The Paradox Engine

[Tusk]

Your perspective on the material is clearly too narrow and biased for any productive detailed discussion. I will elaborate on that issue however, since you are not alone in your fixation on data sets and other minutia while ignoring the concept itself.

As an analogy I offer the idea of a system claimed to produce water from a 'seed' supply of, let's say 1 cupful. We might allow that the prototype unit delivers some significant amount of water greater than 1 cup after only a few minutes, without having any power or substance added or applied to it. Sounds like a good idea if it were possible, there are a number of countries where such a device would be useful, and the production of abundant fresh clean water starting from a lesser amount might even be thought quite miraculous.

While we may not have a complete data set for the process, if we can show that the unit produces 1 cup of water and in addition some significant amount beyond that, then the unit has achieved 'overunity' in terms of the production of water. This is such a straightforward concept that it should require no explanation or supporting data other than the fact itself, but since some are ill-disposed to anything beyond their expectation and understanding, in similar circumstances objections are often raised and any discussion tends to focus on convention and minutia.

I have data which indicates more mass in motion than could be expected by convention. Mass in motion equates to energy. I have visual confirmation of the phenomena. I have a logical theoretical explanation for the phenomena. All this and more I have made available for scrutiny, and assume that anyone interested in the material should have little trouble replicating my results. Yet for the most part there is silence, aside from an occasional hostile rebuttal bearing the common element of complete ignorance of the significant fact, which is not far removed from the production of something more than a cupful of water in my earlier analogy.

So while I understand that such matters attract a certain amount of uninformed skepticism and even hostility, I would recommend that you study the entire thesis in detail, with an open mind, having particular care to consider honestly those aspects causing you discomfort, else you have no basis either for criticism or complaint.

[evolvingape]

PseudoScientific Misconduct confirmed!

I am ignorant and uninformed am I ?

I will remind you of one important fact you seem to have overlooked Sir, I went to school.

One of us is surely delusional, I will leave it to the community to decide who.

You will waste no more of my time.

Good day, Sir.

[Tusk]

No offense was intended. I understand that generally we are predisposed to resist change. And although you are apparently so resistant as to react with hostility, for myself this is simply about reality; so no, while you have ignored key elements and have allowed yourself to enter a discussion without all the relevant information, I doubt that you are normally ignorant or uninformed.

If I may offer the following simple approach as a more suitable point of access; with the main rotor locked the disk rotates to a specific rate with a given input of power over a given period. Since mass in motion is like money in the bank with respect to energy, we can assume a certain potential then for the stored energy in the spinning disk.

With the main rotor unlocked we then apply the same power for the same period, and visually, aurally and by examination of the data we confirm that not only does the disk rotate at a higher rate, but the entire articulated mass - main rotor, disk and ballast - also rotates with some vigour. Since mass in motion equates to energy, and we clearly have more mass in motion than before, then something is obviously amiss.

If you or anyone else can provide a genuine alternative explanation for this phenomena then please do so. Personally I would start with the peg pendulum experiment, as that is the key to the entire thesis.

[evolvingape]

The Unbalanced Flywheel

HAHAHAHAHAHA!



Your last post had me laughing so hard I have decided to waste some more time on you!

I am so resistant to change that I react with hostility do I ? That one statement alone destroys your credibility amongst this community. I have actively worked for many, many years for change and my own technologies which are fully open source far outstrip yours in quantity and quality. To suggest otherwise is really quite hilarious! Oh man, I cannot stop laughing!

I have ignored key elements and allowed myself to enter a discussion without the relevant information have I ? Ahem, I beg your pardon, but I have linked to many external references that clearly show the underlying principles of physics at work in your machine and why you are hopelessly delusional. It is you that has ignored reality, which is why you have failed to rebut a single point I have made about your mistakes and delusions, except of course the half hearted attempt at vibration which failed to mention that your machine is not loaded at the output shaft at all!

You doubt that I am normally ignorant or uninformed do you ? So this is a one off is it ? Are you seriously suggesting that I am normally Antonyms for IGNORANT -AntonymsFor.com and http://www.antonymsfor.com/search/?word=uninformed but in this one case of your machine, which happens to be my own specialist field of driven rotors, I am ?

HAHAHAHAHAHA!



Oh I just have to quote this paragraph in full, it's class!

