[Tusk]

The device itself is more of a proof of concept prototype bhaas, and was never intended to self-run. The fact that the disk can be accelerated to the same RPM for less power, that this energy could be recovered form the EM drive unit if properly configured; the fact that the main rotor arm rotates in both directions during the full cycle (acceleration / deceleration) and that this energy could also be recovered (at the main axis) all 'suggests' - I would say 'confirms' - that significantly more energy could be recovered than was required to set the device in motion.

The physics is more complex and unconventional than that, but the evidence is there to support it.

[Tusk]

You are on the right track michaelser. For a full understanding our knowledge of classical physics must be held at bay while new concepts are examined. Failure to do this results in a 'blind spot'. However I think you will find the hypothesis behind my own discovery sufficient explanation, without going into exotic explanations of force, energy and mass in motion (although I could do so if you wish).

[DermagraFX]

nice build, that is awesome. I am new to all this OU /free energy stuff, but I will certainly keep an eye on this one as it's definitely got potential.
keep up the good work.

[evolvingape]

The fledgeling field of PseudoScientific Misconduct!

Well would you believe it... there I was enjoying the first day of my retirement... and I pop on here for a browse and find you Tusk... peddling your “Paradox Engine” on a new forum.

I would have completely ignored you, just like before when I told you that you don't have the slightest idea what your talking about, but I can't, because it seems your sucking in the uneducated with your dangerous “invention”.

So I took an hour out of my time to explain why your delusional...

Torque!

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

A force applied at a right angle to a lever multiplied by its distance from the lever's fulcrum (the length of the lever arm) is its torque. A force of three newtons applied two metres from the fulcrum, for example, exerts the same torque as a force of one newton applied six metres from the fulcrum.

If you want to experiment with this practically it is quite simple. Ask a friend to hit you as hard as they can in the shin with a stick 1 metre long. Measure the pain. Then ask them to repeat the experiment on the other shin, with a stick twice as long but use only half the force they did before. Measure the pain. Compare the results. Simple.

Then point out to your “believers” that you are not measuring your power output in any way, only your power input. This fact makes it impossible to analyse the power efficiency of your system in any way, but does not prevent you from making claims about the power efficiency, apparently!

Something like a dynamometer would be a good choice:

Power and Torque: Understanding the Relationship Between the Two, by EPI Inc.

A dynamometer determines the POWER an engine produces by applying a load to the engine output shaft by means of a water brake, a generator, an eddy-current absorber, or any other controllable device capable of absorbing power. The dynamometer control system causes the absorber to exactly match the amount of TORQUE the engine is producing at that instant, then measures that TORQUE and the RPM of the engine shaft, and from those two measurements, it calculates observed power. Then it applies various factors (air temperature, barometric pressure, relative humidity) in order to correct the observed power to the value it would have been if it had been measured at standard atmospheric conditions, called corrected power.

Then explain that your machine is in fact two related machines with different variables and that is why you have different measurements for some variables when the two machines are compared! Comparing the variables of one machine to the variables of another machine and claiming overunity performance is close to the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard! However, we all know "PER never means division" so close but no cigar!

Then tell them the dangers of pumping any serious input power into a hideously unbalanced rotor to do work and how it might kill them if they do so!

Rotating unbalance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Rotating Unbalance is the uneven distribution of mass around an axis of rotation. Unbalance is caused when the centre of mass (inertia axis) is out of alignment with the centre of rotation (geometric axis). When an object is forced to spin about a fixed axis, if the mass is not evenly distributed about that fixed axis then we have unbalance. Unbalances causes a moment which gives an object the wobbling movement characteristic of the vibration of rotating structures. In order to balance a rotor we first have to measure the unbalance. The rotor is unbalanced if its centre of mass does not coincide with the centre of rotation.

What is balancing? | Types of Rotor and Unbalance | Balancing Machines

Unbalanced rotor behaviour - YouTube

A couple of years back I would have been astonished by your hubris, however I have had an education since then in the physics of zipons and truants, now nothing surprises me in the fledgeling field of pseudoscientific misconduct.

Now back to my peaceful retirement...

[Tusk]

Like some at overunity.com you seem to be suggesting that free running bearings are suitable mechanisms for the transmission of torque.

As for balance, the device is capable of rotation at the rates seen in the video with no significant vibration.

[evolvingape]

Like some at overunity.com you seem to be suggesting that free running bearings are suitable mechanisms for the transmission of torque.

I suggested nothing of the sort, if you want to rebut Low-Q, do it yourself.

As for balance, the device is capable of rotation at the rates seen in the video with no significant vibration.

Stop wasting my time.

[Tusk]

@ evolvingape

Your posts have a distinctly hostile element. I can think of no explanation for this, the material as I have presented it is honest and freely given with the intention that someone better suited to the work might take it further. I seek no personal gain nor do I expect everyone to agree with the conclusions.

I do however expect fair and reasonable treatment; if you have an alternative explanation for the observed phenomena then provide it. Vague references to torque and the conventional laws of physics establish nothing. One of the reasons that forums such as this exist is to challenge convention.

If you have a genuine alternative explanation for the observed results feel free to share it, but like my own (explanation) it should be coherent and sufficiently detailed for proper consideration.

[evolvingape]

Tusk,

Let's get one thing straight here, anyone better suited to the work who knows about this sort of stuff will not take it further, they will read it once and then close the page on another delusional, got it ?

YOU HAVE NO SUITABLE DATA SET TO DRAW ANY CONCLUSIONS FROM AT ALL

INPUT POWER and RPM is NOT a complete data set, got it?

I have spoonfed you information so that you can see for yourself that your conclusions are premature and false, you have not achieved overunity, why ?

YOU HAVE NOT EVEN MEASURED FOR IT

The references to conventional physics and Torque are only vague to YOU, because you have no understanding of what you are doing, or what you are concluding. You simply ignored them, didn't you.

Why do you think the "Build a Dynamometer by Peter Lindemann" post appeared recently ? A gentle hint perhaps ??

Here you go, this took me 10 seconds to find by typing into a search engine "RPM TORQUE POWER LAW":

Torque and Power

http://vettenet.org/torquehp.html

Horsepower vs torque

Note - and this is important - the transmission does not amplify power.

Power in = power out, minus losses
(which are low for a manual transmission).

This is predicted by the law of conservation of energy.

I'll even make it real easy for you to prove to yourself that you do not have a complete data set from which to draw any conclusions about power efficiency at all:

Maryland Metrics: Power, Speed & Torque Calculator

There you go, input your data set for both sides of the power efficiency equation:

POWER IN = POWER OUT, MINUS LOSSES

When you have failed to perform the above task, because your data set is incomplete, please retract your claim of having achieved an easily verifiable overunity result, and we will then get along just fine and dandy. Got it ?