With the main rotor unlocked we then apply the same power for the same period, and visually, aurally and by examination of the data we confirm that not only does the disk rotate at a higher rate, but the entire articulated mass - main rotor, disk and ballast - also rotates with some vigour. Since mass in motion equates to energy, and we clearly have more mass in motion than before, then something is obviously amiss..

You do realise that you have TWO DIFFERENT MACHINES don't you ? When you unlock the main rotor you have changed the torque moment of the machine and ALSO changed the pivot point(s) about which the torque force(s) act, and yet you are surprised that you have different measurements even though you have changed multiple variables at the same time? In the application of the scientific method that is a big, big mistake. You do realise that my shinstick torque example was specifically designed to get you to address torque moments don't you, and what happens when you change them in a rotor system ? Obviously not!

The only thing that your ridiculous peg pendulum experiment, offered in support of your "thesis", proves is that you don't have the slightest idea about torque moments and RPM, seriously dude, they teach this in high school to children, and it is so simple even the thick kids can normally grasp enough of it to pass the exam.

So let's look at some of the goodies that you have blatantly ignored because if you acknowledged them they would blow your thesis out of the water:

Energy and Work, by EPI Inc.

(Note: mechanical engineering basics)

That link was on a page that I linked in my first post in this thread #11 regarding POWER and TORQUE, if I had realised you would have trouble finding it I would have linked to it directly, my bad I underestimated you! Here, I'll reproduce it in full for you, make it impossible to ignore:

WORK

Suppose the engine of your car stalled while you were in line to exit from a flat, level parking lot. You try several times to restart it, but it just won't start.

Since you are a considerate person, you decide to push your car out of the way of the people behind you. You get out and go round back and begin to push on the car. Suppose also that you are a fairly strong person, so you exert a horizontal force of 100 pounds on the rear of the car. The car doesn’t move. But you are also a persistent person, so you continue to push on the car for two whole minutes, exerting the same 100 pounds of force. The car still won’t move. Although you will probably be quite tired, you will have done NO WORK.

WHY? Because WORK is defined as a FORCE operating through a DISTANCE. The car didn’t move, so although there was FORCE, there was no MOTION.

Now you get smart and release the parking brake, and, having recovered from your previous 2-minute exercise in futility, you again push the car with the same constant 100 pound force. This time the car moves, and you push it for another two minutes. It travels 165 feet during that two minutes of effort. In that case, you will have produced 16,500 foot-pounds of WORK (100 pounds of force x 165 feet of distance = 16,500 foot-pounds).

ENERGY

Later that day, you are working in your shop. You need to install a 3-inch long spring into a 2-inch space. The nature of this particular spring is that it takes 600 pounds of force to compress it one inch (the "spring rate" = 600 pounds per inch).

Using a lever-operated spring compressor, you pull on the lever with a force of 100 pounds and you move the lever 6 inches, causing the compressor to squeeze the spring and shorten it by 1 inch. The spring is now pushing on the compressor with a force of 600 pounds. You have stored the WORK
you did on the compressor lever (100 pounds x 6 inch = 600 inch-pounds) in the spring, in the form of ENERGY (600 pounds x 1 inch = 600 inch-pounds).

ENERGY is defined as the CAPACITY of a body to do WORK, by virtue of the position or condition of the body.

Now suppose there is a 150-pound plate of steel on your bench, resting on four blocks which are 2 inches tall (so the space between the bottom of the plate and the bench is 2 inches). You install the compressed spring into that space and locate it at exactly the CG of the plate, and release the spring compressor.

The spring will lift the steel plate 3/4 of an inch, so the spring has done WORK on the plate, thereby releasing some of the ENERGY stored in the spring.

There are many different forms of energy. There are a few which are of particular interest with respect to powerplants: kinetic energy (the energy contained in a body by virtue of its velocity), potential energy (the energy contained in a body by virtue of its position), chemical energy (energy which can be released by a chemical reaction, such as combustion), and heat energy (energy which can be used to make machines operate).

The potential energy in your electricity supply is exploited by your motor to do work on the rotor, storing kinetic energy in the rotating mass. I say storing because until WORK is done by driving a load at your output shaft the energy is just sitting there spinning around as a potential. It has become obvious why you avoid any mention of performing a load test because it will show just how much energy has been stored in the rotor, and when that result comes in and it is underunity, <100% of the input energy your thesis is disproven by your own evidence and the game is over.

Hows the home made dynamometer coming along ? You must be well into the build by now, considering how easy and cheap Peter Lindemann's version is, and the benefits to you of definitively proving that your Paradox ENGINE can produce more WORK OUT than the WORK IN required to drive it. What's that you say, not started it ? Not interested in a data set that definitely proves OVERUNITY and will win you the NOBEL PRIZE and the, what is it, $1 MILLION prize that comes with it. Seriously ? But it is so simple...

Remember when you were cruising the forums musing about how you were super intelligent and content to sit around and wait for the penny to drop. How's that working out for ya ?

Will you address ANY of the points that have been raised or will you stick to your position of not defending the material, because to do so would be disadvantageous to you ?

Oh and one last little point...

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

In modern usage, the term engine describes devices capable of performing mechanical work

ENGINES DO MECHANICAL WORK

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

A flywheel is a rotating mechanical device that is used to store rotational energy.

FLYWHEELS STORE ENERGY

Until you have a LOAD hooked up to the "Paradox Engine", it is not an engine at all, It is a Paradox FLYWHEEL, and as we have seen there is no paradox, hence you should rename your machine to a more accurate descriptor, "The Unbalanced Flywheel".

[Tusk]

You do realise that you have TWO DIFFERENT MACHINES don't you ?

That is perhaps one way to view it. The disk and it's drive unit - mounted as they are on the main rotor arm - comprises one system in one frame of reference; the main rotor arm itself provides a second frame of reference independent of the first.

When you unlock the main rotor you have changed the torque moment of the machine and ALSO changed the pivot point(s) about which the torque force(s) act

This statement is entirely and clearly false. Possibly you have misread the design, which has the main disk and drive unit mounted - much as they might be bench mounted - on the main rotor arm. The frame of reference of that system (disk and drive unit) is itself free to rotate but aside from some inertial considerations the system itself is unaffected by any rotation due to the use of free rolling bearings at the disk axis.

Since the remainder of your objections appear to rest on this misconception there seems little point in addressing them, although I will tackle one more issue:

The only thing that your ridiculous peg pendulum experiment, offered in support of your "thesis", proves is that you don't have the slightest idea about torque moments and RPM, seriously dude, they teach this in high school to children, and it is so simple even the thick kids can normally grasp enough of it to pass the exam.

You should have no trouble explaining the results then, presumably with reference to torque moments and RPM.

[wayne.ct]

You should have no trouble explaining the results then, presumably with reference to torque moments and RPM.

Hi again, Steven,

I appreciate your steady and thoughtful responses to the emotional outbursts of an immature child. Thanks. Please don't jump on me, if I remind you of the above. I do tend to be sceptical.

What I see is that you are claiming observations that don't fit with, for lack of a better phrase, "classic mechanical analysis." Feel free to argue with my choice of words. Based on my background and understanding, everything you are seeing is "explainable" and there is nothing that remarkable.

It seems to me that if you applied the mechanical formulas with the correct process you would agree that conventional science explains the effect you are observing. Now, with all that said, you may have a construction and application that are interesting and useful in many ways. It may actually be innovative and even a new invention. All this is wonderful and I wish you great success in your experiments and dreams.

Now, let me side-step the math and present what I regard as a simple analog to your experiment and get your response.

I am at the playground sitting on a swing. Without getting too complicated, now, I lean back. What happens? The swing begins to rotate around an axis, the axis being the pivot at the top of the rope. But, you say, the Force was not applied "directly over the axis" as in your build. What if I was six feet tall instead of three feet tall? Would the effect be greater or lesser?

Here is my final point: There are several factors to consider in thinking about the Paradox Engine device. All these must be included in your analysis. After that is done you will be able to legitimately claim that device operates outside of accepted science.

I will try to explain in more detail if you require it. I also have training in this area. AND, I think I have more patience than Mr. Ape.

[Tusk]

I welcome your input wayne.ct. Hopefully I can address your key point with sufficient art that we can establish some common ground.

In your swing experiment there is a change in the centre of mass (due to leaning backwards).

Accelerating a disk in rotation causes no change in the centre of mass. But clearly there is motion of the centre of mass, else the main rotor of my device would not rotate.

I'll stop at that for now and see what you make of it.

[evolvingape]

Out of the Mouths of Babes

Well now Steven, it looks like you have a buddy!

Don't knock emotion man, it's a primary driving force of human nature. You are correct though, I am all out of patience with pseudoscience and delusionals who claim overunity on a FLYWHEEL!

It's not an engine until it has a load applied, it's not overunity until the POWER has been measured at the load and compared to the input power. You should know that if you have training in this area, and it appears you do know that, as you have clearly told Steven that his device is not overunity and adequately explained by conventional science. Finally a very clear point that the analysis is incomplete and the current claim of overunity is illegitimate, did Steven even bat an eyelid ? Nope, just started greasing you up, pseudoscience all the way. Funny you waited until now and never mentioned any of that damning critique of the science and results to Steven in your previous communications with him, eh Wayne. Or did you ?

My statement is entirely and clearly false is it ? That is your justification for ignoring all my points that have nothing to do with the statement. Come on man, this is as bad as you editing out context from quotes in an attempt to create a position from which to invalidate all the valid points made.

I wish you both luck in your new partnership, it will be interesting to watch your collaboration develop this flywheel into an engine with a bi-directional smart load controller, preventing rotor stall under load. I won't hold my breath.

Here is my final point: Will Steven now retract his claim of overunity until such a time that a data set is provided that supports the claim ?

[Tusk]

evolvingape, it is unfortunate that your reaction to my freely offered no-obligation open source 'thesis' is not only one of rejection but also frustration. From a strictly logical viewpoint your position is untenable. Where experimental results are produced in support of a thesis it must surely be incumbent on anyone attempting to refute the claims to either

1. reference valid contradictory results from the literature which demonstrate that the experiment was flawed

2. reference a valid contradictory interpretation from the literature to demonstrate that the results were misinterpreted

3. reproduce the experiment and produce valid contradictory results

4. provide a contradictory interpretation of the results

(listed in order of receding authority)

Your own approach to a rebuttal of the key element of my work however, is to refer to it as a "ridiculous peg pendulum experiment" and produce nothing in support of your position of substance or relevance, certainly nothing from the list of options above. That is simply not good science and I suspect you realise it, which probably explains your frustration.

Your argument is actually not with me; it is with the results, which - although you find my interpretation unpalatable - you are unable to adequately explain.

Here then is the focus of your attention; an impetus in the form of a coil spring released from compression between two objects of equal mass. One object caused to rotate the other not as a result of the point of application of force. The objects are displaced equally (on the pendulum) demonstrating an equal reaction (thus also equal energy) at the centre of mass. However since one rotates and one does not so their total energy is not equal.

Newton's Third Law would seem to suggest a different outcome. Whatever my interpretation this experiment has an undeniably interesting result, therefore one would expect to find reference to it in the literature. We might even reasonably expect to see it performed routinely, presumably to demonstrate how easily we are misled by our instincts (along with a reassuring conventional explanation).

But apparently no such reference exists or someone would by this time have discovered and produced it. And since the experiment is simplicity itself, presumably it has been replicated with my results confirmed else contradictory results would have been produced. Neither, apparently, has anyone arrived at a convincing alternative interpretation.

Think of me as merely a messenger; I am irrelevant. Focus on the message.

[evolvingape]

Pseudoscientific Misconduct

Wow... Hold on just one minute... There is no way your going to get away with this!

Let's make one thing abundantly clear, I don't give a flying monkey doodoo about your peg experiment, it is a basic example of a torque moment. There is no secondary reaction at centre of mass, the rotation is caused by the prime mover acting on the beam, off centre from the pivot which is effectively a frictionless bearing as there is not enough time for the twisting string to develop a counter torque before the process ends. So there is no confusion I am referring to this:

Secondaryforce - YouTube

A basic example of a torque moment inducing spin, nothing more. I don't care about this experiment, it is standard physics, got it!

And as for this:

Think of me as merely a messenger; I am irrelevant. Focus on the message.

Get lost. If you think you can steer me into a mental box that you control only addressing the points that you deem relevant according to your fantasy thesis, you are mistaken. I have seen this before with Rosemary Ainslie, and it's not happening again! I apologise Cheesebugger, when I chastised you for losing your scientific cool I had no idea that just getting involved with a delusional would take you to the edge of sanity. I am not so green now, hence my retirement must come before my self destruction.

You have ignored every single point and reference I, and others, have made about your actual prototype, in real world applications, of which I have heavy schooling and time served experience. This community is not stupid, it has stupid people contributing sure, but as a whole it will not swallow your uneducated theoretical ramblings.

Your peg experiment is a “demonstration” of physical phenomena, nothing more, there are no quantifiable measurements taken or offered to support your “secondary reaction” theory, so it is a parlour trick, just missing 3 shells and a pea.

Your “Paradox Flywheel” on the other hand is a device that can be analysed with measurements. 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? Furthermore, your data set that compares one set of variables to another set of variables on a different configuration is a load of cashews, it is simply slightly more efficient than the first isolated machine, that is all.
No overunity, because you have not measured OUTPUT POWER, which is an essential component of the power efficiency equation.

YOU HAVE NO VIABLE DATA SET TO SUPPORT YOUR CONCLUSION!

evolvingape, it is unfortunate that your reaction to my freely offered no-obligation open source 'thesis' is not only one of rejection but also frustration. From a strictly logical viewpoint your position is untenable.

Freely offered no-obligation open source “thesis”... Good on you! Well done! No thanks though, it's Betty Swollocks, I'll pass. Sure I have rejected it, it's not a viable data set for the conclusion reached of overunity POWER performance. It is simply the efficiency of one machine compared to a related machine, nothing more. It is also easily explainable using standard classical mechanics, prove this to yourself by drawing some circles on a piece of paper and plotting the torque moments for both machines. In the first machine there is one torque moment, and in the second machine there are three torque moments, and one of those = 0, thats right, 0. Got it ? It's effect on angular velocity and therefore momentum is not 0 though, get your abacus out.

Your argument is actually not with me; it is with the results, which - although you find my interpretation unpalatable - you are unable to adequately explain.

WRONG and RIGHT!

I do have an argument with you, because you harassed me on the forums, after I told you I had no interest whatsoever in your device because it is useless. I do have an argument with the results because it is an incomplete data set that does not even measure for overunity and yet claims it. I find your interpretation unpalatable according to classical mechanical analysis sure, but thats not a problem because it is a fantasy thesis, RA is happily bashing away at her fantasy thesis on youtube and I have no problem with that at all, more power to ya grandma. Although rigging your visitor stats to appear to have picked up OU's traffic is a bit questionable, yes we noticed, but 200 people who never say anything speaks volumes in itself.

I have adequately explained your data, involving your actual prototype with data measurements, but you choose to ignore that, because it shows you have no idea what you are doing in the real world. This is why you want to focus on some peg's.

I do have an issue with you polluting the forums with your nonsensical thesis and claiming you have superior intelligence to every scientist who has preceded you, the ultimate insult to this community you could ever make. I do have an issue with you suggesting a twin 1 metre rotor build with 2/3 hp input power, noting the comment to "STAND WELL BACK", you know full well that this unbalanced flywheel might kill someone on that scale and yet you want people to do it. Sure, my inventions are dangerous, but at least I took every precaution I reasonably could to warn people about it!!

So basically I am sick to death of you, your thesis, your peg's, your flywheel and your complete inability to address ANY of the points I have made based on solid, undeniable physics, that the machines in our everyday life operate on. Go play with yourself, I am not interested.

[Tusk]

@ evolvingape

The only statements above that now come as any surprise are these:

rigging your visitor stats to appear to have picked up OU's traffic is a bit questionable, yes we noticed, but 200 people who never say anything speaks volumes in itself.

Here again your assumptions are in error. Is it unusual then for people to view a thread and make no contribution? Perhaps like yourself they fail to grasp the concept, but decide to move on without complaint.

Also

I do have an argument with you, because you harassed me on the forums

I'm not sure what your definition of harassment is, but if at any time I have erred by even 1% toward the general tone of your posts here then I apologise, as I attempt to uphold a reasonable level of civility.

A significant bias exists here in the nature of disclosure and open source. Those who spend considerable time, money and effort exploring new possibilities are expected to defend their ideas against attack from those who skim the material briefly and think themselves now well enough informed to post a rebuttal, often merely with vague references to convention and a few hastily grabbed cut and paste paragraphs from various sources on the net.

Making objections based on some understanding that you apparently have without explaining yourself gives the impression that in reality you have no legitimate explanation. You protest that my responses do not address the various cut and paste references you provide. Yet you yourself are apparently unable to provide a valid rebuttal, although I pointed out a simple and logical course of action to achieve this allowing the possibility that such a rebuttal is possible. Instead you say this, regarding the peg experiment:

A basic example of a torque moment inducing spin, nothing more.

So, destroy my thesis; explain the energy bias, perhaps some consideration of the apparent breach of Newton's 3rd might be in order also. I'm sure there's a relevant paragraph somewhere that you can cut and paste.

Or are you only interested in torque moments and RPM?

[Tusk]

I think it might be useful to reiterate a point here, for the benefit of anyone struggling with the concept of a reactive force at the centre of mass. It concerns an experiment using a modification of the paradox engine, insofar as it features two identical disks:

Allow two disks mounted in plane on bearings at opposite ends of a single frame each by the axis:

O=O

Allow also a drive system mounted near the centre of the main frame capable of accelerating both disks so as to cause them to rotate in opposite directions in equal measure.

Presuming that the experiment takes place in equilibrium we can assume two possible outcomes; either

1. The device will accelerate in the opposite direction of the force applied to the disks (due to the equal and opposite reaction on the frame) or

2. The device will remain stationary

It is a matter of fact that the device will remain stationary. Otherwise I would be discussing an inertial drive system instead of overunity.

Since there is an equal and opposite force to that applied to both disks acting on the main frame, we must explain then the opposing force acting on the main frame which counters motion of the frame. Clearly the forces acting on the disks causing rotation are not directly responsible. Neither could torque account for the inertial impetus required here.

The only realistic conclusion is that a secondary reactive force acts at the centre of mass of each disk, equal and parallel to the applied force. It is inertial both in effect and origin.

[wayne.ct]

Hot under the collar

Well now Steven, it looks like you have a buddy!

Don't knock emotion man, it's a primary driving force of human nature. You are correct though, I am all out of patience with pseudoscience and delusionals who claim overunity on a FLYWHEEL!

It's not an engine until it has a load applied, it's not overunity until the POWER has been measured at the load and compared to the input power.

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.

[wayne.ct]

Responding to your first two claims

I welcome your input wayne.ct. Hopefully I can address your key point with sufficient art that we can establish some common ground.

In your swing experiment there is a change in the centre of mass (due to leaning backwards).

Accelerating a disk in rotation causes no change in the centre of mass. But clearly there is motion of the centre of mass, else the main rotor of my device would not rotate.

I'll stop at that for now and see what you make of it.

I have now read the rest of the thread. I guess I'll have to accept the role of "buddy".

The foundation of classic physics is Newton's laws of motion. And, as long as you avoid high velocities approaching the speed of light, the adjustment for Einstein is extremely small. (Insert physics joke about relativity)

This is what I sometimes call "accepted physical law." And, Newton's Laws are the basis for the analysis of moving systems.

Regarding your first statement, you have correctly stated a relevant fact: The CM changed.

Regarding your second statement, you have correctly stated the center of mass has not changed, but there is a proviso, i.e. a clarifying condition that MUST be true. Your statement is true, provided that you choose the rotor as the frame of reference.

Here, in my opinion, is the major candidate for "Cause of misunderstanding and miscommunication".

In the study of Physics of Motion, a great deal of attention is paid to relative motion and frames of reference, because of the potential for problems of the sort you seem to be experiencing. If I were to actually create a mathematical model of your PE device, the first step would be to choose an appropriate "frame of reference". There are basically three options to choose from. 1. the camera, 2. the arm, 3. the rotating mass. The easiest for most people is "choose the camera".

Doing this, we have the following:

1. The arm moves in an angular motion around pivot point #1 which is fixed in relation to the table and camera.

2. The rotating mass moves in an angular motion around its axis which is fixed in relation to the arm.

3. The axis of rotating mass is NOT coincident with the pivot point of the arm.

Are we clear so far?

BTW, I participate in this forum because I enjoy it and NOT because I get paid. My participation is on a time available basis and it may be several days before I am able to continue or respond, unless I make a special effort to do so. If you want a "quick" answer, go talk to a convenient physics teacher in your local community.

[Tusk]

@ wayne.ct

I guess I'll have to accept the role of "buddy".

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.